A Critical Exposition of the Popular _Jihád_ Cherágh Ali 2254 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Critical Exposition of the
Popular 'Jihád'
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'

Author: Cherágh Ali

Release date: March 29, 2007 [eBook #20927]
Most recently updated: July 5, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20927

Credits: Produced by Bryan Ness, Aaron Reed and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CRITICAL
EXPOSITION OF THE POPULAR 'JIHÁD' ***

A

CRITICAL EXPOSITION

OF THE

POPULAR "JIHÁD."

A

CRITICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE

POPULAR "JIHÁD."
SHOWING THAT

ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE; AND THAT
AGGRESSIVE WAR, OR COMPULSORY CONVERSION,
IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE KORAN.

WITH APPENDICES

PROVING THAT THE WORD "JIHAD" DOES NOT EXEGETICALLY MEAN
'WARFARE,' AND THAT SLAVERY IS NOT SANCTIONED
BY THE PROPHET OF ISLAM.

B Y M O U L AV I G H E R Á G H A L I ,
Author of
"REFORMS UNDER MOSLEM RULE,"
"HYDERABAD (DECCAN) UNDER SIR SALAR JUNG."

C A L C U T TA :
THACKER, SPINK AND CO.

1885.

CALCUTTA:
PRINTED BY THACKER, SPINK AND CO.

NOTE.
I here take the opportunity of removing a wrong idea of the alleged
injunction of the Prophet against our countrymen the Hindús. The Hon'ble
Raja Sivá Prasad, in his speech at the Legislative Council, on the 9th
March, 1883, while discussing the Ilbert Bill, quoted from Amir Khusro's
Tarikh Alái that, "Ala-ud-dín Khiliji once sent for a Kází, and asked him
what was written in the Code of Mehammadan law regarding the Hindús.
The Kází answered that, the Hindús were Zimmis (condemned to pay the
Jízya tax); if asked silver, they ought to pay gold with deep respect and
humility; and if the collector of taxes were to fling dirt in their faces, they
should gladly open their mouths wide. God's order is to keep them in
subjection, and the Prophet enjoins on the faithful to kill, plunder and
imprison them, to make Mussulmáns, or to put them to the sword, to
enslave them, and confiscate their property....'" [Vide Supplement to the
Gazette of India, April 21, 1883, page 807.]
These alleged injunctions, I need not say here, after what I have stated in
various places of this book regarding intolerance, and compulsory
conversion, are merely false imputations. There are no such injunctions of
the Prophet against either Zimmis, (i.e., protected or guaranteed) or the
Hindús.

TO
THE HONORABLE
SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C.S.I.,

THIS BOOK
IS, WITHOUT EVEN ASKING PERMISSION.
AND WHOLLY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.

D E D I C AT E D

AS A SLIGHT BUT SINCERE TESTIMONY OF ADMIRATION FOR HIS LONG
AND VARIOUS SERVICES IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM
AND
IN RESPECT OF HIS RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS IN THE
MOSLIMS OF INDIA,
AND
OF GRATITUDE FOR MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP,
BY
THE AUTHOR.

Transcriber's Note:
All errata listed below have been corrected in the e-
text. Mistakes not listed below have been left as they
appeared in the printed book, although missing or
misplaced punctuation marks have been corrected.

ERRATA.
Page Line For Read

v 21 them Omit
" 22 them it
xvii f.n. Maaddite Moaddite
xxxiv 21 Morra Murra
" 22 Soleim Suleim
xlii 9 Kauuka Kainuka
xliii 22 f.n. Mozeima Mozeina
xlv 25 Khusain Khushain
liv 1 Ban Bani
" 10 Ghassianide Ghassanide
lxxxviii 30 Khalips Khalifs
xci 30 Caliphater Caliphate
11 10 Kurzibn Kurz-ibn
18 9 God[2] God:
" " desist[3] desist
" 16 persecution persecution[2]
" 17 (fitnah (fitnah[3])
27 5 liberty and liberty, any of
" 6 brethern merely brethren, merely
" 6-7 such a manner such manner
" 8 Society or Society, or
" 9 of it materially of it, materially
" 12 deserve pity deserve only pity
34 6 Ibu Ibn
61 6 Rafi Rafe

72 24 ibu ibn
" 25 ibu ibn
73 4 bil bin
90 1 as stallions for breeding purposes
135 28 Durar Dinar
136 16 Sirni Sirin
Jihad does not mean
the waging of war {Read this as a marginal gloss
192 1
" 3 Jahad Jahd.
" 14 Katal and Kital Read this as a marginal gloss.
" 20 Conclusion Ditto, ditto.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.
Page.
Introduction i-civ
Note cv
Genealogical Table of the Arabs cvi-cvii

I. The persecutions suffered by the early Moslems 1-11
II. The Meccans or the Koreish 11-16
III. The defensive character of the wars of Mohammad 16-34
IV. The Jews 34-40
V. The Christians or Romans 40-41
VI. The intolerance 42-51
VII. The ninth chapter of Sura Barát 51-55
The alleged interception of the Koreish caravans by the
VIII. 55-60
Moslems
The alleged assassinations by the command or connivance of
IX. 60-76
Mohammad
X. The alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war 76-91
XI. Some miscellaneous objections refuted 91-114
114-
XII. The popular Jihád or Crusade
161

Appendix A. The word Jihad in the Koran does not mean 163-
warfare 192
Appendix B. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the 193-
Koran 223
225-
Appendix C. Koranic references
227

229-
Index
249

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction—
Paras. Page.
1. Object of the book i
2. Early wrongs of the Moslem; justification in
taking up arms, if taken ii
3. Commencement of the war; the Koreish being
public enemy were liable to be treated as such ib.
4. But the Moslems could not take up arms to
redress their wrongs under certain
circumstances iii
5. Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no
intention of suffering the horrors of war by
taking the initiative, but were in imminent
danger from the enemy iv
6. The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at
Medina. They could not forbear the escape of
the Moslems v
7. Three battles waged by the Koreish against
Mohammad—Badr, Ohad, and Ahzáb: these
wars on the Moslem side were purely in
defence, not waged even to redress their wrongs
or re-establish their rights vii
8. The battle of Badr was defensive on the part of
Mohammad. Reasons for the same viii
9. Mohammad at Medina, owing to the attacks,
inroads, and threatening gatherings of the
Koreish and other tribes, had hardly time to
think of offensive measures xi
10. Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem xv
pilgrims from Medina in the vicinity of Mecca.

The truce of Hodeibia
11. The Koreish again commit hostilities and
violate their pledge. War declared against those
who had violated the truce. War not carried out xvi
12. War with foes other than Koreish xviii
13. Expedition to Tabúk to check the advancing
enemy. No war took place xix
14. Number of the wars of Mohammad much
exaggerated: Ghazava defined; number of
actual wars xx
15. The Revd. Mr. Green's remarks on the wars of
Mohammad criticised xxiii
16. Another view of the wars of Mohammad xxviii
17. Caravans if waylaid were waylaid by way of
reprisal xxx
18. Intolerance; no compulsory conversion enjoined
or took place during Mohammad's lifetime:
Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted xxxi
19. A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at
Mecca:
Islam at Mecca;
Islam at Abyssinia;
Conversions at Nakhla xxxii
20. Rapid stride of Islam at Medina xxxvii
21. The increasing number of Moslem converts at
Mecca after the Hegira xxxix
22. Disturbed state of the public peace among the
tribes surrounding Medina. Internicine wars, an
obstacle to the propagation of Islam xl
23. Sketch of the intertribal wars in Arabia during
the lifetime of Mohammad xli
24. Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at
Medina after the Hegira I—VI xliii

25. Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the
Southern tribes xliv
26. Tribal conversions in the sixth year. Conversion
among several other tribes of the North and
North-east in A.H. VIII xlv
27. Surrender of Mecca, A.H. VIII xlvii
28. Mecca not compelled to believe ib.
29. The wholesale conversion of the remaining
tribes, A.H. IX and X xlviii
30. The various deputations in the 9th and 10th year
of the Hegira li
31. A list of the deputations of conversion received
by Mohammad at Medina during A.H. IX and X li—lviii
32. All conversions, individual and tribal, were
without any compulsion lix
33. Mohammad was not favoured with
circumstances round him. The difficulty
Mohammad encountered in his work. Marcus
Dods quoted:
Dr. Mohseim's causes of the spread of
Islam and Hallam quoted lx—lxv
34. Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own
mission and his success show him to be a true
prophet. Mohammad's efforts established
monotheism in Arabia. His manly exertions, and
his single handed perseverance. The business
and office of a prophet described. Sir W. Muir
and Stobart quoted lxv—lxix
35. The reforms of Mohammad, his iconoclastic
policy. The redemption of Arabia from venal
debauchery and infatuated superstition. Muir,
Marcus Dods, Stephens quoted lxix—lxxvii
36. Indictment against Mohammad. His alleged
cruelty and sensuality. Muir, Rev. Hughes,
Marcus Dods, and Stanley Poole refuted lxxviii—lxxxvii

37. Objections to the (1) Finality of the social
reforms of Mohammad, (2) positive precepts,
(3) ceremonial law, (4) morality, (5) want of
adaptability to the varying circumstances lxxxvii—lxxxix
38. All these objections apply rather to the teaching
of the Mohammadan Common Law than to the
Koran xc
39. (1) Finality of social reforms of Mohammad
discussed. Intermediary not to be considered
final xc—xcii
40. (2) Positive precepts and (3) ceremonial law,
pilgrimage, Kibla, amount of alms, fasts, forms
and attitude of prayer, &c.: pretentious prayers
and ostentatious almsgiving xcii—xcvii
41. (4) The Koran, both abstract and concrete in
morals xcvii—cii
42. (5) Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding
circumstances cii—ciii
43. Suitability of the Koran to all classes of
humanity ciii—civ
Note cv
Genealogical tables of the tribes mentioned in
para. 31 of the Introduction cvi—cvii

ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.

I.—The Persecution.
1. The early persecution of Moslems by the people
of Mecca 2
2. Notices of the persecutions in the Koran 4
3. Insults suffered by Mohammad 5
4. Historical summary of the persecutions 8

5. The Hegira, or the expulsion of the Moslems
from Mecca 9
6. The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish
after their flight from Mecca 11

II.—The Meccans or the Koreish.
7. A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near
Medina, A.H. 1 ib.
8. The Koreish march to attack Medina. Battle of
Badr ib.
9. Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medina, A.H. 2 12
10. Battle of Ohad 12
11. Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeat ib.
12. Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with
another attack next year 13
13. The Koreish again attack Medina with a large
army. Mohammad defends the city. The enemy
retire. A.H. 5 14
14. Mohammad with his followers advanced to
perform the lesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The
Koreish oppose Mohammad, who return
disappointed. The treaty of Hodeibia 15
15. Violation of the treaty by the Koreish and their
submission 16
16. Two other tribes assume the offensive ib.

III.—The Defensive Character of the Wars.
17. Verses from the Koran in support of the
defensive character of the wars 25
18. What the above quoted verses show 26
19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms
against their aggressors 27
20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on
the part of Mohammad 28

21. The alleged instances examined 29
22. Hamza and Obeida's expeditions ib.
23. Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira expeditions 30
24. The affair at Nakhla 31
25. At Badr Mohammad came only in his defence 33
26. The first aggression after the Hegira if from
Mohammad, might fairly be looked upon as
retaliation 34

IV.—The Jews.
27. The Jews broke treaties ib.
28. Bani Kainukaa, Bani Nazeer, Khyber, and
Ghatafán 35
29. Notice of them in Koran 37
30. The judgment of Sád 38
31. Defensive character of the expedition against
the Jews of Khyber 40

V.—The Christians or Romans.
32. Tabúk, the last expedition ib.
33. Description of the wars concluded 41

VI.—The Intolerance.
34. Mohammad never taught intolerance 43
35. In what sense the wars were religious wars 44
36. The alleged verses of intolerance explained 45
37. Sir William Muir quoted 47
38. Comment on the above quotation 50
39. Object of Mohammad's wars 51

VII.—The Ninth Chapter or Sura Barát.
40. The opening portion of the IX Sura of the Koran 55
only relates to the Koreish who had violated the

truce

VIII.—The alleged Interceptions of the Koreish Caravans.
41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish
caravans 57
42. The interceptions were impossible under the
circumstances in which Mohammad was placed 59
43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by
way of reprisal 60

IX.—The alleged Assassinations.
44. Instances of the alleged assassinations cited 61
45. Mr. Stanley Poole quoted 62
46. Asma-bint Marwan 63
47. The story deserves not our belief 64
48. Abu Afak 65
49. Kab, son of Ashraf 66
50. Mohammad could never have had any share in
Kab's murder 68
51. Sofian bin Khalid 69
52. Justification of Sofian's alleged murder 70
53. Abu Rafe 72
54. Oseir bin Zarim 73
55. The intended assassination of Abu Sofian 74
56. Irving and Muir quoted; concluding remarks 76

X.—The alleged Cruelties in executing Prisoners of War and others.
57. Treatment of the prisoners of war ib.
58. Law of nations regarding the prisoners of war 77
59. The execution of Nadher Ibn Harith 79
60. The execution of Okba 80
61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war 81
62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed ib.

63. The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira ib.
64. Justification of Mughira's execution 82
65. The intended execution of the prisoners of Badr
and the wrong version of Sir W. Muir 83
66. Mohammad was never blamed in the Koran for
releasing prisoners 84
67. The Koran enjoins the prisoners of war to be
either freely liberated or ransomed, but neither
executed nor enslaved 87
68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against
Medina and their execution 88
69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza were never
executed ib.
70. The women and children of Bani Koreiza were
never sold 89
71. The exaggerated number of persons executed 91

XI.—Some Miscellaneous Objections refuted.
72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage 92
73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers 93
74. Amputation or banishment substituted
temporarily in place of imprisonment for want
of a well organized system of jails 95
75. Torture of Kinana 96
76. The alleged execution of a singing girl 97
77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his
enemies 98
78. Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in
contravention to the spirit of the treaty of
Hodeibia 101
79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate
false reports in the enemy's camp 102
80. Deception in war allowed by the International
Law ib.

81. Lecky's standard of morality 104
82. The alleged permission to kill the Jews 106
83. Sir W. Muir quoted 108
84. The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer ib.
85. Their fruit-trees were not cut down 109
86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia 110
87. Stanley defended 111
88. Marriage a strict bond of union 113

The Popular Jihád.
89. The Koran enjoins only defensive wars 114
90. The Mohammadan Common Law and the Jihád 116
91. When is Jihád a positive injunction ib.
92. The Hedáya quoted and refuted 117
93. Rule of interpretation 118
94. The Common Law and its commentators 119
95. Kifáya quoted 120
96. Further quotations 121
97. The Kifáya refuted 122
98. S. IX, 5, discussed 123
99. S. II, 189, discussed ib.
100. S. II, 189, and VIII, 40, are defensive 124
101. All injunctions were local and for the time being 125
102. Ainee quoted and refuted ib.
103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted 126
104. Ibn Hajar quoted 128
105. Ibn Hajar refuted 129
106. Halabi quoted ib.
107. Halabi refuted 132
108. Ainee again quoted and refuted ib.
109. Continuation of the above 133
110. Traditions quoted and refuted ib.

111. Early Moslem legists against the Jihád 134
112. Biographical sketches of the legists 135
113. European writers' mistakes 137
114. Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted 138
115. Islam not aggressive 139
116. Mr. Freeman quoted and refuted 140
117. The Revd. Mr. Stephens quoted and refuted 141
118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted and refuted 143
119. Mr. George Sale quoted and refuted ib.
120. Major Osborn quoted 146
121. Major Osborn refuted 149
122. The IX Sura of the Koran ib.
123. The Revd. Mr. Wherry quoted 150
124. Example cited from Jewish history explained 152
125. Mosaic injunctions 153
126. The Revd. Mr. Hughes quoted and refuted 154
127. Meaning of the word Jihád 155
128. Sura XLVIII, 5, explained 156
129. The Revd. Malcolm MacColl quoted 157
130. The untenable theories of the Mohammadan
Common Law 158-161

APPENDIX A.

1. Jihád or Jihd in the Koran does not mean war or
crusade 163
2. Classical meaning of Jihád, &c. 164
3. Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihád 165
4. The classical logic and Arabian poets ib.

5. The conjugation and declination of Jahd or
Jihád in the Koran 166
6. The number of instances in which they occur in
the Koran 167
7. In what sense they are used in the Koran 168
8. Conventional significations of Jihád 169
9. Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted 170
10. When the word Jihád was diverted from its
original signification to its figurative meaning
of waging religious wars 171
11. All verses of the Koran containing the word
Jihád and its derivations quoted and explained 176
12. The above verses quoted with remarks 177

The Meccan Suras.
13. Lokman, XXXI, 14 ib.
14. Furkan, XXV, 53, 521 178
15. The Pilgrimage, XXII, 76, 78 ib.
16. The Bee, XVI, 108, 111 179
17. The Spider, XXIX, 5 180
18. Ibid, 7 ib.
19. Ibid, 69 ib.
20. The Bee, XVI, 40 181
21. Creator, XXXV, 40 ib.

The Medinite Suras.
22. The Cow or Heifer, II, 215 182
23. Al Amran, III, 136 ib.
24. The Spoils, VIII, 73 183
25. Ibid. 75 ib.
26. Ibid. 76 ib.
27. The Cattle, VI, 109 ib.
28. Mohammad, XLVII, 33 184

29. Battle Array, LXI, 11 ib.
30. Woman. IV. 97 185
31. Light. XXIV, 52 ib.
32. The Forbidding. LXVI, 9 ib.
33. The Immunity. IX, 74 186
36. The Tried, LX, 1 187
35. Hatib's Story 188
36. The Apartment, XLIX, 15 ib.
37. The Immunity, IX, 16 ib.
38. Ibid. 19 ib.
39. Ibid, 20 189
40. Ibid, 24 ib.
41. Ibid, 41 ib.
42. Ibid, 44 190
43. Ibid, 82 ib.
44. Ibid, 87 ib.
45. Ibid, 89 191
46. The Table, V, 39 ib.
47. Ibid, 58 ib.
48. Ibid, 59 ib.
49. Jihád does not mean the waging of war 192
50. Katal and Kitál ib.
51. Conclusion ib.

APPENDIX B.

1. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the
Koran 193
2. Measures taken by the Koran to abolish future
slavery 194

3. None of the prisoners of war was enslaved 196
4. Bani Koreiza not enslaved 198
5. Rihana 201
6. Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab
slaves 202
7. Concubinage 203
8. Maria the Coptic 204
9. Despatch of Mokowkas 205
10&11. Maria neither a slave nor a concubine 207
12. Maria had no son 209
13. The story of Maria and Haphsa a spurious one 211
14. The affair not noticed in the early biographies 212
15. Sir W. Muir's authority not valid ib.
16. The best commentators and traditionalists refute
the story 214
17. The story not accredited by the Koran ib.
18. The story when fabricated ib.
19. Zeinab's case 215
20. The story a spurious one 216
21. Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified 217
22. A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir 219
23. In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was
secured 220
24. The false story traced to Mukatil ib.
25. Katádas conjectural interpretation not warranted 222
26. Other conjectures 223

APPENDIX C.

I.— The verses of the Koran referring to the
persecution of the Koreish at Mecca 225
II.— The verses of the Koran referring to the
aggressions of the Koreish at Medina as well as
those of the inhabitants thereof ib.
III.— The verses of the Koran alluding to the wars of
defence against the Koreish and Arabs, &c.,
with several references to their aggressions ib.
IV.— The verses of the Koran alluding to the various
battles 226

INTRODUCTION.
1. In publishing this work, my chief object is to remove
Object of the book. the general and erroneous impression from the minds of
European and Christian writers regarding Islam, that
Mohammad waged wars of conquest, extirpation, as well as of proselytizing
against the Koreish, other Arab tribes, the Jews, and Christians;[1] that he
held the Koran in one hand and the scimitar in the other, and compelled
people to believe in his mission. I have endeavoured in this book, I believe
on sufficient grounds, to show that neither the wars of Mohammad were
offensive, nor did he in any way use force or compulsion in the matter of
belief.
2. All the wars of Mohammad were defensive. He and
Early wrongs of the those who took interest in his cause were severely
Moslems.
oppressed at intervals, and were in a sort of general
persecution at Mecca at the hands of the ungodly and
Justification in
taking up arms, if fierce Koreish. Those who were weak and without
taken. protection had to leave their city, and twice fly to the
Christian land of Abyssinia, pursued by the wrathful
Koreish, but in vain. Those who remained at Mecca were subject to all sorts
of indignities, malignity and a deprivation of all religious and social liberty,
because they had forsaken the inferior deities of the Koreish, and believed
in the only ONE GOD of Mohammad, in whose mission they had full
belief. Mohammad and his followers had every sanction, under the natural
and international law, then and there to wage war against their persecutors
with the object of removing the (fitnah) persecution and obtaining their civil
rights of freedom and religious liberty in their native city.
3. The fierce persecutions renewed by the Koreish at the
Commencement oftime of the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca were
the state of war.
acts of hostility tantamount to a declaration of war. From
that time commenced the state of war between the parties. In the Arab

society at Mecca there was neither an organized
The Koreish being Government, nor any distinction between a public and
public enemies
were liable to be private person and property. There was no regular army
treated as such. in the State, and what existed was not a permanently
organized body, so provided with external marks that it
could be readily identified. The form of Government at Mecca was
patriarchal, and the chiefs of the Koreish and the citizens of Medina
themselves constituted an army when occasion arose. Therefore, since the
commencement of hostilities or the state of war, every individual of the
Koreish or the Meccans was a public enemy of the Moslems, and liable to
be treated as such in his person and property, except those who were unable
to take part in the hostilities, or, as a matter of fact, abstained from engaging
in them. Therefore it was lawful for the Moslems to threaten or to waylay
the caravans of the enemy, which passed to and from Mecca close to
Medina, and also to attack the Koreish at Mecca, if they could possibly do
so.
4. But as the people amongst whom the Prophet and his
But the Moslems fugitive Moslems now sojourned had only pledged to
could not take up
defend them at Medina, the flying Mohammadans could
arms to redress their
wrongs under not take up arms against their aggressors, the Koreish, to
certain
circumstances. defend their rights of religious liberty and citizenship,
much less of taking arms to compel the non-believers to
believe in Moslem faith, and so they preferred to live in peace at Medina,
and enjoy the blessings of their new religion without any disturbance from
without, if possible.
5. In fact, the Moslems, after suffering so long such
Moslems otherwise heavy persecutions at Mecca, had at length got an
engaged at Medina
had no intention of asylum of peace at Medina, where they had very little
suffering the desire left to entertain any idea of commencing
horrors of war by
taking the initiative. hostilities or undergoing once more the horrors of war,
and were too glad to live in peace after their last escape.
But were in
The people of Medina had only agreed to defend the
imminent danger Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive
from the enemy. steps towards the Koreish. The attention of Mohammad

and his followers who had fled with him was mainly occupied in preaching
and teaching the tenets of Islam, in establishing a fraternity between the
refugees and the citizens, in building a house for prayer, in providing
houses for refugees, in contracting treaties of neutrality with the Jews of
Medina and other surrounding tribes, Bani Zamra (a tribe connected with
Mecca) and also with Bani Mudlij (a tribe of Kinana related to the Koreish),
in anticipation of the impending danger[2] from the Koreish, who had
pursued them on the similar occasions before, and in organizing, above all
these, some of the religious and civil institutions for the Moslems, who
were now fast assuming the position of an independent society or
commonwealth. Under such circumstances, it was next to impossible for
Mohammad or his adherents to think of anything like an offensive war with
their inveterate foes, or to take up arms for proselytizing purposes.
6. The Koreish, seeing the persecuted had left almost all
The Koreish first their native lands for a distant city out of their approach,
attacked the
Moslems at except by a military expedition, and losing Mohammad,
Medina. They could for whose arrest they had tried their utmost, as well as
not forbear the
escape of the upon hearing the reception, treatment, religious freedom
Moslems. and brotherly help the Moslems received and enjoyed at
Medina, could not subdue their ferocious animosity
against the exiles. The hostility of the Koreish had already been aroused.
The severity and injustice of the Koreish was so great, that when, in 615
A.D., a party of 11 Moslems had emigrated to Abyssinia, they had pursued
them to overtake them. And again, in 616 A.D., when the persecution by the
Koreish was hotter than before, a party of about 100 Moslems had fled from
Mecca to Abyssinia, the Koreish sent an embassy to Abyssinia to obtain the
surrender of the emigrants. There is every reason to believe that the
Koreish, enraged as they were on the escape of the Moslems in their third
and great emigration in 622 A.D., would naturally have taken every strong
and hostile measure to persecute the fugitives.[3]
It was in the second year from the general expulsion of the Moslems from
Mecca that the Koreish, with a large army of one thousand strong, marched
upon the Moslems at Medina. Medina being 250 miles or 12 stages from
Mecca, the aggressive army, after marching 8 stages, arrived at Badr, which

is 3 or 4 stages from Medina. Mahommad—with only 300 Moslems, more
being from among the people of Medina than the refugees—came out of
Medina in self-defence to encounter the Koreish, and the famous battle of
Badr was fought only at thirty miles from Medina. There could be no doubt
that the affair was purely and admittedly a defensive one.
Sura XXII, verses 39-42, copied at page 17 of this book, was first published
in the matter of taking up arms in self-defence after the battle of Badr.
7. The Koreish carried on three aggressive battles
The three battles against the Moslems at Medina. The first, called the
waged by the
Koreish against Battle of Badr, took place at thirty miles from Medina,
Mohammad. the Koreish having come down 250 miles from Mecca.
The second, called the Battle of Ohad, was fought at a
distance of one mile from Medina, the enemy having advanced 250 miles
from Mecca. The third was the battle of confederates, in which they had
mustered an army of ten thousand strong. The city was besieged for several
days, and the Moslems defended themselves within the walls of Medina
which they had entrenched. These were the only battles between the
Koreish and Mohammad, in each the latter always acted on the defensive.
Neither he attacked the Koreish offensively to take revenge, nor to compel
them by force of arms to accept his religion.
Even these three battles were not waged by Mohammad
These wars were to redress wrong or establish imperilled rights. They
purely in defence,
not to redress their were only to repel force by right of self-defence. Had
wrongs or to Mohammad and his Moslems invaded Mecca and fought
establish their
rights. battles against the Koreish there, he would have been
justified for waging war to redress the injuries of person
and property inflicted by the Meccans on the Moslems whom they were
tormenting for their religion and had expelled them from their homes, and
had even barred their yearly visitation to the shrine of Kaába. A war which
is undertaken for just causes, to repel or avert wrongful force, or to establish
a right, is sanctioned by every law, religious, moral or political.
8. Sir W. Muir, the great advocate for the aggressive
The battle of Badr Koreish, holds that the war of Badr was "brought on by

was defensive.
Mahomet himself,"[4] and that he intended to surprise
the caravan of the Koreish returning from Syria under the charge of Abu
Sofian, and had come out to Medina to waylay it. Abu Sofian sent for an
army of the Koreish for his aid, and thus commenced the battle of Badr. I
have given my reasons at pages 74-76 of the book to show that this is a
false account. I will point out from contemporary records, i.e., the Koran,
that Mohammad neither meant, nor had he come out of Medina, to attack
the caravan.

I. The verses 5 and 6 of Sura VIII[5] show that a part of
Reasons for the
same. the believers were quite averse to Mohammad's coming
out of Medina on the occasion of the battle of Badr. Had
their mission been one of plundering rich caravans, as it is generally
alleged, there could be no reason for that aversion of a party of believers
who are accused so often of a hostile attitude towards the Koreish, and
possessed of that great love of booty and adventure so prominent among the
Arabs. The fact is, a party of believers had disputed with Mohammad the
necessity of the combat and its probable result outside Medina. They
preferred to defend themselves within its walls. This argument is against the
allegation that Mohammad with his followers had started to waylay the
caravan, and the Koreish had come only to rescue it.

II. The 43rd[6] verse of the same Sura shows that it was by a mere accident
or coincidence that all the three parties of the Moslems, the Koreshite army
and the caravan had arrived, and encamped close to Badr in front of each
other. This is an argument against those who say that Mohammad had
intentionally come to Badr to waylay the caravan there.[7] There was, in
fact, no predetermination on the part of Mohammad either to waylay the
caravan, or encounter the Koreish army at Badr. Mohammad with his
followers had come out only to check the advancing enemy in his self-
defence.

III. The seventh[8] verse of the same Sura shows that while the parties had
so accidentally encamped close to each other, the Moslems had desired then
and there only to attack the caravan, as a reprisal or by way of retaliation,

instead of combating with the Koreish army. This is an argument in support
of my contention that there was no previous arrangement to attack the
caravan.
IV. The same verse also shows that Mohammad had no intention of
attacking the caravan either before his coming out of Medina, as it is
alleged by ignorant people, or after coming at Badr in front of the enemy's
army.

V. Sura VIII, verse 72,[9] which treats of the prisoners of the war taken at
Badr, expressly notes the treachery of the Meccans before their being taken
prisoner, and refers obviously to their aggressively setting out of Mecca to
attack the Moslems at Medina.

VI. Sura IX, verse 13,[10] at a subsequent event of the violation of the truce
of Hodeibia by the Koreish, very distinctly charges them with attacking first
and waging offensive war and being aggressive. As there was no war or
attack from the Koreish on the Moslems before Badr, I conclude that in the
war of Badr the Koreish were aggressive.
9. But Mohammad, harassed and attacked every year by
Mohammad, owing the Koreish and other hostile Arab tribes, had hardly any
to the attacks,
inroads and time to wage an aggressive war against his Koreshite
threatening foes, to establish his imperilled rights, or to redress the
gatherings from the
Koreish and other injuries of the Moslems or his own wrong; much less of
Arab tribes, had taking up arms to compel them to renounce idolatry and
hardly time to think believe in his Divine mission. During the first year after
of offensive
measures. their expulsion from Mecca, the Moslems were in
constant danger from the ferocity of the Koreish, and
when Mohammad was contracting treaties of neutrality with the
neighbouring tribes, Kurz-bin-Jábir, a Koreish of the desert, committed a
raid upon Medina. In the course of the second year the Koreish fought the
battle of Badr, followed by a petty inroad of theirs upon Medina at the end
of the year. The Bani Nazeer treasoned against Medina by giving
intelligence to, and entertaining, the enemy. In the beginning of the third
year, the nomad tribes of Suleim and Ghatafán, inhabitants of the plains of
Najd, and descendants of a stock common with the Koreish, twice projected

a plundering attack upon Medina. At the same time the Moslems were
defeated at the battle of Ohad, near Medina, by the Koreish, which
circumstance greatly affected the prestige of the Prophet, who was
threatened with a similar fate the next year by his victorious enemies. With
the opening of the fourth year, the inimical spirit of many of the Bedouins,
as well as that of the Jews of Bani Nazeer, was perceptible, and in various
quarters large masses were organized to act against Mohammad and to take
advantage of the defeat at Medina. The tribes of Bani Asad and Bani
Lahyán were brought together to follow the victory of the Koreish at Ohad.
And last, not least, the Moslem missionaries were cut to pieces at Ráji and
Bir Máuna. At the close of the year, the people of Medina were alarmed by
an exaggerated account of the preparations at Mecca to attack Medina as
promised last year (Sura III, v. 176). During the fifth year certain tribes of
Ghatafán were assembling with suspicious purposes at Zat-al-Rikaa and the
marauding bands near Dumatal Jandal threatened a raid upon Medina. The
Bani Mustalik, a branch of Khozaa, hitherto friendly to Mohammad's cause,
took up arms with a view of joining the Koreish in the intended attack upon
Medina. At the end of the year, the Koreish, joined by an immense force of
the Bedouin tribes,[11] marched against Medina, and laid siege to it for
many days. The Bani Koreiza, having defected from Mohammad, joined the
Koreish army when Medina was besieged.
In the beginning of the sixth year Uyeina, the chief of the Bani Fezárá, had
committed an inroad upon Medina.[12] A Medinite caravan, under the
charge of Zeid-bin-Háris, was seized and plundered by the Bani Fezárá.[13]
In the month of Zul-Kada, (the eleventh month of the Arab lunar year),
when war was unlawful throughout Arabia, but much more so within the
sacred precincts of Mecca, Mohammad and his followers, longing to visit
the house of their Lord and the sacred places around it, and to join the
yearly pilgrimage which they had grown from their childhood to regard as
an essential part of their social and religious life, not to mention their
intense desire of seeing their houses and families from which they were
unjustly expelled, started from Medina for performing the lesser pilgrimage.
They were under the impression that, in the peaceful habits of pilgrims, the
Koreish would be morally bound by every pledge of national faith to leave

them unmolested, and Mohammad had promised them a peaceful entry. But
the Koreish armed themselves and opposed the progress of the Moslems
towards Mecca, notwithstanding the pious object and unwarlike attitude of
the pilgrims. At length a treaty, in terms unfavourable to the Moslems, but
in fact a victory won by Islam, was concluded by Mohammad and the
Koreish at Hodeibia. By this peace war was suspended for ten years.
From my brief sketch of Mohammad's first six years' sojourn in Medina, it
is evident that during this time Medina was constantly in a sort of military
defence. The Moslems were every moment in the danger of an invasion,
attack, or inroad from without, and treachery, conspiracy and treason from
within. They either had to encounter superior numbers or to disperse hostile
gathering or to chastise sometimes marauding tribes. So Mohammad could
scarcely breathe freely at Medina, but much less could he find time and
opportunity to mature a scheme of attacking the Koreish at Mecca in order
to revenge himself and his refugees for the persecutions which the Koreish
had inflicted on the Moslems, to redress their wrongs, and to re-establish
their rights of civil and religious liberty, or to make converts of them or any
other tribes at the point of sword.
10. It was only when the Moslems, unarmed as they
Armed opposition were in pilgrim's garb, were opposed by the armed
of the Koreish to
the Moslem Koreish, who had encamped at Zú Towa, clothed in
pilgrims in the panther's skin, or, in other words, with a firm resolution
vicinity of Mecca.
to fight to the last, and when Osman, the Moslem envoy
Mohammad
to Mecca, was actually placed in confinement,[14] of
proclaimed war whom the rumour was constantly rife that he was
against the murdered at Mecca, and when a party of the Koreish had
opposing Koreish to
obtain the right of actually attacked the camp of Mohammad,[15] that
civil and religious excitement, alarm and anxiety prevailed in the Moslem
liberty at Mecca.
camp, and Mohammad took a solemn oath from the
Faithful to stand by their cause even unto death. (Sura XLVIII.[16]) In the
meantime appeals were received from the Moslems detained in confinement
at Mecca, and otherwise oppressed for deliverance. Vide Sura IV, verses 77,
99, 100; Sura VIII, verses 72, 73. He, on this occasion, proclaimed a war
with the Koreish in the event of their attacking first, and enjoining the

believers to redress their earlier and later wrongs, to establish their civil and
religious liberty, to have free access to their native city, to have the free
exercise of their religion, and to make away with the oppressions of Koreish
once for all.
The following verses were published on the occasion:—Sura II, verses 186-
190, 212-215. The Sura XLVIII afterwards had reference to the occasion,
specially verses 10, 22-27. They are quoted in pp. 17-19.
But happily a truce was agreed upon, and not a drop of
The war thus blood was shed on either side. Thus the injunctions
proclaimed did not
take place. contained in the verses referred to above were never
carried out. Mohammad, in proclaiming this war, had all
the laws and justice on his side. Even this war, had it been waged, would
have been defensive, undertaken for the purpose of establishing the civil
rights of the Moslems and their religious liberty, hitherto unjustly denied
them.
11. This truce did not last long. The last act of hostility
The Koreish again on the part of the aggressive Koreish was the violation
commit hostilities
and violate their of the truce within two years of its being concluded.
pledges. This resulted in the submission of Mecca. The tribe of
Bani Khozáa,[17] who were now converts to Islam since
War declared
against those who
the truce, and who had entered into an open alliance
had violated the with Mohammad at the treaty, were attacked by the
truce.
Koreish and their allies, the Bani Bakr.[18] The aggressed
Moslems appealed for aid to Mohammad through a deputation, that
displayed their wrongs to Mohammad and his followers in very touching
terms, urging in a plaintive tone to avenge them upon the treacherous
murderers. War was declared by Mohammad against the aggressors, who
had violated the truce, and attacked the Bani Khozáa, to redress their
wrongs. A proclamation was issued declaring immunity from God and his
Apostle to those who had broken the league and aided the Bani Bakr against
the Khozáa. Four months' time was allowed them to make terms, in default
of which they were to be warred against, seized, and besieged, in short, to

suffer all the hardships of war. Sura IX, verses 1-15, was published
declaring the war. It has been copied at pages 22-25 of the book.
But the threatened war did not actually take place, and
War not carried out.
Mecca surrendered by a compromise. Thus Mohammad
obtained his object of civil and religious liberty of the
Moslems at Mecca and Medina, and averted the (fitnah) persecutions and
oppressions of the Koreish without actual war or bloodshed, and also
secured peace for his followers in exchange of the constant fear and
agitation impending over them. This was promised some years ago in Sura
XXIV, verse 54, which runs as follows:—
"God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the
things that are right, that He will cause them to succeed other in
the land, as He gave succession to those who went before them,
and that He will establish for them their religion in which they
delight, and that after their fears He will give them security in
exchange. They shall worship Me: nought shall they join with
Me: And whoso after this believe not, they will be the impious."
12. Now I shall dispense with the Koreish and refer to
War with foes otherthe wars of other enemies of the early Moslems. There is
than the Koreish.
only one war of the Arab tribes other than the Koreish
noticed in the Koran, and that is the battle of Honain. In this war the
Sakifites were the aggressors. The battle of Muraisia is not noticed in the
Koran, but it is stated by biographers that information of a new project
against him after the defeat at Ohad in the direction of Mecca, and the Bani
Mustalik's raising fresh forces with a view of joining the Koreish in the
threatened attack of Medina having reached Mohammad, he resolved by a
bold attempt to prevent their design. I have shown in the book that the
expedition of Mohammad against Khyber was purely in self-defence. A war
undertaken to protect ourselves from the impending danger of an attack
from the enemy and with the purpose of checking its advance, is a
defensive war under the Law. I am not going to treat of expedition of the
Bani Koreizá separately, but this much is necessary to say here, that they
had treacherously defected from the Moslem with whom they had entered
into a defensive alliance, and had joined the confederate army against the

Moslems. For a detail account of them, the reader is referred to pages 87-91
of this book.
13. The expedition of Mecca, already described, ended
Expedition to Tabúkin a submission and compromise without any resort to
to check the
advancing enemy. arms; that against Tabúk was undertaken, as it is
No war took place. admitted by all writers, Moslem and European, for
purely defensive purposes. Mohammad was much
alarmed on this occasion owing to the threatening news of a foreign
invasion against the Moslem commonwealth. The following verses of the
Ninth Sura are most probably directed towards the Romans and their Jewish
and Christian allies,[19] if not towards the Jews of Khyber:—
29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have
been given as believe not in God or in the last day, and who
forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and
who profess not the profession of the Truth, until they pay
tribute out of hand, and they be humbled."
124. "Believers wage war against such of the unbelievers as are
your neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you, and
know that God is with those who fear him."—Sura IX.
Mohammad returned without any war, and there was no occasion to carry
out the injunctions contained in these verses.
Mohammad had taken great pains, according to the severity of the
impending danger, to induce the Moslems to go to war in their own
defence. But as the season was hot, and the journey a long one, some of
them were very backward in doing so.
There is a very violent denunciation against those who on various false
pretences held back on the occasion.
14. The above sketch of the hostilities will show that
Number of the wars there were only five battles in which actual fighting took
of Mohammad.
place. The biographers of Mohammad and the narrators
of his campaigns are too lax in enumerating the expeditions led by

