"As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven, which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary...."
The passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:—
"O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which God hath made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for God is forgiving and merciful?"[364]
14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious story. Neither there was any such affair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance, all his principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak, Wákidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any of these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari, Muslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that only these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later authors are to be rejected. He writes:—
"To the three biographies by Ibn Hishám, by Wackidi his secretary, and Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive with a similar respect such traditions in the general collections of the earliest traditionists—Bokhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, &c.—as may bear upon his subject. But he will reject as evidence all later authors, to whose so-called traditions he will not allow any historical weight whatever."[365]
15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his fictitious story to calumniate Mohammad, has ceased to be a judicious historian, and deviates from his self-imposed rule. He does not reject the story as he ought judiciously and conscientiously to have done, as it is not to be found in any of the earliest and original authorities mentioned by him; on the contrary, he compromises himself by condescending to quote from secondary and later authors. He writes in a footnote without quoting his original authority:—
"The version given in the text is accredited by Jelálood-deen, Yahia, Beizawi, and Zamakshari, &c." (Vol. III, page 163.)
These authors were neither biographers nor historians, and are therefore no authorities at all. Zamakshari and Beizawi were commentators in the sixth and seventh centuries respectively. They give two stories, one regarding Maria and another to the effect that the oath or promise of Mohammad had been to the effect that he would not again partake of a species of strong-scented honey disliked by his wives. Jelal-ud-deen Mahalli was a commentator of the ninth century of the Hejira. Yahia is not known among the commentators. He may be one of the latest authors.
The commentators are generally no authority in the matter of traditional literature. "To illustrate allusions in the Coran, they are always ready with a story in point, but unfortunately there are almost always different tales, all equally opposite to the same allusion. The allusion, in fact, was often the father of the story. What was originally, perhaps, a mere conjecture of supposed events that might have given rise to an expression in the Coran, or was a single surmise in explanation of some passage, by degrees assume the garb of fact. The tradition and the facts which it professes to attest thus, no doubt, often rest on no better authority than that of the verse or passage itself."[366]
16. Those commentators who are well versed in the Science of Traditions, as well as doctors in the traditional literature, have rejected the story of Maria as the subject-matter of Sura LXVI, as apocryphal.
Baghvi, the author of Misbah (the text of Mishkat), says that the Sura was revealed on the subject of honey, and not in the case of Maria. The latter story is neither in the Sahihain (Bokhari and Muslim), nor has it been narrated in any authentic way.
Háfiz Ishmael Ibn Kaseeral Qarashi, as quoted by Kustlánee (notes on Bokhari, Vol. VII, page 313), says that the Sura was certainly in the case of honey.
Imam Noávee, in his notes on Muslim, (Vol. I, page 463,) says:—"In fact it was revealed in the case of the honey, and not in the case of Maria."
17. Sir W. Muir himself admits that the earliest biographers do not relate the story, but gives a false excuse for his not following their example. He writes:—
"The biographers pass over the scene in decent silence, and I should gladly have followed their example, if the Coran itself had not accredited the facts, and stamped them with unavoidable notoriety."[367]
The allegation is absurdly false, as everybody can satisfy himself by referring to the Koran, which does not contain the fictitious and spurious story.
18. The currency of the story did neither take place during the time of Mohammad, its proper age, nor during the lifetime of the companions. It was fabricated and imposed on some of the Tabaee of weak authority in the second century.[368] There is no doubt that the whole story is a sheer fabrication from beginning to end.
