The learned author quoted above has either misunderstood the character of the wars of the Prophet of Islam, or has grossly misrepresented it. He errs in two points: First, he makes the wars as wars of conquest, compulsion, and aggression, whereas they were all undertaken in the defence of the civil and religious rights of the early Moslems, who were, as I have said before, persecuted, harassed, and tormented at Mecca for their religion, and after a long period of persecution with occasional fresh and vigorous measures, were condemned to severer and harder sufferings, were expelled from their homes, leaving their dear relations, and religious brethren to endure the calamities of the persecution, and while taking refuge at Medina were attacked upon by superior numbers, several of the surrounding tribes of Arabs and Jews joining the aggressive Koreish, making ruinous inroads and threatening the Moslems with still greater and heavier miseries. From this statement it will appear that these wars were neither of conquest nor of compulsory conversion. The second great mistake under which Major Osborn seems to labour is that he takes the injunctions of war against the Meccans or other aggressors as a general obligation to wage war against all unbelievers in the Moslem faith. In fact, these injunctions were only against those aggressors who had actually committed great encroachments on the rights and liberties of the early Moslems, and had inflicted very disastrous injuries on them. These injunctions had and have nothing to do with the future guidance of the Moslem world.
It is a great misrepresentation on the part of Major Osborn to assert that "the ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet's proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam." No statement could be farther from truth than this of his. The ninth Sura, or, more correctly, the beginning or opening verses of it, contain the Prophet's proclamation of war against those of the Meccan idolaters, who, in violation of the treaty of Hodeibia, had attacked the Moslems.—(Sura IX, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13, vide pages 23-25.) They were allowed four months' time (IX, 2, 5) to make terms. They submitted, and Mecca was taken by compromise, in consequence of which the threatened war was never waged. Those who had not broken their treaties were especially mentioned, with whom the proclamation or the period allowed for peace had no connection.—(Vide Sura IX, 4, 7, quoted above, pages 23-24.) Thus it is quite clear that the proclamation of war was only against the violators and aggressors, and not against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam. I have further discussed the ninth Sura in para. 40 of this work. The other verses of this Sura refer to the expedition of Tabúk, which was purely defensive in its nature as has been described in para. 33 of this book. (See also para. 42.)
The Reverend E.M. Wherry, M.A., in his note on Sale's Preliminary Discourse, says:—
"Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed himself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of destruction; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism. The Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the Canaanites, (Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to proselytize by sword-power."[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 example is cited for the war of defence by Mohammad, from the Jewish History. It is the asking of the children of Israel their prophet Samuel to raise up a king for them to fight in their defence against the Philistines, who had very much oppressed the Israelites. Saul was appointed king over the Israelites, and David killed Goliath, called Jálut in the Koran, which was in defence of the Israelites. I have quoted the verses relating to the above subject from the Koran (Sura II, 247 and 252) in page 19th of this work.
"Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it not be that when fighting is ordained you, ye would not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?'....
This shows that what the Koran or Mohammad took as an example from the history of the Jews was only their defensive war.
It is very unfair of the Christians to make too much of the wars of Mohammad, which were purely of a defensive nature, and offer apologies for the most cruel wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua and other Jewish worthies under the express commands of God.—(Vide Numbers XXXI; Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in his comments on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.
"(191). Kill them, &c. Much is made of expressions like this, by some Christian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian prophet, and the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and his Qurán a fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think this mode of assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it is capable of being turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the claim of Muhammad to have received a divine command to exterminate idolatry by the slaughter of all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can see no objection to his practice. The question at issue is this. Did God command such slaughter of idolaters, as he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites or of the Amalekites? Taking the stand of the Muslim, that God did so command Muhammad and his followers, his morality in this respect may be defended on precisely the same ground that the morality of Moses and Joshua is defended by the Christian."[317]
The Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on Muhammadanism writes:—
"Jihád (lit. 'an effort') is a religious war against the infidels, as enjoined by Muhammad in the Qurán."
Súrat-un-Nisa (VI.)
"Fight therefore for the religion of God."
"God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath preferred those who fight for the faith." (IV, 97.) Súrat-ul-Muhammad (XLVII).