Mohammad. They have noted down the names and accounts of various
expeditions without having due regard to a rational criticism, or without
being bound by the stringent laws of the technical requirements of
traditionary evidence. Consequently, they give us romances of the
expeditions without specifying which of them are true and which fictitious.
There are many expeditions enumerated by the biographers[20] which have,
in fact, no trustworthy evidence for their support; some are altogether
without foundation, and some of them are wrongly termed as expeditions
for warring purposes. Ghazávát is wrongly understood by European writers
as meaning "plundering expeditions." Deputations to conclude friendly
treaties, missions to teach Islam, embassies to foreign chiefs, mercantile
expeditions, pilgrims' processions, parties sent to disperse or chastise a band
of robbers, or to watch the movements of an enemy, spies sent to bring
information, and forces dispatched or led to fight with or check an enemy
are all called "Ghazavát" (expeditions,) "Saráya" and "Baús" (enterprises
and despatches). Thus the number of Mohammad's expeditions has been
unduly exaggerated, first by biographers, who noted down every expedition
or warlike enterprise reported in the several authentic and unauthentic
traditions long after their occurrences, and did not at all trouble their heads
by criticising them; and secondly by giving all missions, deputations,
embassies, pilgrims' journies, and mercantile enterprises under the category
of "Ghazavát" and "Saráya," lately construed by European writers as
"plundering expeditions," or "a despatch of body of men with hostile
intents." The biographers, both Arabian and European, have gone so far as
to assert that there were 27 expeditions led by Mohammad in person, and
74 others headed by persons nominated by himself, making in all 101. This
number is given by Ibn Sád Kátib Wákidi (vide Kustaláni, Vol. VI, page
386). Ibn Is-hak also gives the number of Mohammad's expeditions to be
27, while others led at his order are put down at 38 only (vide Ibn Hishám,
pp. 972 and 973). Abú Yola has a tradition from Jabir, a contemporary of
Mohammad, who mentions only 21 expeditions. But the best authority,
Zeid-bin-Arqam, in the earliest traditions collected by Bokhári, Kitábul
Maghazi, in two places in his book, reduces the number to 19, including all
sorts of expeditions and the number in which he was with Mohammad. Out
of these alleged 27, 21, 19 and 17 expeditions, there were only 8[21] or 9,[22]

in which an actual fighting took place. Even the latter minimized numbers
are not deserving of confidence. The actual expeditions are as follow:—
1. Badr.
2. Ohad.
* Muraisi.
3. Ahazáb.
* Koreiza.
4. Khyber.
* Mecca.
5. Honain.
* Táyif.
There are no good authorities for the war at Muraisi with the Bani Mustalik.
There were no fightings with the Koreiza, as their affair was but a
continuation of the war of Ahzab, and therefore does not require a separate
number. At Mecca there was no action, and it surrendered by a compromise.
As for Táyif it was a part of the battle of Honain like Autás. It was besieged
to lay hold of the fugitives who had sought there a shelter, and subsequently
the siege was raised. Thus, there remain only five expeditions, which I have
numbered out of nine, in which Mohammad fought against his enemies in
his and his followers' defence. Even these five scarcely deserve the name of
battle. From a military point of view, they were but petty skirmishes in their
results. The enemy's loss at Badr was 49, at Ohad 20, at Ahzáb 3, at Khyber
93, and at Honain 93; but the last two numbers are open to doubt, and seem
to be exaggerated. The loss on the Moslem side was 14, 74, 5, 19, and 17
respectively. The whole casualties in these wars on the side of the Moslems
were 129, and on that of the enemies 258, which is exactly double those of
the Moslems, and looks suspicious; hence it must be accepted with caution.
15. The Rev. Samuel Green writes:—
Mr. Green quoted.
"It has been insinuated that Mahomet first took
up arms in his own defence, and by more than one historian he
has been justified in seeking to repel or prevent the hostilities of
his enemies, and to exact a reasonable measure of retaliation.
'The choice of an independent people,' says Gibbon, 'had exalted

the fugitive of Mecca to the rank of a sovereign, and he was
invested with the just prerogative of forming alliances, and of
waging offensive or defensive war.'[23] That such a sentiment
was entertained by a Mahometan does not at all surprise us, nor
is it marvellous that it should be justified by an infidel; if it be
true, war needs nothing to render laudable but the pretext of
former injuries and the possession of power. The defence set up
for Mahomet is equally availing for every sanguinary and
revengeful tyrant; and men, instead of being bound together by
the ties of clemency and mutual forgiveness of injuries, are
transformed into fiends, watching for the opportunity of
destroying each other."[24]
There was no pretence of former injuries on the part of the Moslems to
make war on the Koreish. They were actually attacked by the Koreish and
were several times threatened with inroads by them and their allies. So it
was not until they were attacked by the enemy that they took up arms in
their own defence, and sought to repel and prevent hostilities of their
enemies. The defence set up for Mohammad is not equally availing of every
sanguinary and revengeful tyrant. It was not only that Mohammad was
wronged or attacked, but all the Moslems suffered injuries and outrages at
Mecca, and when expelled therefrom, they were attacked upon, were not
allowed to return to their homes, and to perform the pilgrimage there. The
social and religious liberty, a natural right of every individual and nation,
was denied them. A cruel or revengeful tyrant may not be justified in taking
up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to redress his personal wrongs
and private injuries; but the whole Moslem community at Mecca was
outraged, persecuted and expelled,—and the entire Mohammadan
commonwealth at Medina was attacked, injured and wronged,—their
natural rights and privileges were disregarded—after such miseries the
Moslems took up arms to protect themselves from the hostilities of their
enemies and to repel force by force; and were justified by every law and
justice.
The right of self-defence is a part of the law of nature, and it is the
indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members. Even if a

sanguinary and revengeful tyrant were to do so in his own behalf, he would
be quite justified in this particular act. A just war, that is one undertaken for
just causes to repel or revert wrongful force, or to establish a right, cannot
be impeached on any ground, religious, moral, or political. But the
Moslems had tried every possible means of obtaining a pacific solution of
the difficulty which had arisen between them and their enemies, the Koreish
and the Jews, to avert war and its horrors. Mohammad had repeatedly
informed the Koreish that if they desist they will be forgiven.
88. "But if they desist, then verily God is gracious, merciful."
189. "But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save
against wrong-doers."—Sura II.
19. "O Meccans! if ye desired a decision, now hath the decision
come to you. It will be better for you to give over the struggle. If
ye return to it, we will return; and your forces, though they be
many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with
the faithful."
39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist what is now past shall be
forgiven them; but if they turn to it, they have already before
them the doom of the former."—Sura VIII.
And the same was the case regarding the Jews.
104. "Many of those who have Scripture would like to bring you
back to unbelief after you have believed, out of selfish envy,
even after the truth hath been shown to them. Forgive them then,
and shun them till God shall come with his decree. Truly God
hath power over all things."—Sura II.
63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy
trust in God. He verily is the hearing, the knowing."—Sura VIII.
16.... "Thou wilt not cease to discover the treacherous ones
among them, except a few of them. But forgive them and pass it
over. Verily God loveth those who act generously."—Sura V.

But there could be no peace or mutual agreement on the part of the enemy
until the truce of Hodeibia, which was also violated by them in a short time.
Even in the wars which were waged for self-preservation, the Prophet had
very much mitigated the evils which are necessarily inflicted in the progress
of wars. Fraud, perfidy, cruelty, killing women, children and aged persons
were forbidden by Mohammad;[25] and a kind treatment of the prisoners of
war enjoined. But foremost of these all—slavery, and domestication of
concubinary slaves, the concomitant evils of war—were abolished by him,
ordering at the same time that prisoners of war should be either liberated
gratis or ransomed. Neither they were to be enslaved nor killed. (Vide Sura
XLVII, verses 4 and 5; and Appendix B of this work.) Attacking offensively
was forbidden by the Koran (II, 186 La Taatadú, i.e. 'Do not attack first').
Mohammad had taken oaths from the Moslems to refrain from plundering
(vide page 58 of this book).
"All hostilities and plundering excursions between neighbouring
tribes that had become Musalman he forbade on pain of death;
and this among those who had hitherto lived by plunder or by
war, and who he knew might be deterred by such prohibition
from joining him. 'Let us make one more expedition against the
Temim,' said a tribe that was almost, but not altogether,
persuaded to embrace the faith, 'and then we will become
Musalmans.'"[26]
"In avenging my injuries," said he (Mohammad), "molest not
the harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness
of the softer sex, the infant at the breast, and those who in the
course of nature are hastening from this scene of mortality.
Abstain from demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting
inhabitants; destroy not their means of subsistence, respect their
fruit trees, and touch not the palm, so useful to the Syrians for
its shade, and delightful for its verdure."[27]
"The Bani Bakr," writes Sir W. Muir, "meanwhile, foreseeing
from the practice of the Prophet that, under the new faith, their

mutual enmities would be stifled, resolved upon a last passage
of arms with their foes. The battle of Shaitain fought at the close
of 630 A.D. was a bloody and fatal one to the Bani Tamím."[28]

Another view of the16. There is another view of the wars of Mohammad
wars of held by some of the European and American writers that
Mohammad.
he commenced hostilities on the caravans of the Koreish
which passed from Medina by way of reprisal and retaliation,[29] and that he
at first took up arms in his self-defence, but at last he proclaimed, and
waged, offensive wars against the Koreish.[30] I have already shown how
improbable the line of action was on the part of Mohammad under the
circumstances at Medina; and this line of policy is quite contrary to the
several verses of the Koran on the subject, all enjoining the waging of wars
in self-defence. But supposing that hostilities were first commenced by
Mohammad after the Hegira, the state of war having commenced at the
expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca, it was lawful for him to take up
arms to redress the wrongs of the Moslems and to establish their lawful
right by force of arms. A war commenced on these grounds is a defensive
war, though from a military point of view it may be an offensive one.[31]
"The right of self-defence," writes Kent, a great authority on the
International Law, "is part of the law of our nature, and it is the
indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members in the
enjoyment of their rights, both of person and property. This is
the fundamental principle of the social compact.... The injury
may consist, not only in the direct violation of personal or
political rights, but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in
the refusal of a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or
of adequate explanation or security in respect to manifest and
impending danger."[32]
17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or
Caravans, if capturing of it, there are not any satisfactory grounds of
waylaid, were by
reprisal. proof; but if they were attacked and captured, I do not
see any reason why they should be objected to. When

hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally present themselves for
detection and seizure are the person and property of the enemy. Even under
the International Law of most civilized countries, the legitimacy of
appropriating the enemy's property rests on the commencement of the state
of war. Under the old customs of war a belligerent possessed the right to
seize and appropriate all the property belonging to an enemy's state or its
subjects, of whatever kind they be or in whatsoever place where the acts of
war are permissible. So those who object to the early Moslems' threatening,
or capturing, or appropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call
them robbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the
International Law, ancient or modern.
18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of
Intolerance—no Mohammad, the Prophet, towards the unbelievers has
compulsory
conversion been fully discussed in paragraphs 34-39 (pp. 41-51). It
enjoined, or took is altogether a wrong assumption of European writers
place during
Mohammad's life- that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the
time. unbeliever, or that Mohammad proselytized at the point
of the sword. Sir W. Muir writes:—
"Persecution, though it may sometimes have
Sir W. Muir quoted.deterred the timid from joining his ranks, was
eventually of unquestionable service to
Mahomet. It furnished a plausible excuse for casting aside the
garb of toleration; for opposing force to force against those who
obstructed the ways of the Lord; and last of all for the
compulsory conversion of unbelievers."[33]
Opposing force to force and even redressing our wrongs and re-establishing
our imperilled rights is not 'intolerance.' Mohammad did repel the force of
his enemies when it was quite necessary for the Moslem self-preservation
and protection, but he never compelled any of his enemies or unbelievers,
whether a single individual, or a body of men, or a whole tribe, to believe in
him. The Koran and history contradict such an allegation. The Koran
everywhere in the Meccan and Medinite Suras preaches complete toleration

of every religion. History nowhere authentically records any instance of
Mohammad's enforcing conversion by means of the sword.
19. Mohammad propagated his religion both at Mecca
A brief sketch of
and Medina before, as well as after, the Hegira, by
the propagation of
Islam at Mecca. persuasion and preaching sustained by reasonable
evidence. It prevailed against all persecution and
Conversion at opposition of the Koreish and Jews. In fact, it flourished
Nakhla. and prospered under the severe persecutions and
crushing oppositions by the mere dint of its own truth.
[34]
Sometimes the persecution of the Koreish itself was the cause of
conversion to the Moslem faith.[35] The number of converts during the first
three years after the assumption by Mohammad of his prophetical office is
estimated at fifty. Then commenced the general persecution and the
overwhelming opposition. Mohammad had, in order to prosecute his
endeavours peaceably and without interruption, occupied the house of
Arqam, one of his early converts, and there preached and recited the Koran
to those who used to be conducted to him. A great multitude believed
therein; but the brunt of the jealousy and enmity of the Koreish fell upon
the converted slaves, as well as upon strangers and believers among the
lower classes, who had no patron nor protector. Some believers, sixteen in
number, had already left for Abyssinia. Some came back and brought
tidings of their kind reception there. At this time about a hundred Moslems
emigrated to Abyssinia.[36] This shows the increasing number of the
converts, who represented for the most part fugitives of Mecca. There were
some Christian converts to Islam at Abyssinia also.[37] The Koreish being
disquieted by the hospitable reception of the refugees at Abyssinia, and
enraged by the refusal of Najashee to surrender them, sought to stay the
progress of secession from their ranks by utterly severing the party of the
Prophet from social and friendly communication with them. In the seventh
year of the Prophet's mission the ban commenced, and lasted for full three
years. There could be very few conversions during the period of this weary
seclusion. The efforts of the Prophet were chiefly confined to the
conversions of the members of his own noble clan, the Bani Hàshim, who,
though unbelievers in his mission, had resolved to defend his person, and

were with him in their confinement. The time of pilgrimage alone afforded
Mohammad a wider field. He preached against idolatry at the fairs and
assemblages of the pilgrims[38]. After his release from imprisonment in the
tenth year of his mission, he went to preach at Tàyif, but was ignominiously
expelled the city[39]. On his return to Mecca he converted a party of the
tribe of Jinn[40] (not Genii according to the vulgar notion)[41] at Nakhla.
After his return from Tàyif he preached to an audience of six or seven
persons from Medina, who believed and spread Islam there.
20. Next year twelve new converts were made from
Rapid stride of persons who had come to see the Prophet from Medina.
Islam at Medina.
They returned as missionaries of Islam, and Islam spread
rapidly in Medina from house to house and from tribe to tribe. The Jews
looked on in amazement at the people whom they had in vain endeavoured
from generations to convince of the errors of polytheism, and to dissuade
from the abominations of their idolatry, suddenly of their own accord
casting away idols and professing belief in the one True God.[42] Thus
speedily without let or hindrance, force or compulsion, did Islam take firm
root at Medina and attain to a full and mature growth. There remained not a
single house among the Aws and Khazraj tribes[43] of Medina in which
there were not believing men and women, excepting the branch of the Aws
Allah, who were not converts till after the siege of Medina. At this time
there were many Moslems in Mecca, Medina, and Abyssinia, and not a
single one of them could be said to have been converted to Islam by
compulsion: on the contrary, they were used to be forced to renounce Islam.
21. When the Moslems were obliged to emigrate from
The increasing Mecca under the severe Koreishite persecutions, all the
number of Moslem
converts at Mecca followers of the Prophet with the exception of those
after the Hegira. detained in confinement or unable to escape from
slavery had emigrated with their families to Medina. But
there were many new converts at Mecca since the expulsion of the
Moslems. Those unable to fly from Mecca in the teeth of the oppressions of
the wrathful Koreish (Sura IV., 77, 79, 100) were increasing. They appealed
for deliverance and aid, while the Moslem pilgrims were near Mecca at

Hodeibia, six years after the Hegira, and an allusion is made to the great
number of the Meccan converts, living at Mecca during that time in Sura
XLVIII, 25.
22. Irrespective of the wars prosecuted by the Koreish
Disturbed state of from the South against Mohammad at Medina, and the
the public peace
among the tribes constant danger of inroad and attack upon Medina from
surrounding the neighbouring tribes—a great obstacle in the
Medina. Internecine
wars an obstacle to propagation of Islam which could only be successfully
the propagation of accomplished in a state of peace and tranquility of both
Islam. parties,—the most important and great tribes in the
North and Centre of Arabia were at war against each other during the life of
Mohammad, either before his mission from 570 to 610 A.D. or during his
public mission from 610 to 632 A.D. The disastrous internecine wars were
kept up for scores of years and the evils necessarily inflicted in their
progress were not confined to the belligerents only. It required years to
remove the evils of war and to efface the traces of misery and sorrow the
wars had brought.[44]
23. Here I will give a brief sketch of the internecine wars which took place
among the various Arab tribes during the time of Mohammad.
Wars during Mohammad's Lifetime, between the Arabian Tribes in the
North and Centre of Arabia.
Before his mission, 570-610, A.D.
(1.) The battle of Rahrahán between Bani Aamir bin Saasaa and Bani
Tamim in Najd, 578, A.D.
(2.) The Bani Abs on the side of Bani Aamir and Bani Zobian on the side of
Tamim, 579, A.D., at Sheb Jabala.
(3.) Sacrilegious war at Táyif called Harb fi-jár, 580-590, A.D.
(4.) Several battles between Bani Bakr and Tamim in 604, A.D. and the
following years.
During his mission.

(A)—While at Mecca, 610-622, A.D.
(1.) The war of Dáhis between Bani Abs and Zobian, the branches of
Ghatafán in Central Arabia; lasted forty years, 568 to 609, A.D.
(2.) The battle of Zú-kár between the Bani Bakr and the Persians in the
Kingdom of Hira, 611, A.D.
(3.) The Bani Kinda and Bani Háris attacked Bath Tamim when they had
retired to Kuláb in the confines of Yemen and repulsed them.
(4.) The Bani Aws and Khazraj of Medina were at war. The battle of Boás
was fought in 615, A.D. The Bani Aws were assisted by two tribes of
Ghassan, by Mozeima and the Jewish tribes Nazeer and Koreiza. The Bani
Khazraj were supported by Joheina, Ashja and the Jews of Kainuka.
(B)—While at Medina, 622 to 632, A.D.
(1.) The standing warfare between the Bani Hawázin and the Bani Abs,
Zobian, and Ashja of Ghatafán was kept up by assassinations and petty
engagements till they become converts to Islam.
(2.) The Koreish fought two battles of Badr and Ohad against the Moslems
at Medina in 624 and 625, A.D., respectively.
(3.) Several clans of the great Ghatafán family (the Bani Murra, Ashja and
Fezára) the Bani Suleim and Sád, a branch of Hawázin, and Bani Asad from
Najd Bedouin tribes, and Bani Koreiza the Jews, had besieged Medina in
627, A.D., in confederation with the Koreish.
(4.) Bani Tamim and Bani Bakr renewed their hostilities, and from 615 to
630, A.D., several battles occurred between them. The last battle was that of
Shaitain in 630, A.D.
In this year, after the battle, both the tribes were converted to Islam.
(5.) The Bani Ghaus and Jadila branches of Bani Tay in the north of Medina
warred against each other. The war of Fasád continued twenty-five years till
they embraced Islam in 632, A.D.

24. During the six eventful years of Mohammad's
Spread of Islam in sojourn at Medina, from the Hegira to the truce of
the surrounding
tribes at Medina Hodeibia, where he was every year attacked or
after the Hegira I-threatened by other hostile Arab tribes, acting always in
VI.
self-defence, he had converted several members or
almost entire tribes residing round Medina.
Among them were the following:—

1. The Bani Aslam.[45]
2. Joheina.[46]
3. Mozeina.[47]
4. Ghifár.[48]
5. Saad-bin-Bakr.[49]
6. Bani Ashja.[50]
We never find a single instance even in the Magházis (accounts of the
campaigns of Mohammad, however untrustworthy they be) of Mohammad's
converting any person, families, or branches of tribes by the scimitar in one
hand and the Koran in the other.
25. Up to this time, notwithstanding the persecutions,
Mecca a barrier exiles and wars against Islam, it had spread by the mere
against the
conversion of the force of persuasion among the Meccans, some of whom
southern tribes. had emigrated to Abyssinia and most to Medina, the
whole of the influential tribes of Aws and Khazraj at
Medina, as well as among the Jews there, and among some of the tribes in
the north, and east of Medina and the centre of Arabia. But as Mecca in the
south had declared war against Islam, most of the Arab tribes connected
somehow with the Meccans, and those inhabiting the southern and south-
eastern parts of Arabia, to whom Mecca served geographically as a barrier,
watched the proceedings of the war and the fate of Islam, and had no
opportunity of coming to Medina to embrace Islam, nor of having friendly
intercourse with the Moslems, nor of receiving Mohammadan missionaries
in the face of the wars waged by the Koreish who were looked upon as the
guardians of the Kaaba, the spiritual or religious centre of the idolatrous

Arabs. At the end of the last or the fifth year many Bedouin tribes, among
whom might be counted the Bani Ashja, Murra, Fezara, Suleim, Sad-bin-
Bakr and Bani Asad, had furnished several thousand Arabs to the Koreish
for the siege of Medina. Only when the aggressions of the Koreish against
the Moslems were suspended that the warring tribes and those of the
Central, Southern and Eastern Arabia could think of what they had heard of
the reasonable preaching of Islam against their idolatry and superstitions.
26. Since the truce of Hodeibia at the end of the sixth
Tribal conversions year after the Hegira Mecca was opened for intercourse,
in the sixth year.
where there were some more and fresh conversions. The
Bani Khozaa, descendants of Azd, were converted to Islam at the truce of
Hodeibia. At the pilgrimage in the following year some influential men of
Mecca adopted Islam. The movement was not confined to these leading
men, but was wide and general. In the seventh year the following tribes
were converted to Islam and their deputations joined Mohammad at
Khyber:

1. Bani Ashár.[51]
2. Khushain.[52]
3. Dous.[53]
During the same year Mohammad converted several
Conversions among other tribes in the north and north-east of Arabia. Among
several other tribes
of the North and them were—
North-east in A.H.,
8. 1. Bani Abs.
2. Zobián.
3. Murra.
4. Fezara.[54]
5. Suleim.[55]
6. Ozra.
7. Bali.
8. Juzám.[56]
9. Sálaba.[57]

10. Abdul Kays.[58]
11. Bani Tamim.[59]
12. Bani Asad.[60]
27. The position of Islam at Mecca was greatly
Surrender of strengthened since the truce in A.H. 6, by increase in the
Mecca. A.H., 8.
number of Moslems, influential and leading, as well as
of persons of minor note and importance there, consequently the advocates
of Islam, peace and compromise were growing in number and confidence.
Among the idolatrous Koreish there were no chiefs of marked ability or
commanding influence left at Mecca; almost all of them had gone over to
the cause of Islam. In the meantime the infraction of the terms of the truce
by the Bani Bakr and Koreish caused the surrender of Mecca without
bloodshed.
28. Though Mecca had surrendered, all its inhabitants
The Meccans not had not already become converts to Islam. Mohammad
compelled to
believe. did not take any compulsory means to convert the
people: "Although the city had cheerfully accepted his
supremacy," writes Sir W. Muir, "all its inhabitants had not yet embraced
the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetical claim. Perhaps
he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina and leave the
conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without
compulsion."[61]
29. Now it was more than twenty years that the Koran
The wholesale had been constantly preached to the surrounding tribes
conversion of the
of Arabs at Mecca at the time of fairs[62] and at the
remaining tribes in
A.H., 9 & 10.
annual pilgrimage gatherings,[63] by Mohammad, and by
special missionaries of Islam from Medina, and through the reports of the
travellers and merchants coming and going from Mecca and Medina to all
parts of Arabia. The numbers of different distant tribes, clans and branches
had spread the tidings of Islam. There were individual converts in most of
the tribes. Those tribes already not brought over to Islam were ready to
embrace it under the foregoing circumstances. Idolatry, simple and

loathsome, had no power against the attacks of reason displayed in the
doctrines of the Koran. But the idolatrous Koreish opposed and attacked
Islam with persecution and the sword, and strengthened idolatry with
earthly weapons. The distant pagan tribes on the side of the Koreish,
geographically or genealogically, were prevented by them from embracing
the new faith. As soon as the hostilities of the Koreish were suspended at
the truce of Hodeibia, the Arabs commenced to embrace Islam as already
described, and no sooner they surrendered and Kaaba[64] stripped of its
idols—and the struggle of spiritual supremacy between idolatry and Islam
was practically decided—all the remaining tribes on the south and east who
had not hitherto adhered to Islam hastened to embrace it hosts after hosts
during the 9th and 10th year of the Hegira.

30. During these two years deputations of conversion to
The various Islam were received by Mohammad at Medina from the
deputations and
most distant parts of the Peninsula, from Yemen and
embassies in the 9th
Hazaramaut from Mahra Oman and Bahrein in the
and 10th year of the
Hegira.
south, and from the borders of Syria and the outskirts of
Persia. Many of the chiefs and princes of Yemen and Mahra, of Oman,
Bahrein and Yemama—christians and pagans—intimated by letter or by
embassy their conversion to Islam. The Prophet used to send teachers with
deputations and embassies, where they were not already sent, to instruct the
newly converted people the duties of Islam and to see that every remnant of
idolatry was obliterated.
31. Here is a list of the important deputations and
List of the embassies as well as the conversion of notable
deputations of
conversion received personages during these two years arranged in
by Mohammad at alphabetical order with geographical and genealogical
Medina during A.H.
9 and 10. notes.[65] Sir W. Muir thinks it "tedious and
unprofitable" to enumerate them all,[66] while he takes
notice of every apocryphal tradition and devours with eagerness all fictions
unfavourable to the cause of Islam.

Bani Aámir.[67]
Bani Abd-ul-Kays.[68]
Bani Ahmas.[69]
Bani Anaza.[70]
Bani Asad.[71]
Bani Azd (Shanovah).[72]
Bani Azd (Oman).[73]
Bani Báhila.[74]
Bani Bahra.[75]
Bani Bajíla.[76]
Bani Baka.[77]

Bani Bakr bin Wail.[78]
Bani Bali.[79]
Bani Báriq.[80]
Bani Dáree.[81]
Farwa.[82]
Bani Fezára.[83]
Bani Gháfiq.[84]
Bani Ghánim.[85]
Bani Ghassán.[86]
Bani Hamadán.[87]
Bani Hanífa.[88]
Bani Háris of Najrán.[89]
Bani Hilál bin Aamir bin Sáasáa.[90]
Bani Himyar.[91]
Bani Jaad.[92]
Bani Jaafir bin Kelab bin Rabia.[93]
Jeifer bin al Jalandi.[94]
Bani Joheina.[95]
Bani Jufi.[96]
Bani Kalb.[97]
Bani Khas-am bin Anmár.[98]
Bani Khaulán.[99]
Bani Kiláb.[100]
Bani Kinána.[101]
Bani Kinda.[102]
Bani Mahrah.[103]
Bani Mohárib.[104]
Bani Morád.[105]
Bani Muntafiq.[106]

Bani Murrah.[107]
Bani Nakhá.[108]
Bani Nohd.[109]
Bani Ozra.[110]
Bani Raha.[111]
Bani Rawasa.[112]
Bani Saad Hozeim.[113]
Bani Sadif.[114]
Bani Sadoos.[115]
Bani Sahim.[116]
Bani Sakeef.[117]
Bani Salámáni.[118]
Bani Shaibán.[119]
Bani Sodaa.[120]
Bani Taghlib.[121]
Bani Tajeeb.[122]
Bani Tamim.[123]
Bath Tay.[124]
Bani Zobeid.[125]
32. Thus all these tribal conversions and the speedy
All the conversions, spread of Islam in the whole of Arabia was
individual and
tribal, without any accomplished without any resort to arms, compulsion,
compulsion. threat, or "the scymitar in one hand and the Koran in the
other." The Pagan Arabs, the Christians and the Jews,
those who embraced Islam, adopted it joyfully and voluntarily. Islam had
been much persecuted for many years from the third year of its Prophet's
mission to the sixth year after the Hegira—a period of about sixteen years,
but it flourished alike during persecutions and oppositions as well as during
periods of peace and security of the Moslems. It was the result of
Mohammad's staunch adherence to the uncompromising severity of his

inflexible principles of preaching the divine Truth and his sincere belief in
his own mission that he bore steadfastly all the hardships of persecutions at
Mecca and the horrors of the aggressive wars of the Koreish and others at
Medina, and persuaded the whole of Arabia, Pagan, Jewish and Christian, to
adopt Islam voluntarily.[126]
33. It was not an easy task for Mohammad to have
Mohammad was converted the Arabs from their national idolatry to a
not favoured with
circumstances religion of pure and strict monotheism. The aspect of
round him. Arabia was strictly conservative, and there were no
prospects of hopeful changes. The indigenous idolatry
and deep-rooted superstition, the worship of visible and material objects of
devotion,—idols and unshaped stones,—something that the eyes can see
and the hands can handle,—and the dread of invisible genii and other evil
spirits, held the Arab mind in a rigorous and undisputed thraldom. Arabia
was obstinately fixed in the profession of idolatry which the Peninsula
being thickly overspread, widely diffused and thoroughly organized, was
supported by national pride and latterly by the sword.
"It was," writes Dr. Marcus Dods, "certainly no hopeful task
which Mohammed undertook when he proposed by the
influence of religion to combine into one nation tribes so
incapable of being deeply influenced by any religion, and so
irreconcilably opposed to one another; to abolish customs which
had the sanction of immemorial usage; and to root out an
idolatry, which, if it had no profound hold upon the spiritual
nature, was at least bound up with old family traditions and
well-understood tribal interests."[127]
The sacrifices made to, and the requirements essential to Islam, its
numerous positive prohibitions, the immediate repudiation of old
prejudices, the renunciation of all sorts of idolatry and superstition, the
throwing aside of favourite idols and the abandoning of licentious rites and
customs, the total abstinence from much-relished vices, the demand for
producing practical effect on the will and character, and the reaping of

material fruits from holy and religious life—were barriers insurmountable
for the speedy progress of Islam.
Notwithstanding these impediments Mohammad succeeded, by the
influence of his religion, in combining into one nation the wild and
independent tribes, and putting a stop to their internecine wars; in
abolishing the custom which had the sanction of immemorial usage; and in
rooting out the national idolatry of indigenous growth, without
compromising his inflexible principles of truth and sincerity and honesty;
and without adopting the superstitions and vices of the people.
Dr. Mosheim thinks that, "the causes of this new religion's rapid
progress are not difficult to be discovered: Mahomet's law itself
was admirably fitted to the natural disposition of man, but
especially to the manners, opinions and vices prevalent among
the people of the East; for it was extremely simple proposing
few things to be believed; nor did it enjoin many and difficult
duties to be performed, or such as laid severe restraints on the
propensities."[128]
It is manifest from the history of religions that the people generally try their
best to obtain religion's sanction for the vices prevalent among them. But
there is no doubt in this that Mohammad never sanctioned the idolatries and
superstitions of the Arabs, nor he framed his doctrines according to the
opinions and fancies of the people. He preached vehemently against
everything he found blamable in the people; he spared not their dear idols
and beloved gods and the dreaded genii, nor accommodated his preaching
and reform to indulge them in their evil practices; nor did he adopt any of
the vices current among the people into his system.
Mohammad certainly did lay stress on the propensities of the mind and
made the actions of the heart answerable to God, and preferred inward
holiness to outside form.
53. "The heart is prone to evils."—Sura XII.
38. "The hearing and the sight and the heart, each of these shall
be inquired of."—Sura XVI.

225. "God will not punish you for a mistake in your oaths; but
He will punish you for that which your hearts have assented to.
God is gracious, merciful."
284. "Whatever is in the Heavens and in the Earth is God's, and
whether ye disclose what is in your minds or conceal it, God
will reckon with you for it; and whom He pleaseth will He
forgive, and whom he pleaseth will He punish; for God is All-
powerful."—Sura II.
5. "And unless made with intent of heart, mistakes in this matter
shall be no crimes in you."—Sura XXXIII.
The teachings of the Koran make our natural inclination subject to
regulation. It lays stress upon the heart of men. Note the following
injunctions regarding internal purity:
120. "Abandon the outside iniquity and its inside."—Sura VI.
152. "Come not near the pollutions outside or inward."—Ibid.
31. "Say: Truly my Lord hath forbidden filthy actions whether
open or secret, and iniquity and unjust violence."—Sura VIII.
Referring to Dr. Mosheim's cause of the spread of Islam, I will quote Henry
Hallam's opinion regarding the causes of the success of Islam.
Henry Hallam, after enumerating the three important causes of the success
of Islam, the first of which is "those just and elevated notions of the divine
nature and of moral duties, the gold-ore that pervades the dross of the
Koran, which were calculated to strike a serious and reflecting people," and
explaining the two others which are not against us, he says:—
"It may be expected that I should add to this what is commonly
considered as a distinguishing mark of Mohammedanism,—its
indulgence to voluptuousness. But this appears to be greatly
exaggerated. Although the character of its founder may have
been tainted by sensuality as ferociousness, I do not think that
he relied upon inducements of the former kind for the diffusion

of his system. We are not to judge of this by rules of Christian
purity, or of European practice. If polygamy was a prevailing
usage in Arabia, as is not questioned, its permission gave no
additional license to the proselytes of Mohammed, who will be
found rather to have narrowed the unbounded liberty of oriental
manners in this respect; while his decided condemnation of
adultery and of incestuous connections, so frequent among
barbarous nations, does not argue a very lax and accommodating
morality. A devout Mussulman exhibits much more of the stoical
than the epicurean character. Nor can any one read the Koran
without being sensible that it breathes an austere and scrupulous
spirit. And in fact, the founder of a new religion or sect is little
likely to obtain permanent success by indulging the vices or
luxuries of mankind. I should rather be disposed to reckon the
severity of Mohammed's discipline among the causes of its
influence. Precepts of ritual observance, being always definite
and unequivocal, are less likely to be neglected, after their
obligation has been acknowledged than those of moral virtue.
Thus the long fasting, the pilgrimages, and regular prayers and
ablutions, the constant almsgiving, the abstinence from
stimulating liquors, enjoined by the Koran, created a visible
standard of practice among its followers, and preserved a
continual recollection of their law.
"But the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of its Prophet, and
during the first ages of its existence, was chiefly owing to the
spirit of martial energy that he infused into it. The religion of
Mohammed is as essentially a military system as the institution
of chivalry in the west of Europe. The people of Arabia, a race
of strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of
pillage and murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a
license, but a command, to desolate the world, and the promise
of all that their glowing imaginations could anticipate of
Paradise annexed to all in which they most delighted upon
earth."[129]

This is sufficient to refute the opinion of Dr. Mosheim. But what Hallam
says regarding the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of the Prophet, and
during the first ages of its existence, that "the people of Arabia, a race of
strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of pillage and
murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a license, but a
command, to desolate the world," is untenable. There was neither a
command nor a license to desolate the world, nor was any person or tribe
converted to Islam with that object in view. All the teachings of the Koran
and the history of the early spread of Islam falsify such an idea.
34. I will pause here for a while, and ask the indulgence
Mohammad's of the reader to reflect upon the circumstances of the
unwavering belief
in his own mission persecutions, insults and injuries, expulsion and attack
and his success
show him to be a
suffered by Mohammad and his early followers,[130] and
true prophet. his unwavering adherence to preach against the gross
idolatry and immorality of his people, which all show
his sincere belief in his own mission, and his possession of an irresistible
inward impulse to publish the Divine Truth of his Revelations regarding the
unity in the Godhead and other moral reforms. His preachings of
monotheism, and his enjoining righteousness, and forbidding evil deeds,
were not attended to for many years with material success. In proportion as
he preached against the gross idolatry and superstition of his people, he was
subjected to ridicule and scorn, and finally to an inveterate persecution
which ruined his and his follower's fortune. But he unflinchingly kept his
path; no threats and no injuries hindered him from still preaching to the
ungodly people a purer and higher theology and better morality than had
ever been set before them. He claimed no temporal power, no spiritual
domination; he asked but for simple toleration, for free permission to win
men by persuasion into the way of truth. He declared he was sent neither to
compel conviction by miracles, nor to constrain outward profession by the
sword.[131] Does this leave any doubt of the strong conviction in his mind,
as well as in the truth of his claim, to be a man sent by God to preach the
Divine Perfection, and to teach mankind the ways of righteousness? He
honestly and sincerely conveyed the message which he had received or
which he conscientiously or intuitively believed to have received from his

God and which had all the signs and marks of truth in itself. What is meant
by a True Prophet or a Revelation is not more than what we find in the case
of Mohammad.[132]
The general office and main business of a prophet is to proclaim to mankind
the Divine Perfection, to teach publicly purer theology and higher morality,
to enjoin the people to do what is right and just, and to forbid what is wrong
and bad. It is neither a part of the prophet to predict future events, nor to
show supernatural miracles. And further, a prophet is neither immaculate
nor infallible. The Revelation is a natural product of human faculties. A
prophet feels that his mind is illumined by God, and the thoughts which are
expressed by him and spoken or written under this influence are to be
regarded as the words of God. This illumination of the mind or the effect of
the Divine Influence differ in any prophet according to the capacity of the
recipient, or according to the circumstances—physical, moral, and religious
—in which he is placed.
35. Although his mission was only to convey the
Striking effects ofmessage and preach publicly what was revealed to him,
Mohammad's
reforms. and he was not responsible for the conversion of the
ungodly polytheists to the purer theology and higher
morality, or in other words, to the faith of Islam, yet whatever success and
beneficial results in the sphere of theology, morality, and reforms in social
matters he achieved was a strong evidence of his Divine mission. In the
name of God and in the character of His Apostle, he wrought a great reform
according to his light in his own country. "Every good tree bringeth forth
good fruit."—(Matt. VII, 17). Facts are stubborn things, and facts are
conclusive in these points.
The effects produced by his preaching, and the changes wrought by them in
the religious, social, and political sphere of the polytheists, the idolatrous
and grossly superstitious Arabs within a comparatively short period, mostly
consisting of persecutions at Mecca, and struggles at Medina, were very
striking. From an indiscriminate mass of polytheism and gross superstitious
belief in gods, genii, the sons and daughters of God, he gave them a pure
monotheistic belief, recognizing no other superior power but the Almighty.