19. In conclusion, I will offer a few remarks in passing regarding Sir W. Muir's reference here to Zeinab's case. He writes:—
"The charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she had kindled in his breast, and by divine command she was taken to his bed."[369]
The story is from the beginning to end all untrue. Mohammad knew Zeinab from her infancy, she was his cousin; and he had himself arranged her marriage with Zeid. When Zeid divorced her, she was thirty-five years old, and possibly could have no charms to fascinate even a stranger. Had she been charming or fair to look upon, Zeid should not have separated himself from her. There is no historical authority for this, or for any other version of the story. The Koran, while treating the subject, has not the slightest reference to any of the stories afterwards made out to the effect that Mohammad had been to Zeid's house, and, having accidentally seen the beauty of Zeinab's figure through the half-opened door; or that the wind blew aside the curtain of Zeinab's chamber, and disclosed her in a scanty undress, was smitten by the sight.[370]
20. These stories, and I believe a few more varied accounts of the same, like those of the story of Maria the Coptic, were originally mere conjectures of supposed events that might have given rise to an expression in the Koran (Sura XXXIII, verse 37)—if not wilful misrepresentations of story-tellers and enemies of Islam—which the European writers represent in the garb of facts. The words of the Koran which have been the father of the story are:—
"And when thou saidst to him unto whom God had shewn favour, and unto whom thou also hadst shewn favour, 'keep thy wife to thyself, and fear God,' and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring to light, and thou didst fear men; but more right it had been to fear God."
This shows Mohammad dissuaded Zeid from divorcing his wife, notwithstanding the great facility of divorce common at that time in Arabia.
Sir W. Muir is not justified in copying these stories from Tabari. They are not related by earliest biographers from any authentic and reliable source. He ought to have rejected them as spurious fabrications under historical criticism, as he rejects other traditions which are on a better footing of truth than these false and maliciously forged stories.
21. Sir W. Muir has exceeded the limit he himself had marked out for a judicious historian of Mohammad when he abounds in his wild fancies, and observes—
"Zeid went straightway to Mahomet, and declared his readiness to divorce Zeinab for him. This Mahomet declined: 'Keep thy wife to thyself,' he said, 'and fear God.' But Zeid could plainly see that these words proceeded from unwilling lips, and that the Prophet had still a longing eye for Zeinab."[371]
Now this is a mere libellous surmise. He goes on still with his defamatory conjectures, and writes:—
"Still the passion for Zeinab could not be smothered; it continued to burn within the heart of Mahomet, and at last bursting forth, scattered other considerations to the wind."[372]
Mohammad never professed to have received a divine command to marry Zeinab. It was not necessary for him to have done so. The outcry raised by the Pagan Arabs was not because they suspected an intrigue on the Prophet's part to secure a divorce, but because they looked upon an adopted son in the light of a true son, and considered, therefore, the marriage with Zeinab, after her divorce from Zeid, as falling within the prohibited degrees. This adoptive affinity was already abolished in the Koran (Sura XXXIII, 4): "God hath not made your adopted sons as your own sons."
Sir W. Muir gravely mistakes in his remarks when he says:—
"The marriage caused much obloquy, and to save his reputation, Mahomet had the impious effrontery to sanction it by special Revelation from on high, in which the Almighty is represented as formally recording a divine warrant for the union."[373]
He quotes verse 36, Sura XXXIII. But he has himself admitted (Vol. III, page 229 footnote) "that this verse is rather in a recitative style of a past event," and not a divine command to marry Zeinab. The words "we joined thee in marriage unto her" in the verse do not mean a command for marriage. They simply mean that the marriage had taken place. The phrase "we joined thee in marriage unto her" is a mere form of expression. Almost all human actions are attributed to God in the Koran, and whatever occurs in the world by the ordinary course of nature, and by the free agency of men, is referred in the Koran to the immediate agency of God.
22. In the next verse—"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in that which God hath enjoined upon him"—he wrongly translates Faraza as enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. Faraza means he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic Dictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr. Lane quotes this very verse.[374] Such unions were made lawful not only to Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of a special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these verses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure his own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely said that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.
The word "Amr," translated "command" and "behest," in XXXIII, 37 and 38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar passage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),—God's foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same is the case with the word "Qadr" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60, and LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated decree.