"Those who fight in the defence of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish." (XLVII, 5.)[318]
The first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence. The verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war of defence, but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in full. He merely quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other words and phrases of the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page 20. It is as follows:—
"Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God is stronger in prowess, and stronger to punish."—(Sura IV, 86.)
The severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of the Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word Báss, rendered prowess into English and referred to in the previous verse 77, which shows that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the aggressions of the enemy and to repel force by force.
It is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or dislocate half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate and prove a certain object of his.
The second verse quoted by the same author is a mere mistranslation. There is no such word in the original which admits of being rendered as "fighting." The true translation of the sentence quoted above from Sura IV, verse 97, is as follows:—
"Good promises hath he made to all. But God hath assigned to the strenuous a rich recompense above those who sit still at home."
The word rendered "strenuous" is originally "mojahid" (plural "Mojahidin," from Jihád), which in classical Arabic and throughout the Koran means to do one's utmost, to make effort, to strive, to exert, to employ one's-self diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly, zealously, or with energy, and does not mean fighting or warfare. It was subsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Koran in such a sense. (Vide Appendix A.)
The third instance quoted by Mr. Hughes is also a mistranslation of a sentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The original word is "kotelú," which means "those who are killed," and not "those who fight," as explained and translated by the author. The correct rendering of the sentence is this: "And those who are killed, their work God will not suffer to miscarry."
Some read the word "kátalú," which means "those who fought," but the general and authorized reading is "kotelú," i.e., "those who are killed." Even if it be taken for granted that the former is the correct reading, it will be explained by several other verses which mean fighting in defence, and not fighting aggressively, which not only has been never taught in the Koran but is always prohibited (II, 186). The verse to that effect runs thus:—
"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you; but commit not the injustice of attacking them first. Verily God loveth not the unjust."—(II, 186.)
This verse permitted only defensive war and prohibited every aggressive measure. All other verses mentioned in connection with fighting on the part of the Moslems must be interpreted in conformity with this.
The Rev. Malcolm MacColl writes:—
"The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or the House of Islam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of the enemy. All who are not of Islam are thus against it, and it is accordingly the duty of the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, or are destroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can only end with the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus the sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the non-Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the non-Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or 'People of the Book,'—i.e., people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures, namely, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are infidels, and consequently outside the pale of Salvation. But the Ketabi are entitled to certain privileges in this world, if they submit to the conditions which Islam imposes. Other infidels must make their choice between one of two alternatives—Islam or the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third alternative, namely, submission and the payment of tribute. But if they refuse to submit, and presume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse at once into the condition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily put to death or sold as slaves."[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 and political chapters, which allow waging unprovoked war with non-Moslems, exacting tribute from "the people of the Book," and other idolaters, except those of Arabia, for which the Hanafi Code of the Common Law has nothing short of conversion to Islam or destruction by the sword. As a rule, our canonical legists support their theories by quotations from the Mohammadan Revealed Law, i.e., the Koran, as well as from the Sonnah, or the traditions from the Prophet, however absurd and untenable may be their process of reasoning and argumentative deductions. In this theory of waging war with, and exacting tribute or the capitation-tax from, the non-Moslem world, they quote the 9th and other Suras. These verses have been copied and explained elsewhere in this book. The casuistic sophistry of the canonical legists in deducing these war theories from the Koran is altogether futile. These verses relate only to the wars waged by the Prophet and his followers purely in their self-defence. Neither these verses had anything to do with waging unprovoked war and exacting tributes during Mohammad's time, nor could they be made a law for future military conquest. These were only temporary in their operations and purely defensive in their nature. The Mohammadan Common Law is by no means divine or superhuman. It mostly consists of uncertain traditions, Arabian usages and customs, some frivolous and fortuitous analogical deductions from the Koran, and a multitudinous array of casuistical sophistry of the canonical legists. It has not been held sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammadans of any Moslem country and in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of the Hejira. All the Mujtahids, Ahl Hadis, and other non-Mokallids had had no regard for the four schools of Mohammadan religious jurisprudence, or the Common Law.
Sura XLVIII, 16, is not generally quoted by the canonical legists in support of their theory of Jehád, but by some few. It is not in the shape of a command or injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:—
"Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called forth against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall submit (Yoslemoon)[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.