He raised the moral standard of his countrymen, ameliorated the condition
of women, curtailed and mitigated polygamy and slavery, and virtually
abolished them as well as infanticide. He most sternly denounced and
absolutely forbade many heinous evils of the Arab society. He united a
number of wild and independent tribes into a nation and abolished their
internecine wars.
Sir W. Muir says:—
"Few and simple as the positive precepts of Mahomet up to this
time appear, they had wrought a marvellous and a mighty work.
Never, since the days when primitive Christianity startled the
world from its sleep, and waged a mortal combat with
Heathenism, had men seen the like arousing of spiritual life, the
like faith that suffered sacrifice and took joyfully the spoiling of
goods for conscience sake.
"From time beyond memory, Mecca and the whole Peninsula
had been steeped into spiritual torpor. The slight and transient
influence of Judaism, Christianity, or Philosophy upon the Arab
mind, had been but as the ruffling here and there the surface of a
quiet lake;—all remained still and motionless below. The people
were sunk in superstition, cruelty, and vice. It was a common
practice for the eldest son to marry his father's widows inherited
as property with the rest of the estate. Pride and poverty had
introduced among them, as it has among the Hindus, the crime
of female infanticide. Their religion consisted in gross idolatry,
and their faith was rather the dark superstitious dread of unseen
beings, whose goodwill they sought to propitiate, and to avert
their displeasure, than the belief in an over-ruling Providence.
The Life to come and Retribution of good and evil were, as
motives of action, practically unknown.
"Thirteen years before the Hegira, Mecca lay lifeless in this
debased state. What a change those thirteen years had now
produced! A band of several hundred persons had rejected
idolatry, adopted the worship of one great God, and surrendered

themselves implicitly to the guidance of what they believed a
revelation from Him;—praying to the Almighty with frequency
and fervour, looking for pardon through His mercy, and striving
to follow after good works, almsgiving, chastity and justice.
They now lived under a constant sense of the Omnipotent power
of God, and of His providential care over the minutest of their
concerns. In all the gifts of nature, in every relation of life, at
each turn of their affairs, individual or public, they saw His
hand. And, above all, the new spiritual existence in which they
joyed and gloried, was regarded as the mark of His especial
grace, while the unbelief of their blinded fellow-citizens was the
hardening stamp of His predestined reprobation. Mahomet was
the minister of life to them,—the source under God of their new-
born hopes; and to him they yielded a fitting and implicit
submission.
"In so short a period, Mecca had, from this wonderful
movement, been rent into two factions, which, unmindful of the
old land-marks of tribe and family, were arrayed in deadly
opposition one against the other. The believers bore persecution
with a patient and tolerant spirit. And though it was their
wisdom so to do, the credit of a magnanimous forbearance may
be freely accorded to them. One hundred men and women,
rather than abjure the precious faith, had abandoned their
homes, and sought refuge, till the storm should be overpast, in
Abyssinian exile. And now even a larger number, with the
Prophet himself, emigrated from their fondly-loved city, with its
sacred temple,—to them the holiest spot on earth,—and fled to
Medîna. There the same wonder-working charm had within two
or three years prepared for them a brotherhood ready to defend
the Prophet and his followers with their blood. Jewish truth had
long sounded in the ears of the men of Medîna, but it was not till
they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian prophet, that
they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a
new and earnest life."[133]

Further on Sir W. Muir says:—
"And what have been the effects of the system which,
established by such instrumentality, Mahomet has left behind
him. We may freely concede that it banished for ever many of
the darker elements of superstition which had for ages shrouded
the Peninsula. Idolatry vanished before the battle-cry of Islam;
the doctrine of the unity and infinite perfections of God, and of a
special all-pervading Providence, became a living principle in
the hearts and lives of the followers of Mahomet, even as it had
in his own. An absolute surrender and submission to the divine
will (the very name of Islam) was demanded as the first
requirement of the religion. Nor are social virtues wanting.
Brotherly love is inculcated within the circle of the faith;
orphans are to be protected, and slaves treated with
consideration; intoxicating drinks are prohibited, and
Mahometanism may boast of a degree of temperance unknown
to any other creed."[134]
Dr. Marcus Dods writes:—
"But is Mahommed in no sense a Prophet? Certainly he had two
of the most important characteristics of the prophetic order. He
saw truth about God which his fellowmen did not see, and he
had an irresistible inward impulse to publish this truth. In
respect of this latter qualification Mahommed may stand
comparison with the most courageous of the heroic prophets of
Israel. For the truth's sake he risked his life, he suffered daily
persecutions for years, and eventually banishment, the loss of
property, of the goodwill of his fellow-citizens, and the
confidence of his friends—he suffered in short as much as any
man can suffer short of death, which he only escaped by flight,
and yet he unflinchingly proclaimed his message. No bribe,
threat or inducement could silence him. 'Though they array
against me the sun on the right hand, and the moon on the left, I
cannot renounce my purpose.' And it was this persistency, this

belief in his call, to proclaim the Unity of God which was the
making of Islam. Other men have been monotheists in the midst
of idolaters, but no other man has founded a strong and enduring
monotheistic religion. The distinction in his case was his
resolution that other men should believe.... His giving himself
out as a prophet of God was, in the first instance, not only
sincere, but probably correct in the sense in which he himself
understood it. He felt that he had thoughts of God which it
deeply concerned all around him to receive, and he knew that
these thoughts were given him by God, although not, as we shall
see, a revelation strictly so called. His mistake lay by no means
in his supposing himself to be called upon by God to speak for
him and introduce a better religion, but it lay in his gradually
coming to insist quite as much on men's accepting him as a
prophet as on their accepting the great truth he preached. He was
a prophet to his countrymen in so far as he proclaimed the Unity
of God, but this was no sufficient ground for his claiming to be
their guide in all matters of religion, still less for his assuming
the lordship over them in all matters civil as well...."
The learned doctor further on in his book, "Mohammed, Buddha, and
Christ," remarks:—
"But as we endeavour to estimate the good and evil of Islam, it
gradually appears that the chief point we must attend to is to
distinguish between its value to Arabia in the seventh century
and its value to the world at large. No one, I presume, would
deny that to Mohammed's contemporaries his religion was an
immense advance on anything they had previously believed in.
It welded together the disunited tribes, and lifted the nation to
the forefront of the important powers in the world. It effected
what Christianity and Judaism had alike failed to effect—it
swept away, once and for ever, idolatry, and established the idea
of one true God. Its influence on Arabia was justly and
pathetically put by the Moslem refugees in Abyssinia, who when
required to say why they should not be sent back to Mecca, gave

the following account of their religion and what it had done for
them: 'O king, we were plunged in ignorance and barbarism; we
worshipped idols; we ate dead bodies; we committed lewdness;
disregarded family ties and the duties of neighbourhood and
hospitality; we knew no law but that of the strong, when God
sent among us a messenger of whose truthfulness, integrity, and
innocence we were aware; and he called us to the unity of God,
and taught us not to associate any god with him; he forbade us
the worship of idols, and enjoined upon us to speak the truth, to
be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful, and to regard the rights
of others; to love our relatives and to protect the weak; to flee
vice and avoid all evil. He taught us to offer prayers, to give
alms, and to fast. And because we believed in him and obeyed
him, therefore are we persecuted and driven from our country to
seek thy protection.'"[135]
But after all we have here seen of the opinions of Dr. Marcus Dods and Sir
W. Muir, let us turn to what the Rev. Stephens thinks of Mohammad:—
"The aim of Mahomet was to revive among his countrymen the
Arabs, as Moses revived among his countrymen the Jews, the
pure faith of their common forefather Abraham. In this he
succeeded to a very great extent. For a confused heap of
idolatrous superstitions he substituted a pure monotheistic faith;
he abolished some of the most vicious practices of his
countrymen, modified others; he generally raised the moral
standard, improved the social condition of the people, and
introduced a sober and rational ceremonial in worship. Finally
he welded by this means a number of wild independent tribes,
mere floating atoms, into a compact body politic, as well
prepared and as eager to subdue the kingdoms of the world to
their rule and to their faith, as ever the Israelites had been to
conquer the land of Canaan.

"The Koran also enjoins repeatedly and in very emphatic
language the duty of showing kindness to the stranger and the
orphan, and of treating slaves, if converted to the faith, with the
consideration and respect due to believers. The duty even of
mercy to the lower animals is not forgotten, and it is to be
thankfully acknowledged that Mohammedanism as well as
Buddhism shares with Christianity the honour of having given
birth to hospitals and asylums for the insane and sick.

"The vices most prevalent in Arabia in the time of Mahomet
which are most sternly denounced and absolutely forbidden in
the Koran were drunkenness, unlimited concubinage and
polygamy, the destruction of female infants, reckless gambling,
extortionate usury, superstitious arts of divination and magic.
The abolition of some of these evil customs, and the mitigation
of others, was a great advance in the morality of the Arabs, and
is a wonderful and honourable testimony to the zeal and
influence of the reformer. The total suppression of female
infanticide and of drunkenness is the most signal triumph of his
work."[136]
The reverend gentleman quoted above continues:
"First of all, it must be freely granted that to his own people
Mahomet was a great benefactor. He was born in a country
where political organization, and rational faith, and pure morals
were unknown. He introduced all three. By a single stroke of
masterly genius he simultaneously reformed the political
condition, the religious creed, and the moral practice of his
countrymen. In the place of many independent tribes he left a
nation; for a superstitious belief in gods many and lords many
he established a reasonable belief in one Almighty yet
beneficent Being; taught men to live under an abiding sense of
this Being's superintending care, to look to Him as the rewarder,

and to fear Him as the punisher of evil-doers. He vigorously
attacked, and modified and suppressed many gross and revolting
customs which had prevailed in Arabia down to his time. For an
abandoned profligacy was substituted a carefully regulated
polygamy, and the practice of destroying female infants was
effectually abolished.
"As Islam gradually extended its conquest beyond the
boundaries of Arabia, many barbarous races whom it absorbed
became in like manner participators in its benefits. The Turk, the
Indian, the Negro, and the Moor were compelled to cast away
their idols, to abandon their licentious rites and customs, to turn
to the worship of one God, to a decent ceremonial and an
orderly way of life. The faith even of the more enlightened
Persian was purified: he learned that good and evil are not co-
ordinate powers, but that just and unjust are alike under the
sway of one All-wise and Holy Ruler, who ordereth all things in
heaven and earth.
"For barbarous nations, then, especially—nations which were
more or less in the condition of Arabia itself at the time of
Mahomet—nations in the condition of Africa at the present day,
with little or no civilisation, and without a reasonable religion—
Islam certainly comes as a blessing, as a turning from darkness
to light and from the power of satan unto God."[137]

Indictment against 36. What the opponents of Mohammad can possibly say
Mohammad. against his mission is his alleged moral declension at
Medina.[138] They accuse him of cruelty[139] and
sensuality[140] during his sojourn in that city after he had passed without
any blame more than fifty-five years of his age, and had led a pious
missionary life for upwards of fifteen years. These moral stains cannot be
inconsistent with his office of being a prophet or reformer. It is no matter if
a prophet morally degrades his character under certain circumstances, or
morally degrades his character at the end of his age—after leading for
upwards of fifty-five years a life of the highest moral principles, and as a

paragon of temperance and high-toned living—while he has faithfully
conveyed the message, and has sincerely and honestly preached religious
reforms, and the sublimity of his preachings have in themselves the marks
of divine truth.
If the said prophet defends his stains or immoral deeds by professed
revelations, and justifies himself in his flagrant breaches of morality by
producing messages from heaven, just and equally as he does when he
teaches the purer theology and higher morality for which he is
commissioned, then and from that time only we will consider him as an
impostor, guilty of high blasphemy in forging the name of God for his
licentious self indulgences.
But in the case of Mohammad, in the first place, the charges of cruelty and
sensuality during a period of six or seven years towards the end of his life,
excepting three years, are utterly false; and secondly, if proved to have
taken place, it is not proved that Mohammad justified himself by alleging to
have received a divine sanction or command to the alleged cruelties and
flagrant breaches of morality. The charges of assassinations and cruelties to
the prisoners of war and others, and of the alleged perfidy and craftiness
enumerated by Sir W. Muir, have been examined and refuted by me in this
book. Vide pp. 60-73 and pp. 76-97. The cases of Maria, a slave-girl, and
Zeinab not coming directly under the object of this book have been treated
separately in Appendix B, pp. 211-220 of this work.
Mohammad, in his alleged cruelties towards his enemies, is not represented
by Sir W. Muir to have justified himself by special revelation or sanction
from on high, yet the Rev. Mr. Hughes, whose work has been pronounced
as having "the rare merit of being accurate," makes him (Mohammad) to
have done them under the sanction of God in the Koran.

"The best defenders of the Arabian Prophet[141] are obliged to
admit that the matter of Zeinab, the wife of Zeid, and again of
Mary, the Coptic slave, are 'an indelible stain' upon his memory;
that he is untrue once or twice to the kind and forgiving
disposition of his best nature; that he is once or twice
unrelenting in the punishment of his personal enemies, and that

he is guilty even more than once of conniving at the
assassination of inveterate opponents; but they do not give any
satisfactory explanation or apology for all this being done under
the supposed sanction of God in the Qurán."[142]
Such is the rare accuracy of Mr. Hughes' work. It is needless for me to
repeat here that none of these allegations are either true or facts, or alleged
to have been committed under the sanction of God in the Koran.
The Rev. Marcus Dods writes regarding the character of Mohammad:—
"The knot of the matter lies not in his polygamy, nor even in his
occasional licentiousness, but in the fact that he defended his
conduct, when he created scandal, by professed revelations
which are now embodied as parts of the Koran. When his wives
murmured, and with justice, at his irregularities, he silenced
them by a revelation giving him conjugal allowances which he
had himself proscribed as unlawful. When he designed to
contract an alliance with a woman forbidden to him by his own
law, an inspired permission was forthcoming, encouraging him
to the transgression."[143]
Both of these alleged instances given above are mere fabrications. There
was no revelation giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which he had
himself proscribed as unlawful, nor any permission was brought forward to
sanction an alliance forbidden to him by his own law. This subject has been
fully discussed by me in my work "Mohammad, the True Prophet," and the
reader is referred to that work.[144] A few verses on the marital subject of
Mohammad are greatly misunderstood by European writers on the subject,
and Dr. Dods shares the generally wrong idea when he says:—
"He rather used his office as a title to license from which
ordinary men were restrained. Restricting his disciples to four
wives, he retained to himself the liberty of taking as many as he
pleased." (Page 23.)

This is altogether a gross misrepresentation of the real state of things.
Mohammad never retained to himself the liberty of taking as many wives as
he pleased. On the contrary, Sura XXXIII, 52, expressly forbade him all
women except those he had already with him, giving him no option to
marry in the case of the demise of some or all of them. This will show that
he rather used his office as a restraint against himself of what was lawful for
the people in general to enjoy. The only so-called privilege above the rest of
the believers (Sura XXXIII, 49) was not "to retain to himself the liberty of
taking as many wives as he pleased," but to retain the wives whom he had
already married and whose number exceeded the limit of four under Sura
IV, 3. Other believers having more wives than four as in the case of Kays,
Ghailán, and Naofal, were requested to separate themselves from the
number exceeding the limit prescribed for the first time. This was before
polygamy was declared to have been virtually abolished, i.e., between the
publication of vv. 3 and 128 of Sura IV. There was neither any breach of
morality, nor anything licentious in his retaining the marriages lawfully
contracted by him before the promulgation of Sara IV, 3. Even this privilege
(Sura XXXIII, 49) was counterbalanced by Ibid, 52, which runs thus:—
"Women are not allowed thee hereafter, nor to change them for
other women, though their beauty charm thee, except those
already possessed by thee."
Mr. Stanley Lane Poole suffers under the same misrepresentation as other
European writers[145] do when he says that:—
"The Prophet allowed his followers only four wives, he took
more than a dozen himself."
He writes:—
"When, however, all has been said, when it has been shown that
Mohammad was not the rapacious voluptuary some have taken
him for, and that his violation of his own marriage-law may be
due to motives reasonable and just from his point of view rather
than to common sensuality."

"Did Mohammad believe he was speaking the words of God
equally when he declared that permission was given him to take
unto him more wives, as when he proclaimed, 'There is no god
but God?'"[146]
Mohammad did not violate his own marriage-law, and never pretended that
permission was given to him to take more wives than what was allowed for
other people. All his marriages (which are wrongly considered to have been
about a dozen) were contracted by him before he published the law unjustly
said to have been violated by him. He retained these wives after the law was
promulgated, and their number exceeded four, but he was interdicted to
marry any other women in the place of these in case of their demise or
divorce. Other believers were advised after the promulgation of the law to
reduce the number of their wives exceeding four, but were at liberty to
replace their wives within the limit assigned in the case of their demise or
divorce. Mohammad's case had no breach of morality or sensual license in
it. It was very wise of Mohammad to retain all the wives he had married
before Sura IV, 3, came into force, for the reason that the wives thus
repudiated by him might have married some of the unbelievers, even some
of his enemies, which would have been derogatory to the Prophet in the
eyes of his contemporaries and a laughing-stock for his enemies.
37. It has been said with much stress regarding the
Finality of the teachings of Mohammad: (1) That although under the
social reforms of
Mohammad. degraded condition of Arabia, they were a gift of great
value, and succeeded in banishing those fierce vices
Positive precepts. which naturally accompany ignorance and barbarism,
but an imperfect code of ethics has been made a
Ceremonial law. permanent standard of good and evil, and a final and
irrevocable law, which is an insuperable barrier to the
Concrete morals of regeneration and progress of a nation. It has been also
the Koran. urged that his reforms were good and useful for his own
time and place, but that by making them final he has
Want of adaptibility prevented further progress and consecrated half
of the Koran to measures. What were restrictions to his Arabs would
surrounding
circumstances. have been license to other men.[147] (2) That Islam deals

with positive precepts rather than with principles,[148] and the danger of a
precise system of positive precepts regulating the minute detail, the
ceremonial worship, and the moral and social relations of life, is, that it
should retain too tight a grip upon men when the circumstances which
justified it have changed and vanished away, and therefore the imposition of
a system good for barbarians upon people already possessing higher sort of
civilization and the principles of a purer faith is not a blessing but a curse.
Nay more, even the system which was good for people when they were in a
barbarous state may become positively mischievous to those same people
when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its influence into a
higher condition.[149] (3) That the exact ritual and formal observations of
Islam have carried with them their own Nemesis, and thus we find that in
the worship of the faithful formalism and indifferences, pedantic
scrupulosity and positive disbelief flourish side by side. The minutest
change of posture in prayer, the displacement of a simple genuflexion,
would call for much heavier censure than outward profligacy or absolute
neglect.[150] (4) That morality is viewed not in the abstract, but in the
concrete. That the Koran deals much more with sin and virtue in
fragmentary details than as a whole. It deals with acts more than principles,
with outward practice more than inward motives, with precepts and
commands more than exhortation. It does not hold up before man the
hatefulness and ugliness of all sin as a whole.[151] (5) "That Islam is
stationary; swathed in the rigid bands of the Coran, it is powerless, like the
Christian dispensation,[152] to adapt itself to the varying circumstances of
time and place, and to keep pace with, if not to lead and direct, the progress
of society and the elevation of the race. In the body politic the spiritual and
secular are hopelessly confounded, and we fail of perceiving any approach
to free institutions or any germ whatever of popular government."[153]
38. All these objections more or less apply rather to the
The preceding teachings of the Mohammadan Common Law (canon
objections not
applicable to the and civil), called Fiqah or Shara, than to the Koran, the
Koran. Mohammadan Revealed Law. Our Common Law, which
treats both ecclesiastical and the civil law, is by no

means considered to be a divine or unchangeable law. This subject has been
treated by me in a separate work[154] on the Legal, Political and Social
Reforms to which the reader is referred. The space allowed to me in this
Introduction, which has already exceeded its proper limit, does not admit a
full and lengthy discussion of the objections quoted above, but I will review
them here in as few words as possible.
39. (1) Mohammad had to deal with barbarous nations
Finality of the around him, to be gradually reformed, and besides this
social reforms of
Mohammad. the subject of social reforms was a secondary question.
Yet it being necessary to transform the character of the
people and to reform the moral and social abuses prevailing among them,
he gradually introduced his social reforms which proved immense blessings
to the Arabs and other nations in the seventh century. Perhaps some
temporary but judicious, reasonable and helpful accommodations had to be
made to the weakness and immaturity of the people, as halting stages in the
march of reforms only to be set aside at their adult strength, or to be
abolished when they were to begin to emerge from their barbarism under its
influence to a higher civilization. Consequently gradual amelioration of
social evils had necessarily to pass several trials during progress of reform.
The intermediate stages are not to be taken as final and irrevocable standard
of morality and an insuperable barrier to the regeneration of the Arabian
nation. Our adversaries stick indiscriminately to these temporary measures
or concessions only, and call them half measures and partial reforms made
into an unchangeable law which exclude the highest reforms, and form a
formidable obstacle to the dawn of a progressive and enlightened
civilization. I have in view here the precepts of Mohammad for
ameliorating the degraded condition of women for restricting the unlimited
polygamy and the facility of divorce, together with servile concubinage and
slavery.[155] Mohammad's injunctions and precepts, intermediary and
ultimate, temporary and permanent, intended for the removal of these social
evils, are interwoven with each other, interspersed in different Suras and not
chronologically arranged, in consequence of which it is somewhat difficult
for those who have no deep insight into the promiscuous literature of the
Koran to find out which precept was only a halting stage, and which the

latest. It was only from some oversight on the part of the compilers of the
Common Law that, in the first place, the civil precepts of a transitory nature
and as a mediate step leading to a higher reform were taken as final; and in
the second place, the civil precepts adapted for the dwellers of the Arabian
desert were pressed upon the neck of all ages and countries. A social system
for barbarism ought not to be imposed on a people already possessing
higher forms of civilizations.
40. (2) In fact the Koran deals with positive precepts as
Positive precepts. well as with principles, but it never teaches a precise
system of precepts regulating in minute details the social
Ceremonial law. relations of life and the ceremonial of worship. On the
contrary, its aim has been to counteract the tendency to
narrowness, formality, and severity which is the consequence of a living
under a rigid system of positive precepts. Mohammad had to transform the
character of the Arab barbarians who had no religious or moral teacher or a
social reformer before his advent. It was therefore necessary to give them a
few positive precepts, moulding and regulating their moral and social
conduct, to make them 'new creatures' with new notions and new purposes,
and to remodel the national life. (3) But lest they should confuse virtue as
identical with obedience to the outward requirements of the ceremonial law,
—the formal ablutions, the sacrifices in pilgrimages, the prescribed forms
of prayers, the fixed amount of alms, and the strict fasts, the voice of the
Koran has ever and anon been lifted up to declare that a rigid conformity to
practical precepts, whether of conduct or ceremonial, would not extenuate,
but rather increase in the eyes of God the guilt of an unprincipled heart and
an unholy life.

Regarding the pilgrimage[156] or the sacrifices (its chief
Pilgrimage.
ceremony), the Koran says:—
"By no means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their
blood, but piety on your part reacheth him. Thus hath he
subjected them to you, that ye might magnify God for his
guidance: and announce glad tidings to the doers of good."—
Sura XXII, 38.

Regarding the Kibla in prayers it is said in the Koran:—
Kibla.
"The west and the east is God's: therefore
whichever way ye turn there is the face of God."—Sura II, 109.
"All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn them; but
wherever ye be, hasten emulously after good."—Ibid, 143.
"There is no piety in turning your faces toward the east or west,
but he is pious who believeth in God and the last day, and the
angels and the scripture, and the prophets; who for the love of
God disburseth his wealth to his kindred; and to the orphans,
and the needy, and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and for
ransoming; who observeth the prayer, and payeth alms, and who
is of those who are faithful to their engagements when they have
engaged in them, and patient under ills and hardships, and in
time of trouble, these are they who are just, and these are they
who fear the Lord."—Ibid, 172.
In the place of a fixed amount of alms the Koran only
Amount of alms. says to give what ye can spare.
"They will ask thee also what shall they bestow in alms:
"Say: What ye can spare."—Ibid, 216, 217.
Instead of imposing a very strict fast, which in the
Fasts. middle of summer is extremely mortifying, the Koran
makes its observance optional.
"And as for those who are able to keep it and yet observe it not,
the expiation of this shall be the maintenance of a poor man.
And he who of his own accord performeth a good work, shall
derive good from it: and good shall it be for you to fast, if ye
knew it."—Ibid, 180.
The Koran does not teach any prescribed forms of
No prescribed worship and other ritualistic prayers. No attitude is
forms of prayer.
fixed, and no outward observance of posture is required.

There is no scrupulosity and punctiliousness, neither the change of posture
in prayer nor the displacement of a single genuflexion calls any censure on
the devotee in the Koran. Simply reading the Koran (Suras LXXIII, 20;
XXIX, 44), and bearing God in mind, standing and sitting; reclining (III,
188; IV, 104) or bowing down or prostrating (XXII, 76) is the only form
and ritual, if it may be called so, of prayer and worship taught in the Koran.
"Recite then as much of the Koran as may be easy to you."—
Sura LXXIII, 20.
"Recite the portions of the Book which have been revealed to
thee and discharge the duty of prayer; verily prayer restraineth
from the filthy and the blameworthy. And assuredly the gravest
duty is the remembrance of God; and God knoweth what ye
do."—Sura XXIX, 44.
"And when the Koran is rehearsed, then listen ye to it and keep
silence: haply ye may obtain mercy."
"And think within thine ownself on God, with lowliness and
with fear and without loud-spoken words, at even and at morn;
and be not of the heedless."—Sura VII, 203, 204.
The Koran condemns pretentious prayers and
Pretentious prayers ostentatious almsgiving.
and ostentatious
almsgiving
condemned. "Verily the hypocrites would deceive God; but he
will deceive them! When they stand up for
prayer, they stand carelessly to be seen of men, and they
remember God but little"—Sura IV, 141.
"Woe then to those who pray,"
"Who in their prayer are careless;"
"Who make a show of devotion,"
"But refuse help to the needy."—Sura CVII, 4-7.

"And they fall down on their faces weeping, and it increaseth the
humility."—Sura XVII, 110.
"O ye who believe! make not your alms void by reproaches and
injury; like him who spendeth his substance to be seen of men,
and believeth not in God and in the latter day. The likeness of
such an one is that of a rock with a thin soil upon it, on which a
heavy rain falleth, but leaveth it hard. No profit from their works
shall they be able to gain; for God guideth not the unbelieving
people."—Sura II, 266.
"We have made ready a shameful chastisement for the
unbelievers, and for those who bestow their substance in alms to
be seen of men, and believe not in God and in the last day.
Whoever hath satan for his companion, an evil companion hath
he!"—Sura IV, 42.

No indispensable There are no indispensable hours or places to be
hours or places forobserved for prayers. In Suras XI, 116; and IV, 104, the
prayers.
time of prayer is set down in general terms without
specifying any fixed hour. There are some more times named in Suras
XVII, 81, 82; XX, 130; L, 38, 39; and LII, 48, 49, but they are special cases
for Mohammad himself, and "as an excess in the service." Vide Sura XVII,
81. On this subject Dr. Marcus Dods observes:—
"There are two features of the devout character which the
Mohammedans have the merit of exhibiting with much greater
distinctness than we do. They show not the smallest hesitation or
fear in confessing God, and they reduce to practice the great
principle that the worship of God is not confined to temples or
any special place:—
"Most honour to the men of prayer,
Whose mosque is in them everywhere!
Who amid revel's wildest din,
In war's severest discipline,
On rolling deck, in thronged bazaar,
In stranger land, however far,
However different in their reach

Of thought, in manners, dress or speech,—
Will quietly their carpet spread.
To Mekkeh turn the humble head,
And, as if blind to all around,
And deaf to each distracting sound,
In ritual language God adore,
In spirit to his presence soar,
And in the pauses of the prayer,
Rest, as if rapt in glory there."

"There are of course formalists and hypocrites in Islam as well
as in religions of which we have more experience. The
uniformity and regularity of their prostrations resemble the
movements of a well-drilled company of soldiers or of
machines, but the Koran denounces "woe upon those who pray,
but in their prayers are careless, who make a show of devotion,
but refuse to help the needy;" while nowhere is formalism more
pungently ridiculed than in the common Arabic proverb, "His
head is towards the Kibleh, but his heels among the weeds." We
could almost excuse a touch of formalism for the sake of
securing that absolute stillness and outward decorum in worship
which deceives the stranger as he enters a crowded mosque into
the belief that it is quite empty. Persons who hold themselves
excused from the duty of worship by every slight obstacle might
do worse than get infected with the sublime formalism of Cais,
son of Sad, who would not shift his head an inch from the place
of his prostration, though a huge serpent lifted its fangs close to
his face and finally coiled itself round his neck. And if some are
formal, certainly many are very much in earnest."[157]

Ablutions. The ablutions have not been imposed as burdens, or as
having any mysterious merit, but merely as a measure of
cleanliness.
"God desireth not to lay a burden upon you, but he desireth to
purify you."
41. (4) The Koran seems fully aware of the danger of the
Koran both abstract precise and fixed system of positive precepts moulding
and concrete in

morals. and regulating every department of life. The danger is
that the system of formalism in which men are tied down
to the performance of certain religious functions, minutely and precisely
fixed in respect to time, place and manner, so that neither less nor more is
required of them, retains too tight a grip upon them, when the
circumstances which justified it have changed or vanished away. The moral
growth of those who live under such a system of minute and punctilious
restraint is stunted and retarded. The tendency of mankind to formalism is
so strong that they very commonly, though often unconsciously, fall into the
error of imagining that there is a peculiar intrinsic merit and virtue in the
mere discharge of those prescribed forms of duties and religious
ceremonies. Morality is with them not in the abstract but in the concrete, as
consisting of a mass of religious observances, rather than of a certain
disposition of heart towards God and man. The Koran deals with vice and
virtue as a whole as well as in fragmentary details. It treats of inward
motives as much as of outward practice, of exhortations equally with
precepts and commands. It holds up before man the hatefulness and
ugliness of vice as a whole. It does not enclose the whole of the practical
morality and piety within the narrow compass of a fixed number of
precepts. It lays the foundation of that far-reaching charity which regards all
men as equal in the sight of God, and recognizes no distinction of races and
classes.
120. "And abandon the semblance of wickedness and
wickedness itself. They, verily, whose only acquirement is
iniquity shall be repaid for what they have gained."
152. "Say: Come, I will rehearse what your Lord hath made
binding on you, that ye assign not aught to Him as sharers of his
Divine honour, and that ye be good to your parents; and that ye
slay not your children because of poverty, for them and for you
will We provide; and that ye come not near to pollutions,
outward or inward; and that ye slay not anyone whom God hath
forbidden you, unless for a just cause. This hath He enjoined on
you: haply ye will understand."—Sura VI.

31. "Say: Only hath my Lord forbidden filthy actions, whether
open or secret, and iniquity, and unjust violence, and to
associate with God that for which He hath sent down no
warranty, and to speak of God that of which ye have no
knowledge."—Sura VII.
33. "To those who avoid great crimes and scandals, but commit
only lighter faults, verily, thy Lord will be rich in forgiveness.
He well knew you when He produced you out of the earth, and
when ye were embryos in your mothers' womb. Assert not then
your own purity. He best knoweth who feareth him."—Sura
LIII.
13. "O men! verily We have created you of a male and a female:
and We have divided you into peoples and tribes that ye might
take knowledge one of another. Truly the most worthy of honour
in the sight of God is he who feareth Him most. Verily God is
Knowing, Cognizant."—Sura XLIX.
143. "And every nation has a quarter of the Heavens. It is God
who turneth them towards it: hasten then emulously after good:
wheresover ye be, God will one day bring you all together:
verily God is all powerful."—Sura II.
52. "And to thee We have sent down the Book of the Koran with
truth, confirmatory of previous scripture and its safeguard.
Judge therefore between them by what God hath sent down, and
follow not their desires, after the truth which hath come unto
thee. To everyone of you have We given a rule and an open
way."
53. "And if God had pleased He had surely made you all one
people; but He would test you by what He hath given to each.
Be emulous then in good deeds. To God do ye all return, and He
will tell you concerning the subjects of your disputes."—Sura V.
127 "And vie in haste for pardon from your Lord, and a
Paradise, vast as the Heavens and the Earth, prepared for the

God-fearing."
128. "Who gives alms, alike in prosperity and in distress, and
who master their anger, and forgive others! And God loveth the
doer of good."
129. "And who, after they have done a base deed or committed a
wrong against their own souls, remember God and implore
forgiveness of their sins—and who can forgive sins but God
only?—and persevere not in what they have willingly done
amiss."—Sura III.
21. "Vie in hasting after pardon from your Lord, and Paradise—
whose outspread is as the outspread of the Heaven and of the
Earth. Prepared is it for those who believed in God and his
apostles. Such is the bounty of God: to whom He will He giveth
it: and of immense bounty is God!"—Sura LII.
183. "Ye shall assuredly be tried in your possessions and in
yourselves. And many hurtful things shall ye assuredly hear
from those to whom the scriptures were given before you, and
from those who join other gods with God. But if ye be steadfast
and fear God, then this verily is God's decree for the affairs of
life."—Sura III.
16. "O my son! observe prayer and enjoin the right and forbid
the wrong, and be patient under whatever shall betide thee:
verily this is a bounden duty."—Sura XXXI.
38. "Yet let the recompense of evil be only a like evil; but he
who forgiveth and maketh peace, shall find his reward for it
from God; verily He loveth not those who act unjustly."
39. "And there shall be no way open against those who, after
being wronged, avenge themselves."
40. "Only shall there be a way open against those who unjustly
wrong others, and act insolently on the earth in disregard of
justice. These! a grievous punishment doth await them."

41. "And whoso beareth wrongs with patience and forgiveth,—
this verily is a bounden duty."—Sura XLII.

Adaptability of the 42. (5) The Koran keeps pace with the most fully and
Koran to rapidly-developing civilization, if it is rationally
surrounding
circumstances. interpreted, not as expounded by the Ulema in the
Common Law Book and enforced by the sentiment of a
nation. It is only the Mohammadan Common Law, with all its traditions or
oral sayings of the Prophet,—very few of which are genuine reports, and
the supposed chimerical concurrence of the learned Moslem Doctors and
mostly their analogical reasonings (called Hadees, Ijma, and Kias), passed
under the name of Fiqah or Shariat, that has blended together the spiritual
and the secular, and has become a barrier in some respects regarding certain
social and political innovations for the higher civilization and progress of
the nation. But the Koran is not responsible for this all.
Mr. Stanley Lane Poole writes:—
"The Korān does not contain, even in outline, the elaborate ritual
and complicated law which now passes under the name of
Islam. It contains merely those decisions which happened to be
called for at Medina. Mohammad himself knew that it did not
provide for every emergency, and recommended a principle of
analogical deduction to guide his followers when they were in
doubt. This analogical deduction has been the ruin of Islam.
Commentators and Jurists have set their nimble wits to work to
extract from the Korān legal decisions which an ordinary mind
could never discover there; and the whole structure of modern
Mohammadanism has been built upon the foundation of sand.
The Koran is not responsible for it."[158]
I can only differ from the above in the allegation that Mohammad
recommended a principle of analogical deduction.
43. Thus the system of religious and moral teaching of
Suitability of the the Koran admirably suits the lower and the higher
Koran to all classes
of humanity. forms of humanity. The precepts which regulate some

department of social life, moral conduct, and religious ceremonial are
blessings to the barbarous; and that portion of the Koran which inculcates
large principles, for the due application of which much must be left to the
individual conscience, suits the same people when they begin to emerge
from their barbarism under its influence into a higher condition, or to those
already possessing the higher forms of civilization. For instance, the
command to give full measure, to weigh with just balance, to abstain from
wine and gambling, and to treat persons with kindness are intended for men
not reaching the high forms of civilization. The teachings of the Koran
regarding the graces of truth, honesty and temperance and mercy, the
virtues of meekness, and the stress laid upon thoughts and inclinations are
fit to instruct persons who have attained the higher forms of civilization,
and have outgrown the need of positive precepts of minute detail.
C. Ali.

Hyderabad,
Deccan,
March 1884.

FOOTNOTES
[1] "He now occupied a position where he might become the agent for executing
the divine sentence, and at the same time triumphantly impose the true religion
on those who had rejected it." The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, page 211.
London, 1877. (New Edition.)
"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the
Prophet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance. Persecuted no
longer, Mohammad becomes a persecutor himself; with the Koran in one hand,
and scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to the nations the three-fold
alternative of conversion, tribute, death."—Mohammed and Mohammedanism,
by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith, page 137. Second Edition.
[2] See Sura XXIV, verse 54.

[3] The idea of forbearance on the part of the Koreish, as entertained by Sir W.
Muir, is not borne out by their former conduct of persecuting the believers and
pursuing the fugitives among them. He says: "Mahomet and Abu Bakr trusted
their respective clans to protect their families from insult. But no insult or
annoyance of any kind was offered by the Coreish. Nor was the slightest attempt
made to detain them; although it was not unreasonable that they should have

been detained as hostages against any hostile incursion from Medina"[A]. They
were contemplating a grand pursuit and attack on the Moslems, and had no
reason to detain the families of Mahomet and Abu Bakr as hostages whilst they
could not think that the Moslems will take the initiative, as they were too glad to
escape and live unmolested.
[A] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol II, page 265.

[4] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 255, foot-note. This note has been
expunged in the New Edition of "The Life": Vide page 317.
[5] 5. "Remember how thy Lord caused thee to go forth from thy home on a
mission of truth, and verily a part of the believers were quite averse to it."
6. "They disputed with thee about the truth after it had been made clear, as if
they were being led forth to death and saw it before them." Sura VIII.
[6] 43. "When ye were encamped on the near side of the valley, and they were
on the further side, and the caravan was below you, if ye have made an
engagement to attack, ye would assuredly have failed the engagement; but ye
were led into action notwithstanding, that God might accomplish the thing
destined to be done." Sura VIII.

[7] Muir's Life of Mahomet. New Edition, page 226.
[8] "And remember when God promised you that one of the two troops should
fall to you, and ye desired that they who had no arms should fall to you: but God
purposed to prove true the truth of his words, and to cut off the uttermost part of
the infidels."
[9] "But if they seek to deal treacherously with thee—they have already dealt
treacherously with God before! Therefore hath He given you power over them."
[10] "Will ye not do battle with a people who have broken their covenant and
aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will you dread them?"

[11] Bani Ashja, Murra Fezárá, Suleim, Sád, Asad, and several clans of
Ghatafán, the Jews of Wady-al-Koraa and Khyber.
[12] A party of Moslems at Zil Kassa was slain, and Dihya, sent by Mohammad
to the Roman Emperor, on his return, was robbed of every thing by the Bani
Juzám beyond Wady-al-Kora.
[13] The Jews at Khyber were enticing the Bani Fezárá and Bani Sad-bin-Bakr
and other Bedouin tribes to make depredations upon Medina.
[14] Ibn Hisham, p. 746.

[15] Ibid. 745, see Sura XLVIII.
[16] Mohammad had gained over some of the Bedouin tribes in the direction of
Mecca, and were on friendly terms with him. At this time they were summoned

by Mohammad to join him if there be a war. They did not join him except a very
few.
[17] The Bani Khozáa are also taken notice of in Sura VIII, verses 73-74.

[18] The Bani Bakr, son of Abd Monát, were a branch of Kinána of the Moaddite
stock.
[19] The Jews of Macna Azrúh and Jabra, and the Christian Chiefs of Ayla and
Dúma.
[20] The biographers have only compiled or arranged the mass of popular
romances and favourite tales of campaigns, which had become stereotyped in
their time, but were for the most part the inventions of a playful fantasy.
[21] Musa-bin-Akba (died 141 A.H.)

[22] Ibn Sád and Ibn Is-hak as already alluded to.
[23] "Decline and Fall, Chap. 1."
[24] The Life of Mahomet, founder of the religion of Islamism and of the
Empire of the Saracens, by the Rev. Samuel Green, page 126: London, 1877.
[25] Mohammad's instruction to Abdal-Rahman was—"In no case shalt thou use
deceit or perfidy, nor shalt thou kill any child."—Muir, Vol. IV, p. 11.