23. In conclusion, Sir W. Muir remarks:—
"Our only matter of wonder is that the Revelations of Mahomet continued after this to be regarded by his people as inspired communications from the Almighty, when they were so palpably formed to secure his own objects, and pander even to his evil desires. We hear of no doubts or questionings, and we can only attribute the confiding and credulous spirit of his followers to the absolute ascendency of his powerful mind over all who came within its influence."[375]
The verses 37 and 38 of the thirty-third Sura had not in any way "secured the objects of Mohammad, much less pandered to his evil desire." As his marriage with Zeinab had taken place long before they were published, they could not be said to confer any exceptional privilege upon him.
24. The story copied by commentators that Mohammad had accidentally seen Zeinab and admired her is traced to Mukátil,[376] a commentator of the Koran in the second century, who died at Basra 150 A.H. "The doctors (in traditions)," writes Ibn Khallikan in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, "differ in opinion respecting Mukátil: some declare that, as a traditionist, he was worthy of confidence, and others accused him of falsehood."
... Ahmed bin Saiyár says:—
"Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, a native of Balkh, went to Marw, whence he proceeded to Irák. His veracity is suspected; his Traditions should be left aside and declarations should be rejected. Speaking of the divine attributes, he said things which it would be sinful to repeat." Ibráhím Ibn Yákúb-al-Juz-Jáni called Mukátil an audacious liar. Abu Abd ar-Rahmán an Nasái said:—"Liars notorious for forging Traditions and passing them off as coming from the Prophet were four in number: Ibn Abi Yahya, at Medína; Al-Wákidi, at Baghdad; Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, in Khorásán; and Muhammad Ibn Saíd, surnamed Al-Maslúb, in Syria." Wakí Ibn al-Jarráh said of Mukátil that he was a confirmed liar. Abu Bakr al-Ajurri said: "I asked Abú Dáwúd Suláimán Ibn al Asháth concerning Mukátil, and he answered:—'All Traditions given by him should be rejected.' According to Omar Ibn al-Ghallás, Mukátil Ibn Suláimán was a liar, and his traditions were to be rejected." "As for Mukátil Ibn Suláimán," said Al-Bukhári, "pass him over in silence." In another place, he says of him: "He is just nothing at all." Yahya Ibn Moín declared that Mukátil's traditions were of no value; and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: "As for Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, the author of the Commentary, I should not like to cite anything on his authority." "His Traditions are to be rejected," said Abú Hátim ar-Rázi. According to Zakariya Ibn Yahya as-Sáji, people said of Mukátil Ibn Suláimán, the native of Khorásán, "that he was a liar, and that his traditions should be rejected."[377]
Ikrama (died 107 A.H.), another liar, had only surmised before Mukátil that Mohammad might have admired Zeinab. His words, as related by the traditionists, Abd bin Hamíd and Ibn-al-Munzar, are "as if she had fallen deep in his mind."[378] But Mukátil has converted this hazardous conjecture into a fact.
Abd Allah Ibn al-Harith relates as follows:—
"I went to visit Ali, the son of Abd Alláh Ibu Abbás, and I saw Ikrama tied up at the door of a privy, on which I said: 'Is it thus that you treat your slave?' To which he replied. 'Know that that fellow has told lies of my father.'"[379]
Mohammad bin Yahya bin Habbán[380] (died 121 A.H.) has also given the tradition of Mohammad's admiring Zeinab at Zeid's house, but does not give his authority. He was not a contemporary narrator, therefore his narration is apocryphal and technically Mursal.
25. All these silly fables, wild romances, and scandalous conjectures have their origin in Katáda's improper interpretation of these words, "and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring to light" (Sura XXXIII, 37). Katáda (died 117 A.H.) conjectured that the Prophet concealed his desire that Zeid should divorce Zeinab. But all other authors[381] have found fault with Katáda in his surmise, which is not supported by any word in the text or by any contemporary evidence. This interpretation of Katáda is contradicted by the very words of Mohammad to Zeid in the same verse: "Keep thy wife to thyself and fear God."