[26] 'Quoted by Dr. Cazenove,' "Christian Remembrancer," January, 1855, page
71, from Caussin de Perceval. Mohammed & Mohammedanism. By R.
Bosworth Smith, Second Edn., pp. 257 & 258. London, 1876.
[27] An History of Mohammedanism; comprising the Life and Character of the
Arabian Prophet; by Charles Mills, page 27. London 1818.
[28] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxxvii. London, 1861.
[29] Sir W. Muir doubts the intense hatred and bitter cruelty attributed by
tradition to the Koreish, and says: "In accordance with this view is the fact that
the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were solely on the part of Mahomet and
his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and
plundered and blood had thus been shed that the people of Mecca were forced in
self-defence to resort to arms." The Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, page 265, foot-
note. London, 1861. This note disappears in the new edition of 1877. In his work
"The Coran," page 24, London, 1878, Sir W. Muir says: "The caravans of Mecca
offered a tempting opportunity for reprisals, and several expeditions were
organized against them."

[30] Mr. G. Sale writes: "He gave out that God had allowed him and his
followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces
increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them." The
Prelim. Dis. Sect. 11. Mr. Henry Coppée writes regarding Mohammad: "But he
soon found that he must take up arms in self defence, and in the thirteenth year
of his mission, he announced that God permitted him not only to fight in his self-

defence, but to propagate his religion by the sword." History of the Conquest of
Spain by the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppée. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But
Dr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely defensive.
He writes:—"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of God, the law to
fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions; and this became
henceforth the watchword of his bloody religion." The Life of Mohammad, p.
207: Allahabad, 1851.
[31] M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International Law, holds: "A war
undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war, notwithstanding that it may
be militarily offensive." The International Law, by William Edward Hall, M.A.,
Oxford, 1880, page 320.

[32] Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T. Abdy, LL.D.,
Second Edition, page 144.
[33] The Life of Mahomet from original sources, by Sir W. Muir, LL.D. New
Edition, page 68, London, 1877. See also page 57 of the same.
[34] I do not mean to say that flourishing under persecution is a convincing
proof of the divine origin of a religion. Not that a religion established by force is
altogether of human invention. Almost all religions are divine however they may
have been established, but flourishing under opposition and persecution is a
natural course. Christianity suffered from persecutions and other harrowing evils
for 300 years, after which time it was established, and paganism abolished by
public authority, which has had great influence in the propagation of the one and
destruction of the other ever since.
[35] "The severity and injustice of the Cureish, overshooting the mark, aroused
personal and family sympathies; unbelievers sought to avert or to mitigate the
sufferings of the followers of the Prophet; and in so doing they were sometimes
themselves gained over to his side." The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir,
Second Edition, page 68.

[36] Among them were the representatives of the following tribes or clans of the
Koreish, the Háshimites, Omiyyiads, Bani Abd Shams, Bani Asad, Bani Abd bin
Kosáyy, Bani Abd-ud-Dár, Bani Zohrá, Bani Taym bin Morra, the
Mukwhumites, the Jomahites, and the Bani Sahm. Vide Sprenger, page 190,
Allahabad, 1851.
[37] Vide Hishamee, page 259. An allusion to these converts may be found in
Sura V, verses 85 and 86, if it does not refer to those of Najrán.
[38] He preached to the following tribes among others:—Bani Aamr bin Sasaa,
Bani Mohárib, Bani Hafasa (or Khafasa), Bani Fezára, Bani Ghassán, Bani Kalb,
Bani Háris, Bani Kab, Bani Ozra, Bani Murra, Bani Hanifa, Bani Suleim, Bani
Abs, Bani Nazr, Bani Bakka, Bani Kinda, and Bani Khozaimah.
[39] "There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of Mahomet to Tâyif; a
solitary man, despised and rejected by his own people, going boldly forth in the
name of God,—like Jonah to Nineveh—and summoning an idolatrous city to

repentance and to the support of his mission. It sheds a strong light on the
intensity of his own belief in the divine origin of his calling."—The Life of
Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. II, page 207.
[40] The Arabs also had a similar clan named Bani Shaitán, a clan of the Hinzala
tribe, the descendants of Tamim, through Zeid Monat of the Moaddite stock. The
Bani Shaitán (the children of Satan) dwelt near Kúfa.—Vide Qalqashandi's
Dictionary of Arab Tribes.

[41] Sura XLVI, verses 28, 29. These people were from Nisibin and Nineveh in
Mesopotamia. They were Chaldeans, soothsayers, and cabalists. In the book of
Daniel the Chaldeans are classed with magicians and astronomers, and evidently
form a sort of the priest class who have a peculiar "tongue" and "learning" (Dan.
I. 4). In Arabic, persons of similar professions were called Kahins. Some of this
class of people pretended to receive intelligence of what was to come to pass
from certain satans or demons, whom they alleged to hear what passed in the
heavens. Others pretended to control the stars by enchanting them. They
produced eclipses of the sun and moon by their alleged efficiency in their own
enchantments. They practised astrology as well as astronomy and fortune-telling.
It appears that the Chaldeans (Kaldai or Kaldi) were in the earliest times merely
one out of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting the great alluvial plain known
afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia. In process of time as the Kaldi grew in
power, their name prevailed over that of the other tribes inhabiting the country;
and by the era of the Jewish captivity it had begun to be used generally for all
the inhabitants of Babylonia. It had thus come by this time to have two senses,
both ethnic: in the one, it was the special appellative of a particular race to
whom it had belonged from the remotest times; in the other, it designated the
nation at large in which the race was predominant. Afterwards it was transferred
from an ethnic to a mere restricted sense, from the name of a people to that of a
priest caste or sect of philosophers. The Kaldi proper belonged to the Cushite
race. While both in Assyria and in Babylonia, the sernitic type of speech
prevailed for special purposes, the ancient Cushite dialect was purely reserved
for scientific and religious literature. This is no doubt the "learning" and the
"tongue" to which reference is made in the Bible (Dan. I. 4). It became gradually
inaccessible to the great mass of people who had emigrated by means, chiefly, of
Assyrian influence. But it was the Chaldean learning in the old Chaldean or
Cushite language. Hence all who studied it, whatever their origin or race, were,
on account of their knowledge, termed Chaldeans. In this sense Daniel himself,
"the master of Chaldeans" (Dan. V. 11.), would, no doubt, have been reckoned
among them, and so we find Seleucas, a Greek, called a Chaldean by Strabo
(XVI. 1, § 6). The Chaldeans were really a learned class, who by their
acquaintance with the language of science became its depositaries. They were
priests, magicians or astronomers, as their preference for one or other of those
occupations inclined them; and in the last of these three capacities they probably
effected discoveries of great importance. The Chaldeans, it would appear,
congregated into bodies forming what we may perhaps call universities, and they
all engaged together in it for their progress. They probably mixed up to some
extent astrology with their astronomy, even in the earlier times, but they

certainly made great advance in astronomical science to which their serene sky
and transparent atmosphere specially invited them. In later times they seem
certainly to have degenerated into mere fortune-tellers (vide Smith's Dict. of the
Bible, Art. Chaldeans).
In their practice of astromancy or enchanting the stars, and in pretending to
overhear what passed in the heavens, they, the Jinns, used to sit on the tops of
lofty mansions at night-time for hours offering sacrifices to the stars and
enchanting them. In their peculiar tongue and learning they called this practice
"stealing a hearing" and "sitting for listening" (Suras XV, verse 17, and LXXII,
verses 8, 9).

Now at the time of Mohammad's assuming the Prophet's office there had been an
unusually grand display of numerous falling stars, which at certain periods are
known to be specially abundant. At the same time there were good many comets
visible in different parts of heavens, which certainly might have smitten with
terror these Jinns, i.e., the astromancers and soothsayers. There was one comet
visible in 602 A.D., and other two appeared in 605 A.D. In 607 A.D. two more
comets were visible; another one appeared in 608 A.D. Each of the years 614
and 615 had one comet. There were also comets visible in 617 A.D. (vide
Chambers's Descriptive Astronomy). These comets are most probably noticed in
the contemporary record (i.e. the Koran). A comet is called Tariq, or "night
comer," in Sura LXXXVI, verse 1; and described as the star of piercing
radiance. (Annajmus Saqib. Ibid 3.)
The Kahins were very much alarmed at the stupendous phenomena of the falling
stars and the comets; and had stopped their soothsaying and divinations.
Whenever they used to sit on their places of listening, enchanting, and divination
during night-time, looking at the heavens, their eyes met with showers of
shooting stars and brilliant comets which bewildered them very much. It is said
that the first whose attention was attracted to the unusual shooting stars was a
clan of the Sakeefites of Us-Tayif (Ibn Hisham, page 131). These Jinns, when
they were converted to Islam at Nakhla near Tayif, expressed their bewilderment
from the unusual shower of falling stars and the appearance of numerous comets
in their peculiar language:—
"The heaven did we essay but found it filled with mighty garrison and of darting
flames."
"We sat on some of the seats to listen, but whoever now listeneth findeth a
darting flame in ambush for him."

"We know not whether evil be meant for them that are on earth, or whether their
Lord meaneth true guidance for them."—Sura LXXII, verses 8-10.
So the pretenders of hearing the discourses of heavenly bodies being quite
harassed by the extraordinary showers of the falling stars, and the appearances of
numerous comets, had stopped their divination. This was taken notice of in the
Koran:—
"They overhear not exalted chiefs, and they are darted from every side."

"Driven off and consigned to a lasting torment; while if one steal by stealth then
a glistering flame pursueth him."—Sura XXXVII, verses 8-10.
"Save such as steal a hearing, and him do visible flames pursue."—Sura XV,
verse 18.

"The satans were not sent down with this Koran. It beseemed them not, and they
had not the power. For they are far removed from the hearing."—Sura XXVI,
verses 210-212.
As an instance of terror and bewilderment caused by meteors and shooting stars
among credulous people, I will quote the following anecdote:
About the middle of the tenth century an epidemic terror of the end of the world
had spread over Christendom. The scene of the last judgment was expected to be
in Jerusalem.
In the year 999 the number of pilgrims proceeding eastwards, to await the
coming of the Lord in that city, was so great that they were compared to a
desolating army. During the thousandth year the number of pilgrims increased.
Every phenomenon of nature filled them with terror. A thunderstorm sent them
all upon their knees. Every meteor in the sky seen at Jerusalem brought the
whole Christian population into the streets to weep and pray. The pilgrims on the
road were in the same alarm. Every shooting star furnished occasion for a
sermon, in which the sublimity of the approaching judgment was the principal
topic (vide Extraordinary Popular Delusions by Charles Mackay, LL.D., London,
pp. 222 and 223).

It was a conceit or imposture of the Kahins to pretend that their demons had
access to the outskirts of the heavens, and by assiduous eavesdropping secured
some of the secrets of the upper world and communicated the same to the
soothsayers or diviners upon earth. The Jews had a similar notion of the demons
(schedim), learning the secrets of the future by listening behind the veil
(pargôd). The Koran falsified them in their assertions. It says that the heavens
(or the stars) are safe and protected against the eavesdropping (or enchantments)
of the soothsayers.
"We have set the signs of Zodiac in the heavens, and we have decked them forth
for the bewilders."
"And we guard them from every stoned satan."—Sura XV, verses 16, 17.
"Verily we have adorned the lower heaven with the adornment of the stars;"

"And we have guarded them against every rebellious satan."—Sura XXXVII,
verses 6, 7.
" ... And we have furnished the lower heaven with lights and have protected
it...."—Sura XLI, verse 11.
The Koran further says that the soothsayers impart to their votaries or to those
who go to consult them what they have heard from other people and are liars:—

"They impart what they have heard, but most of them are liars."—Sura XXVI,
verse 223.
It is nowhere said in the Koran that the stars are darted or hurled at the Satans.
Sura LXVII, verse 5, literally means, "of a surety we have decked the lower
heaven with lights and have made them to be (means of) 'Rojúm' conjectures to
the (or for the) devils, i.e. the astrologer." The primary meaning of Rajm is a
thing that is thrown or cast like a stone: pl. 'Rojúm,' but it generally means
speaking of that which is hidden, or conjecturing or speaking by conjecture, as in
Sura XVIII, verse 21. In Sura XIX, verse 47, the word "La-arjomannaka" has
been explained both ways, meaning (1) "I will assuredly cast stones at thee," and
(2) "I will assuredly say of thee, (though) speaking of that which is hidden (from
me) or unknown (by me), what thou dislikest or hatest." Vide Lane's Arabic-
English Lexicon, page 1048.

[42] "After five centuries of Christian evangelization, we can point to but a
sprinkling here and there of Christian converts;—the Bani Hârith of Najrân: the
Bani Hanîfa of Yemâma; some of the Bani Tay at Tayma, and hardly any more.
Judaism, vastly more powerful, had exhibited a spasmodic effort of proselytizm
under Dzu Nowâs; but, as an active and converting agent the Jewish faith was no
longer operative."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, page ccxxxix.
[43] The Aws or Khazraj were two branches of the Azdite tribes of Yemen from
the Kahlanite stock. After their emigration to the North they separated
themselves from the Ghassinides and returned to Medina, where they settled.
[44] The same remarks apply to the wars fought during Mohammad's lifetime
but before his public mission.
[45] The Bani Aslam tribe settled north of Medina in the valley of Wady-al-
Koraa. They were a branch of the Kozaaite tribes descended from Himyar.

[46] Joheina were a branch of Kozaa, the descendants of Himyar. This tribe
inhabited in the vicinity of Yenbo, north of Medina.
[47] Mozeina were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Mecca. They inhabited in
Najd, north-east of Medina.
[48] Ghifár were sons of Moleil-bin-Zamra, the descendants of Kinána, one of
the Moaddite tribes.
[49] Saad-bin-Bakr were a branch of Hawazin. Mohammad had been nursed
among them.

[50] The Bani Ashja were a branch of the Ghatafán of the Meccan stock of the
Moaddites. The Bani Ashja appear all to have been hostile to Mohammad. They
fought against the Prophet at the siege of Medina with four hundred warriors in
their contingent. Sir W. Muir says, "The Bani Ashjâ, who had joined in the siege
of Medina, gave in their adhesion shortly after the massacre of the Coreitza; they
told Mahomet that they were so pressed by his warring against them, that they
could stand out no longer.—K. Wackidi, page 60." Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol.

IV, 107, footnote. This story is altogether false. We never hear of Mohammad
warring against Bani Ashja; on the contrary, they had themselves invaded
Medina.
[51] The Bani Ash-ár inhabited Jedda. They were of the Kahlánite stock, the
descendants of Al-Azd.

[52] The Bani Khushain were a clan of Kozaá, of Himiarite stock.
[53] The Bani Dous belong to the Azdite tribe of the stock of Kahtán. They lived
at some distance south of Mecca. They had joined Mohammad at Khyber.
[54] These were the sub-tribes of Ghatafán of the Meccan stock. The chief
families of Ghatafán were the Bani Ashja, Zobian, and the Bani Abs. Murra and
Fezára were the branches of Zobian. They all inhabited Najd. Uyenia, the chief
of the Bani Fezára, had committed an inroad upon Medina in A.H. 6. In the same
year the Bani Fezára had waylaid a Medina caravan and plundered it.
[55] The Bani Suleim, a branch of the Bani Khasafa and a sister tribe to
Hawázin, who lived near Mecca, and in whose charge, Mohammad, when but an
infant, was placed, were also a tribe of the Meccan stock descended through
Khasafa from Mozar and Moádd. Bani Suleim, like Bani Murra and Fezára,
branches of Ghatafán, had long continued to threaten Mohammad with attacks.
The Bani Suleim having joined Aamir bin Tofeil, chief of Bani Aamir, a branch
of the tribe of Hawázin with their clans Usseya, Ril, and Zakawán, had cut to
pieces a party of Moslem missionaries at Bir Mauna, invited by Abu Bera Amr
ibn Málik, a chief of the Bani Aamir, who had pledged for their security. The
Bani Suleim had joined also the Koreish army at the siege of Medina. In the
seventh year, they had slain another body of Moslem missionaries sent to them.

[56] The Bani Ozra were a tribe of Kozaá, like Joheina. They, together with the
Bani Bali and Juzám, inhabited the north of Arabia in the part of the territory
belonging to Ghassan. The family of Himyar, descendants from Kahtán in
Yemen, had flourished through the line of Kozaá, the Bani Ozza, Joheina and
other important tribes to the north of the Peninsula on the border of Syria. It has
been quoted by Sir W. Muir from Katib Wakidi that the chief of the Bani Juzám
carried back to them a letter from Mohammad to this tenor: "Whoever accepteth
the call of Islam, he is among the confederates of the Lord; whoever refuseth the
same, a truce of two months is allowed for him for consideration." (Muir's Life
of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 107, foot-note). The words "for consideration" are not in
the original Arabic.—Vide Ibn Hisham, p. 963. It is not clear what was meant by
the two months' truce he was advised to give them, to make terms before he
could commence hostilities, if the tradition for which there is no authority be
true. This has nothing to do with their compulsory conversions.
[57] Salaba was a branch of the Zobián.
[58] The Bani Abd-ul-Kays are a Moaddite tribe, the descendants of Rabia. They
inhabited Bahrein on the Persian Gulf.

[59] The Bani Tamim were branch of Tábikha, a tribe of the Moaddite stock of
Mecca and a sister tribe of Mozeina. They are famous in the history of Najd, a
province north-east of Medina, from the confines of Syria to Yemen. Some of
these branches were with Mohammad at the expeditions to Mecca and Honain.
All the branches of the tribes that had not yet embraced Islam were now
converted.
[60] The Bani Asad ibn Khozeima were a powerful tribe residing near the hill of
Katan in Najd. They were of the Moaddite tribe of the Meccan stock. Tuleiba,
their chief, had assembled a force of cavalry and rapid camel-drivers to make a
raid upon Medina in A.H. 4. They were dispersed by the Moslems. In the next
year they joined the Koreish in the siege of Medina.

[61] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 136. Those who had
newly joined the Moslem Camp at Mecca to repel the threatening gathering of
Hawázin, and those of them who preferred submission to the authority of
Mohammad, are called by Sir W. Muir "his new converts." (IV., 149). But in fact
they were not called believers. They are called simply Muallafa Qolubohum in
the Koran (IX., 60) which means whose hearts are to be won over.
[62] Okáz between Táyif and Nakhla. Mujanna in the vicinity of Marr-al Zahrán,
and Zul-Majáz behind Arafat, both near Mecca.
[63] "From time immemorial, tradition represents Mecca as the scene of a yearly
pilgrimage from all quarters of Arabia:—from Yemen, Hadhramaut and the
shores of the Persian Gulph, from the deserts of Syria, and from the distant
environs of Híra and Mesopotamia."—Muir, I, ccxi.
[64] Sir W. Muir thinks: "The possession of Mecca now imparted a colour of
right to his pretensions; for Mecca was the spiritual centre of the country, to
which the tribes from every quarter yielded a reverential homage. The conduct
of the annual pilgrimage, the custody of the holy house, the intercalation of the
year, the commutation at will of the sacred months,—institutions which affected
all Arabia,—belonged by ancient privilege to the Coreish and were now in the
hands of Mahomet.... Moreover, it had been the special care of Mahomet artfully
to interweave with the reformed faith all essential parts of the ancient
ceremonial. The one was made an inseparable portion of the other."—The Life
of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 169. But the remaining tribes who had not hitherto
embraced Islam, and the chiefs of the Southern and Eastern Arabia, did not adopt
Islam, because Mohammad possessed Mecca, a position of no political
supremacy. No paramount authority throughout the Peninsula had ever been
vested in the chief who possessed Mecca. Mohammad on the surrender of Mecca
had abolished all the idolatrous institutions which might have served as political
or social inducements to the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam. The intercalation of
the year and commutation of the sacred months were cancelled for ever in the
plain words of the Koran: "Verily, twelve months is the number of months with
God, according to God's book, since the day when He created the Heavens and
the earth, of these, four are sacred; this is the right usage." ... "To carry over a
sacred month to another is an increase of unbelief only. They who do not believe

are led into error by it. They allow it one year and forbid it another, that they
may make good the number of months which God hath hallowed, and they allow
that which God hath prohibited. The evil of their deeds hath been prepared for
them by Satan; for God guideth not the people who do not believe."—Sura IX,
verses 36, 37. The custody of the house was no more an office of honour or
privilege. The ancient ceremonial of pilgrimage was not interwoven with the
reformed faith. The rites of Kaaba were stripped of every idolatrous tendency.
And the remaining and essential part of the pilgrimage was depreciated. "By no
means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their blood; but piety on your part
reacheth Him."—Sura XXII, verse 38. And after all the idolaters were not
allowed to enter it. "It is not for the votaries of other gods with God, witnesses
against themselves of infidelity, to visit the temples of God."—Sura IX, verse
28. Sir W. Muir himself says regarding Mohammad: "The rites of Kaaba were
retained, but stripped by him of every idolatrous tendency; and they still hang, a
strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of Islam."—Vol. I, Intro., p.
ccxviii.
[65] For these deputations see Ibn Is-hak (died 151), Hishamee (died 213), Ibn
Sad (died 213), Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, Chap. 30th, Seerat Shámí (died
942), and Halabí (died 1044). For the genealogies of these tribes consult
Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Tribes, and Ibn Khaldún's History. Regarding the
geographical positions of these tribes the reader is referred to the most valuable
map of Arabia in Sir W. Muir's Annals of Early Caliphate, London 1882.

[66] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 181 and 226.
[67] A branch of Hawázin and sister tribe of the Sakeef inhabited the province of
Najd and were of the Moaddite stock. The tribe had taken little share with the
rest of the Bani Hawázin at the battle of Honain against the Moslems A.H. 8.
The famous poet Lebid, author of one of the Moallakas, belonged to that tribe.
[See the Life of Lebid from Ketab-ul-Aghani, in an article on the Moallaqah by
Lebid, by C.J. Lyall, C.S., in the Journals of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 1,
1877, pp. 62-76: Calcutta.]
[68] Bani Abd-ul-Kays from Bahrein. The tribe has been described at page 47.
There were many persons in the embassy. They were Christians before they
embraced Islam.
[69] Descended from Anmár of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen.

[70] A sub-tribe of Asad, descendants of Rabia of the Moaddite stock. These are
the Aneze of Burkhardt.
[71] Already described at p. 47. The rest of them now embraced Islam. It is said
that Sura xlix, 17, refers to them.
[72] Bani Azd (Shanovah) from Yemen. This tribe was a portion of the Azdite
tribe left at Yemen at the time of the northern emigration of Azd. They were a
branch of Kahtan of the Kahtanite stock. In their emigration northward from
Yemen they resided a long time in Hijaz at Batn Murr near Mecca. In their
journey further on to the north of Syria, leaving Kozaa, they changed their name

to Ghassán from their long residence, by the way, near a fountain of that name.
The tribes Aus and Khazraj had separated afterwards from these Ghassanides,
and settled at Yathrib, afterwards known as Medina. One Surad was the chief of
the embassy of Azd from Yemen to Mohammad at Medina. Sir W. Muir says:
"This person was recognized by Mahomet as the ruler of his clan, and
commission was given to him to war against the heathen tribes in his
neighbourhood." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 219.) The Arabic word
"yojáhid," in the original biographies, only means "to strive," and does not mean
"to make war," as understood by Sir W. Muir. He has himself translated the same
word as "striving" in Vol. III, page 32. At page 265 of the same volume he
translates it by "to do utmost." I have discussed the subject in full in Appendix
A. of this work.
[73] Another branch of the Azd described above.

[74] Bani Báhila, otherwise called Sáad Manát, descendants of Ghatafán of the
Moaddite stock.
[75] Bani Bahra (bin Amr bin Al-Háf bin Kozaá), who were a branch of the
Kozaá of the Himyarite stock, had emigrated to the north, and settled in the
Ghassanide territory.
[76] Bani Bajíla, a sister of Khas-am and descendants of Anmar bin Nizar of the
Kahtanite stock. They inhabited Yemen. The Bajíla after professing Islam had
destroyed the famous image of Kholasa.
[77] A branch of Bani Aamir bin Sáasáa in the centre of Arabia.

[78] They lived about Yemama and the shores of the Persian Gulf. They were
one of the Moaddite tribes. The war of Basus between Bani Bakr and their sister
tribe Bani Taghlib had lasted for forty years. There have been famous poets in
the Bani Bakr tribe, among whom are Tarafa, Haris bin Hiliza, and Maimún Al-
Asha. The Bani Bakr and Bani Tamim were constantly at war, which was
abandoned under the influence of Islam, when both the parties were converted to
it during the lifetime of Mohammad.
[79] They were a branch of the Kozaá from the Himyarite stock, the descendants
of Kahtan, and had settled in the north of Arabia in the Ghassanide territory on
the borders of Syria.
[80] A sub-tribe of Kozaá.
[81] A clan of the tribe of Lakhm.

[82] An Arab of the Bani Juzam in the north of Arabia and Governor of Amman
in the Ghassanide territory announced his conversion to Mohammad by a
despatch in A.H. 8.
[83] They have already been described at page 46. Their deputation waited upon
Mohammad on his return from Tabúk.
[84] Descendants of Anmár of the Kahtanite stock.

[85] A sub-tribe of Azd at Yemen.
[86] Already described under Bani Azd.

[87] Bani Hamadán of the Kahtanite descent. An important tribe in the east of
Yemen.
[88] A Christian branch of the Bani Bakr who inhabited Yemama.
"The account of the embassy of the Bani Hanífa is more decidedly unfavourable
to Christianity, but its details appear of doubtful authority. Moseilama, the false
Prophet, was among the number, and there are some unlikely anticipations of his
sacrilegious claims.
"As the embassy were departing, Mahomet gave them a vessel in which were the
leavings of the water with which he had performed his lustration; and he said,
—'When you reach your country, break down your church, and sprinkle its sight
with this water, and make in its place a mosque'....

"The story appears to me improbable, because nowhere else is Mahomet
represented as exhibiting such antagonism to Christians and their churches when
they submitted themselves to him."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 303-4,
footnote. The author changes his opinion in the fourth volume of his work and
says: "I have there stated (in Vol. II) the story to be improbable. But I am now
inclined to think that during the last year or two of Mahomet's life, there was
quite enough of antagonistic feeling against Christianity as it presented itself in
the profession of the Arab and Syrian tribes to support the narrative."—Life of
Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 218, footnote.
This is a mere presumption on the part of the writer, and there is no proof of
Mohammad's antagonism towards Christianity at any period of his life except
against those who waged war with him. The following verse of the Koran will
show how far I am true:—
"Verily they who believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion,
and the Christians and Sabeites, whoever of those believeth in God and the Last
Day, and doth that which is right shall have their reward with their Lord: Fear
shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved."
[89] Also a Christian tribe in Yemen descended from the Kahtanite stock of the
Bani Madhij, and collateral therefore with Bani Kinda. Two of the embassy, one
of them being Akil or Abd-ul-Masih, the chief of the deputation, adopted Islam.
The rest returned with a full guarantee from Mohammad for the preservation of
their social and religious liberty. Further information regarding the Bani Háris of
Najrán will be found at pp. 48 and 106 of this book.

"Kâtib al Wâckidi, p. 69. The subsequent history of the Najrán Christians is there
traced. They continued in possession of their lands and rights under the treaty
during the rest of Mohammad's life and the whole of Abu Bakr's Caliphate. Then
they were accused of taking usury, and Omar expelled them from the land, and
wrote as follows:—

"The despatch of Omar, the Commander of the Faithful, to the people of Najrán.
Whoever of them emigrates is under the guarantee of God. No Moslem shall
injure them;—to fulfil that which Mahomet and Abu Bakr wrote unto them.
"Now to whomsoever of the chiefs of Syria and Irâc they may repair, let such
chiefs allot them lands, and whatever they cultivate therefrom shall be theirs; it
is an exchange for their own lands. None shall injure or maltreat them; Moslems
shall assist them against oppressors. Their tribute is remitted for two years. They
will not be troubled except for evil deeds.

"Some of them alighted in Irâc, and settled in Najránia near to Cufa.
"That the offence of usury is alleged in justification of this measure appears to
me to disprove the common tradition that a command was said to have been
given by Mahomet on his deathbed for the Peninsula to be swept clear of all
other religions but Islam."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 301-2.
[90] Descendants of the great Ghatafán tribe already described.
[91] Bani Himyar from Yemen. The Himyarites are too well-known to be
described. The Himyarite princes of Ro-en, Mu-afir, Hamadan and Bazan, all of
the Christian faith in Yemen, embraced Islam and announced their conversion by
letter sent to Mohammad through their emissaries which reached him after his
return from Tabúk.

[92] Either a clan of Lakhm, or a branch of Bani Aámir.
[93] A sub-tribe of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already described.
[94] The King of Omán, together with the people of Omán, embraced Islam
during A.H. 8 and 9. The people of Omán were of the Azdite stock.
[95] Already described at page 43.

[96] A branch of Saad-al-Ashira from the Kahtanite stock. This tribe inhabited
Yemen. They had some peculiar prejudice against eating the heart of an animal.
Mohammad had caused their chief to break his superstition, which he did by
making him eat the roasted heart of an animal.
But they returned disgusted when told that his (the chief's) mother who had
committed infanticide was in hell. However they sent another deputation a
second time and finally embraced Islam.
[97] They settled in Dumat-ul-Jundal, now Jal-al-Jowf, north of Arabia. They
were a tribe of the Bani Kozaá descended from Himyar.
[98] A tribe of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen. They lived in a hilly country of that
name in Yemen.

[99] They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock on the coast of Yemen.
[100] A clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa of the Hawázin tribe already
described.

[101] Descendants of Khazima of the Moaddite stock.
[102] The Bani Kinda princes, Vail bin Hijar and Al-Ash-as bin Kays; the
former, the chief of the coast, and the latter, the chief of the Hazaramaut in the
south of Arabia. They with their whole clans embraced Islam. Bani Kinda were a
powerful tribe of the Kahálánite stock.

[103] A clan of Ozra from Kozaá described at page 46.
[104] Descendants of Ghatafán of the Moaddite stock.
[105] They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen, and were a tribe of Muzhie of the
Kahtanite stock.
[106] A branch of the tribe of Aámir bin Sáasáa.

[107] A branch of Zobian.
[108] They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock, residing in Yemen. Their
deputation consisted of two hundred persons. It is said this was the last
deputation received by Mohammad. Some time before this Ali was sent to the
Bani Nakh-a and other tribes of the Mudhij stock in Yemen.
[109] A tribe of Kozaá of the Himyarite stock at Yemen.
[110] A sub-tribe of Kozaá inhabiting Syria described at page 46.

[111] A tribe of Muzhij of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.
[112] They were a clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already described.
[113] A tribe of the Kozaá of the Moaddite stock, and according to some from
Yemen.
[114] Descendants of Hazaramaut of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.

[115] A clan of the Bani Hanifa, descendants of Bakr bin Wail already described.
[116] A clan of the Bani Shaiban, the descendants of Bakr bin Wail already
mentioned.
[117] The Bani Sakeef (Thackif) were a branch of the Mazar tribes of the
Moaddite stock. They were a sub-tribe of the Hawázin and sister tribe to the
Bani Adwán, Ghatafán, and Suleim. They (the Bani Sakeef) lived at Tayif and
worshipped the idol Lat or Táqhia. Orwa, a chief of Tayif, had gone to Medina
to embrace Islam. His first generous impulse was to return to Tayif and invite his
fellow-citizens to share in the blessings imparted by the new faith. Upon his
making public his conversion, he was wounded by a mob and suffered
martyrdom. But he left a favourable impression of Islam at Tayif. Their
deputation consisted of six chiefs with fifteen or twenty followers. The Prophet
received them gladly and pitched a tent for their accommodation in the court of
his mosque. Every evening after supper he paid them there a visit and instructed
them in the faith till it was dark. Sir W. Muir writes:—"The martyrdom of Orwa
compromised the inhabitants of Tayif, and forced to continue the hostile course

they had previously been pursuing. But they began to suffer severely from the
marauding attacks of Bani Hawazin under Malik. That chief, according to his
engagement, maintained the increasing predatory warfare against them."—Life
of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 204. At page 155 he says regarding Malik,—"being
confirmed in his chiefship he engaged to maintain a constant warfare with the
citizens of Tayif." But there was no such engagement with Málik. The authority
(Hishamee) referred to by Sir W. Muir does not speak anything of the alleged
engagement. Vide Hishamee, page 879. Hishamee has only so much that
Mohammad made Malik chief of those who were converted from the tribe.
These were the clans of Somála, Salma, and Fahm, and that he used to fight with
them against the Sakifites. Sir W. Muir further writes that the inhabitants of
Tayif said among themselves: "We have not strength to fight against the Arab
tribe all around that have plighted their faith to Mahomet, and bound themselves
to fight in his cause" (Vol. IV, p. 205). The italics are mine and these words are
not to be found in the original authorities. Hishamee (page 914) has Bayaoo va
Aslamoo, i.e., they have plighted and submitted (or converted to Islam).
[118] Descendants of the Kozaá inhabited the hills of that name (Salámán).

[119] Descendants and branch of Bakr bin Wail.
[120] A tribe of the Kahtanite stock from Yemen.
[121] The Bani Taghlib bin Wail were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Meccan
origin and a sister tribe to the Bani Bakr bin Wail. Their wars are famous in the
annals of Arabia. The war of Basús has been already alluded to under Bani Bakr.
These tribes, the Bani Bakr and Taghlib, were located in Yemama, Bahrein,
Najd, and Tihama, but lastly the Bani Taghlib had emigrated to Mesopotamia
and professed the Christian faith. The members of their deputation to
Mohammad wore golden crosses. When invited to Islam, they did not embrace
it, but promised to allow their children to become Moslems. Mohammad
allowed them to maintain unchanged their profession of Christianity. Their
Christianity was of a notoriously superficial character. "The Taghlib," said Ali,
the fourth Khalif, "are not Christians; they have borrowed from Christianity only
the custom of drinking wine."—Dozy Historie, i, 20.
[122] A clan of Kinda from the sub-tribe of Sakun at Yemen.

[123] The Bani Tamim were descendants of Tabikha bin Elyas of the Moaddite
stock. They are famous in the history of Najd, the northeastern desert of which
from the confines of Syria to Yemama they inhabited. They were at constant
warfare with the Bani Bakr bin Abd Monát, descendants of Kinána of the
Moaddite stock, from 615 to 630 A.D. All the branches of the tribe which had
not yet converted to Islam were now converted in A.H. 9.
[124] The Bani Tay was a great tribe of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen, had
moved northwards, and settled in the mountains of Ajá and Salmá to the north of
Najd and Hijaz and the town of Tyma. They had adopted Christianity, but some
of them were Jews and Pagans. Their intertribal war has been alluded to in para.
26. The whole tribe now embraced Islam. "A deputation from the Bani Tay,

headed by their chief, Zeid-al-Khail, came to Medina to ransom the prisoners,
soon after Ali's expedition. Mahomet was charmed with Zeid, of whose fame
both as a warrior and a poet he had long heard. He changed his name to Zeid al
Kheir (the beneficent), granted him a large tract of country, and sent him away
laden with presents."
Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 178.

[125] They were a branch of Sad-al-Ashirá of the Mazhij tribe of the Kahtanite
stock. They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen.
[126] The rebellion of almost the whole of Arabia—wrongly called apostasy—
after the death of Mohammad was chiefly against the Government of Abu Bakr,
the first Khalifa of the Republic of Islam. No such paramount power over the
whole of Arabia was ever vested in the chiefs of Mecca, and the Arabs were
unaccustomed to this new form of Government. They had neither rebelled
against Islam, nor apostatized from their religion, except a very few of them who
had attached themselves to Moseilama for a short time.
[127] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., page 83.
[128] Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chap. III, page 73.

[129] Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. II, pp. 118-9.
[130] The early followers of Mohammad bore persecutions and exile with
patience and steadfastness; and never recanted. Look to the increasing number of
these early Moslems, their magnanimous forbearance, and the spontaneous
abandonment of their dear homes and relations, and their defending their
Prophet with their blood. The number of Christian believers during the whole
lifetime of Christ was not more than 120 (Act I, 15). They had a material view of
the Messiah's kingdom, and had fled at the first sound of danger. Two of the
disciples when walking to Emmaus observed, "We trusted that it had been He
who should have redeemed Israel," and the apostle asked Jesus after the so-
called resurrection, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?"
"During the periods thus indicated as possible for comparison, persecution and
rejection were the fate of both. But the thirteen years' ministry of Mahomet had
brought about a far greater change to the external eye than the whole lifetime of
Christ. The apostles fled at the first sound of danger, and however deep the inner
work may have been in the 500 by whom our Lord was seen, it had produced as
yet but little outward action. There was among them no spontaneous quitting of
their homes, nor emigration by hundreds, such as distinguished the early
Moslems; nor any rapturous resolution by the converts of a foreign city to
defend the Prophet with their blood."—The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir,
Vol. II, page 274.
[131] "Let us for a moment look back to the period when a ban was proclaimed
at Mecca against all the citizens, whether professed converts or not, who
espoused his cause; when they were shut up in the Sheb or quarter of Abu Tâlib,
and there for three years without prospect of relief endured want and hardship.

Those must have been steadfast and mighty motives which enabled him amidst
all this opposition and apparent hopelessness of success, to maintain his
principles unshaken. No sooner was he relieved from confinement, than,
despairing of his native city, he went forth to Tâyif and summoned its rulers and
inhabitants to repentance; he was solitary and unaided, but he had a message, he
said, from his Lord. On the third day he was driven out of the town with
ignominy, blood trickling from the wounds inflicted on him by the populace. He
retired to a little distance, and there poured forth his complaint to God: then he
returned to Mecca, there to carry on the same outwardly hopeless cause with the
same high confidence in its ultimate success. We search in vain through the
pages of profane history for a parallel to the struggle in which for thirteen years
the Prophet of Arabia in the face of discouragement and threats, rejection and
persecution retained his faith unwavering, preached repentance, and denounced
God's wrath against his godless fellow-citizens. Surrounded by a little band of
faithful men and women, he met insults, menaces, dangers, with a high and
patient trust in the future. And when at last the promise of safety came from a
distant quarter, he calmly waited until his followers had all departed, and then
disappeared from amongst his ungrateful and rebellious people."—Muir, Vol. IV,
pages 314-15.
[132] "That he was the impostor pictured by some writers is refuted alike by his
unwavering belief in the truth of his own mission, by the loyalty and unshaken
confidence of his companions, who had ample opportunity of forming a right
estimate of his sincerity, and finally, by the magnitude of the task which he
brought to so successful an issue. No impostor, it may safely be said, could have
accomplished so mighty a work. No one unsupported by a living faith in the
reality of his commission, in the goodness of his cause, could have maintained
the same consistent attitude through long years of adverse fortune, alike in the
day of victory and in the hour of defeat, in the plenitude of his power and at the
moment of death."—Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, M.A., page 23.

"Of the sincerity of his belief in his own mission there can be no doubt. The
great merit is his that among a people given up to idolatry he rose to a vivid
perception of the Unity of God, and preached this great doctrine with firmness
and constancy, amid ridicule and persecution. But there it seems to me that the
eulogy of the Prophet ought to cease."—Islam under the Arabs by R.D. Osborn.
London 1876, p. 90.
[133] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, LL.D., Vol. II, pp. 269-71.
[134] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 320-21.
[135] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 17-19 & 119.

[136] Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by Rev. W.R.W.
Stephens, pp. 94, 104, 112, London, 1877.
[137] Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by the Rev. W.R.W.
Stephens, pp. 129-30, London, 1877.

[138] "We may readily admit that at the first Mahomet did believe, or persuaded
himself to believe, that his revelations were dictated by a divine agency. In the
Meccan period of his life there certainly can be traced no personal ends or
unworthy motives to belie this conclusion. The Prophet was there, what he
professed to be, 'a simple Preacher and a Warner;' he was the despised and
rejected teacher of a gainsaying people; and he had apparently no ulterior object
but their reformation. Mahomet may have mistaken the right means to effect this
end, but there is no sufficient reason for doubting that he used those means in
good faith and with an honest purpose.
"But the scene altogether changes at Medîna. There the acquisition of temporal
power, aggrandisement, and self-glorification mingled with the grand object of
the Prophet's previous life, and they were sought after and attained by precisely
the same instrumentality. Messages from Heaven were freely brought forward to
justify his political conduct, equally with his religious precepts. Battles were
fought, wholesale executions inflicted, and territories annexed, under pretext of
the Almighty's sanction. Nay, even baser actions were not only excused, but
encouraged by the pretended divine approval or command. A special license was
produced, allowing Mahomet a double number of wives; the discreditable affair
of Mary the Coptic slave was justified in a separate Sura; and the passion for the
wife of his own adopted son and bosom friend was the subject of an inspired
message in which the Prophet's scruples were rebuked by God; a divorce
permitted, and marriage with the object of his unhallowed desires enjoined."—
Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 317-8.

[139] "But the darker shades of character as well as the brighter must be
depicted by a faithful historian. Magnanimity or moderation are nowhere
discernible as features in the conduct of Mahomet towards such of his enemies
as failed to tender a timely allegiance. Over the bodies of the Coreish who fell at
Badr he exulted with savage satisfaction; and several prisoners, accused of no
crime but that of scepticism and political opposition, were deliberately executed
at his command. The prince of Kheibar, after being subjected to inhuman torture
for the purpose of discovering the treasures of his tribe, was, with his cousin, put
to death on the pretext of having treacherously concealed them; and his wife was
led away captive to the tent of the conqueror. Sentence of exile was enforced by
Mahomet with rigorous severity on two whole Jewish tribes at Medîna; and of a
third like his neighbours, the women and children were sold into distant
captivity, while the men amounting to several hundreds were butchered in cold
blood before his eyes.
"In his youth Mahomet earned among his fellows the honourable title of 'the
Faithful.' But in later years, however much sincerity and good faith may have
guided his conduct in respect of his friends, craft and deception were certainly
not wanting towards his foes. The perfidious attack at Nakhla, where the first
blood in the internecine war with the Coreish was shed, although at first
disavowed by Mahomet, for its scandalous breach of the sacred usages of
Arabia, was eventually justified by a pretended revelation. Abu Basîr, the
freebooter, was countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent
with the letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia. The

surprise which secured the easy conquest of Mecca was designed with craftiness,
if not with duplicity. The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and
expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the prophet's
life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause. When Medîna was
beleaguered by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the services of Nueim, a
traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the enemy by false and
treacherous reports; 'for,' said he, 'what else is war but a game at deception?' In
his prophetical career, political and personal ends were frequently compassed by
the flagrant pretence of Divine revelations, which a candid examination would
have shewn him to be nothing more than the counterpart of his own wishes. The
Jewish and Christian systems, at first adopted honestly as the basis of his own
religion, had no sooner served the purpose of establishing a firm authority, than
they were ignored, if not disowned. And what is perhaps worst of all, the
dastardly assassination of political and religious opponents, countenanced and
frequently directed as they were in all their cruel and perfidious details by
Mahomet himself leaves a dark and indelible blot upon his character."—Muir's
Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 307-9.
"The reader will observe that simultaneously with the anxious desire to
extinguish idolatry, and to promote religion and virtue in the world, there was
nurtured by the Prophet in his own heart a licentious self-indulgence; till in the
end, assuming to be the favourite of Heaven, he justified himself by 'revelations'
from God in the most flagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while
Mahomet cherished a kind and tender disposition, 'weeping with them that wept,'
and binding to his person the hearts of his followers by the ready and self-
denying offices of love and friendship, he could yet take pleasure in cruel and
perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of an entire tribe, and
savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of hell."—Muir's Life of
Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 322-3.

[140] "In domestic life the conduct of Mahomet with one grave exception was
exemplary. As a husband his fondness and devotion was entire, bordering,
however, at times upon jealousy. As a father he was loving and tender. In his
youth he is said to have lived a virtuous life. At the age of twenty-five he
married a widow forty years old; and for five and twenty years he was a faithful
husband to her alone. Yet it is remarkable that during this period was composed
most of those passages of the Coran in which the black-eyed Houris, reserved
for believers in Paradise, are depicted in such glowing colours. Shortly after the
death of Khadija the Prophet married again; but it was not till the mature age of
fifty-four that he made the dangerous trial of polygamy, by taking Ayesha, yet a
child, as the rival of Sauda. Once the natural limits of restraint were overpassed,
Mahomet fell an easy prey to his strong passion for the sex. In his fifty-sixth
year he married Haphsa; and the following year, in two succeeding months,
Zeinab bint Khozeima and Omm Salma. But his desires were not to be satisfied
by the range of a harem already greater than was permitted to any of his
followers; rather as age advanced, they were stimulated to seek for new and
varied indulgence. A few months after his nuptials with Zeinab and Omm Salma,
the charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too fully before the

Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his adopted son and bosom
friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she kindled in his breast; and, by
divine command, she was taken to his bed. In the same year he married a seventh
wife, and also a concubine. And at last, when he was full three score years of
age, no fewer than three new wives, besides Mary the Coptic slave, were within
the space of seven months added to his already well-filled harem."—Muir's Life
of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 309-10.
[141] "Vide Muhammad and Muhammadanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith,
M.A., an Assistant Master of Harrow School."

[142] Notes on Muhammadanism, by the Rev. T.P. Hughes, Missionary to the
Afghans, Peshawar; Second Edition, page 4, London, 1877.
[143] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 24 & 25.
[144] Vide pp. 48-61. This work is being printed at Education Society's Press,
Byculla, Bombay. It appears that Dr. Dods, in the first instance, had in view Sura
XXXIII, 51. This is by no means giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which
he himself had proscribed as unlawful. As a preliminary measure to abolish
polygamy and to accustom the people to monogamy, Mohammad, when
reducing the unlimited polygamy practised in Arabia, had put a strong condition
to treat their wives, when more than one, equitably in every sense of the word,—
i.e., in the matter of social comfort, love and household establishment (Sura IV,
3). When the measure had given a monogamous tendency to the Arab society, it
was declared that it was impossible practically to treat equitably in all respects
the contemporary wives (Sura IV, 128), and those who had already contracted
contemporaneous marriage before the measure referred to above was introduced
were absolved from the condition laid down in Sura IV, 3, but were advised,
regarding their then existing wives, not to yield wholly to disinclination.
Similarly Mohammad was also relieved from that condition in Sura XXXIII, 51,
without "giving him any conjugal allowance which he had himself pronounced
unlawful." The second instance is of Zeinab's case I suppose. Zeinab was in no
way, when divorced by Zeid, "a woman forbidden to him by his own laws."
[145] "The Apostle becomes a creature so exalted that even the easy drapery of
Mohammadan morality becomes a garment too tight-fitting for him. 'A peculiar
privilege is granted to him above the rest of the believers.' He may multiply his
wives without stint; he may and he does marry within the prohibited degrees."—
Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, London 1876, p. 91.

[146] Studies in a Mosque, by S.L. Poole, pp. 77 and 80, London, 1880.
[147] Vide Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 229, London,
1878; and Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 122-23,
London, 1878. Major Osborn writes, "But to the polity erected on these rude
lines was given the attribute of finality. In order to enforce obedience and
eliminate the spirit of opposition, Mohammad asserted that it was, down to the
minutest details, the work of a Divine Legislature."—Islam under the Arabs, pp.
45 and 46.

[148] Vide The Faith of Islam, by the Rev. Edward Sell, page 7, London, 1880.
[149] Vide Christianity and Islam, the Bible, and the Koran, by the Rev. W.R.W.
Stephens, pp. 95 and 131, London, 1877.

[150] Vide Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 237; and
Stephens' Christianity and Islam, page 121. Major Osborn writes: "From the
hour of his birth the moslem becomes a member of a system in which every act
of his life is governed by a minute ritual. He is beset on every side with a circle
of inflexible formalities."—Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, pp. 78-9. He
further writes in a footnote, p. 79: "Thus prayer is absolutely useless if any
matter, legally considered impure, adheres to the person of the worshipper, even
though he be unconscious of its presence. Prayer also is null and void unless the
men and women praying are attired in a certain prescribed manner."
[151] Vide Christianity and Islam, by W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 122-23. Major
Osborn writes: "The Prophet knew of no religious life where the external rite
was not deemed of greater importance than the inner state, and, in consequence,
he gave that character to Islam also. Hence there are no moral gradations in the
Koran. All precepts proceed from the will of God, and all are enforced with the
same threatening emphasis. A failure of performance in the meanest trivialities
of civil life involves the same tremendous penalties as apostacy and idolatry."—
Islam under Khalifs, p. 5. He further says: "In their religious aspect, these
traditions are remarkable for that strange confusion of thought which caused the
Prophet to place on one level of wickedness serious moral crimes, breaches of
sumptuary regulations, and accidental omissions in ceremonial observations.
Sin, throughout, is regarded as an external pollution, which can, at once, be
rectified by the payment of a fine of some kind." Ibid, page 62.
[152] "Occasionally our author would seem to write what he certainly does not
mean; thus, in the middle of an excellent summary of the causes of Islam's
decadence, it is stated,—'Swathed in the rigid bands of the Koran, Islam is
powerless like the Christian dispensation to adapt itself to the varying
circumstances of time and place.'"—The Saturday Review, June 23, 1883.
[153] Vide Annals of the Early Caliphate, by Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D.,
D.C.L., page 456, London, 1883.

[154] Reforms, Political, Social and Legal, under the Moslem Rule, Bombay
Education Society's Press, 1883.
[155] "The cankerworm of polygamy, divorce, servile concubinage and veil lay
at the root. They are bound up in the character of its existence. A reformed Islam
which should part with the divine ordinances on which they rest, or attempt in
the smallest degree to change them by a rationalistic selection, abetment or
variation would be Islam no longer." Annals of the Early Caliphate by Sir W.
Muir, page 458.
[156] The institution of pilgrimage is a harmless one, and conducive to unity in
religion for Arabs, and gives moreover an impetus to trade at large.

[157] Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 30-1.
[158] The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad, by Stanley Lane
Poole, pages lii and liii, Introduction, London, 1882.

Transcriber's Note:
Despite the reference to a "Note" on page cv in the
Table of Contents, no such page exists in this edition of
the printed book.

GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE ARABS

ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE
DEFENSIVE.
The Persecutions.

The severe persecution which Mohammad and his early
1. The early converts suffered at Mecca at the hands of their fellow-
persecutions of
Moslems by the citizens, the Koreish, is a fact admitted by all historians.
people of Mecca.
The Koran, which may be regarded as a contemporary
record of the ill-feeling manifested towards the Prophet and his followers,
bears ample testimony to the fact. Not only were the early Moslems
persecuted for renouncing the pagan religion and obtaining converts to the
monotheistic religion of Mohammad, but they were also tortured and
otherwise ill-treated to induce them to return to the religion which they had
forsaken. The persecution seems to have been so great that Mohammad was
compelled to recognize those of his followers, who by force and cruelty
were compelled to renounce Islam and profess paganism, but were inwardly
steadfast in their belief of the one true God, as true Moslems.
The Koran says:
"Whoso after he hath believed in God denieth Him, if he were forced to it,
and if his heart remain steadfast in the faith, shall be guiltless; but whoso
openeth his breast to infidelity, on them, in that case, shall be wrath from
God, and a severe punishment awaiteth them."—Sura xvi, 108.
"The incarceration and tortures," says Mr. Stobart, "chiefly by thirst in the
burning rays of the sun, to which these humble converts were subjected, to
induce their recantation and adoration of the national idols, touched the heart
of Mahomet, and by divine authority, he permitted them, under certain
circumstances, to deny their faith so long as their hearts were steadfast in it."
[159]

The oppressions, trials, and sufferings which the early
2. Notices of the Moslems underwent compelled them to fly from their
persecution in the
Koran. 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
3. Insults suffered injuries from the hands of his persecutors. He was
by Mohammad.
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
4. Historical began to persecute the faith of Islam. Those who had no
summary of the
persecutions. 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
5. The Hegira. the people and the personal safety and security of himself
and his followers being endangered, and mutual
intercourse denied, saw that it was hopeless to expect any forbearance on the
part of the Koreish, who would not permit him to live and preach his religion
at home, and looked for assistance and protection from a strange land. He
asked the people of Medina to receive and protect him. The Medina
converts, who had come to Mecca on pilgrimage, pledged themselves to
Mohammad, and promised to defend him as they would defend their wives
and children. The Medina converts, although not acting on the offensive,
became at once objects of suspicion to the Koreish, who endeavoured to
seize those who were in Mecca. They maltreated one of the Medina converts
who fell into their hands, and the work of persecution was recommenced in
right earnest.[160] Two months elapsed before the believers, except those
detained in confinement or who were unable to escape from slavery, or
women and children, could emigrate. Families after families silently
disappeared, and house after house was abandoned. One or two quarters of

the city were entirely deserted. The Koreish held a council and proscribed
Mohammad, who escaped together with Abu Bakr, leaving Ali in his house,
around whom, to lull the suspicions of his neighbours, he threw his own
mantle, and desired him to occupy his bed. Mohammad and his follower
took refuge in a cave. The Koreish despatched scouts in all directions to
search for Mohammad, but in vain. After hiding for three days in the cave,
Mohammad and Abu Bakr started for Medina, where they arrived safely.
The foregoing circumstances would have fully justified immediate hostilities
on the part of Mohammad, but he did not take up arms until compelled to do
so by the attacks of the Meccans.
Notwithstanding the flight of the Prophet and of all the
6. The persecution early Moslem converts who were able to effect an escape
of the Moslems by
the Koreish after except their families, women and children, and those
their flight from weak Moslems who could not leave Mecca, the Meccans
Mecca.
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
7. A Koreish followers after the flight rapidly became more hostile.
chieftain commits a
raid near Medina.— Kurz-ibn Jábir, one of the marauding chieftains of the
A.H., I. 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
8. The Koreish aggressors (the Koreish) brought from Medina an army
march to attack
Medina. of 950 strong, mounted on 700 camels and 100 horses, to
Mohammad Badr, nine stages from Mecca, advancing towards
marches forth in
Medina. Then the Prophet set out from Medina at the
defence, and gains
head of his small army of 305 to check the advance of his
the battle at Badr.—
A.H., II. 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,
9. Attack by Abu accompanied by 200 mounted followers, alarmed
Sofian upon
Medína.—A.H., II. 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
10. The battle of upon Medina. One year after the battle of Badr, they
Ohad.
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
11. Mohammad's Ohad, many of the Bedouin tribes began to assume an
prestige affected by
the defeat. 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
12. Abu Sofian was, threatened the Moslem with a fresh attack the next
threatened the
Moslems with year as he said to Omar: "We shall meet again, let it be
another attack next after a year, at Badr." Medina and the Moslems, however,
year.
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
13. The Koreish renewal of hostilities by the Koreish. They joined an
again attack Medina
with a large army. immense force of the Bedouin tribes (the entire army was
Mohammad defends estimated at ten thousand), marched against Mohammad,

the city. The enemyand besieged Medina. Mohammad defended the city by
retire. (Ditch or
Nations.—A.H., V.) 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
14. Mohammad, and his followers from Mecca. They had not since visited
with his followers,
advanced to the Holy house, nor had they joined the yearly
perform the lesser pilgrimage, which was an essential part of their social
pilgrimage of
Mecca. The Koreish and religious life. Mohammad undertook to perform the
opposed lesser pilgrimage to Mecca in the month of Zalkada, in
Mohammad, who which war was unlawful throughout Arabia. Mohammad,
returned
disappointed.— with his followers, the pious and peaceful worshippers,
A.H. VI. 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
15. Violation of the
treaty by the the treaty of Hodeibia[161] and treacherously killed
Koreish, and theirseveral men of the Bani Khozaá. Mohammad marched
submission.
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
16. Two other tribes
Thakeef assumed the offensive. They assembled at Autas,
assume the
offensive. 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
17. Verses from the with the Koreish will fully show, that those who assert
Koran in support of
the defensive that Mohammad was aggressive or revengeful in his
character of the wars, or that he made war to force his religion upon the
wars.
people, are altogether in the wrong.
I will now quote some verses of the Koran, showing that all the wars of
Mohammad with the Koreish were defensive wars.

39. "Verily, God will ward off[162] mischief from believers: lo, God loveth
not the false, the unbeliever."

40. "A sanction is given to those who have been fought,[163] because they
have suffered outrages, and verily, God is well able to succour them"—

41. "Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only
because they say, 'Our Lord is the God.' And if God had not repelled some
men by others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the
name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been destroyed!
And him who helpeth God will God surely help: Verily, God is Strong,
Mighty."
42. "They who, if We established them in this land, will observe prayer and
pay the alms of obligation and enjoin what is recognized as right—and
forbid what is unlawful. And the final issue of all things is unto God."—
Sura, xxii.
186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but
commit not the injustice of attacking them first: verily, God loveth not the
unjust."
187. "And kill them wherever ye find them, and eject them from whatever
place they have ejected you, for (fitnah)[164] persecution is worse than
slaughter: yet attack them not at the sacred mosque, until they attack you
therein; but if they attack you, then slay them—Such is the recompense of
the infidels!"—

188. "But if they desist,[165] then verily God is Gracious, Merciful!"
189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution,
and the worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no
hostility, save against wrong-doers."
214. "They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: The act
of fighting therein is a grave crime; but the act of turning others aside from
the path of God, and unbelief in Him, and to prevent access to the Sacred
Mosque, and to drive out his people, is worse in the sight of God; and
persecution[166] (fitnah[167]) is worse than bloodshed. But they will not cease
to war against you until they turn you from your religion, if they be able: but
whoever of you shall turn from his religion, and die an infidel, their works
shall be fruitless in this world and in the next: and they shall be consigned to
the fire; therein to abide for aye."

215. "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in
the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious,
Merciful."
245. "And fight in the cause of God; and know that God is He who Heareth,
Knoweth."
247. "Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after
the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—'Raise up for us a
king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it not be that if
to fight were ordained you, ye would not fight?' They said, 'And why should
we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our
dwellings and our children?' But when fighting was commanded them they
turned back, save a few of them: But God knew the offenders!"
252. "And by the will of God they routed them; and (Dâood) David slew
Goliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him
according to his will: and were it not for the restraint of one by the means of
the other imposed on men by God, verily the earth had assuredly gone to
ruin, but God is bounteous to his creatures."—Sura, ii.
76. "Let those then fight in the cause of God who barter this present life for
that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God's path, whether he be
slain or conquer, We will in the end give him a great reward."
77. "But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and for
the weak among men, women and children, who say, 'O our Lord! bring us
forth from this City whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us a champion
from thy presence; and give us from thy presence a defender?'"
78. "They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe not,
fight on the path of Thâgoot: Fight then against the friends of Satan—Verily,
the craft of Satan shall be powerless!"
86. "Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and
stir up the faithful. The prowess of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for
God is the stronger in prowess, and the stronger to punish."

91. "They desire that ye should be unbelievers as they are unbelievers, and
that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, until they
have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back, then seize
them and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none of them as friends
or helpers."
92. "Except those who seek asylum among your allies, and those who come
over to you—prevented by their own hearts by making war on you, or from
making war on their own people. Had God pleased, He would certainly have
given them power against you, and they would certainly have made war
upon you! But, if they depart from you, and make not war against you and
offer you peace, then God alloweth you no occasion against them."
93. "Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of
their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown
in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of peace to you, nor
withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them wherever ye find them.
Over these have We given you undoubted power."—Sura, iv.
19. "O Meccans! If ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come to
you. It will be better for you if ye give over the struggle (or attacking upon
Medina or the Moslem). If ye return to it we will return; and your forces,
though they may be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God
is with the faithful."
39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist (from persecuting, obstructing, and
attacking the Moslems), what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they
return to it (commit again the hostilities), they have already before them the
doom of the ancients!"
40. "Fight then against them till civil strife be at an end, and the religion be
all of it God's; and if they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do."
41. "But if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector:
Excellent protector! and excellent helper!"
73. " ... And they who have believed, but have not fled their homes, shall
have no rights of kindred with you at all, until they too fly their country. Yet
if they seek aid from you on account of the faith, your part it is to give them

aid, except against a people between whom and yourselves there may be a
treaty. And God beholdeth your actions."
74. "And the infidels have the like relationships one with another. Unless ye
do the same (i.e., aid the oppressed and repel the oppressor), there will be
discord in the land and great corruption."—Sura, viii.
(When the Meccans broke the Hodeibia treaty mentioned in the above
paragraph, the Koreish and Bani Bakr attacked Bani Khozaá, who were in
alliance with Mohammad. It became incumbent on him to assist Bani Bakr
and to chastize the aggressors. The following verses were published on that
occasion, but happily, before the expiration of the fixed period, the Koreish
submitted and Mecca was taken without bloodshed, and these verses were
not acted upon:—)
1. "An immunity from God and His Apostle to those with whom ye are in
league (and they have violated the same—compare verses 4, 8 and 10)
among the polytheist Meccans."
2. "Go ye therefore at large in the land four months (i.e., four sacred months
from Shaw-wal. The treaty was violated by the Koreish in Ramzan, a month
immediately previous to the sacred months. It is announced here that four
months' time is given to the aggressors, who violated the treaty of Hodeibia,
to make terms. After the time is over (verse 5) the Moslems will commence
hostilities to defend their allies, the Bani Khozaá), but know that ye shall not
find God feeble, and that those who believe not, God will put to shame."
3. "And a proclamation on the part of God and His Apostle to the people on
the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from any engagement with
those who worship other gods with God, as is his Apostle. If then, ye turn to
God, it will be better for you; but if ye turn back, then know that ye shall not
find God feeble: and to those who believe not, announce thou a grievous
punishment."
4. "But this concerneth not those Polytheists with whom ye are in league,
and who have afterwards in no way failed you, and not yet aided any one
against you. Observe, therefore, your engagement with them through the
whole time of their treaty. Verily, God loveth those who fear Him."

5. "And when the sacred months are passed[168] kill those who join other
gods with God[169] wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege
them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they repent
and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way.
[170]
Verily, God is Gracious, Merciful."
6. "If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant
him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of God; then let him reach his
place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge."
7. "How can they who add gods to God be in league with God and His
Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So
long as they are true to you,[171] be ye true to them: verily, God loveth those
who fear Him."
8. "How can they? since if they prevail against you, they will not regard in
their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith: With their mouths
they content you, but their hearts are averse, and most of them are perverse
doers."
9. "They sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside from
his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!"
10. "They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good faith; and
these are the transgressors!"
11. "Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are
they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for men of
knowledge."[172]
12. "But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile your
religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity—verily there is no
faith in them! Haply they will desist."
13. "Will ye not do battle with a people (the Meccans) who have broken
their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will
ye dread them? God truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are believers!"

14. "Make war on them: By your hands will God chastize them and put them
to shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who
believe."
36. " ... and attack those who join gods with God one and all, as they attack
you one and all."—Sura, ix.
I need not repeat here what these verses and the facts
18. What the above-related above show, that the wars of Mohammad with the
quoted verses show.
Koreish were merely defensive, and the Koreish were the
aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite justified in taking up arms against
them.
"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend," writes Mr. Edward
Gibbon,[173] "by force of arms, his person and his possessions; to repel, or
even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend his hostilities to a
reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation. In the free society of the
Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen imposed a feeble restraint; and
Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful and benevolent mission, had been
despoiled and banished by the injustice of his countrymen." It has been fully
shown in the foregoing paragraphs that the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed
neither safety nor security. Religious freedom was denied to them, though
they were harmless and peaceful members of the community. Besides this
they were expelled from their homes, leaving their families and their
property in the hands of their persecutors, and were prevented from returning
to Mecca, and were refused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all,
they were attacked by the Meccans in force at Medina.
The persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was
19. Justification ofon religious grounds. They would not allow the believers
the Moslems in
taking up arms to renounce the religion of their forefathers and profess
against their Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and harsh that they
aggressors.
tortured some of the professors of the new faith to
renounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. "Taking away the
lives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren, merely for
serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they ought, when
by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of it, materially, is

evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity: for it is punishing those
who have not injured us, and who, if they mistake, deserve only pity from
us."[174] The early Moslems had had every international right to resent
persecution and intolerance of the Meccans and to establish themselves by
force of arms, to enjoy their religious liberty and to practise their religion
freely.
Some of the European biographers of Mohammad say,
20. The first "that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on
aggression after the
Hegira was not onthe part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until
the part of several of their caravans had been waylaid and
Mohammad.
plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people
of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms."[175]
This is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the Koreish,
who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the Moslems by an
attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his followers had taken refuge.
Even taking it for granted that the Moslems were the first aggressors after
the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or expulsion itself (leaving aside the
previous persecutions and oppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the
commencement of hostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure
their moral and religious freedom, and to protect themselves and their
relatives from further aggressions?
Sir William Muir admits, that "hostilities, indeed, were justified by the
'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca."[176] "It may be said," says Major
Vans Kennedy, "that, in these wars, Mohammad was the aggressor by his
having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept the caravans of Mecca.
But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the conspiracy of the Koreish to
assassinate Mohammad, and when to save his life he fled from Mecca,
himself and his followers were thus deprived of their property, and obliged
to depend for their subsistence on the hospitality of the men of Medina, it
could not be reasonably expected that they would allow the caravans of their
enemies to pass unmolested."[177]

There is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira,
21. The alleged commenced hostilities against the Koreish by
instances examined.
intercepting their caravans. The alleged instances of the
caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not corroborated by
authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also internal evidences of
their improbability. The Medina people had pledged themselves only to
defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him in any aggressive steps
against the Koreish.[178] Therefore, it seems impossible that they should have
allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive steps against the Koreish which
would have involved them in great trouble.
The alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by
22. Hamza and Hamza and the other by Obeida in pursuit of caravans
Obeida expedition.
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,
23. The Abwa, said to have been led by Mohammad himself to intercept
Bowat, & Osheira
expeditions. the Mecca caravans, but in vain, are altogether without
foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at all, to
Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani Dhumra[179] and
Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.
The affair of the Nakhla marauding party, as related in
24. The affair at the traditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether
Nakhla.
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,
25. At Badr that the battle of Badr was brought by Mohammad
Mohammad had
come only in his himself. They appear to hesitate to justify Mohammad in
defence. 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
26. The first the Hegira were solely on the part of the Moslems, and
aggressions after the
Hegira, if from that several of the caravans of the Koreish had been
Mohammad, might waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed, it
fairly be looked
upon as retaliation. would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks,
had they been made, might fairly be looked upon as a
retaliation for the ill-treatment of the Moslems before the flight from Mecca.
"Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or
governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in
political continuous societies, forming organized units called states or
nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde
together, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country is thus
an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as
such is subjected to the hardships of war."[180] The almost universal rule of
most remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous nations, that the
private individual of a hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of
liberty and protection, and every description of family ties. But Mohammad
protected the inoffensive citizen or private individual of the hostile country.
He even protected those who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at
Badr, but were reluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be
given to several persons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa,
Hárith Ibn Amir, Abbás and other Bani Háshim were amongst those named.

The Jews.

Mohammad, on his first arrival at Medina, made a treaty
27. The Jews broke of alliance with the Jews, by which the free exercise of
treaties.
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
28. Bani Kainúkaá, broke the treaty and fought against Mohammad between
Bani Nazeer,
Koreiza, Khyber, the battles of Badr and Ohad.[181]
and Ghatafán.
The Bani Nazeer broke their compact with Mohammad
after his defeat at Ohad. They had also made a conspiracy to kill
Mohammad. They were banished; some of them went over to Khyber. The
Jewish tribe of Koreiza had defected from their allegiance to Mohammad,
and entered into negotiations with the enemy, when Medina was besieged by
the Koreish and Bedouin tribes at the battle of the Ditch. They were
afterwards besieged by Mohammad. They surrendered at the discretion of
Sád, who passed a bloody judgment against them. The Jews of Khyber
(including those of Nazeer) and Bani Ghatafán, who had lately besieged
Medina with the Koreish in the battle of the Ditch, made alliance against
Mohammad,[182] and were making preparations for an attack on him. They
had been inciting the Bani Fezára and other Bedouin tribes in their
depredations, and had combined with Bani Sád-Ibn Bakr to attack upon
Medina. They were subjected at Khyber, and made tributaries, paying jizya
in return of the protection guaranteed to them.
The treachery of the Bani Kainúkaá, Nazeer and Koreiza,
29. Notices of them and Khyber is noticed in the Koran in the following
in the Koran.
verses:—
58. "They with whom thou hadst leagued, but who ever afterwards break
their league, and fear not God!"

59. "And if thou capture them in battle, then (by the example of their fate)
put to flight those who are behind them—they will perhaps be warned:"—
60. "Or, if thou fear treachery from any people, throw back their treaty to
them in like manner: verily, God loveth not the treacherous."
61. "And think not that the infidels shall get the better of Us! Verily, they
shall not find God to be weak."
62. "Make ready then against them what force ye can, and squadrons of
horse whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy,
and into others beside them whom ye know not, but whom God knoweth;
And all that you expend for the cause of God shall be repaid you; and ye
shall not be wronged."
63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust in God:
He verily is the Hearing, the Knowing."
64. "But if they seek to betray thee, then verily God will be all-sufficient for
thee. He it is who strengthened thee with his help and with the faithful and
made their heart one. Hadst thou spent all the riches of the earth, thou
wouldst not have united their hearts; but God hath united them: He verily is
Mighty, Wise."
65. "O Prophet! God and such of the faithful as follow thee will be all-
sufficient for thee!"
66. "O Prophet! stir up the faithful to the fight...."—Sura, viii.
26. "And He caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had
aided the confederates, to come down out of their fortresses, and cast dismay
into their hearts: a part ye slew, a part ye took prisoners."—Sura, xxxiii.
29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given,
[183]
as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which
God and his apostles have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of
the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled."

124. "Believers! wage war against such of the unbelievers as are your
neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you: and know that God is
with those who fear Him."—Sura, ix.
The Bani Koreiza had surrendered themselves to the
30. The judgment of judgment of Sâd, an Awsite of their allies, Bani Aws. To
Sâd.
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
31. Defensive defensive in its character. They had, since the Jews of the
character of the
expedition against tribe of Nazeer and Koreiza being banished from Medina
the Jews of Khyber. in consequence of their treason against the Moslem
commonwealth, had joined them, been guilty of inciting
the surrounding tribes to attack upon Medina, and had made alliance with
the Bani Ghatafán, who had taken a prominent part among the confederates
who had besieged Medina at the battle of the Ditch, to make a combined
attack upon Medina. They, especially Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani Nazeer,
had excited the Bani Fezára and other Beduoin tribes to commit incursions
on Medina. They had made a combination with the Bani Sád-Ibn Bakr to
make inroads on the Moslims. Bani Sád, a branch of Hawazin, were among
the confederates who had besieged Medina. Lately, Oseir Ibn Zárim, the
chief of Nazeer at Khyber, maintained the same relations with Bani
Ghatafán, as their former chief had, to make a combined attack on Medina.
The Bani Ghatafán, with their branches of Bani Fezára and Bani Murra, in

league with those of Khyber, were always plotting mischief in the vicinity of
Fadak at Khyber. They (the Ghatafán) had continued for a long time to alarm
Medina with threatened attacks. At the seventh year of the Hegira timely
information was received by Mohammad of the combined preparation of
Khyber and Ghatafán. He rapidly set forth in his defence, and marched to
Khyber at once. He took up a position at Rají, between Khyber and
Ghatafán, to cut off their mutual assistance. So it was not a sudden and
unprovoked invasion, as Sir W. Muir calls it. He writes: "Mahomet probably
waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Kheibar (it was
the fertile lands and villages of that tribe which he had destined for his
followers), or on the part of their allies, the Bani Ghatafán, to furnish the
excuse for an attack. But no such opportunity offering, he resolved, in the
autumn of this year, on a sudden and unprovoked invasion of their territory."
[184]
It will appear from what I have stated above, that the invasion of
Khyber was purely defensive in its character.

The Christians or Romans.

The last expedition of Mohammad was that of Tabúk,
32. Tabúk, the lastand it was also purely defensive. The travellers and
expedition.
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
33. The conclusion. 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
34. Mohammad common duty laid upon the Faithful is to be the agents of
never taught
intolerance. God's vengeance on those who believe not. These are to
be slaughtered until they pay tribute, when they are
allowed to go to Hell in their own way without further molestation."[185]
Mohammad did not wage war against the Koreish and the Jews because they
did not believe in his mission, nor because he was to be the instrument of
God's vengeance on them; on the contrary, he said, "He was no more than a
warner."
"The truth is from your Lord, let him then who will, believe; and let him
who will, be an unbeliever."[186]

"Let there be no compulsion in religion."[187] "Verily, they who believe, and
the Jews, and the Sabeites, and the Christians, whoever of them believeth in
God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear,
neither shall they be put to grief."[188] Even during active hostilities, those
who did not believe were allowed to come and hear the preaching, and were

then conveyed to their place of safety.[189] Nor were the wars of Mohammad
to exact tribute from the unbelievers. The tribute was only imposed upon
those who had sought his protection, and even then they were exempted
from other regular taxes which the Moslems paid to their Commonwealth.
On the contrary, as has already been shown, Mohammad merely took up
arms in the instances of self-preservation. Had he neglected to defend
himself after his settlement at Medina against the continued attacks of the
Koreish and their allies, he with his followers would, in all probability, have
been exterminated. They fought in defence of their lives as well as their
moral and religious liberties.
In this sense the contest might be called a religious war,
35. In what sense as the hostilities were commenced on religious grounds.
the wars were
religious wars. Because the Koreish persecuted the Moslems, and
expelled them for the reason that they had forsaken the
religion of their forefathers, i.e., idolatry, and embraced the faith of Islam,
the worship of One True God; but it was never a religious war in the sense of
attacking the unbelievers aggressively to impose his own religion forcibly on
them. How much is Sir W. Muir in the wrong, who says, that fighting was
prescribed on religious grounds? "Hostilities," he says, "indeed, were
justified by the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca. But the main and
true issue of the warfare was not disguised to be the victory of Islam. They
were to fight 'until the religion became the Lord's alone.'"[190]
The verses of the Koran referred to above are as follows:
36. The alleged
verses of 186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who
intolerance
explained. fight against you: but commit not the injustice of
attacking them first: verily God loveth not the unjust."
187. "And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from
whatever place they have ejected you; for (fitnah) persecution or civil
discord is worse than slaughter but attack them not at the sacred Mosque,
until they attack you therein, but if they attack you, then slay them—Such is
the recompense of the infidel!"
188. "But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful."

189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution
or civil discord and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then
let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."—Sura, ii.
These verses generally, and the last one especially, show that the warfare
was prescribed on the ground of self-preservation, and to secure peace,
safety and religious liberty, to prevent (fitnah) persecution.
By preventing or removing the persecution (fitnah), the religion of the
Moslems was to be free and pure from intolerance and compulsion to revert
to idolatry, or in other words, to be the only or wholly of God. That is, when
you are free and unpersecuted in your religion, and not forced to worship
idols and renounce Islam, then your religion will be pure and free. You shall
have no fear of being forced to join other gods with God.
The same verse is repeated in Chapter VIII.

39. "Say to the unbelievers: If they desist,[191] what is now past shall be
forgiven them, but if they return to it,[192] they have already before them the
doom of the former."[193]
40. "Fight then against them till fitnah (civil strife or persecution) be at an
end, and the religion be all of it God's, and if they desist, verily God
beholdeth what they do."
This shows that the fighting prescribed here against the Koreish was only in
the case of their not desisting, and it was only to prevent and suppress their
fitnah, and when their intolerance and persecution was suppressed, or was no
more, then the Moslem religion was to become all of it God's. They were not
forced to join any god with the true God.
Sir W. Muir, in his last chapter on the person and
37. Sir W. Muir character of Mohammad, observes in reviewing the
quoted.
Medina period: "Intolerance quickly took the place of
freedom; force, of persuasion." ... "Slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find
them" was now the watchword of Islam:—"Fight in the ways of God until
opposition be crushed, and the Religion becometh the Lord's alone!"[194]
Here, Sir W. Muir plainly contradicts himself. He has already admitted at the

136th page of the fourth volume of his work that the course pursued by
Mohammad at Medina was to leave the conversion of the people to be
gradually accomplished without compulsion, and the same measure he
intended to adopt at his triumphal entry into Mecca. His words are: "This
movement obliged Mahomet to cut short of his stay at Mecca. Although the
city had cheerfully accepted his supremacy, all its inhabitants had not yet
embraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetic claim.
Perhaps, he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina, and
leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without
compulsion." This was at the end of the eighth year after the Hegira.
Mohammad died at the beginning of the eleventh year, then the question
naturally comes up, when was that alleged change to intolerance, and how
Sir W. Muir says, this change is traced from the period of Mohammad's
arrival at Medina? In the action taken in the fifth year of the Hegira against
the Jewish tribe of Koreiza, who had treasoned against the city, Sir W. Muir
admits that up to that period Mohammad did not profess to force men to join
Islam, or to punish them for not embracing it. His words are: "The ostensible
grounds upon which Mahomet proceeded were purely political, for as yet he
did not profess to force men to join Islam, or to punish them for not
embracing it."[195] In a foot-note he remarks: "He still continued to reiterate
in his Revelations the axiom used at Mecca, 'I am only a public preacher,' as
will be shown in the next chapter." Further, Sir W. Muir, in his account of the
first two years after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, admits in a foot-note (p.
32, Vol. III), that "as yet we have no distinct development of the intention of
Mahomet to impose his religion on others by force: it would have been
dangerous in the present state of parties to advance this principle."
It will appear from the foregoing statements that in each
38. Comment on the of the three distinct periods of Mohammad's sojourn in
above quotation.
Medina, i.e., the first two years, the fifth year, and the
eighth year, Sir W. Muir has himself admitted that Mohammad had no
intention to impose his religion by force, and did not profess to force people
to join Islam, or punish them for not embracing it, and that the conversion of
the people at Medina was gradually accomplished without compulsion, and
the same course he followed at his taking of Mecca. Then there is no room

left for the uncalled for and self-contradictory remark of Sir W. Muir, that at
Medina "Intolerance quickly took place of freedom; force, of persuasion."
Up to the end of the eighth year when Mecca was captured, there was
admittedly no persecution or constraint put in requisition to enforce religion.
Mohammad breathed his last early in the eleventh year. During the two years
that intervened, the din of war had ceased to sound, deputations continued to
reach the Prophet from all quarters of Arabia, and not a single instance of
intolerance or compulsory adoption of faith is found on record.[196]
Mohammad, neither sooner, nor later, in his stay at Medina, swerved from
the policy of forbearance and persuasion he himself had chalked out for the
success of his mission. At Medina, he always preached his liberal profession
of respect for other creeds, and reiterated assurances to the people that he
was merely a preacher, and expressly gave out that compulsion in religion
was out of question with him.
These are his revelations during the Medina period. "Verily, they who
believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the
Christians, and the Sabeites,—whoever believeth in God and the last day,
and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: and
fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved."
Sura II, 59.
"And say to those who have been given the Scripture, and to the common
folk, Do you surrender yourselves unto God? Then, if they become
Moslems, are they guided aright; but if they turn away, then thy duty is only
preaching and God's eye is on his servants."
Sura III, 19.
"The Apostle is only bound to preach: and God knoweth what ye bring to
light, and what ye conceal."
Sura V, 99.
"Say: Obey God and obey the Apostle. But if ye turn back, still the burden of
his duty is on him only, and the burden of your duty rests on you. And if ye

obey him, ye shall have guidance; But plain preaching is all that devolves
upon the Apostle."
Sura XXIV, 53.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Now is the right way made distinct
from error; whoever therefore denieth Tâghoot,[197] and believeth in God,
hath taken hold on a strong handle that hath no flaw therein: And God is He
who Heareth, Knoweth."
Sura II, 237.
"Whoso obeyeth the Apostle, in so doing obeyeth God and as to those who
turn back from thee, We have not sent thee to be their keeper."
Sura IV, 82.
"Slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them" was never
39. The object ofthe watchword of Islam. It was only said in self-
Mohammad's wars.
preservation and war of defence, and concerned only
those who had taken up arms against the Moslems.
The verses—Suras II, 189; and VIII, 40—have been quoted above in paras.
17 and 37 (pp. 18, 21, 44 and 45), and they fully show by their context and
scope that they only enjoined war against the Meccans, who used to come to
war upon the Moslems. The object of making war is precisely set forth in
these verses, and appears to mean that civil feuds and persecutions be at an
end. But Sir W. Muir wrongly translates Fitnah as opposition. He himself
has translated the meaning of the word in question as persecution, in Vol. II,
p. 147, foot-note; in translating the tenth verse of the Sura LXXXV he
writes: "Verily, they who persecute the believers, male and female, and
repent themselves not." The original word there is Fatanoo,[198] from Fitnah.
I do not know why he should put a twofold version on the same word
occurring in the same book. (Suras II, 187; VIII, 40.)