26. Many have been the conjectures as to what did Mohammad hide in his mind. There is one by Katáda already explained. Another is this, that he knew Zeid would divorce her, but concealing this in his mind, he interdicted Zeid from doing so. A third conjecture is this, that he concealed in his mind that if Zeid, contrary to his (Mohammad's) advice, were to divorce her (Zeinab), he (Mohammad) would marry her. These conjectures are all far-fetched and arbitrary, but it appears more probable that the social inharmony and domestic disturbances between Zeid and Zeinab, and their resolve of separation, were withheld from the public by Mohammad, fearing the scandal it might give rise to among his enemies. This is the only secret referred to in the verse so often cited.
FOOTNOTES
[336] Annals of the Early Caliphate. By Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 75, London, 1883.
[337] "It is to ransom the captive."—XC, 13.
"There is no piety in turning your faces towards the east or the west, but he is pious who believeth in God and the Last Day, and the Angels and the Scriptures and the Prophets; who for the love of God disburseth his wealth to his kindred and to the orphans and the needy, and the wayfarer and those who ask; and for ransoming," &c.—II, 172.
[338] "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of manumission, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you. Force not your female slaves into sin, in order that ye may gain he casual fruitions of this world, if they wish to preserve their modesty. Yet if any one compel them, then verily, after their compulsion, will God be Forgiving, Merciful."—XXIV, 33.
[339] "A believer killeth not a believer but by mischance: and whoso killeth a believer by mischance shall be bound to free a believer from slavery," &c.—IV, 94.
[340] "And those who thus put away their wives, and afterwards would recall their words, must free a captive before they can come together again," &c.—LVIII, 4.
[341] "But alms are only to be given to the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won to Islam, and for ransoming and for debtors, and for the cause of God, and the wayfarer," &c.—IX, 60.
[342] "God will not punish you for a mistaken word in your oaths; but He will punish you in regard to an oath taken seriously. Its expiation shall be to feed ten poor persons with such middling food as ye feed your families with, or to clothe them; or to set free a captive: but he who cannot find the means shall fast three days. This is the expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn. Keep then your oaths. Thus God maketh his signs clear to you. Haply ye will be thankful."—V, 91.
[343] Vide Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 223.
[344] According to Hishámi, p. 745, a party of fifty or forty Koreish went round about Mohammad's camp at Hodeibia, seeking to cut off any stray followers; and having attacked the camp itself with stones and arrows, they were caught and taken to Mohammad, who pardoned and released them.—Vide Muir's Life of Mahomet, IV, p. 31, f.n.; and Moslim's collection of genuine traditions Kitab-ul Jihad vas-Siyar, chapter on Tanfeel and Ransom.
[345] All the prisoners of Hawázin at Honain were released without taking any ransom and were not made slaves. See Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 148-149. That Mohammad had presented three female slaves to Ali, Othman, and Omar from the captives of Bard Hawázin, as stated by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 149, is void of all truth. The captives were not enslaved. They were mere prisoners, as Sir W. Muir himself calls them so (ibid, pp. 148-149); yet he styles these three of them "female slaves." The captives together with the captured camp were removed to the valley of Jierána, pending negotiations (ibid, p. 142). At the end of the negotiations the prisoners were released. Thus there could be no distribution of prisoners to anyone.
[346] Sir W. Muir writes:—"Hishámee says that from the time of Kheibar slaves became very plentiful among the Moslems, p. 333. I do not find that, excepting the family of Kinâna, any mention is made of slaves taken at Kheibar. But money, which the victors obtained plentifully at Kheibar, could purchase them cheaply in any part of Arabia." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 73-74, and footnote.) But the word originally used by Hishamee, "sabaya," means captives and property captured, and not slaves, though captives, if not ransomed, were used to be made slaves under the Arab International Law. Besides this even the family of Kinána was never enslaved. Kinána was taken captive and executed, because he had killed Mahamúd bin Muslama. Vide para. 75 of this book. The story that Mohammad immediately on Kinána's execution sent for her and cast his mantle over her, signifying that she was to be his own, and consummated his marriage with her, and that her dower was her freedom (vide Muir, ibid, pp. 68-69), is not genuine and authentic. His family, by which is meant Sofia and her cousin, was not enslaved, and there is no tradition, genuine or apocryphal, to corroborate it. I here take the opportunity of quoting a speech ascribed to Mohammad while addressing Sofia, the widow of Kinána, copied by Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman (died A.H. 143) in his "Campaigns of Mohammad." Mohammad addressed her thus:—"I give thee choice either of Islam, or of Judaism. If thou acceptest Islam, perhaps I may keep thee for myself. But if thou preferest Judaism, I may perhaps liberate thee, and join thee to thy family." Vide Wákidi's "Campaigns of Mohammad," page 393, Calcutta, 1856. This speech shows amply that Mohammad had no intention of enslaving Sofia.