The Ninth Chapter, or Sura Barat.

Sir William Muir, while relating the publication of some
40. The opening verses of the ninth chapter of the Koran on the occasion
portion of the IXth
Sura of the Koran of the great pilgrimage A.H. 9, and referring to the
only relates to the opening verses of the Sura (from 1st to 7th inclusive)
Koreish who had
violated the truce. writes: "The passages just quoted completed the system
of Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes
The injunctions
and races were concerned. The few cases of truce
contained in it were excepted, uncompromising warfare was declared against
not carried out
owing to the them all."[199] This is not correct. The mistake, he as well
compromise. as others who follow him commit, lies in their taking the
incipient verses of Chapter IX, as originally published at
the end of the ninth year of the Hegira, after the conquest of Mecca, in order
to set aside every obligation or league with the idolators to wage war with
them, either within or without the sacred territory, and "they were to be
killed, besieged, and laid in wait for wheresoever found."[200] In fact it has
no such bearing of generally setting aside the treaties, and declaring
uncompromising warfare, and was not published for the first time on the
occasion stated above. The opening verses of the ninth Sura of the Koran,
which I have quoted in full together with necessary notes in para. 17 (pp. 22-
25), revealed for the first time, were before the conquest of Mecca, when the
idolators thereof had broken the truce of Hodeibia. Their violation of the
treaty is expressly mentioned in verses 4, 8, 10 and 13, and the same verses
also enjoin to respect and fulfil the treaties of those idolators who had not
broken theirs. Therefore only those aggressors who had been guilty of a
breach of faith, and instigated others to take up arms against the Moslems in
the attack of Bani Bakr, on Khozáa, were to be waged war against, besieged,
and taken captives after the expiration of four months from the date of the
publication of the verses in question. But fortunately Abu Sofian
compromised before the commencement of the sacred months, and before
the period of the four months had elapsed. The people of Mecca submitted
without bloodshed, and hence it is obvious that the injunctions contained in
the commencement of the ninth chapter of the Koran were never carried out.
They remained as dead letter, and will, I think, so remain perpetually.
Almost all European writers, as far as I know, labour under the delusion that
at the end of the ninth year Mohammad published the opening verses of the

ninth Sura, commonly designated Súra Barát. But the fact is that it was
published in the eighth year of the Hegira before the commencement of the
sacred months, probably in the month of Shabán, while Mohammad marched
in Ramzán against Mecca, not with the intention of prosecuting war, for it
was to take place after the lapse of Zikad, Zelhaj and Moharram, but of
taking Mecca by compromise and preconcerted understanding between
himself and Abu Sofian. If it be admitted that the preliminary verses of Sura
IX of the Koran were revealed or published for the first time in the last
month of the ninth year of the Hegira, then they—the verses—become
aimless, without being pregnant of any object in view. They contain
injunctions for carrying hostile operations against those who had broken
certain treaties, had helped others against the Moslems, and themselves had
also attacked them. They proclaimed war against certain tribes, whose
people did not regard ties of blood and good faith, and had been the first
aggressors against the Moslems. Not many such persons were in the whole
of Arabia at and after the time alleged for the promulgation of these verses,
i.e., at the last month of the ninth and the whole tenth year. By this time,
almost all Arabia had tendered voluntary submission to the authority of
Mohammad.
Deputations from each tribe of the Arabs continued to reach Medina during
the whole of this period, and were pledged protection and friendship by the
founder of the Islamic faith. From Medina the sound of drums and the bray
of clarions had now died away. Hereupon we are able to speak with certainty
that these verses could not be, and were not, revealed at the end of the ninth
year as it has been asserted by several writers, both Mohammadan and
European. And for the above reasons the most suitable occasion for the
revelation of these verses is the breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the
Koreish and their allies during the eighth year of the Hegira which caused
the reduction of Mecca by compromise. Several Mohammadan
commentators are unanimous in their opinion as to this point. Consequently
the verses, ordaining the manifestation of arms against the treaty-breakers
and aggressors, as well as putting them to the sword wherever they were to
be found, i.e., within or without the harem, or the precincts of the Sacred
Mosque, were not complied with owing to the compromise by the Koreish.

The alleged Interception of the Koreishite Caravans.

It has been asserted by European biographers of
41. The nine alleged Mohammad that several caravans of the Koreish going to
interceptions of the
Koreish caravans. and from Syria were intercepted and waylaid by the
Moslems soon after the Hegira. The alleged incursions
are as follow:
(1.) Seven months after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, an expedition
headed by Hamza surprised a caravan under the conduct of Abu Jahl.
(2.) A month later a party led by Obeida was dispatched in the pursuit of
another caravan guided by Abu Sofian.
(3.) After the expiration of another month, a third inroad headed by Sad
proceeded to lie in ambush for the Koreish caravan on the way it was
expected to pass.
(4.) Nearly twelve months after the Hegira, a fourth attempt was undertaken
to plunder a caravan of the Koreishites by Mohammad himself at Abwa.
(5.) In the succeeding month Mohammad again marched to Bowat with the
sole aim of despoiling a caravan composed of precious freight under the
immediate escort of Omeya-bin Khalf.
(6.) After the lapse of two or three months Mohammad set out to Osheira to
make aggression on another rich caravan proceeding to Syria led by Abu
Sofian.
All these expeditions are said to have been not attended by any success on
the part of the Moslems, the vigilance of the caravans in all cases eluding the
pursuit made after them.[201]
(7.) In Rajab A.H. 2, a small band composed of some six persons was
ordered to march to Nakhla to lie in wait there for the caravan of the
Koreish. The party had a scuffle at Nakhla, in which a man of the convoy
was killed; while two prisoners and the pilfered goods were taken to Medina.
Hereupon Mohammad was much displeased, and told Abdallah-bin Jahsh, "I
never commanded thee to fight in the sacred month."

(8.) The caravan of the Koreish, which on its passage had safely escaped the
chase of the Moslems, as already described in No. 6, was on its way back to
Mecca. Mohammad anticipated their return, and prepared an attack, which
terminated in the famous battle of Badr.
(9.) All these predatory inroads to intercept the caravans of Mecca are said to
have happened during the first and the second year of the Hegira, or before
the battle of Badr. It remains for me now to mention the only remaining
instance of Moslem's foray upon the Koreishite caravan, which took place in
the sixth year A.H. at Al-Is. The attack was completely successful.
I have already explained (from paras. 21-24) that these
42. The early expeditions, numbered 1 to 8, are not corroborated
interceptions were
impossible under by authentic and trustworthy traditions, and I have also
the circumstances in given the probable nature of those marked 4, 5 and 6.
which Mohammad
was placed.
It was impossible for Mohammad and his adherents,
situated as they were, to make any hostile demonstrations or undertake a
pillaging enterprise. The inhabitants of Medina, where the Prophet with his
followers had sought a safe asylum, and at whose invitation he had entered
their city, had solemnly bound themselves on sacred oaths to defend
Mohammad, so long as he was not himself the aggressor, from his enemies
as they would their wives and their children.[202] Mohammad, on his own
part, had entered into a holy compact with them not to plunder or commit
depredations.[203]
Upon these considerations it was impossible that the people of Medina
would have permitted or overlooked the irruptions so often committed by
Mohammad upon the caravans of the Koreish: much less would they have
joined with their Prophet, had he or any of his colleagues ventured to do so.
But granting that the Medinites allowed Mohammad to manifest enmity
towards the Koreish by a display of arms, or that no restraint was put by
them upon him when he encroached upon the territories of the neighbouring
tribes, and that the caravans were molested without any grounds of justice,
was it possible, I ask, for the people of Medina to avoid the troubles they
would be necessarily involved in by the refuge they had given to their
Prophet? They had long suffered from internal feuds, and the sanguinary

conflict of Boás, a few years ago, which had paralyzed their country, and
humiliated its citizens, was but too fresh in their memory yet.
Let us suppose that these alleged interceptions of the
43. The Meccan caravans by the Moslems did actually take place,
interceptions, if
occurred, were as related by the biographers of Mohammad, were they
justified by way of not all justified by the International Code of the Arabs, or
reprisals.
the ancient usage and military law of nations. It has been
proved beyond all dispute that the Meccans were the first aggressors in
persecuting the Moslems, and expelling them from their dear homes at
Mecca with the unbearable annoyance, they caused the converts of the new
faith in the peaceful prosecution of their religion; taking all these causes of
offence into consideration, as well as the International law and the law of
Nature, the Moslems might be said to have law and justice both on their
sides in waging war with their harassers for the restoration of their property
and homes, and even in retaliating and making reprisals until they attained
the object long sought by them. When the Meccans, on their own part, had
first trumpeted hostility against the Moslems, the right of self-defence, as
well as military necessity, compelled the latter to destroy their property, and
obstruct the ways and channels of communication by which their traffic was
prospering; for, "from the moment one State is at war with another, it has, on
general principles, a right to seize on all the enemy's property of whatsoever
kind and wheresoever found, and to appropriate the property thus taken to its
own use, or to that of the captors."[204]

The alleged Assassinations.

There were certain executions of culprits who had
44. Instances of perpetrated the crime of high treason against the Moslem
alleged
Commonwealth. These executions, and certain other
assassinations cited.
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
45. Mr. Poole of these cases, and showing how far the Prophet was
quoted.
privy to them, I will avail myself of a quotation from Mr.
Stanley Lane Poole, who has remarked with his usual deep discernment and
accurate judgment, in his Introduction to Mr. E.W. Lane's Selections from
the Koran:
"The execution of the half-dozen marked Jews is generally called
assassination, because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the
criminals. The reason is almost too obvious to need explanation. There were
no police or law-courts, or even courts-martial, at Medina; some one of the
followers of Mohammad must therefore be the executer of the sentence of
death, and it was better it should be done quietly, as the executing of a man
openly before his clan would have caused a brawl and more bloodshed and
retaliation, till the whole city had become mixed up in the quarrel. If secret
assassination is the word for such deeds, secret assassination was a necessary
part of the internal government of Medina. The men must be killed, and best
in that way. In saying this I assume that Mohammad was cognisant of the
deed, and that it was not merely a case of private vengeance; but in several
instances the evidence that traces these executions to Mohammad's order is
either entirely wanting or is too doubtful to claim our credence."[205]

1.—Asma-bint Marwán.
"The first victim was a woman," writes Major Osborn,
46. Asma-bint "Asma, daughter of Marwan; she had composed some
Marwán.
satirical verses on the Prophet and his followers; and
Muhammad, moved to anger, said publicly: 'Who will rid me of this
woman?' Omeir, a blind man, but an ardent Moslem, heard the speech, and at
dead of night crept into the apartment where Asma lay asleep surrounded by
her little ones; he felt about in the darkness till his hand rested on the
sleeping woman, and then, the next instance his sword was plunged into her
breast."[206]
The story of Asma's murder has been variously related by the Arabian
writers, and the testimonies on which it rests are contradictory and
conflicting in themselves. Wákidi, Ibn Sád, and Ibn Hishám relate a very
strange thing about it, that she was killed by Omeir the blind at the dead of
night. A blind person commits murder in a stranger's house during nocturnal
quietness, and is not arrested by any one! Doctor Weil writes, that Omeir
was a former husband of Asma, and the origin of the murder may be traced
to a long-brooding and private malice. Ibn Asákar in his history (vide Seerat
Shámee) relates that Asma was a fruit-seller; some person of her tribe asked
her if she had better fruits. She said 'yes,' and entered her house followed by
that man. She stooped down to take something up, the person turned right
and left, and seeing that nobody was near, gave a violent blow on her head,
and thus dispatched her.
The historians even relate that Omeir, being offended at
47. The story the verses composed by Asma, had volunteered himself
deserves not our
belief. of his own free-will to kill her.[207] She might have been
a sacrifice to envy or hatred by the sword of her assassin,
but Mohammad really had no hand in her death. She had made herself an
outlaw by deluding the people of Medina to a breach of treaty with the
Moslems, whereby the rights and jurisdictions of Jews and Moslems were
definitively settled.
Ibn Ishak quietly leaves unnarrated any transaction with regard to Asma.
Wakidi and Ibn Sád do not affirm that Mohammad, being annoyed at her

lampoons, said dejectedly, "Who would rid me of that woman?" On the
contrary, Wakidi writes, that Omeir had voluntarily swore to take her life. It
is only Ibn Hisham who relates without citing his authority, that Mohammad,
hearing Asma's verses, declared: "Is there nobody for me (i.e., to rid me)
from Bint Marwán?" This version of the story has no corroborative proofs
from the earliest biographers, and we are not inclined to put any faith in it.
[208]

2.—Abú Afak.
It has been related that Abú Afak of Bani Amr had
48. Abú Afak. enraged the Moslems by fomenting enmity and sedition
against their Government, when one Háris was executed
for his murdering treacherously his fellow-comrade in the battle of Ohad
during the time they were fighting together side by side. A convert from
amongst the Bani Amr vowed to slay Abú Afak, and falling unawares upon
him killed him with a cruel blow of his sword. From Ibn Ishak we learn that
Mohammad had said with reference to Abú Afak, "Who would rid me of this
pestilent fellow?"[209] The biographers do not give their authorities whence
they derived their information of the words attributed to Mohammad which
he is said to have uttered with relation to Abú Afak before his followers;
while at the same time it is no fair justice to form a hasty opinion of the fact
without a critical examination and well-balancing of evidences of men like
Ibn Ishak and others who have forgotten to tell us the original sources of
their own assertion. Besides, the words quoted above are not equivalent to a
peremptory order, and even granting this last condition, we are not justified
in construing them to mean assassination. Sir W. Muir writes that, "the
Secretary of Wâckidi says distinctly—'Now this was by command of the
Prophet.'" (Vol. III, p. 133, f.n.) But it is a very easy thing for the secretary or
other biographers to give an ample play to their fancies, or to fabricate
commands, which the Prophet had never given out, on a very slender basis,
or on no reasonable basis at all. The tendency of the biographers is always to
exonerate the companions of the Prophet at the expense of truth, and to
justify their deeds by casting the whole blame upon him.
3.—Káb, son of Ashraf.

Káb-ibn Ashraf was an influential Jew connected with
49. Káb, son of the tribe of Bani Nazeer. Being very much mortified by
Ashraf.
the defeat of the Meccans at the battle of Badr, he soon
after proceeded to Mecca, where he stirred up the Koreish to avenge
themselves on the Moslems of Medina. On his return to the latter place he
manifested avowed hostility towards the Moslem Commonwealth. He was a
traitor and a turncoat, for he not only violated his allegiance to the Moslems,
but preached rebellion among their enemies. Under such circumstances, he
deserved execution by the military and international law, and was
decapitated at Medina accordingly. The mode of execution was a sudden
violence or deception, but Mohammad never fulminated any harsh
commands against him either for his assassination or for his murder. He
deserved capital punishment for his treachery, which was duly measured out
to him in the absence of any legal tribunals for trials of criminals by jury, for
in that case any man was authorized to execute the sentence of the law. Even
if it be taken for granted that the Prophet had prayed "O Lord, deliver me
from the son of Ashraf, in whatsoever manner seemeth good unto thee,
because of his open sedition and verses;" or said, "Who can ease me of the
son of Ashraf?"[210] This does not amount to a fiat for murder or execution,
much less for assassination.
The biographers and narrators of the campaigns of
50. Mohammad Mohammad generally relate untrustworthy and fabulous
could not have any
share in his murder.details of such events, and are by no means to be relied
upon. Mohammad Ibn Ishak, the earliest biographer,
whose work exists, does not relate that Mohammad the Prophet ever prayed
for, or said to his followers, to be got rid of Káb; whereas the latest
biographers and traditionalists give us to understand that the Prophet
sanctioned the murder of Káb by his own express orders. "I am far from
asserting," says Sir W. Muir, "that every detail in the foregoing narrative,
either of instigation by Mahomet or of deception by the assassins, is beyond
suspicion. The actors in such scenes were not slow to magnify and embellish
their own services at the expense of truth. There may also have been the
desire to justify an act of perfidy, at which even the loose morality of the day
was startled, by casting the burden of it on the infallible Prophet. But, after
allowing all due weight to both of these considerations, enough remains to

prove, in this case, the worst features of assassination, and the fact that they
were directly countenanced, or rather prompted, by Mahomet himself."[211]
There is no substantial proof in this case which tends to establish the
instigation Mohammad offered for the murder of Káb. The best traditions for
the story of Káb's assassination rest with Jábir-bin Abdullah,[212] and Ibn
Abbás through Ikrama.[213]
None of them can be an authority, for they were neither eye-witnesses, nor
they heard the Prophet countenancing or prompting the assassination, nor
they allude to their own authorities. Jábir-bin Abdullah was a mere boy at
that time. He was not allowed to appear even at the battle of Ohad, which
took place after the alleged execution of Káb, on account of his tender age.
[214]
Ibn Abbás was even younger than Jábir, and besides, was putting up at
Mecca at the period in question.[215] Ikrama was a slave of Ibn Abbás, and
was notoriously given to the forging of fictitious traditions.[216]
4.—Sofian-bin Khalid.
After the reverse at Medina, in the battle of Ohad, large
51. Sofian-bin gatherings were organized in various quarters of Arabia
Khalid.
against the Moslems. The Bani Lahyán, and other
neighbouring tribes, rallied round the standard of their chief Sofián, the son
of Khálid, at Orna with the avowed purpose of taking this occasion by the
forelock when the tables were turned at Ohad. "Mahomet, knowing that their
movements depended solely upon Sofiân, despatched Abdullah ibn Oneis
with instructions to assassinate him."[217] The accredited envoy volunteered
himself for the service, which he accomplished by destroying Sofian by
surprise. Neither Ibn Ishak, nor Ibn Hisham, nor Ibn Sád have anything to
say about 'instructions' for assassination. Abdullah-bin Oneis may have been
sent as a spy to reconnoitre the movements of Sofián and his army, or to
bring advices concerning him, but it cannot be affirmed that he was tutored
by Mohammad to assassinate Sofian, even on the supposition that his
mission was to kill the latter.
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,
52. Justifications of
maintained the broad principle that "in war everything
Sofian's alleged
murder. done against an enemy is lawful that he may be
destroyed, though unarmed and defenceless; that fraud or
even poison may be employed against him; that a most unlimited right is
acquired to his person and property."[218] Every sort of fraud except perfidy
was allowed to be practised towards an enemy in war. "I allow of any kind
of deceit," writes Bynkershoek, a writer on international law, the successor
of Puffendorf and the predecessor of Wolff and Vattel, "perfidy alone
excepted, not because anything is unlawful against an enemy, but because
when our faith had been pledged to him, so far as the promise extends, he
ceases to be an enemy."[219]
In the case of Sofián there was no perfidy, treachery, or violation of faith,
nor was there any permission granted by Mohammad for his assassination.
He sent, if it be proved he did (but it is never proved), Abdullah against
Sofián who had made every preparation of arms, and who had mustered
together several Bedouin tribes to attack Mohammad, to fight and kill him; it
was a straightforward course allowed by the usages of the military law.
Mohammad had distinctly and expressly interdicted perfidy, deceit and
assassination. "Do not," said he, charging his commanders and soldiers on
the point of marching for a military expedition, "commit perfidy, and do not
mutilate, and do not kill a child."[220] He also laid down the golden maxim,
"Belief is the restraint to assassination. No believer should commit
assassination."[221]
5.—Abú Rafe.
Abú Rafe, called also Sallám Ibn Abul Hokeik, was the
53. Abú Rafe. chief of Bani Nazeer, who had warred with the Moslems
at Medina, and had been banished to Khyber. He had
taken a prominent part in the assembling of most of the Bedouin tribes at the
war of the confederates when they besieged Medina. Subsequently, he had
excited Bani Fezara and other Bedouin tribes to carry on their depredations
among the Moslems. A band of the latter was dispatched to inflict condign
punishment upon him, and he met with his death at their hands. But the

account of his execution are full of contradictions and discrepancies. But
none of these diverse stories has, that Mohammad commanded the
assassination of Abú Rafe, while Ibn Ishak gives no account of him at all.
Ibn Hisham has—"That Abú Rafe had brought the confederate army against
Mohammad, and some of Khazraj had asked permission to kill him, and
Mohammad permitted them."[222] Sir W. Muir narrates that Mohammad
"gave them command to make away with Abul Huckeick,"[223] whilst the
Secretary of Wákidi, whom he follows, simply says, "He gave command to
kill him." "Making away with a person" creates an idea of secret murder
tantamount to 'assassination,' but such is not the wording of the original.
Sending a party to kill, or fight with an enemy are synonymous, and
permissible by the international or military law, the Arab mode of fighting
mostly consisting of single combats.

6.—Oseir-bin Zárim.[224]
Oseir-ibn Zarim, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had
54. Oseir-bin Zárim.maintained a hostile animosity against the Moslems of
Medina, to war with whom he had enrolled himself in the
adverse tribe of Ghatafán. Preparations were briskly made by this tribe to
make a havoc of Medina, and Oseir had been made the hero of the
enterprise. Hereupon Mohammad delegated the mission of bringing the
insurgent to Medina to Abdullah-bin Rawáha and some others, with a
promise of making him Governor of Khyber,[225] and treating him with
marked distinction, if he yielded to the wishes of the Prophet. Oseir
complied, and set out with his followers to Medina. On a camel were
mounted Abdullah-bin, Oneis, and Oseir. Hardly they had travelled six miles
when Oseir repented of his determination to go to Medina, and stretched
forth his hand towards the sword of Abdullah, who leaped from the camel
and cut off his leg, Oseir in the meantime wounding Abdullah's head with his
camel staff.[226]
Now, whether Oseir was assassinated or murdered perfidiously; whether he
meditated treachery, and Abdullah struck him in his self-defence,—whatever
might be the case, certainly there is nothing in the narrative of Oseir's death
to show that Mohammad had sent him "on a secret errand with a view of

getting rid of the Jewish chief" as Sir W. Muir explains.[227] The story is not
imparted by earliest writers like Ibn Ishak, and the traditions of a later date
are incoherent, one-sided, and imperfect. Notwithstanding these
inaccuracies, no account tells us that mandates were issued for fighting with
or killing Oseir, much less for his assassination.
7.—The alleged intended Assassination of Abú Sofian.
A Bedouin Arab was sent by Abú Sofian to Medina to
55. The intended assassinate Mohammad. The emissary was tracked in his
assassination of Abú
Sofian. evil attempt, and confessed the purpose with which he
had come. This is related by Ibn Sád Katib Wakidi as the
cause of Mohammad's sending Amr Ibn Omeya to assassinate Abú Sofian.
[228]
According to Hishamee, Amr was commissioned by the Prophet to fight
with Abú Sofián, and to kill him in immediate revenge for the murder of
Khobeib and his companions captured at Raji.[229] Now, Ibn Ishak and
Wákidí preserve absolute silence on this head. Ibn Hisham relates nothing
about assassination. It is only Ibn Sád Kátib Wákidí who hands down to
posterity the orders of Mohammad for the assassination of Abú Sofian. This
tradition is neither strengthened by any sterling witness, nor is it a genuine
one; and for this very reason it was not accepted by Ibn Ishák or even by
Wakidi, so prone to the recital of apocryphal traditions.
Referring to the above attempted assassination Mr.
56. Irving and MuirWashington Irving says: "During this period of his career
quoted: concluding
remarks. Mahomet in more than one instance narrowly escaped
falling by the hand of an assassin. He himself is charged
with the use of insidious means to rid himself of an enemy, for it is said that
he sent Amru Ibn Omeya on a secret errand to Mecca, to assassinate Abu
Sofian, but the plot was discovered, and the assassin only escaped by rapid
flight. The charge, however, is not well substantiated, and is contrary to his
general character and conduct."[230]
Sir W. Muir writes: "There is just a shadow of possibility that the tradition
may have been fabricated by the anti-Omeyad party to throw odium on the
memory of Abu Sofiân, as having been deemed by Mahomet worthy of

death. But this is not to be put against the evidence of unanimous and
apparently independent traditions."[231] But, in fact, there are no unanimous
and apparently independent traditions of the command of Mohammad to
assassinate Abú Sofian; there is only one and but one, by Ibn Sád, which is
wholly unreliable, and that too from the lips of the would-be assassin
himself who before the introduction of Islam was a professional cutthroat,
whose narration, therefore, deserves not our belief.
Even if it be taken for granted that Mohammad did send some one to
assassinate Abú Sofian, who had already sent some one to assassinate
Mohammad as related by Ibn Sád, it was justified in self-defence. It was a
measure for retaliation, not one of mere revenge, but only a means of
protective retribution, which is lawful under the military law.[232]

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

Some of the war prisoners had received the condign
57. Treatment of the
punishment of execution for their crimes in conformity
prisoners of war.
with the laws of war. It has been alleged by some
European biographers of Mohammad that their (the war prisoners')
execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no crime except their
scepticism and political antagonism.[233]
The persons executed were as follows:—
1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.
2. Okba.
3. Abul Ozza.
4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.
Before reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note,
The law of nations
by way of introductory remarks, that, under the
regarding the
international or military law, a prisoner of war is a public
prisoners of war.
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
59. The execution after the battle of Badr for his crime of severely
of Nadhr Ibn Harith.
tormenting the Moslems at Mecca. Musáb had distinctly
reminded him of his torturing the companions of Mohammad,[234] so there
was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of the Prophet displayed towards
his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it is made out by Sir W. Muir.[235]
On the other hand, his execution is denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda
and Abú Naeem, who say, that Nazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of
Honain, A.H. 8, six years after that of Badr, and was presented with one
hundred camels by Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly
Nadhir Ibn al Harith's name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient
of one hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown
among the earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These
discrepancies leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr's execution is not a fact.
It is also related by the narrators, who assert Nazr's execution at Badr, that
his daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several verses,
the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that his eyes
shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his execution had he

heard these verses before. The following are two of the verses which
Mohammad heard:
"Má kán Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mámannal
fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo."
Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free,
Anger how high for pardon has no plea.
But Zobier-bin-Bakár says, he heard some learned men who objected to
these verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think that the
whole story of Nazr's execution is a spurious one.
2.—Okba-bin-Mueit.
Another prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the
60. The execution battle of Badr for a crime similar to that of Nazr. It is
of Okba.
related that while he was going to be executed, he asked
who would take care of his little girl. Mohammad replied, "Hell-fire!" This
is altogether an apocryphal story, and owes its origin to the relation of Okba
to the tribe of Banunnar, or the "children of fire." Wackidi does not give his
authorities for the story, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before
him, which is cut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the
scene of occurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on
the authority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at
the scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides the
circumstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very suspicious,
and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by Zohak to be
entrusted with the administration of a certain district. Ommara, the son of
Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the murderers of Osman, the
third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara, on the authority of Ibn
Masood, that "when thy father was being executed, he had asked the
Prophet, who will take care of his little girl." The Prophet replied, "Hell-
fire." Therefore, I am satisfied for thee with what the Prophet had chosen for
thy father.[236]
There is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba's execution as well as about the
person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who killed him,
and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that Okba was

executed at Taimee,[237] and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi,[238] that he
was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was beheaded. I have
no belief in Okba's execution at all.
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was
61. Free liberty one of the persecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had
granted to Ozza, a
prisoner of war. besought Mohammad to release him by way of
compassion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted
him his life and his liberty.[239] This directly points to the universal
generosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story of
Okba's execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct. On
these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.
3.—Abul Ozza.
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his
62. Abul Ozza freedom without any ransom, on the condition that he
proved a traitor and
was executed. would never again bear up arms in any war against the
Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the Arabs to
make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of Mecca.
He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly executed.
[240]
This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of war (vide ante,
para. 58).
4.—Moavia Ibn Mughira.
Moavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted
The execution of three days' truce, on the condition that if he were found
Moavia Ibn
Mughira. in Medina after the appointed time, he was to be
executed. The period had passed, and he was still lurking
at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid and Ammar on
their return from Hamra-al-Assad, after five or six days. It is apparent that
Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina might be either as a
spy[241] or scout secretly seeking information.
Sir W. Muir, who calls him Othmân Ibn Mughîra, makes
64. Justification of out a favourable case in his behalf. He writes: He
Mughira's

execution. "incautiously lingered at Medîna till the last day of his
term of grace, when he set out for Mecca."[242] But Ibn
Hisham distinctly writes that he "stayed at Medina after the three days had
passed and was found lurking there." Even according to Wackidi he was
caught on the fourth day. But this is far from truth, for, according to his own
account, Mohammad was absent after the battle of Ohad for five days at
Hamra-al-Assad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could have endeavoured to
avoid the returning Moslem force from Hamra-al-Assad, and lose his way, as
Sir W. Muir gives it out, only on the fourth day?
One of the enemies, who had invaded Medina and attacked Mohammad,
was, after being captured, allowed three days' truce on explicit conditions
that he was to be killed there if found after three days, and was also provided
with a camel and provisions for the way, was discovered lurking thereabout
on the fifth or sixth day, in consequence of which he lost his life. This is
called by Sir W. Muir as being "perished by a too great confidence in the
generosity of his enemy,"[243]—i.e., Mohammad.
The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr.
Sir W. Muir writes: "It would even seem to have been
63. The wrong contemplated at the close of the battle to kill all the
version of Sir W.
Muir. prisoners. Mahomet is represented by tradition as himself
directing this course." In a foot-note he says, "Thus
Mahomet said: 'Tell not Saîd of his brother's death'" (Mábad, a prisoner, see
above, page 110 note); "but kill ye every man his prisoner."—(Wâckidi,
100.) Again: "Take not any man his brother prisoner, but rather kill him"
(page 101). "I would not, however, lay too much stress on these traditions. I
am inclined rather to view them as called into existence by the passages
quoted below from the Coran."[244] The contemplated execution of the
prisoners is not borne out by the traditions which Sir W. Muir himself looks
upon as fabricated ones. The true translation of the passages in Wackidi
referred to above is as follows:—
First passage.—"Tell not Said of his brother's killing (i.e., being killed), so
he will kill every prisoner in your hands."—(Wackidi, page 100.) This
obviously means, that do not let Saeed know that his brother Wáhid, who

was made prisoner and killed by Omar or Abu Barda, was killed. If you do
so, he will, being enraged, kill every prisoner now in your hands. It is very
strange that Sir W. Muir translates the sentence to mean "kill ye every man
his prisoner!"
Second passage.—"No body must take his brother's prisoner, so that he may
be killed," meaning none of you should seize other person's prisoner. If you
do so, perhaps, the other person may kill the prisoner in the contest. Sir W.
Muir has quite misunderstood the sentence.
There are some fictitious traditions on the subject that
66. Mohammad Mohammad was reprimanded in the Koran (Sura, viii,
never blamed in the
Koran for relieving 68, 69) for releasing the prisoners of Badr, meaning that
prisoners. 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
67. The Koran Mohammad, and the ancient practice of killing and
enjoins, the
prisoners of war to enslaving them was much discouraged and abolished by
be either freely the Koran.
liberated or
ransomed, but
neither executed nor
"And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off
enslaved. heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the
bonds!"
"Then either a free grant (of liberty) or a ransom until the war shall have laid
down its burdens."—Sura, xlvii, 4 and 5.
Regarding the prisoners of Badr Sir W. Muir writes: "In pursuance of
Mahomet's commands, the citizens of Medina, and such of the refugees as
possessed houses, received the prisoners and treated them with much
consideration." "Blessing be on the men of Medina!" said these prisoners in
latter days. "They made us ride, while they themselves walked; they gave us
wheatened bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting themselves
with dates." It is not surprising that when, some time after, their friends came
to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been thus received
declared themselves adherents of Islam: and to such the Prophet granted a
liberty without the usual payment.[245]
The prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released without paying any
ransom.[246]
The Bani Hawazin were made prisoners of war at Honain, fought in the
eighth year of the Hegira, but were all set free without any exaction of
ransom from them. Mohammad first released his prisoners, and the men of
Mecca and Medina cheerfully followed his example.[247] The prisoners were
six thousand in number.[248]
A party of eighty, as related by Moslim in his Saheeh, or of forty or fifty
Koreish, as narrated by Ibn Hisham (p. 745), went round about Mohammad's
camp while stationed at Hodeibia in A.H. 6, seeking to cut off any stray
followers, and having attacked the camp itself with stones and arrows, they

were caught and taken prisoners to Mohammad, who, with his usual
generosity, pardoned and released them.
Khalid-Ibn-Waleed, in the year of his victory, A.H. 11, when he was sent to
call the Bani Jazima to embrace Islam, had made them prisoners and ordered
their execution. Some of the better-informed of the Moslems of the
injunctions of the Koran, of releasing prisoners either freely or by exacting
ransom, interposed and accused him of committing an act of the Time of
Ignorance. Mohammad, much displeased, grieved at the intelligence, and
said twice, 'O God! I am innocent of what Khalid hath done.'[249]
The Execution of the Bani Koreiza.
The Bani Koreiza, a Jewish tribe living in the vicinity of
68. High treason of Mecca had entered into an alliance with the Moslem
the Bani Koreiza
against Medina, and Commonwealth to defend the city of Medina from the
their execution. attack of the aggressors. While Medina was besieged by
the ten thousand Koreish and other Bedouin tribes in
A.H. 6, they (the Koreiza), instead of co-operating with the Moslems,
defected from their allegiance and entered into negotiations with the
besieging foe. After the cessation of the siege, they were besieged in their
turn, and a fearful example was made of them, not by Mohammad, but by an
arbiter chosen and appointed by themselves. The execution of some of them
was not on account of their being prisoners of war; they were war-traitors
and rebels, and deserved death according to the international law. Their
crime was high treason against Medina while it was blockaded. There had no
actual fighting taken place between the Bani Koreiza and the Moslems, after
the former had thrown off their allegiance to the latter and had aided and
abetted the enemies of the realm. They were besieged by the Moslems to
punish them for their high treason, and consequently they were not prisoners
of war. Even such prisoners of war suffer for high treason.
"Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages
of war, has never prevented the legitimate Government from trying the
leaders of the rebellion, or chief rebels for high treason, and from treating
them accordingly, unless they are included in a general amnesty."[250]

The whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed,
69. The whole of
the Bani Koreiza nor all the male prisoners were put to the sword.[251] The
number slain was comparatively very small. That they
was never executed.
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
70. The women and children,—were either liberated or got themselves
children of the Bani
Koreiza were not ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-
sold. Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan
gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W.
Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were
sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and
arms.[252] But there is no authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman,
in his Campaigns of Mohammad, gives another account which is more
probable. He writes:—
"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen
horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into two
halves. One-half he sent with Sád bin Obádd to Syria, and the other half
with Ans bin Quízí to the land of Ghatafán, and ordered that they may be
used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good horses."[253]
The number of male adults executed has been much
71. The exaggerated
exaggerated, though it is immaterial, when an execution
number of the
persons executed.duly authorized by the international law of a country
takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of the
number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta on the

subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: "Passing now to the
men executed," he says, "one can at once see how it has been exaggerated.
Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even up to 900.
But Christian historians generally give it as varying from 700 to 800. I look
upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would seem an exaggerated
number. The traditions agree in making the warlike materials of the Bani
Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers, 1,500 sabres, &c. In order to
magnify the value of the spoil, the traditions probably exaggerated these
numbers.[254] But taking them as they stand, and remembering that such
arms are always kept greatly in excess of the number of fighting men, I am
led to the conclusion that the warriors could not have been more than 200 or
300. The mistake probably arose from confounding the whole body of
prisoners who fell into the hands of the Moslems with those executed."[255]
Even 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put up for
the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris,[256] which would have been
insufficient for such a large number.

Some Miscellaneous Objections Refuted.