The story of Mohammad's marriage with Sofia after her being given to and purchased from Dihya, emanates from Anas, who cannot be relied upon. Anas had very recently been associated with Mohammad. He entered Mohammad's service only the other day when he started for the expedition of Khyber, and was but a boy only a dozen-years old at that time. It is related by Bokhari from Anas himself, who said that the Prophet had asked Abu Tulhah to get him a boy to serve him during the Khyber expedition. So he took me to him, and I was a boy close to maturity (Bokhari-Kitabul Jihad). Anas has given two contradictory accounts about Sofia; in one he says, "Dihya asked Mohammad's permission for a captive girl, and took Sofia. When Mohammad heard about Sofia, he asked Dihya to take another one; and having liberated Sofia married her, and her freedom was her dower." In another tradition, Anas relates that "Sofia fell to the lot of Dihya, and Mohammad purchased her from him for seven camels." He says:—"The people did not know whether he had married her, or had made her a concubine-slave, but when she rode on a camel, and Mohammad put veil round her, the people knew from this that she was his wife." Both these traditions are narrated from Anas by Moslem in his Saheeh (Book on Marriage).
The idea that Mohammad married Sofia under the circumstances noted above is not satisfactorily established. It was only the fancy of the people, or was a conjecture of Anas. Yet Sir W. Muir has the effrontery to remark against Mohammad that: "Indeed, he is not free from the suspicion of being influenced in the destruction of Kinána by the desire of obtaining his wife." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 68, footnote.) Kinána was executed for killing Mahmood bin Muslama, and Sofia was neither enslaved nor married by Mohammad. Even if it be shown that Mohammad married her afterwards under some other circumstances, it (Sir W. Muir's presumption) is an idle guess unwarranted by any reasonable argument.
The traditionists, Anas and others, have probably confounded Sofia, the aunt of Mohammad, who was with him during the expedition of Khyber (vide Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 66, footnote), with Kinána's widow of the same name, whom they fancied Mohammad might have married and carried with him on the same camel. The lady for whom Mohammad lowered his knee to help her to ascend the camel (ibid, page 70) was most probably Sofia, his aunt.
[347] Vol. III, pp. 278-279.
[348] Vide The Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajar. In Biblotheca Indica. A collection of oriental Series, published by the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 215, Vol. IV. Fasciculus 7, Calcutta, 1866; Art. Rehana, No. 444.
[349] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 278.
[350] "The days of Ignorance, that is, the period preceding Islam."
[351] "Two such are named by Tabari, I, page 248."
"A light ransom was fixed for each Arab slave—seven camels and six young ones. In the case of some tribes which had suffered most severely (as the Beni Hanifa, the Beni Kinda, and the people of Omán discomfited at Dabá) even this was remitted."
Annals of Early Caliphate. By Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., London, 1883, pp. 63, 64.
[352] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 56.
[353] Ibid, page 57, footnote.
[354] Vide Hishamee, page 972.
[355] Ibid, page 971.
[356] Vide Takrib by Ibn Hajar.
[357] Vide History of Muhammad's Campaigns by Wákidi; edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856, from p. 360 to the end.
[358] Vol. III, page 62.
[359] Vide Mizán-ul-Etedál by Zahabí.
[360] Vide Nos. 976, 977, and 978 in the Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajar, published by the Asiatic Society, Bengal, Calcutta, 1870, Vol. IV, pp. 779, 780, and 781.
[361] Vide Mizán, by Zahabí.
[362] "An eclipse of the sun occurred on the same day, and the people spoke of it as a tribute to the death of the Prophet's son. A vulgar impostor would have accepted and confirmed the delusion; but Mahomet rejected the idea."—"The Life of Mahomet" by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 166.
[363] "Meaning the company of his female slave."
[364] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 161 and 162.
Taking concubine-slaves was an established and recognized institution of the Arab society, until Mohammad abolished it. Practically the custom has prevailed up to the present time. No blame attached to such alliances in the social system of the Arabs. "The Caliphs of the House of Abbas were all of them the children of concubines except as—Saffah, Al-Mahdi, and Al-Amin" (History of Caliphs. By Sayúte. Translated by Major Jarret, page 20, Calcutta, 1880). If the story regarding Mohammad be true, there was no fear of exposure or offending the wives.
[365] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Introduction, page ciii.
[366] "The Calcutta Review," Feby. 1868, page 374.
[367] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 160.
[368] Zeid bin Aslam (in Tabrani), who narrates the story, though he does not mention Maria, is a Tábaee (died A.H. 136), and does not quote his authority. Besides, his authority itself is impeached; vide Ibn Adi in his Kámal.
Masrook (in Saeed bin Mansoor) only came to Medina long after Mohammad's death; therefore his narration, even if it be genuine, is not reliable.
Zohak Ibn Muzahim (in Tabrani), also a Tábaee and of impeached authority, narrates it from Ibn Abbás, but he never heard any tradition from him, nor had he even seen him (vide Mzàn-ul-Etedal, by Zahabi, and Ansáb, by Sam-áni). His narration must be hence considered as apocryphal.
The ascription of Ibn Omar's (died 73 A.H.) story, not strictly to the point, is untrustworthy.
Abu Hurera's narration is also admitted as apocryphal; vide Dur-rul-mansoor, by Soyutí.
All these traditions are noted by Soyutí in his Dur-rul-mansoor.
The tradition by Nasáee (died 303 A.H.) from Anas (died 90 A.H.) regarding the affair of a slave is equally contradicted by the tradition from Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet, narrated by the traditionist Nasáee in the same place of his collection of traditions. This is the story of the honey. Vide para. 16, ubi supra. Ayesha's tradition is more trustworthy than that of Anas. Hammád bin Salma, a narrator in the ascription of Anas, has been impeached owing to the confusion of his memory in the later days of his life (vide Tekreeb). Sabit, another link in the same chain, was a story-teller by profession (vide Zahabi's Tabakát,) and cannot be depended upon. And Nasáee himself has rejected the tradition ascribed to Anas, and is reported to have said that Ayesha's tradition has good ascription, while there is nothing valid in that regarding Maria; vide Kamálain's Annotations on Jelálain in loco.
[369] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 310.
[370] Ibid, Vol. III, page 228, and footnote at pp. 229 and 230.
[371] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, page 228. The italics are mine.
[372] Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 229. The tradition quoted by Sir W. Muir in this page is apocryphal and technically Mursal.
[373] Ibid, p. 230.
[374] "(T.A.) he made [a thing] lawful, or allowable, to him (Jel in XXXIII, 38, and Kull in page 275 and T.A.*) relating to a case into which a man has brought himself (Kull): this is said to be the meaning when the phrase occurs in the Kur:" An Arabic-English Lexicon, by Edward William Lane, page 2375.
[375] The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 231.
[376] Vide Seerat Halabi; or, Insan-ul-Oyoon, Vol. II, page 402.
[377] Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. III, pp. 409-410.
[378] Vide Dur-rul-mansoor, by Sayútí, in loco.
[379] Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, Vol. II, page 207.
[380] Narrated by Ibn Sád and Hákim.
[381] Vide Abdur Razzák. Abd bin Hamíd, Ibn Jarír, Ibn-al-Monzar, Ibn Abi Hátim, and Tabráni's Collections of Traditions.