1.—Omm Kirfa.
The barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who
72. The execution was notorious as the mistress of a nest of robbers, by
of Omm Kirfa for
brigandage. tying her each leg to a separate camel and being torn
asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib
Wáckidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of Wáckidi,
Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wáckidi does not say that the
execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the part of Sir W.
Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act, because he
reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such an inhuman
treatment.[257] But in the first place the narration is a mere fiction; and
secondly, the traditions are, as a rule, always incomplete; in one place they
are given shorter, and in another longer, according to the circumstances of
the occasion on which they are originally recited. Ibn Hisham relates, that

"Zaid-bin-Harisa ordered Kays-bin-Mosahhar to execute Omm Kirfa, so he
executed her with a violent execution." ('Katlan Aneefan,' p. 980.) He does
not relate that Mohammad was even informed of the execution after the
party had returned from this terrible mission. I think the word 'aneef'
(violent or severe), as used originally by the narrator, might have been the
cause of the growth of the story of executing by tying up to two camels, by
way of a gratuitous explanation or glossary, as another tradition relates that
she was tied to the tails of two horses (vide Koostalanee in his Commentary
on Bokharee, Vol. III, p. 307).
2.—Urnee Robbers.
Some Urnee robbers, lately converted, had plundered
73. The alleged the camels of Medina and barbarously handled their
mutilation of the
Urnee robbers. herdsman, for they cut off his hands and legs, and struck
thorny spikes into his tongue and eyes, till he died. The
bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by Kurz-bin-Jabir. "They had
merited death," says Sir W. Muir, "but the mode in which he inflicted it was
barbarous and inhuman. The arms and legs of eight men were cut off, and
their eyes were put out. The shapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched
Bedouins were then impaled upon the plain of Al Ghâba, until life was
extinct."[258] As the robbers had mutilated the herdsman, this gave currency
to their having been mutilated in retaliation. But in fact Mohammad never
ordered mutilation in any case. He was so averse to this practice, that
several traditions from various sources emanating from him to the effect,
prove that he prohibited mutilation lest he himself be mutilated by divine
judgment.[259]
Sir W. Muir continues:—"On reflection, Mahomet
74. Amputation or appears to have felt that this punishment exceeded the
banishment
substituted bounds of humanity. He accordingly promulgated a
Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to
temporarily in place
of imprisonment for
want of a well- simple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands
organized system ofand feet is, however, sanctioned as a penal measure; and
jails. amputation of the hands is even enjoined as the proper
penalty for theft, whether the criminal be male or female. This barbarous

custom has accordingly been perpetuated throughout the Mahometan world.
But the putting out of the eyes is not recognized among the legal
punishments."[260]
These alternative punishments were prescribed for the heinous crimes of
highway robbery, dacoity, and theft by house-breaking. They were (i)
capital punishment, (ii) amputation, and (iii) banishment (Sura, v, 37, 42),
according to the circumstances of the case. The last two were of a
temporary nature substituted for imprisonment for want of an organized
system of jails and prisons. When the Commonwealth was in its infancy, the
troubles of the invasions and wars of the aggressive Koreish and their allies
had left neither peace nor security at Medina to take such administrative
measures as to organize a system of building, guarding, and maintaining
jails, their inmates and their establishments. As soon as jails were
established in the Mohammadan Commonwealth, amputation and
banishment gave way to imprisonment. The prisoners of war, not being
criminals, used to be made over by Mohammad to some citizens of Medina,
as in the case of the prisoners of the battle of Badr, to keep them in their
houses as guests, on account of the want of prisons; but as for the other
criminals—the highway robbers, dacoits, and house-breakers—they could
not be treated and entertained so hospitably. Thus there was left no
alternative for them except either to banish such criminals, or to award them
corporal punishment in the shape of amputation.[261]
3.—Torture of Kinana.
It is related by the biographers "that Kinana, chief of the
75. Torture of Jews of Khyber, and his cousin had kept back, in
Kinana.
contravention of their compact, a portion of their riches.
On the discovery of this attempt at imposition, Kinana was subjected to
cruel torture—'fire being placed upon his breast till his breath had almost
departed'—in the hope that he would confess where the rest of his treasures
were concealed. Mahomet then gave command, and the heads of the chief
and his cousin were severed from their bodies."[262]

The story of Kinana's being subjected to extortion and put to death for
hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contract, is
altogether a spurious one. Kinana was executed in retaliation for
treacherously killing Mahmud, the brother of Mohammad-bin-Moslama, to
whom he was made over for execution. There is one tradition, without any
authority, to the effect, that Zobeir was producing fire on Kinana's breast by
the friction of flint and steel. This, if it be a fact, does not show that it was
done by Mohammad's direction and approval. On the contrary, there are
several traditions from the Prophet himself in which he has forbidden to
punish any one with fire. It is related by Bokharee from Ibn Abbás, that
Mohammad said, "God only can punish with fire." It is also related by Abu
Daood from Abdullah, that the Prophet said, "No body ought to punish any
one with fire except the Lord of the fire."[263]
4.—A Singing-Girl executed.
"From general amnesty extended to the citizens of
76. The alleged Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of
execution of a
singing-girl. these, however, only four were actually put to death....
The two next were renegade Moslems, who having shed
blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were both
slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had been in the
habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses."
"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subâba. The murder
committed by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter
unintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to
death, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of the
other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the
present occasion."[264]
Abdullah had committed cold-blooded murder, and most probably the
singing-girl belonging to him had taken a share in his crime. Her execution
was owing to her being an accomplice or abettor in the foul act which was
justified by law. Then why should the execution be considered a worst act?
Mohammad felt the deepest respect for the weaker sex, and had enjoined
during the warfares "not to kill women;" but the law makes no difference

amongst the sexes, both sexes being liable to punishment according to their
deserts.
The magnanimity, clemency, forbearance, and
77. The charitable forgiveness of Mohammad at the time of his victory at
spirit of
Mohammad Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole
towards his with his usual acumen writes:—"But the final keystone
enemies.
was set in the eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when
a body of the Kureysh broke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims;
and Mohammad forthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men,
and the city, defence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the
Prophet to show his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet.
Will he not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own
cruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may
prepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.
"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of
the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a
fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was
also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the
Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him:
he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka. Four criminals,
whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription list when he
entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies. The army followed
the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no house was robbed, no
woman insulted."[265]
5.—Abu Basír.
Sir W. Muir says that "Abu Basír, the free-booter, was
78. Abu Basír not
countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely
countenanced by
the Prophet inconsistent with the letter, and certainly opposed to the
contravention of the
spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia."[266] It was one of the
spirit of the treaty
of Hodeibia. articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish
and Mohammad, that if any one goeth over to
Mohammad without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to

him.[267] A short time after, Abu Basír, a Moslem imprisoned at Mecca,
effected his escape and appeared at Medina. His guardians, Azhar and
Akhnas, sent two servants to Mohammad with a letter and instructions to
bring the deserter back to his house. The obligation of surrender was at once
admitted by Mohammad, though Abu Basír pleaded the persecution which
he used to suffer at Mecca as the cause of refusing to return, but
Mohammad argued that it was not proper for him to break the terms of the
peace, and Abu Basír was compelled to set out for Mecca. But he had
travelled only a few miles when he treacherously seized the sword of one of
his escorts and slew him. The other servant fled back to Medina, whither
Abu Basír also followed him. On the return of the latter, he contended that
the Prophet had already fulfilled the treaty to its very letter in delivering
him up, but the Prophet replied, "Alas for his mother! What a kindler of
war, if he had with him any one!" When he heard this "he knew that the
Prophet was again going to send him back to his guardians,[268] the Koreish,
so he went away to the seashore, where he, with others who had joined him
after their flight from captivity at Mecca, used to waylay the caravans from
Mecca." This story, which is also briefly narrated by Ibn Is-hak, and more
fully by Shamee, Zoorkanee and Ibn-al-Kyyim, does not show that
Mohammad acted against the spirit and letter of the truce of Hodeibia.
He himself never countenanced Abu Basír; on the contrary, he delivered
him up in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia, and when he
had returned, Abu Basír had every reason to believe that Mohammad would
again despatch him to the quarters whence he had come. But it appears Abu
Basír went away to the seashore, out of Mohammad's jurisdiction, and it
was not the duty of the Prophet to effect his arrest and send him back to
Mecca whilst he was not with him, or rather out of his jurisdiction. Had he
even kept him with himself at Medina after he had once made him over to
the party sent forth to take charge of him, and were no other demands made
for his delivery, I do not think Mohammad could be fairly blamed for it
according to the international law of the Arabs, or even according to the
terms of the treaty of Hodeibia itself.
6.—Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged
Medina.

When Medina was besieged for several days by the
79. Nueim not Koreish and their confederates, the army of Medina was
employed by the
harassed and wearied with increasing watch and duty.
Prophet to circulate
Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe, represented himself as
false reports in the
enemy's camp.
a secret believer, and offered his services to the Prophet,
who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the confederates from
the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game of deception." Nueim
excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the Koreish. He told the Jews
not to fight against Mohammad until they got hostages from the Koreish as
a guarantee against their being deserted. And to the Koreish he said that the
Jews intended to ask hostages from them. "Do not give them," he said,
"they have promised Mahomet to give up the hostages to be slain."[269]
This is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews had
themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied yet,
when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian when
their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu Sofian
is not going to send them any.[270]
A third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's
Campaigns of Mohammad gives no such story at all. It has altogether a
different narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish in the
Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that the
Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on their
arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who were
waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already related.[271]
This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr. Muir. But anyhow
the story does not prove that Mohammad had given permission to Nueim to
speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.
Sir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he
80. Deception inwrites,—"We cannot, indeed, approve the employment
way allowed by the
of Nueim to break up the confederacy by falsehood and
international law.
deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his
character in Arab estimation;"[272] and further on he writes,—"When
Medîna was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the

services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the
enemy by false and treacherous reports: for," said he, "what else is war but
a game at deception."[273] The utmost that can be made out from the former
tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another tradition of equal
force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by quoting the
proverbial saying, that "war is a game at deception." In this he had the
sanction of the military law or the international law, as deception in war is a
"military necessity," and allowed by the law and usages of war. A modern
author on the international law says:—
"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed
enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable
in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed
enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of
peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and
obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication,
and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the
appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the
subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not
involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding
agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of
war to exist."[274]
But supposing the modern morality does not approve of
81. Lecky's Mohammad what hardly "affected his character in Arab
Standard of
Morality. estimation," are there no diversities in moral judgments?
The moral unity to be expected in different ages is not a
unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of tendency.
"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been practised
without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best Romans saw
nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or revengeful
assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery has been
sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable proofs,
that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in another as
criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an historical

examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or palliating the
apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the gladiatorial shows were
originally a form of human sacrifice adopted through religious motives; that
the rude nomadic life of savages rendering impossible the preservation of
aged and helpless members of the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded
as an act of mercy both by the murderer and the victim; that before an
effective administration of justice was organized, private vengeance was the
sole preservation against crime, and political assassination against
usurpation; that the insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft
arises from the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in
common; that the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to
foster military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to
discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy to
prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true, but there is
another and a more general answer. It is not to be expected, and it is not
maintained, that men in all ages should have agreed about the application of
their moral principles. All that is contended for is, that these principles are
themselves the same. Some of what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty
were dictated by that very feeling of humanity, the universal perception of
the merit of which they are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the
case, all that can be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low.
But still humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."[275]
The alleged permission to kill the Jews.
It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad,
82. Murder of Ibn eagerly recited by others of Europe, that, "on the
Sanina.
morning after the murder of Káb, Mahomet gave a
general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they might
chance to meet,"[276] and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish merchant,
by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this order. "When
Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the Jew, and
appropriating his wealth,—"By the Lord!" replied Muheiasa, "if he that
commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would have done
it." "What!" Huweisa cried, "wouldst thou have slain thine own brother at
Mahomet's bidding?"—"Even so," answered the fanatic. "Strange indeed!"

Huweisa responded. "Hath the new religion reached to this pitch! Verily it is
a wonderful Faith." And Huweisa was converted from that very hour."[277]
Ibn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani
Hárisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her
father.[278] (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person, the
freedman of the tribe of Háris, therefore no reliance can be put on his story.
(2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer Muheiasa, or
Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3) Muheiasa
himself has not that respectable character which can lend even a shadow of
veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that Mohammad had given
general permission to his followers to slay any Jew whom they might
chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn Sanina, and Huweisa
became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by another counter-tradition in
Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related from Abú Obeida, who relates
from Abú Omar-al-Madaní, that, "during the execution of the Bani Koreiza
(vide para. 68), one Káb-bin-Yahooza was made over to Muheiasa for
execution. When the latter executed his victim, Huweisa, his brother, who
was still unbelieving, upbraided Muheiasa. "If he," responded Muheiasa,
"that commanded me to kill him had commanded me to kill thee also, I
would have killed thee." Huweisa was quite surprised at his brother's reply,
and went away astonished. During the night he used to wake up repeatedly,
and wonder at his brother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he
said, "By the Lord! This is a wonderful faith," and came to the Prophet to
embrace Islam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the
Jews, and Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence
thereof, is all a mere concoction.
Even Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all
83. Sir W. Muir such apocryphal traditions reflecting on the character of
quoted.
the Prophet, doubts the veracity of this one, and declares
its improbability and inexpediency. He writes:—
"But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would
suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or
reservations not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for

the Prophet's cause at this time that the streets of Medîna should
have flowed with blood by the strict execution of this command.
Yet such is the distinct tenor of the best traditions.
"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time
when Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery;
and Hishâmi has a tradition that it was promulgated when
Mahomet directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza,
which would have been the more likely version, if the other
tradition had not been so strong and positive."[279]
But the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as I
have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated
at the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of
Muheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.
The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer.
The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by
84. The Bani Sir W. Muir, who says: "The pretext on which the Bani
Nazeer.
Nadhîr were besieged and expatriated (namely, that
Gabriel had revealed their design against the Prophet's life), was feeble and
unworthy of an honest cause."[280]
A whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does not
hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the Prophet or their
expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the subject are unsupported,
ex parte, and legendary. Had such a tradition been current at the time of
Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the first or Apostolic Age), we
should certainly have had scores of narrators on the subject.[281] Their crime
was treachery,[282] and they were a dangerous element to Medina, for a
combination, at any period, between the treacherous Jews and the
aggressive Koreish, or other enemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to
the safety of Medina. But their banishment was too mild a punishment.
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
85. Fruit-trees not
cut down. Koran.[283] But the date trees cut down were neither
bearing fruit, nor did they supply any staple article of
food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general. The Leena mentioned in
the verse referred to above is a tree without fruit. Thus no fruit trees were
destroyed. (Zoorkánee Vol. II, page 98.) Trees not bearing fruits were only
cut, which is also justified under the Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX,
20.)
Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia.
Females were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The
86. Females and thestipulation for the surrender of deserters referred only to
treaty of Hodeibia.
the male sex. All women who were to come over to
Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace were, by the dictates of
Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their profession was found sincere, they
were to be retained. They were prohibited from marrying the unbelievers.
The guardians of such believing females were to receive from the Moslem
commonwealth what they had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir
understands from Sura LX, verse 10, that the women referred to therein
were the wives of the Meccans, and says:—"The unbelief of their husbands
dissolved the previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh
nuptials with believers, provided only that restitution were made of any
sums expended by their former husbands as dower upon them."[284] But
there is nothing either to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca,
or to prove, that, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages
were annulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura
IV, verse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate
them as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of such
as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the unbelief of
either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only enjoins neither to
marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with idolaters until they
believe.—(Sura II, 220.)
Sir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says,
87. Stanley "Stanley on Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the

defended. 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."[285] I think Stanley is quite
correct, and the Gospel and the Koranic rule resemble each other in this
respect. Because the order, "they (the believing women) are not lawful for
them (unbelievers), nor are the unbelievers lawful for these (believing
women)," does not relate to the women already married; and the words, "do
not retain any right in the infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape
from you to the infidels ..." are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, "But if
the unbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases."[286]
Mohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage
88. Marriage a strict tie. He had made the marriage contract more firm and
bond of union.
irrevocable, except under very exceptional
circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and called it "a strict
bond of union."[287] Mohammad's own daughter, Zeinab, was the wife of an
unbelieving husband and had fled to her father at Medina under the
persecution at Mecca after the Hegira.[288] Her marriage with her
unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad, and on the
conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of six years after
his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them together under
their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh marriage nor a fresh
dowry. (Vide Ibn Abbas' tradition in the collections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi
Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.) Safwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi
Jahl had believing wives at the time of the conquest of Mecca, and their
marriages were not dissolved by Mohammad. (Vide Ibn Shahab's tradition
in Movatta by Malik, and in the Tabakat of Ibn Sad Katib Wákidi.)
Similarly Ibn Sofian and Hakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives

retained by them after they had themselves been converted to Islam, and
their former connubial connection was not severed by Mohammad. (Vide
the several traditions in Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists
and juris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the passage in Sura
LX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage tie.

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

Almost all the common Mohammadan and European
89. The Koran writers think that a religious war of aggression is one of
enjoined only
defensive wars. 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
90. The Common place, only in self-defence, and none of them has any
Law and Jihad.
reference to make warfare offensively. In the second
place, it is to be particularly noted that they were transitory in their nature,
and are not to be considered positive injunctions for future observance or
religious precepts for coming generations.[289] They were only temporary
measures to meet the emergency of the aggressive circumstances. The
Mohammadan Common Law is wrong on this point, where it allows
unbelievers to be attacked without provocation. But this it places under the
category of a non-positive injunction. A positive injunction is that which is
incumbent on every believer. But attacking unbelievers without any
provocation, or offensively, is not incumbent on every believer. The Hedaya
has:—"The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when
it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Mussulmans; and it is then no
longer of any force with respect to the rest."[290]
The Mohammadan Common Law makes the fighting
91. Jihad when only a positive injunction "where there is a general
positive.
summons, (that is, where the infidels invade a
Mussulman territory, and the Imâm for the time being issues a general
proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,) for in this case
war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the
inhabitants,"[291]—this is sanctioned by the Law of Nations and the Law of
Nature.
The Hedaya, or a Commentary of the Mohammadan
92. The Hedaya Common Law by Nuraddin Ali of Murghinan (died in
quoted and refuted.
593, A.H.) has:—

"The destruction of the sword[292] is incurred by the infidels, although they
be not the first aggressors, as appears from the various passages in the
sacred writings which are generally received to this effect."[293]
This assertion is not borne out by the sacred injunction of the Koran, and,
on the contrary, is in direct contradiction to the same. There are several
passages in the Koran already quoted in pages 16-25, which expressly
forbid the taking of offensive measures, and enjoin only defensive wars.
There are some other passages which are not so expressive as the several
others referred to above, or in other words, are not conditional. But the law
of interpretation, the general scope and tenor of the Koran, and the context
of the verses and parallel passages, all show that those few verses which are
not conditional should be construed as conditional in conformity with other
passages more clear, expressive, and conditional, and with the general laws
of scriptural interpretation. Now, the author of the Hedaya and other writers
on the Common Law quote only those few passages from the Koran which
are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those many
conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran.
Limited, or Conditional. General, or Absolute.
Sura XXII, 39-42. Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.)
Sura II, 186-189. Sura IX, 124.
" " 212.
" " 214. The context, parallel passages
Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. and their history, show them
" " 91, 92, 93. to be limited and conditional,
Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. in conformity with the general
" " 73, 74. scope of the Koran.
Sura IX, 1-15.
" " 29, 36.
Quoted in pages 16-25, 35.

93. Rule of Now, there are only two verses in the Koran (Sura II, v.
interpretation. 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
94. The Common the compilers of the Common Law are wrong in this
Law and its
commentators. 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,
95. Kifaya quoted. who flourished in the seventh century of the Hegira,
remarks on the words of the text, "The destruction of the
sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be not the first aggressors,"
already quoted in the 92nd para., and says; "Fighting against the infidels
who do not become converts to Islam, and do not pay the capitation-tax, is
incumbent, though they do not attack first." The author of the Hedaya has
mentioned this aggressive measure specially, because apparently the words

of God, "if they attack you then slay them,"[294] indicate that the fighting
against the unbelievers is only incumbent when they fight first, but,
however, such is not the case. It is incumbent to fight with them, though
they be not the aggressors.[295]
The same author writes in continuation of the above
96. Further quotation, and attempts to reconcile his theory with the
quotation.
numerous precepts of the Koran, which do not permit
the war of aggression:—
"Know, that in the beginning the Prophet was enjoined to forgive, and
withdraw from those who joined other gods with God. God said, 'wherefore
dost thou forgive with kindly forgiveness, and withdraw from those who
join other gods with Me.'"
"Then He enjoined him to summon the people to the faith by kind warning
and kind disputation, saying, 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with
wisdom and kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest manner.'"
"Then He allowed fighting, when they, the unbelievers, were the aggressors,
and said:—'A sanction is given to those who have fought because they have
suffered outrages;' i.e., they are allowed to fight in self-defence. And God
said, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187); and also said, 'If they lean
to peace, lean thou also to it.' (VIII. 63)."
"Then he enjoined to fight aggressively during a certain period. God said,
'And when the sacred months are passed, kill them who join other gods with
God, wherever ye find them, and seize them' (IX. 5)."
"After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in every
place. God said, 'And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah)
persecution' (II. 189; VII. 40)."[296]
Here the author of Kifaya has contrived to make out by
97. The Kifaya way of subterfuge and sophistry five successive periods
refuted.
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
98. S. IX, v. 5, injunction to attack first or wage an aggressive war. This
discussed.
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
99. S. II, v. 189, absolute injunction to wage a war of aggression. The
discussed.
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
100. S. II, 189, VIII have indications in themselves of their relating to a
VIII, 40, are
defensive. 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
101. All injunctions
aggressive wars against the Meccans, who were the first
local and for the
time being. 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[297] (who
102. Ainee quoted
and refuted. 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
103. Sarakhsee of the Leaders), who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn
quoted and refuted.
Abdeen in his Radd-ul-Muhtár,[298] makes several stages
in publishing the injunctions for fighting. He writes:—
"Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees. First
the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, 'Profess publicly then
what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who join gods with
God' (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly; 'Summon thou to the
way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them
in the kindest warning' (XVI, 126). Then they were allowed to fight, 'A
sanction is given to those who are fought....' (XXII, 40). Then they were
allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers) attacked them, 'If they attack you,
then kill them' (II, 187). After this they were enjoined to fight on the
condition of passing over the sacred months, 'And when the sacred months
are passed, then kill the polytheists' (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to
fight absolutely, 'And fight for the cause of God....' (II, 186, 245). And thus
the matter was settled."
There was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the
Koran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not
allowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse of
the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting against those
only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse, 245th, of the same
Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is explained by the verse 245th),
which refers to the defensive measures. This verse is quoted in page 19 of
this work.
Shahábudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:—
104. Ibn Hajar
quoted and refuted."Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the
Prophet was enjoined only to preach and warn and to be
patient in the persecutions of the unbelievers in order to conciliate them.
After this, God gave sanction to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had
been prohibited in seventy and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the
aggressors, and said, 'And fight for the cause of God against those who fight
against you' (II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first

revealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are
fought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a sanction
was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then the war of
aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months, 'When the
sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth year of the
Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was enjoined absolutely by
the words of God; 'March ye forth, the light and the heavy' (IX, 41); and
'attack those who join gods with God in all' (IX, 36). And this is the very
verse of the sword, and some say the preceding verse is the verse of the
sword, while others think that both bear on the same subject, i.e., of the
sword."[299]
I have already explained the several verses quoted by the
105. Ibn Hajar author in preceding paras., but have only to pass remarks
refuted.
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
106. Halabi quoted. of Insan-ul-Oyoon, a biography of the Prophet, writes:—
"It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning and
summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe
persecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on
his followers, because God had enjoined him to warn and to have patience

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

them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether during the
sacred months, or others of the year."[300]
Neither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-
107. Halabi refuted.
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,
108. Ainee again called Binayah, in justifying the war of aggression
quoted and refuted.
against the unbelievers, quotes two verses from the
Koran,[301] and two traditions from the Prophet,[302] and says,—"If it be
objected that these absolute injunctions are restricted by the word of God, 'if
they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187), which shows that the fighting is
only incumbent when the unbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it
was held by Souri, the reply is that the verse was abrogated by another, 'So
fight against them until there be no more persecution' (II, 189), and 'fight
against those who do not believe in God.' (IX, 29)."[303] But he is wrong in
asserting that the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There
is no authority for such a gratuitous assumption. And besides, both these
verses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been already
explained in paras. 96-99.
The verse 189 shows by its very wording the existence
109. Continuation of fitnah or persecution, torture, and fighting on the part
of the above.
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
110. Traditions of Abú Daood that the Prophet had said, "The Jihád will
quoted and refuted.
last up to the day of the Resurrection:" But in the first
place, Jihád does not literally and classically mean warfare or fighting in a
war. It means, as used by the classical poets as well as by the Koran, to do
one's utmost; to labour; to toil; to exert one's-self or his power, efforts,
endeavours, or ability; to employ one's-self vigorously, diligently,
studiously, sedulously, earnestly, or with energy; to be diligent or studious,
to take pains or extraordinary pains. Vide Appendix A.
In the second place, Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, a link in the chain of the
tradition, is a Mujhool,[304] i.e., his biography is not known, therefore his
tradition can have no authority.
There is also another tradition in Bokháree to the effect that the Prophet had
said, "I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess that there
is no god but the God." This tradition goes quite contrary to the verses of
the Koran which enjoin to fight in defence,—that is, until the persecution or
civil discord was removed.—(Vide Sura II, 189; VIII, 40.) Thus it appears
that either the whole tradition is a spurious one, or some of the narrators
were wrong in interpreting the words of the Prophet.
That the Koran did not allow war of aggression either
111. Early Moslem when it was revealed, or in future as the early
legists quoted
against Jihád. jurisconsults did infer from it, will be further shown
from the opinions of the early Moslems; legists of the
first and second century of the Hegira, like Ibn (son of) Omar the second
khalif, Sotian Souri, Ibn Shobormah, Atá and Amar-bin-Dinar. All these
early legists held that the fighting was not religiously incumbent (wájib),
and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those were to be fought
against who attacked the Moslems.[305]
I will give here short biographical sketches of the legists
Biographical named above—
sketches of the
legists.
(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
113. European assert that the Koran allows wars of aggression, or in
writers' mistake.
other words, to wage war against the unbelievers
without any provocation, is shown by the testimony of Mr. Urquhart and
Mr. Edward William Lane. The latter writes: "Misled by the decision of
those doctors, and an opinion prevalent in Europe, I represented the laws of
'holy war' as more severe than I found them to be according to the letter and
spirit of the Kur-án, when carefully examined, and according to the Hanafee
code. I am indebted to Mr. Urquhart for suggesting to me the necessity of
revising my former statement on the subject; and must express my
conviction that no precept is to be found in the Kur-án, which, taken with
the context, can justify unprovoked war."[306]
I will quote several remarks of European writers,
114. Sir William including clergymen and Indian missionaries, to show
Muir quoted.
how astray they go in attributing to the Koran and
Mohammad the wars of aggressions and compulsory proselytizing. Sir
William Muir represents the principles of Islam as requiring constant
prosecutions of war, and writes—
"It was essential to the permanence of Islam that its aggressive course
should be continuously pursued, and that its claim to an universal
acceptance, or at the least to an universal supremacy, should be enforced at
the point of the sword. Within the limits of Arabia the work appeared now

to be accomplished. It remained to gain over the Christian and idolatrous
tribes of the Syrian desert, and then in the name of the Lord to throw down
the gauntlet of war before the empires of Rome and Persia, which, having
treated with contempt the summons of the Prophet addressed to them in
solemn warning four years ago, were now rife for chastisement."[307]
The occasion to which Sir W. Muir refers here was to wipe out the memory
of the reverse at Muta. The expedition to Muta was occasioned by the
murder of a messenger or envoy dispatched by Mohammad to the
Ghassànide prince at Bostra. A party was sent to punish the offending chief,
Sharahbil. This could, by no means, be maintained as a warlike spirit or an
aggressive course for the prosecution of war, or for enforcing the claim of
universal supremacy at the point of the sword.
That Islam as preached by Mohammad was never
115. Islam not aggressive has been fully shown in several places of the
aggressive.
Koran. During the whole time of his ministry,
Mohammad was persecuted, rejected, despised and at last made an outlaw
by the Koreish at Mecca, and a fugitive seeking protection in a distant city;
exiled, attacked upon, besieged, defeated, and prevented from returning to
Mecca or visiting the Holy Kaaba by the same enemies at Mecca and other
surrounding tribes who had joined them, and even from within Medina
plotted against by the Jews who were not less aggressive towards him than
their confederates of Mecca, the Koreish, whom they had instigated to make
war on him and had brought an overwhelming army, had proved traitors,
and, even more injurious than the Koreish themselves. Consequently, he
was constantly in dangers and troubles, and under such circumstances it
was impossible for him to be aggressive, to get time or opportunity to
pursue any aggressive course, or enforce, at the point of the sword, any
attempt of his for universal acceptance, or universal supremacy even if he
had designed so. But it was far from his principles to have cherished the
object of universal conquest. "That Islam ever stepped beyond the limits of
Arabia and its border lands," admits Sir. W. Muir in his Rede Lecture for
1881, just twenty years after he had written the passage I am dealing with,
"was due to circumstances rather than design. The faith was meant

originally for the Arabs. From first to last, the call was addressed primarily
to them." He writes in a footnote of the same lecture (page 5):
"It is true that three or four years before, Mahomet had
addressed dispatches to the Kaiser, and the Chosroes, and other
neighbouring potentates, summoning them to embrace the true
faith. But the step had never been followed up in any way."[308]
Mr. Freeman writes regarding Mohammad:—
116. Mr. Freeman
quoted. "Mahomet had before him the example of Mosaic Law,
which preached a far more rigorous mandate of
extermination against the guilty nations of Canaan. He had before him the
practice of all surrounding powers, Christian, Jewish, and Heathen; though,
from the disaffection of Syria and Egypt to the orthodox throne of
Constantinople, he might have learned how easily persecution defeats its
own end.... Under his circumstances, it is really no very great ground to
condemnation that he did appeal to the sword. He did no more than follow
the precedents of his own and every surrounding nation. Yet one might say
that a man of such mighty genius as Mahomet must have been, might have
been, fairly expected to rise superior to the trammels of prejudice and
precedent."[309]
Mohammad never professed to have followed the footsteps of Moses and
Joshua in waging war of extermination and proselytism. He only appealed
to the sword in his and his followers' defence. Never he seems to have been
anxious to copy the practice of the surrounding nations, Christians, Jews,
and Egyptians. His wars of defence, as they certainly all were, were very
mild, specially with regard to the treatment of children, women, and old
men who were never to be attacked; and above all, in the mildness shown
towards the captives of war who were either to be set free or ransomed,—
but were never to be enslaved,—contrary to the practice of all the
surrounding nations. This virtual abolition of slavery (vide Sura XLVII, 5,
and Appendix B) has been a great boon to mankind in general as a
beneficial result of Mohmamad's wars of defence.
The Reverend Mr. Stephens writes:—

"In the Koran, the Mussulman is absolutely and
117. The Revd. positively commanded to make war upon all those who
Stephens quoted.
decline to acknowledge the Prophet until they submit,
or, in the case of Jews and Christians, purchase exemption from the
conformity by the payment of tribute. The mission of the Mussulman, as
declared in the Koran, is distinctly aggressive. We might say that Mahomet
bequeathed to his disciples a roving commission to propagate his faith by
the employment of force where persuasion failed. 'O Prophet, fight for the
religion of God'—'Stir up the faithful to war,' such are commands which
Mahomet believed to be given him by God. 'Fight against them who believe
not a God, nor the last day,' 'attack the idolatrous in all the months,' such are
his own exhortations to his disciples."[310]
The Reverend gentleman is very much mistaken in his assertions against the
Koran. There is no absolute or positive command in the Koran for a war of
aggression or compulsory proselytism. The sentences quoted by Mr.
Stephens are but mutilated verses forcibly dislocated from their context. A
disjointed portion of a verse, or a single sentence of it cannot be brought
forth to prove any doctrine or theory. Due regard must be made for the
context, the general scope, and parallel passages. The verses referred to by
Mr. Stephens are Sura IV, 86, and Sura IX, 29, 36. All these have been
quoted in full and discussed elsewhere.[311] They relate only to defensive
wars.
Mr. Bosworth Smith says:—
118. Mr. Bosworth
Smith quoted. "The free toleration of the purer among the creeds
around him, which the Prophet had at first enjoined,
gradually changes into intolerance. Persecuted no longer, Mohammed
becomes a persecutor himself; with the Koran in one hand, the scymitar in
the other, he goes forth to offer to the nations the threefold alternative of
conversion, tribute, death."[312]
Mohammad never changed his practice of toleration nor his own teachings
into intolerance; he was always persecuted at Mecca and Medina, but, for
all we know, he himself never turned a persecutor. The three-fold

alternative so much talked of, and so little proved, is nowhere to be found in
the Koran. This subject has been fully discussed in paras. 34-39.
Mr. George Sale, in his celebrated preliminary discourse
119. Mr. G. Sale to the translation of the Koran, writes, referring to the
quoted.
thirteenth year of Mohammad's mission:—
"Hitherto Mohammed had propagated his religion by fair means, so that the
whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Medina, must be
attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this second
oath of fealty or inauguration at al Akaba, he had no permission to use any
force at all; and in several places of the Korân, which he pretended were
revealed during his stay at Mecca, he declares his business was only to
preach and admonish; that he had no authority to compel any person to
embrace his religion; and that whether people believed or not, was none of
his concern, but belonged solely to God. And he was so far from allowing
his followers to use force, that he exhorted them to bear patiently those
injuries which were offered them on account of their faith; and when
persecuted himself chose rather to quit the place of his birth and retire to
Medina, than to make any resistance. But this great passiveness and
moderation seems entirely owing to his want of power and the great
superiority of his oppressors for the first twelve years of his mission; for no
sooner was he enabled by the assistance of those of Medina to make head
against his enemies, than he gave out, that God had allowed him and his
followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his
forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them,
and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by
experience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they
were not utterly overthrown, and knowing on the other hand that
innovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can compel,
seldom run any risk; from whence, the politician observes, it follows, that
all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed ones have failed.
Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus would not have been able to establish
the observance of their institutions for any length of time had they not been
armed. The first passage of the Korân, which gave Mohammed the
permission of defending himself by arms, is said to have been that in the

twenty-second chapter: after which a great number to the same purpose
were revealed.
"That Mohammed had a right to take up arms for his own defence against
his unjust persecutors, may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought
afterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his
religion, is a question which I will not here determine. How far the secular
power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature, mankind are not
agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no very favourable
idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is disallowed by every body in
those of another religion, though the same persons are willing to admit of it
for the advancement of their own; supposing that though a false religion
ought not to be established by authority, yet a true one may; and
accordingly force is as constantly employed in these cases by those who
have the power in their hands as it is constantly complained of by those
who suffer the violence."[313]
I do not agree with these words of Mr. George Sale regarding Mohammad,
"and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave
even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the
sword;" he never attacked the Koreish or others except in his own defence.
The destruction of idolatry was the chief mission of Mohammad, and that
even was not resorted to by force of arms. There were neither compulsory
conversions nor his history points to any extirpation of the idolaters at the
point of sword from their native countries, as the chief objects of his
mission. The persecutions and civil discord were to be removed or put a
stop to, and force was used to repel force, but nothing more. Conversion by
the sword was not enforced on any proselyte by Mohammad.
Major Osborn has drawn a very dark picture of what he
120. Major Osborn calls "The Doctrine of Jehad," in his Islam under the
quoted.
Arabs.[314] The defensive wars of Mohammad are
explained by him as "means of livelihood congenial to the Arab mind, and
carrying with it no stain of disgrace or immorality. This was robbery. Why
should not the faithful eke out their scanty means by adopting this lucrative
and honourable profession, which was open to everyone who had a sword

and knew how to use it?... Surely, to despoil these infidels and employ their
property to feed the hungry and clothe the naked among the people of God,
would be a work well pleasing in His sight.... And thus was the first
advance made in the conversion of the religion of Islam with the religion of
the sword" (pages 46-47). After this the Major writes again: "The ninth Sura
is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the votaries
of all creeds other than that of Islam" (page 52). Then he quotes several
verses, some of them half sentences, violently distorted, from the eighth and
ninth Suras, in a consecutive form, without giving the numbers. These are
Sura IX, 20, 34, 35, 82, 121; Sura VIII, 67; Sura IX, 36, 5, 29, 19; Sura
XLVII, 4; Sura IX, 5; and Sura VIII, 42. Lastly, the learned Major
concludes by saying,—"Such was the character of the Sacred War enjoined
upon the Faithful. It is Muhammad's greatest achievement and his worst.
When subjected himself to the pains of persecution he had learned to
perceive how powerless were torments applied to the body to work a
change of conviction in the mind. 'Let there be no violence in religion' had
then been one of the maxims he had laid down. 'Unto every one of you,' he
had said in former days, speaking of Jews and Christians, 'have we given a
law, and an open path; and if God had pleased He had surely made you one
people; but He hath thought fit to give you different laws, that he might try
you in that which He hath given you respectively. Therefore, strive to excel
each other in good works; unto God shall ye all return, and then will He
declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed.' But the
intoxication of success had long ago stilled the voice of his better self. The
aged Prophet standing on the brink of the grave, and leaving as his last
legacy a mandate of universal war, irresistibly recalls, by force of contrast,
the parting words to his disciples of another religious teacher that they
should go forth and preach a gospel of peace to all nations. Nor less striking
in their contrast is the response to either mandate;—the Arab, with the
Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, spreading his creed amid the
glare of burning cities, and the shrieks of violated homes, and the Apostles
of Christ working in the moral darkness of the Roman world with the gentle
but irresistible power of light, laying anew the foundations of society, and
cleansing at their source the polluted springs of domestic and national life."

The learned author quoted above has either
121. Major Osborn misunderstood the character of the wars of the Prophet
refuted.
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
122. The IXth Sura Osborn to assert that "the ninth Sura is that which
of the Koran.
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
123. The Reverend Preliminary Discourse, says:—
Wherry quoted.
"Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his
pattern, and supposed himself following in his footsteps when he gave the
command to fight against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between
them whatever so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites
were commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of
destruction; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism.
The Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the Canaanites,
(Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to proselytize by sword-
power."[315]
Mohammad never had said that he did follow the footsteps of Moses in
giving the command of fighting in self-defence, and in repelling force by
force. There could be no comparison whatsoever between the wars of
Moses, which were merely wars of conquest, aggression, extermination,
and expatriation, and those of Mohammad waged only in self-defence.
Mohammad did not inaugurate his career by prosecuting war as a means of
proselytism, and never did proselytized any one by the sheer strength of the
sword. Mr. T.H. Horne, M.A., writes regarding the extirpation of the
Canaanites:—
"After the time of God's forbearance was expired, they had still the
alternative, either to flee elsewhere, as in fact, many of them did, or to
surrender themselves, renounce their idolatries, and serve the God of Israel.
Compare Deut. XX. 10-17."[316] This was certainly compulsory conversion
and proselytizing at the point of the sword.

There is only one instance in the Koran in which an
124. Example cited example is cited for the war of defence by Mohammad,
from the Jewish
history. 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
125. Mosaic the wars of Mohammad, which were purely of a
injunctions.
defensive nature, and offer apologies for the most cruel
wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua and other Jewish
worthies under the express commands of God.—(Vide Numbers XXXI;
Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in his comments
on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.
"(191). Kill them, &c. Much is made of expressions like this, by some
Christian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian prophet, and
the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and his Qurán a
fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think this mode of
assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it is capable of being
turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the claim of Muhammad to
have received a divine command to exterminate idolatry by the slaughter of
all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can see no objection to his practice.
The question at issue is this. Did God command such slaughter of idolaters,

as he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites or of the Amalekites?
Taking the stand of the Muslim, that God did so command Muhammad and
his followers, his morality in this respect may be defended on precisely the
same ground that the morality of Moses and Joshua is defended by the
Christian."[317]
The Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on
126. The Revd. T.P. Muhammadanism writes:—
Hughes quoted.
"Jihád (lit. 'an effort') is a religious war against
the infidels, as enjoined by Muhammad in the Qurán."
Súrat-un-Nisa (VI.)
"Fight therefore for the religion of God."

"God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath
preferred those who fight for the faith." (IV, 97.) Súrat-ul-
Muhammad (XLVII).
"Those who fight in the defence of God's true religion, God will
not suffer their works to perish." (XLVII, 5.)[318]
The first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence. The
verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war of defence,
but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in full. He merely
quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other words and phrases of
the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page 20. It is as follows:—
"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir
up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God
is stronger in prowess, and stronger to punish."—(Sura IV, 86.)
The severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of the
Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word Báss, rendered
prowess into English and referred to in the previous verse 77, which shows

that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the aggressions of the enemy
and to repel force by force.
It is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or dislocate
half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate and prove a
certain object of his.
The second verse quoted by the same author is a mere
127. Meaning of mistranslation. There is no such word in the original
Jihad.
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
128. Sura XLVII, v.mistranslation of a sentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The
5.
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:—
129. The Rev. Mr.
Malcolm MacColl "The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or
quoted.
the House of Islam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of
the enemy. All who are not of Islam are thus against it, and it is accordingly
the duty of the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept
Islam, or are destroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can
only end with the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus
the sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the non-
Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the non-
Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or 'People of the
Book,'—i.e., people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures, namely,
Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are
infidels, and consequently outside the pale of Salvation. But the Ketabi are
entitled to certain privileges in this world, if they submit to the conditions
which Islam imposes. Other infidels must make their choice between one of
two alternatives—Islam or the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third
alternative, namely, submission and the payment of tribute. But if they
refuse to submit, and presume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse
at once into the condition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily
put to death or sold as slaves."[319]
I am very sorry the Rev. gentleman is altogether wrong in his assertions
against the Koran. There is neither such a division of the world in the
Koran, nor such words as "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" are to be found
anywhere in it. There is no injunction in the Koran to the True Believers to
fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, failing which they are to be
put to death. The words "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" are only to be
found in the Mohammadan Common Law, and are only used in the question

of jurisdiction. No Moslem magistrate will pass a sentence in a criminal
case against a criminal who had committed an offence in a foreign country.
The same is the case in civil courts[320]. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb
are not necessarily infidels. Mohammadans, either permanently or
temporarily by obtaining permission from the sovereign of the foreign land,
can be the inhabitants of a Dar-ul-Harb, a country out of the Moslem
jurisdiction, or at war with it.
It is only a theory of our Common Law, in its military
130. The untenable and political chapters, which allow waging unprovoked
theories of the
Common Law and war with non-Moslems, exacting tribute from "the
conclusion. 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
Sura XLVII, 16, canonical legists in support of their theory of Jehád, but
and Sura XLVII, 4
and 5. by some few. It is not in the shape of a command or
injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:—
"Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called forth
against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them, or they
shall submit (Yoslemoon)[321]...."
The verses 4 and 5 of Sura XLVII, like all other verses on the subject,
appertain to the wars of defence, and no one has ever quoted them for wars
of aggression. These verses have already been quoted at page 85. The
abolition of the future slavery as enjoined in the 5th verse has been treated
separately in Appendix B. The Arabs, like other barbarous nations round
them, used either to kill the prisoners of war or to enslave them; but this
injunction of the Koran abolished both of these barbarous practices. The
prisoners henceforward were neither to be killed nor enslaved, but were to
be set at liberty with or without ransom.

FOOTNOTES
[159] Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 76.

But, in fact, there was no such permission. The verse quoted above says, that the
wrath and punishment of God will be on those who deny God, except those who
do so by being forced. The latter were not put on the same footing as the former;
in short, those who denied God under compulsion were not counted unbelievers.
[160] "The support of the Medina adherents, and the suspicion of an intended
emigration, irritated the Koreish to severity; and this severity forced the
Moslems to petition Mahomet for leave to emigrate. The two causes might co-
exist and re-act one another; the persecution would hasten the departure of the
converts, while each fresh departure would irritate the Koreish to greater
cruelty."—William Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 242, 243, foot-note.
[161] Unfortunately several missionary expeditious sent by Mohammad were
met with unfavorable circumstances. The party sent to Bani Suleim, demanding
their allegiance to the faith of Islam, was slain. Another party sent to Bani Leith
was surprised, and its camels plundered. A small party sent by Mohammad to
Fadak was cut to pieces by Bani Murra. Another party sent to Zat Atlah to call

upon the people to embrace Islam, of which only one person escaped.
Mohammad's messenger despatched to the Ghassanide Prince at Bostra was
murdered by the chief of Muta. His army sent to avenge the treachery of the
chief was defeated. All these mishaps and reverses dangerously affected the
prestige of Mohammad, and encouraged the Meccans to violate the truce.
[162] Or defend, 'Yadafeo' repel.
[163] Yokâtaloona, or who fight Yokateloona. The former reading is the
authorized and general.
[164] The primary signification of fitnah is burning with fire. It signifies a trial
or probation and affliction, distress or hardship; and particularly an affliction
whereby one is tried, proved, or tested.—Vide Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p.
2335.
[165] Desist from persecuting you and preventing you to enter your native city
and prohibiting access to the sacred mosque and attacking you, and from
religious intolerance.
[166] i.e., the religious persecution and intolerance and hindrance to visit the
sacred mosque being suppressed; you may profess, preach and practice your
religion freely.

[167] Vide note 2 in p. 17.
[168] Shaw-wal, Zulkada, Zulhij, and Moharram, the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 1st
months of the Arabian year.
These verses were promulgated in Ramzan, the 9th month of the year.
[169] And have violated the Hodeibia Truce. Compare verses 4, 8, and 12.

[170] It is not meant that they should be forced to observe prayer or pay
obligatory alms, or in other words be converted to Islam; the context and general
scope of the Koran would not allow such a meaning. The next verse clearly
enjoins toleration.
[171] The Bani Kinana and Bani Zamara had not violated the truce of Hodeibia
while the Koreish and Bani Bakr had done so.
[172] This is the same as verse 5. It only means, if meanwhile they become
converts to Islam, they are to be treated as brethren in religion. But it cannot
mean that it was the sole motive of making war with them to convert them. Such
an interpretation is quite contrary to the general style of the Koran.
[173] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward
Gibbon, Vol. VI, p. 245.
[174] Archbishop Secker's Works, III, p. 271.
[175] Sir W. Muir, II, p. 265.
[176] Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.

[177] Remarks on the character of Mohammad (suggested by Voltaire's Tragedy
of Mahomet) by Major Vans Kennedy. Vide Transactions of the Literary Society
of Bombay for 1821, Vol. III, p. 453, reprint Bombay, 1877.
[178] "Mahomet did not send the Medina converts on any hostile expedition
against the Koreish, until they had warred with him at Badr, and the reason is,
that they had pledged themselves to protect him only at their homes."—K.
Wackidi, 48; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64, note.

[179] "K. Wackidi, 98-1/2. The provisions are noted only generally, "that neither
party would levy war against the other, nor help their enemies." The version
quoted by Weil binding the Bani Dhumra to fight for the faith, &c., is evidently
anticipatory and apocryphal. It is not given by the Secretary of Wackidi in his
chapter of treaties."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, III, p. 67, note.
[180] Contributions to Political Science by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Vol. II of his
miscellaneous writings, p. 251, London, 1881.
[181] Hishamee, p. 545. Gottengen, 1859; or, The Life of Muhammad, by Abd
etl Malik ibn Hishám. London: Trübner and Co., 1867.
[182] Hishamee, p. 757.

[183] The Jews of Khyber, if it does not relate to Tabook. Sir W. Muir calls this
hostile declaration against Jews and Christians, and says,—"The exclusion and
growingly intolerant position of Islam is sufficiently manifested by the ban
issued against the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy
precincts of the Meccan temple; and by the divine commands to war against
them until, in confession of the superiority of Islam, they should consent to the
payment of a tribute."—Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 289. The command referred
to by Sir W. Muir refers to the treatment of those who took up arms against the
Mussalmans, rather than to their ordinary condition. No ban was issued against
the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy precincts of the
Meccan temple. On the contrary, the Christians of Najran, when arrived at
Medina, were accommodated by the Prophet in his Mosque, and they used to say
their prayers there.
[184] Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 61.
[185] Islam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborne, London, 1876, p. 27.
[186] XVIII, 28.

[187] II, 257.
[188] V, 73.
[189] IX, 6.
[190] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.

[191] From attacking and persecuting you and preventing you from entering
your homes and visiting the sacred mosque.

[192] That is, if again attack you and commit aggressions.
[193] Meaning those who were defeated at Badr.

[194] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 319.
[195] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 282.
[196] There is only one instance of intolerance, i.e., making converts at the point
of sword, which Sir W. Muir, so zealous in accusing Mohammad of religious
persecution during the Medina period, has succeeded in finding out during the
ten eventful years of Mohammad's sojourn in Medina. I refer to the story of
Khalid's mission in the beginning of the tenth year A.H., to Bani Haris, a
Christian tribe at Najran, whose people had entered into a covenant of peace
with Mohammad, and to whom an ample pledge had been guaranteed to follow
their own faith. According to Sir W. Muir, Khalid was instructed to call on the
people to embrace Islam, and if they declined, he was, after three days, to attack
and force them to submit (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 224). The version
of the story thus given by the Biographers of Mohammad is too absurd to be
believed; because it is a well-established fact that the Bani Haris, or the
Christians of Najran, had sent a deputation to Mohammad only a year ago, i.e.,
in A.H. 9, and obtained terms of security from him (Muir's Life of Mahomet,
Vol. II, p. 299; Ibn Hisham, p. 401). It is quite an unfounded, though a very
ingenious, excuse of Sir W. Muir to make the Bani Haris consist of two sects,—
one of Christians, and the other of idolators,—and to say that the operations of
Khalid were directed against the portion of Bani Haris still benighted with
paganism; thus reconciling the apocryphal tradition with the fact of the Bani
Haris being at a treaty of security, toleration and freedom, with Mohammad.
"I conclude," he writes in a note, "the operations of Khâlid were directed against
the portion of Bani Hârith still idolaters:—at all events not against the Christian
portion already under treaty" (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, foot-note, p. 224).
See the account of the conversion of Bani Hárith to Christianity long before
Islam in Hishamee, pp. 20-22. Gibbon, Chapter XLII, Vol. V, p. 207, foot-note;
and Muir's Vol. I, p. ccxxviii.

[197] A name applied to an idol or idols—especially Allat and Ozza, the ancient
idols of the Meccans.
[198] The past tense, third person plural, of the infinitive Fitnah.
[199] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 211
[200] "Islam and its Founder," by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., p. 179. London, 1878.

[201] I have closely followed Sir W. Muir in these expeditions; vide The Life of
Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 64-69.
[202] "The people of Medîna were pledged only to defend the Prophet from
attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps against the Coreish." Muir's Life
of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64.

[203] Bokharee relates from Obada-bin Sámat with the usual chain of narrators,
that "I am one of the Nakeebs who pledged to the Prophet. We pledged that we
will not join any other god with the God, and will not commit theft, and will not
commit fornication, and will not commit murder, and will not plunder." Saheeh
of Bokharee, Book of Campaigns, chapter on Deputations from Ansárs.
[204] Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 419, Boston, 1855; Lieber's
Miscellaneous Writings; Political science, Vol. II, p. 250, Philadelphia, 1881.

[205] Selections from the Kur-án by Edward William Lane, with an Introduction
by Stanley Lane Poole. Intro., p. xliv: Trübner & Co., London, 1879.
[206] Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, p. 60, London, 1876.
[207] Wákidi's Campaigns of Mohammad, pp. 172 & 173: Calcutta Baptist
Mission Press; edited by A. Von Kremer.
[208] Sir W. Muir writes that "Hishami says, that Mahomet, being vexed by
Asma's verses, said publicly, 'Who will rid me of this woman?'" But there is no
such word in Ibn Hishám which may be rendered 'publicly.'

[209] Ibn Hisham, p. 994. Wakidi does not give this sentence. On the contrary,
he says, Sálim had taken a vow to kill Abú Afak or die himself.
[210] Ibn Sad Kátib Wákidí, pp. 186, 187.
[211] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, pp. 147-148.
[212] In the collections of Bokhári in the Book of Campaigns; and in the Book
of Jihád by Moslim.

[213] Mohammad-bin Sád Kátib Wakidi and Mohammad-bin Ishak. The latter in
Ibn Hisham, p. 551.
[214] Vide Osaba-fi Tamiz Issahába; or, Biographical Dictionary of Persons who
knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajr-al-Askalani. Part I, No. 1021, p. 434.
[215] Ibn Abbás was only five years old at that time, and was at Mecca. His
evidence is consequently inadmissible.
[216] Yahya-bin Saeed al Ansaree, Ali-bin Abdullah-bin Abbás, Ibnal Mosayyab,
Atá Ibrahim-bin Maisura, Mohammad-bin Sireen, Kásim, and Abdullah-bin
Omar say that Ikrama was a liar. Vide Mizánul Etedal of Zahabi, Koukabi
Durrári Sharah, Saheeh Bokhari, by Shamsuddin Kirmáni; and Márafat Anwaá-
ilm Hadees, by Abu Omar-ad-Damishki.

[217] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 200.
[218] Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D. Sixth edition, by
William Beach Lawrence, Boston, 1855; Part IV, Chapter I, p. 374, quoting
Bynkershoek; in p. 416, quoting Bynkershoek and Wolff.
[219] Ibid, Chapter II, p. 470.

[220] The collections of Moslem Apud Boreida, vide Mishkat, p. 333.
[221] The collections of Abú Daúd in the Book of Jihád, Vol. II, p. 26.

[222] The Life of Mohammad based on Mohammad-ibn Ishak, by Abdel Malik-
ibn Hisham, p. 714.
[223] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 14.
[224] Or Yoseir-bin Razim.
[225] As Khyber was not yet conquered, neither Mohammad could make such a
promise, nor the Jews could have been induced to believe it; therefore the story
is a false one.

[226] The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp. 980-981.
[227] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.
[228] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 20.
[229] The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp. 992-993. The
fighting was, according to Arab custom, in single combats.

[230] Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, p. 118, London,
1869.
[231] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 20, foot-note.
[232] Compare "Contributions to Political Science," by Francis Lieber, LL.D.,
Vol. II, p. 250.
[233] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 307.

[234] Wackidi Campaigns of Mohammad, p. 101, Calcutta, 1855.
[235] "It was at Otheil that the cruel and vindictive spirit of Mahomet towards
his enemies first began to display itself."—Muir's Life of Mohamet, Vol. III, p.
115. After this, the author narrates the execution of Nazr. Ibn Is-hak. Vide Ibn
Hisham, p. 458; Wackidi, p. 108; Abu Daood, Vol. II, p. 10. This story is not
given by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sád.
[236] Abu Daood as before.
[237] Zorkánee, Vol. II, p. 541.

[238] Sírat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 371.
[239] Wackidi, 105. Insán-ul Oyoon or Sírat Halabí, Vol. II, p. 464.
[240] Wackidi, p. 105; Hishami, p. 591; Insán-ul-Oyoon or Sírat Halabí, Vol. II,
p. 464.
[241] Ibn Hisham, p. 591; Wackidi, pp. 324 and 325.

[242] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 185.

[243] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 185.
[244] Ibid, p. 117.

[245] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 122 and 123.
[246] Ibid, Vol. III, p. 243.
[247] Ibid, Vol. IV. pp. 148 and 149.
[248] Ibn Hisham, p. 877.

[249] Ibn Hisham, pp. 833 and 835.
[250] Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Vol. II. Contributions to
Political Science, p. 273, Philadelphia, 1881.
[251] Some of the Koreizites were released, among whom we hear of Zobeir Ibn
Batá, and Rifáa. They were pardoned by Mohammad.
[252] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 279.

[253] History of Mohammad's Campaigns: Edited by Von Kremer, p. 374.
[254] "Compare the remarks of Ibn-Khaldún (Prelégoménes d' Ibn Khaldoun,
traduits par M. de Slane, Part I, p. 14)."
[255] A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed, by Syed
Ameer Ali, Moulvi, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, p. 113:
William and Norgate, London, 1873.
[256] Ibn Hisham, p. 689. Others say the males were kept in the house of
Osman-bin-Zaed, and the females and children in the house of Bint-al-Haris.
Vide Insan-al-Oyoon, by Halabi. Vol. III, p. 93.

[257] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.
[258] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.
In the collections of Bokharee the story is traced to Ans. But Ans could not be a
witness to Mohammad's command for mutilation, as Ans did not come until the
expedition to Khyber; and the execution of those robbers took place before that.
The story from Jábir in Ibn Mardaveih's collections to the same effect is not
authentic, as Jábir, who says he was sent by Mohammad in pursuit of the
robbers, and committed the act, was not a convert at that time. Koostalanee, the
author of Mooahib, has declared the tradition of Ibn Jarir Tabari on the subject as
an apocryphal, i.e., "Zaeef." Vide Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, p. 211.
[259] Ibn Hisham (p. 463) relates from Ibn Is-hak that Omar asked permission to
mutilate Sohail, but Mohammad replied, "I would not mutilate him; if I do, God
will mutilate me, though I be a Prophet."

[260] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.

[261] This subject has been fully and judiciously discussed by the Honorable
Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur, C.S.I., in his "Commentary of the Koran;" Sura. iv.
pp. 198-204.
[262] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.

[263] Vide Mishkát Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.
[264] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.
[265] Introduction to Lane's Selections from the Kur-án, by Stanley Lane Poole,
p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.
[266] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.

[267] Ibid, p. 35.
[268] Vide Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, page 244; also Zád-ul-Maád, by Ibn-
al-Kyyim, Vol. I, page 376, Cawnpore, 1298 A.H.; and Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya,
by Mohammad Karámat-ul-Ali of Delhi, in loco. The Life is compiled from
Seerat Halabi and Seerat Shámee and was lithographed in Bombay.
[269] Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 266.
[270] Seerat Halabi, or Insan-al-Oyoon, Vol II, page 79.
[271] History of Mohammad's Campaigns, by Wackidi, pp. 368-369: Edited by
Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.
[272] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.
[273] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.
[274] Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.

[275] History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne. By William
Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.
[276] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.
[277] Ibid, p. 149.
[278] Ibn Hisham, p. 554.

[279] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149, foot-note.
[280] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.
[281] The tradition that Mohammad had gone to Bani Nazeer asking their aid in
defraying a certain price of blood, and they attempted upon his life (Muir, III,
208-209) as related by Ibn Is-hak (in Ibn Hisham, page 652) is a Mursal (vide
Zoorkánee, Part II, page 95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic
Age.

[282] Ibn Ockba, an earliest biographer of Mohammad, died 140, says,—the
cause of the expedition against the Bani Nazeer was this: that they had instigated
the Koreish to fight against Mohammad, and had reconnoitred the weak points
of Medina. Ibn Mardaveih Abd-bin-Hameed, and Abdu Razzak have related
traditions to the effect that, after the event of Badr, the Koreish had written to the
Jews of Medina to make war upon Mohammad, and the Bani Nazeer had
resolved to break the compact. Vide Zoorkánee, Part II, pp, 96-97.
[283] Compare Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and 302, foot-note.

[284] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.
[285] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.
[286] The verses of the Koran are given below:
10. "O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees, then
make trial of them. God best knoweth their faith; but if ye have also ascertained
their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they are not lawful for them, nor
are the unbelievers lawful for these women. But give them back what they have
spent. No crime shall it be in you to marry them, provided you give them their
dowers. Do not retain a right in the infidel women, and demand back what you
have spent and let them demand back what they have spent. This is the
ordinance of God which He ordaineth among you: and God is Knowing, Wise."

11. "And if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels from whom you
afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have fled away,
the like of what they shall have spent; and fear God in whom ye believe."—Sura
LX.
[287] Sura IV, 25. Rodwell's translation.
How Mohammad discouraged divorce and took several steps in the Koran to
prohibit the facility of divorce prevailing in the Arab society has been fully
discussed by me in my book "The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms
under Moslem Rule," pp. 129-143, Bombay Education Society Press, 1883.
[288] "Some of the baser sort from amongst the Coreish, hearing of her
departure, went in pursuit, determined to bring her back. The first that appeared
was Habbâr, who struck the camel with his spear, and so affrighted Zeinab as to
cause her a miscarriage."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 7.

[289] Ata, a learned legist of Mecca, who flourished at the end of the first
century of the Hegira, and held a high rank there as a juris-consult, (vide para.
112) held, that Jihad was only incumbent on the Companions of the Prophet, and
was not binding on any one else after them. See para. 112, and Tafsír Majma-ul-
Bayán by Tabrasee under Sura II. 212.
[290] The Hedaya or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws,
translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 140 London,
MDCCXCI.

[291] The Hedaya or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws,
translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 141.
[292] "Arab Kattâl; meaning war in its operation, such as fighting, slaying," &c.

[293] The Hedaya, Vol. II, 141.
[294] Sura II, 187.
[295] The Hedaya, with its commentary called Kifaya, Vol. II, p. 708. Calcutta
Medical Press, 1834.
As a general rule the Mohammadan authors do not refer to the verses of the
Koran by their number. They generally quote the first sentence, or even a portion
of it. The No. of verses are mine. I have followed Fluegel and Rodwell's
numbers of verses in their editions and translations of the Koran.

[296] Kifaya as before.
[297] Binayah, a commentary of the Hedaya, by Ainee. Vol. II, Part II, page 789.
[298] Part. III, page 219.
[299] Tuhfatul Muhtáj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj, Part IV, page 137.

[300] Insan-ul-Oyoon, Part II, pp. 289, 291. Chapter on "Campaign."
[301] Sura IX, 5 and 12. These verses have been discussed at pages 51-55.
[302] "The Jihád will last till the day of the Resurrection."
"I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess there is no god but
the God." For these traditions see the next para.

[303] Vide Ainee's Commentary of the Hedaya, Vol. II, Part II, p. 790.
[304] Vide Ainee's Commentary of the Hedaya, Vol. II, Part II, p. 798.
[305] Vide Kázee Budrudeen Mahmood bin Ahmed Ainee's (who died in 855
A.H.) Commentary on the Hedaya called Binayah, and generally known by the
name of Ainee, Vol. II, pp. 789-90, "Book of Institute."
[306] The Modern Egyptians, by Edward William Lane; Vol. I, p. 117, note: fifth
edition, London, 1871.

[307] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 251-252.
[308] The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam, being the Rede Lecture for 1881,
delivered before the University of Cambridge by Sir William Muir, K.C.S.I.,
LL.D., page 5, London, 1881.
[309] The History and Conquests of the Saracens, by Edward. A. Freeman,
D.C.L., LL.D., pp. 41-42; London, 1877.

[310] Christianity and Islam; The Bible and the Koran; by the Rev. W.R.W.
Stephens, London, 1877, pp. 98-99.
[311] Vide paras. 17, 29, 126.

[312] Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lectures delivered at the Royal
Institution of Great Britain in February and March 1874, by R. Bosworth Smith,
M.A., Second Edition, page 137; London, 1876.
[313] The Koran, by George Sale. The "Chandos Classics." The Preliminary
Discourse, Section II, pp. 37-38.
[314] London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876, pp. 46-54.
[315] A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qurán; comprising Sale's
Translation and Preliminary Discourse, with additional Notes and Emendations,
by the Revd. E.M. Wherry, M.A., page 220; London: Trübner & Co., 1882.

[316] An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
Scripture, by Thomas Hartwell Horne, Esq., M.A. Vol. II, page 524; London.
1828.
[317] Commentary on the Qurán by the Revd. Wherry, page 358.
[318] Notes on Muhammadanism; being outlines of the Religious System of
Islam, by the Revd. T.P. Hughes, M.R.A.S., C.M.S., Missionary to the Afghans,
page 206; Second Edition, 1877.
[319] The Nineteenth Century; London, December 1877, page 832.

[320] This subject has been fully treated in my "The Proposed Political, Legal,
and Social Reforms in Moslem States," pp. 22-25: Bombay Education Society
Press, 1883.
[321] Sir W. Muir, with other European translators of the Koran, translates the
word "they shall profess Islam" (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 39, footnote).
It ought to be translated "they shall submit." There is a difference of opinion
among the commentators and canonical legists in this word. Some translate the
word Yoslemoon "shall profess Islam," and others "shall submit." This difference
in the interpretation of the same word is merely of a sectarian nature, each party
wishing to serve their own purpose. Those legists who held that the polytheists
and idolaters may either be fought against or be submitted to the authority of
Islam by being tributaries, took the word in its proper sense of submission.
Those who held that "the people of the Book" ought only to be made tributaries,
while all other idolaters and polytheists should be compelled either to perish or
to embrace Islam, interpret the word technically to mean the religion of Islam.
But as the verse is not a legal command, we condemn at once the casuistic
sophistry of the legists.

Appendix A
ON THE WORD "JIHAD" AS OCCURRING IN THE KORAN AND
WRONGLY TRANSLATED "WARFARE."

1. The popular word Jihád or Jihd, occurring in several
Jihád or Jihd does passages of the Koran, and generally construed by
not mean war or
crusade. Christians and Moslems alike as meaning hostility or the
waging of war against infidels, does not classically or
literally signify war, warfare, hostility or fighting, and is never used in such
a sense in the Koran. The Arabic terms for warfare or fighting are Harab
and Kitál.
2. The words Jahada, and Jáhada signify that a person
Classical meaning strove, laboured or toiled; exerted himself or his power,
of Jihád, &c.
or efforts, or endeavours, or ability employed himself
vigorously, diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly or with energy; was
diligent or studious, took pains or extraordinary pains[322]; for example, the
term Jáhada fil-amr signifies that a person did his utmost or used his utmost
powers, or efforts, or endeavours, or ability in prosecuting an affair.[323] The
infinitive noun Jihádan also means difficulty or embarrassment, distress,
affliction, trouble, inconvenience, fatigue, or weariness.[324] Jauharce, a
lexicologist of great repute, whose work is confined to classical terms and
their significations, says in his Siháh that Jáhada fi Sabeelillah or
Mojáhadatan and Jihádan and also Ajtahada and Tajáhada mean
expending power and effort. Fayoomee, author of Misbahel Moneer, which
contains a very large collection of classical words and phrases of frequent
occurrence, also says that Jáhada fi Sabeelillah Jihádan and Ajtahada fil
Amr mean he expended his utmost efforts and power in seeking to attain an
object.
3. It is only a post-classical and technical meaning of
Post-classical or Jihád to use the word as signifying fighting against an
technical meaning
of Jihád. enemy. Mr. Lane says, "Jahada came to be used by the
Moslems to signify generally he fought, warred or
waged war against unbelievers and the like." This signification is now given
by those lexicologists who do not restrict themselves to the definition of
classical terms or significations, like the author of Kámoos. Mr. Lane, the
celebrated author of Maddool Kámoos an Arabic-English lexicologist,
clearly shows that the definition of Jihád, as the act of waging war, is only

of Moslem origin and is not classical. And I will show in sequence that the
Moslem usage of Jihád, as signifying the waging of war, is a post-Koranic
usage, and that in the Koran it is used classically and literally in its natural
sense.
4. What is called the classical language of Arabia or the
The Classical loghat, and is an authority for the genuineness of the
tongue and Arabian
poets. Arabic terms and their significations, is the language
which was spoken throughout the whole of the
Peninsula previous to the appearance of Mohammad. After the death of
Mohammad the language was rapidly corrupted by the introduction of
foreign words. This was doubtless owing to the great extension of the
Mohammadan power at this period. The classical poets are those who died
before these great conquests were effected, and are the most reliable
authorities for Arabic words and their significations, and they are called
Jáhilí. Next to the classical poets are the post-classical, or Mokhadrams,
Islámi and Mowallads. Mokhadram is a poet who lived partly before and
partly after Mohammad, and who did not embrace Islámism during the life
of the Prophet. The Islámi poets are the Mohammadan poets of the first and
second centuries of the Hejira, and Mowallads, the poets of the fourth rank,
followed the Islámis. The earliest classical poets date only a century before
the birth of Mohammad, and the latest, about a century after his death. The
period of the Islámi poets is the first and second centuries,—i.e., those who
lived after the first corruption of the Arabic language, but before the
corruption had become extensive.
The Mowallads co-existed with the general and rapid corruption of the
language from the beginning or middle of the second century.
5. The words Jahd and Jihád and their derivations,
The conjugation amounting to fourteen in number, occur in the following
and declension of
Jahd and Jihád passages in the Koran:—

1. "Jâhada" Chapter xxix, 5; ix, 19.
...

2. "Jáhadáka" Do. xxxi, 14, xxix, 7.
...

3. "Jáhadoo" Do. ii, 215; viii, 73, 75, 76; ix, 16, 20, 89;
... xlix, 15; iii, 136; xvi, 111; xxix, 69.

4. "Yojáhido" Do. xxix, 5.
...

5. "Yojáhidoona" Do. v, 59.
...

6. "Yojáhidoo" Do. ix, 44, 82.
...

7. "Tojáhidoona" Do. lxi, 11.
...

8. "Jihád" Do. xxv, 54; xxii, 77; ix, 24; lx, 1.
...

8.* "Jahd" Do. v, 58; vi, 109; xvi, 40; xxiv, 52; xxxv,
... 40.

9.* "Johd" Do. ix, 80.
...

10. "Jáhid" Do. ix, 74; lxvi, 9.
...

11. "Jâhidhoom" Do. xxv, 54.
...

12. "Mojáhidína" Do. iv, 97; bis. xlvii, 33.
...

13. "Mojáhidoona" Do. iv, 97.
...

14. "Jáhidoo" Do. v, 39; ix, 41, 87; xxii, 77.
...

The number of 6. There are altogether 36 verses in the Koran containing
instances in which the words noted above, in the following chapters and
they occur in the
Koran. verses:—
Chapter ii, 215.
Do. iii, 136.
Do. iv, 97.
Do. v, 39, 58, 59.
Do. vi, 109.
Do. viii, 73, 75, 76.
Do. ix, 16, 19, 20, 24, 41, 44, 74, 80, 82, 87, 89.
Do. xvi, 40, 111.
Do. xxii, 77.
Do. xxiv, 52.
Do. xxv, 54.
Do. xxix, 5, 7, 69.
Do. xxxi, 14.
Do. xxxv, 40.
Do. xlvii, 33.
Do. xlix, 15.
Do. xl, 1.
Do. xli, 11.
Do. xlvi, 9.
7. Out of the above, the verses containing the words
In what sense they "Jahd" and "Johd,"—i.e., v, 58; vi, 109; xvi, 40; xxiv,
are used in the
Koran. 52; xxxv, 40; and ix, 80, marked *, are altogether out of
dispute, as in all the former passages, except the last

one, its obvious meaning is most or utmost solemn oaths,[325] or most
energetic oaths or strongest or most forcible oaths,[326] and the latter
signifies small provisions upon which a man possessing a little property can
live with difficulty. The rest are of two kinds—first, the verses occurring in
the Meccan Suras. As then the Moslems had not resorted to arms in their
defence, though suffering from persecutions, Mohammadan commentators
and jurists and Christian writers are unanimous in construing Jihád in its
natural sense of exertion, effort, energy, and painstaking. Secondly, the
verses containing the same words occurring in the Medina Suras, which
were revealed or published when the Moslems had taken arms in their
defence. As regards this period, the words are considered to have an entirely
new and an altogether fortuitous meaning, viz., a religious war of
aggression. Even some verses of this period are rendered by Mohammadans
and Christians in the literal sense of the word.
8. I fully admit that in the post-classical language of the
Conventional Arabs,—i.e., that in use subsequent to the time of
significations of
Jihád. Mohammad, when the language was rapidly corrupted,
the word "Jihád" was used to signify "warfare" or
fighting, but this was in a military sense. Since that period the word has
come to be used as meaning the waging of a war or a crusade only in
military tactics, and more recently it found its way in the same sense into
the Mohammadan law-books and lexicons of later dates. But the subsequent
corrupt or post-classical language cannot be accepted as a final or even a
satisfactory authority upon the point.
"It was decided by common consent," says Mr. Edward William
Lane, in his Arabic-English Lexicon (Preface, pp. viii and ix),
"that no poet, nor any other person, should be taken as an
absolute and unquestionable authority with respect to the words
or their significations, the grammar, or the prosody of the
classical language, unless he were one who had died before the
promulgation of El-Islám, or who had lived partly before and
partly after that event; or, as they term it, unless he were a
'Jáhilee' or a 'Mukhadram,' or (as some pronounce it)
'Mukhadrim,' or 'Muhadram' or 'Muhadrim.' A poet of the class

next after the Mukhadrams is termed an 'Islámee:' and as the
corruption of the language had become considerable in his time,
even among those who aimed at chasteness of speech, he is not
cited as an authority absolutely and unquestionably like the two
preceding classes. A poet of the next class, which is the last, is
termed 'Muwelled;' he is absolutely post-classical; and is cited
as an unquestionable authority with respect only to the rhetorical
sciences. The commencement of the period of the Muwelleds is
not distinctly stated: but it must have preceded the middle of the
second century of the Flight; for the classical age may be
correctly defined as having nearly ended with the first century,
when very few persons born before the establishment of El-
Islám through Arabia were living. Thus the best of the Islámi
poets may be regarded, and are generally regarded, as holding
classical rank, though not as being absolute authorities with
respect to the words and the significations, the grammar, and the
prosody of the classical language."

Mr. Thomas Chenry, M.A., writes:[327]—
"Within a century of Mohammad's flight from Mecca, the
Moslem empire stretched from Kashgar and Mooltan to
Morocco and the Pyrenees, and the Arab man of letters was
exposed to the corrupting propinquity of men of very different
races. Only a poet of Ignorance, that is, one who died before the
preaching of Islam, or a Mokhadram, that is, who was
contemporary with it, was looked upon as of paramount and
unquestionable authority. An Islámi, that is, one who was born
after the rise of Islam, was of least consideration, and after the
first century, the poets are called Muwalladún and are only
quoted for their literary beauties, and not as authorities for the
Arab tongue."
9. All commentators, paraphrasts, and jurisconsults
Mohammadan admit that the primary and original signification of the
commentators, &c.,
quoted. words "Jahad" and "Jihád" is power, ability, and toil,

and that its use, as making wars or crusades, is conventional and figurative.
Ibn Attiah says regarding verse 69, Chapter XXIX, that it is Meccan, and
was revealed before the enjoining of the Orfee or conventional Jihád (vide
Fat-hul bayan fi maquasidil Koran, Vol. II, page 517, by Siddik Hussan).
Khateeb Koostlane, in his Irshadussari, a paraphrase of Bokhari, says that
"Jihád is derived from Jahd, which means toil and labour, or from Johd,
which means power. And in technical language it means fighting with
infidels to assist Islam" (Vol. V, page 26). Mohammad Allauddin Al Haskafi
(died 1088 A.H.), the author of Dur-ral-Mukhtár, a commentary on Tanviral
Absár, by Sheikh Mohammad Al Tamartáshi (died 1004), says in the
chapter on Jihád, that "in the classical language it is the infinitive noun of
Jáhada fi Sabil-Allah, and in the language of the law it means inviting the
infidels to the true faith and fighting with him who does not accept it." And
Ibn Ábidin Shámi, in his annotation on the above work, says:
"The infinitive noun of Jáhada means to do one's utmost, and
that it is general, and includes any person who supports all that
is reasonable and forbids what is wrong."
10. It is admitted by all lexicologists, commentators, and
When the word jurisconsults that Jihád in classical Arabic means to
Jihád was diverted
from its original labour, strive earnestly, and that the change of its
signification to its meaning or the technical signification occurred only in
figurative meaning
of waging religious the post-classical period, i.e., long after the publication
war? of the Koran. It is obviously improper, therefore, to
apply the post-classical meaning of the word where it
occurs in the Koran. This fact is further admitted by all the Mohammadan
commentators and English translators of the Koran, who render the word in
its original and literal meaning in all the Meccan and in the early Medinite
Suras or Chapters of the Koran.[328]
It is only in a few of the latest chapters of the Koran published at later dates
at Medina, that they (the commentators and translators) deviate from the
original meaning, and prefer the subsequent unclassical and technical
signification of waging war or crusade.

11. I herein place in juxtaposition the several English
All verses of the translations of the word "Jihád," together with its
Koran containing
the word Jihád and etymological derivation and several grammatical forms,
its derivation to show, in the first place, that Mr. George Sale and the
quoted and
explained. Rev. J.M. Rodwell and other European authors generally
give the literal, original, and classical meaning; and in
the second place, to show how they differ in giving various meanings,
literal and technical, in some passages to the same word in the same verses.
It will be observed from a perusal of the statement, that the Rev. Mr.
Rodwell, M.A., is more correct than the earliest English translator of the
Koran, Mr. George Sale, and the latest, Mr. W.H. Palmer. The latter is the
most unsatisfactory of all in this respect, as everywhere, except in six places
—XXIX, 7; V, 39, 59; IV, 97; and IX, 74, 89—he translates Jihád as
meaning fighting—a circumstance which not unnaturally leads to the
supposition that he had paid but slight heed to the context.

No. of
English Translations.
the
Chapte
Serial r and Original
Rev. Henry
No. the Words. George Sale's
Rodwell's Palmer's
Verse of Translation.
Translation. Translation.
the
Koran.
XXXI. "Endeavour
1 "Jáhadáka" "Strive" "Strive."
14 to prevail"
"By means
"Oppose them of the Koran "Fight
"Jáhid," herewith with strive against strenuously;
2 XXV. 54
"Jihádan." strong them with a strenuous
opposition." mighty fight."
strife."
3 XXII. "Jáhidoo" "Fight in the "Do "Fight
77 defence of valiantly" strenuously."

God's religion."
"Have since
XVI. sought in the "Fought
4 "Jáhadoo" "Fought"
111 defence of the strenuously."
true religion."
"Fight
"Maketh strenuously;
5 XXIX. 5 "Jáhada" "Striveth"
efforts" fight
strenuously."
6 XXIX. 7 "Jáhadáka" "Endeavour" "Strive" "Strive."
XXIX. "Utmost "Made "Fight
7 "Jáhadoo"
69 endeavour" efforts" strenuously."
"Most "Most "Most
8 XVI. 40 "Jahd"
solemnly" sacred" strenuous."
XXXV. "Most
9 "Jahd" "Most solemn" "Mightiest"
40 strenuous."
"Fight in God's
10 II. 215 "Jáhadoo" "Fight" "Wage war."
cause"
"Those who
"Did "Fought
11 III. 136 "Jáhadoo" fought
valiantly" well."
strenuously."
"Employed "Spent their
"Fought
"Jáhadoo be- their substance substance
strenuously
am- and their and
12 VIII. 73 with their
walhim-w- persons in fight themselves
wealth and
anfosa-him." for the religion for the cause
person."
of God." of God."
"Have fought
"Fought
13 VIII. 75 "Jáhadoo" for God's true "Fought"
strenuously."
religion."
"Have fought "Fought
14 VIII. 76 "Jáhadoo" "Fought"
with you." strenuously."
"Most "Most
15 VI. 109 "Jahd" "Most solemn"
binding" strenuous"

XLVII. "Who fight "Fought
16 "Mojáhidína" "Valiant"
33 valiantly" strenuously."
"Defend God's
true religion
"Do "To fight
17 LXI. 11 "Jáhidoo" with your
valiantly" strenuously."
substance and
in your person."
1st. "Those who
employ their 1. "Defend
1st. fortune and God's true 1.
18 IV. 97
"Mojáhidína" their persons for religion "Strenuous."
the religion of valiantly."
God."
2nd. "Those
2nd. who employ 2. "Contend 2.
"Mojáhidina." their fortune earnestly." "Strenuous."
and persons."
3rd. 3rd. "Those 3. 3.
"Mojáhidina." who fight" "Strenuous" "Strenuous."
XXIV. "Most "Most
19 "Jahd" "Most solemn"
52 solemn" strenuous."
"Attack the
"Fight
20 LXVI. 9 "Jáhid" hypocrites with "Make war"
strenuously."
arguments."
"Strive
21 IX. 74 "Jáhid" "Wage war" "Contend"
strenuously."
"To fight in the
"Fighting
22 LXI. 1 "Jihadan" defence of my "To fight"
strenuously."
religion."
"Who employ "Fight
"Contend
their substance strenuously
with their
and their person with their
23 XLIX. 5 "Jáhadoo" substance
in the defence wealth and
and their
of God's true their
person."
religion." persons."

"Those among
you who sought "Fought
24 IX. 16 "Jáhadoo" "Valiantly"
for his strenuously."
religion."
25 IX. 19 "Jáhada" "Fighteth" "Fighteth" "Strenuous."
"Fought for his "Do "Fought
26 IX. 20 "Jáhadoo"
religion." valiantly" strenuously."
"Fighting
27 IX. 24 "Jihádan" "Advancement" "Efforts"
strenuously."
"Employ your "Contend "Fight
substance and with your strenuously
your person for substance with your
28 IX. 41 "Jáhidoo"
the and with wealth and
advancement of your your
God's religion." person." persons."
"Employing
their substance "Contending
and their with your
"Fighting
29 IX. 44 "Yojáhidoo" persons for the substance
strenuously."
advancement of and your
God's true person."
religion."
"Employ their
"Fighting
substance and "Contending
strenuously
their persons for with their
with their
30 IX. 82 "Yojáhidoo" the riches and
wealth and
advancement of their
their
God's true persons."
persons."
religion."
"Go forth to "Fight
31 IX. 87 "Jáhidoo" "Contend"
war" strenuously."
"Strenuous
"Contend
"Expose their with their
with purse
32 IX. 89 "Jáhidoo" fortunes and wealth and
and
their lives." with their
persons."
person."