The references to the particular events and circumstances relating to the defensive wars mentioned in the Koran, quoted and referred by me in this work, may be classified as follows:—
I.—The Persecutions of the Koreish at Mecca (B.H. 10-1).
Sura xvi, 43, 44, 111.
Sura ii, 210, 214, 215.
Sura iii, 194.
Sura iv, 97, 99, 100.
Sura xxii, 57.
Sura lx, 8, 9.
Sura xlvii, 14.
Sura xlviii, 25.
Sura ix, 40, 48, 95.
II.—The Aggressions of the Koreish at Medina, as well as those of the Inhabitants thereof (A.H. 10).
Sura ii, 214; Sura viii, 72; Sura ix, 13, 48, 72.
III. The Wars of Defence against the Koreish and the Arabs, &c., with several References to their Aggressions (A.H. 1-8).
Sura xxii, 39-42.
Sura ii, 186-189, 214, 215, 245, 247, 252.
Sura iv, 76-78, 86, 91, 93.
Sura viii, 19, 39-41, 58-66, 73, 74.
Sura ix, 10, 13.
IV.—The Various Battles, &c.
(1) The Battle of Badr (A.H. 2).
Sura iii, 11, 119;
Sura viii, 5-19, 39-52, 66-72;
Sura xlvii, 4, 15.
(2) The Battle of Ohad (A.H. 3).
Sura iii, 117-122;
134-154;
159-162.
(3) The Second Battle of Badr (A.H. 4), and The Expulsion
of the Bani Nazeer (A.H. 4).
Sura iii, 167; and
Sura lix, 2-14.
(4) The Battle of Ahzáb (A.H. 5).
Sura xxxiii, 9-25.
(5) The Jews, Bani Koreiza, &c. (A.H. 5).
Sura viii, 58-66;
Sura xxxiii, 26-27.
(6) The pilgrimic Expedition to Hodeibia (A.H. 6).
Sura xlviii, 1-3, 10, 11, 24, 25;
Sura lx.
(7) The Expedition to Khyber (A.H. 7).
Sura xlviii, 17, 20-22.
(8) The breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish
(A.H. 8).
(a) Before the Conquest of Mecca.
Sura ix, 1-15.
(b) After the Conquest of Mecca,
Sura ix, 16-24.
(9) The Battle of Honain (A.H. 8).
Sura ix, 25-27.
(10) After the Battle of Honain (A.H. 9).
Sura ix, 28.
(11) The Expedition to Tabuk against the Christians
(Romans) and their Jewish Allies (A.H. 9).
(a) Exhortation to go to war in defence.
Sura ix, 29-41, 124.
(b) Backwardness reproached.
42-52, 56-57, 82-90.
(c) Exhortations for contribution.
53-55, 58-60, 81.
(d) The disaffected chided.
65-76, 121, 122, 125-130.
(e) The Bedouins reprobated.
91-102.
(f) The penitents forgiven.
103-107, 118.
THE END.
A • B • C • D • E • F • G • H • I • J • K • L • M • N • O • P • Q • R • S • T • U • V • W • Y • Z
Aámir, lii.
Aamir bin Tofeil, chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Abbas, 34.
Abd-bin Hamid, 109 f.n., 222.
Abd bin Kosayy, xxxiii.
Abd Monat, xvii f.n.
Abd Shams, xxviii, 7.
Abdel Malik ibn Hisham, 72 f.n., 73 f.n.
Abd-ud-Dar, xxxiii.
Abd-ul-Kays, xlvi, lii.
Abdul Hamid, 206, 208.
Abdul Rahman, Mohammad's instruction to him, xxvii.
Abdullah, 96, 97.
Abdullah bin Abdur Rahaman bin Abi Sasta, 206, 208.
Abdullah bin al Harith, 222.
Abdullah bin Jahsh, 31, 56.
Abdullah bin Khalal, 96.
Abdullah bin Omar, 68 f.n.
Abdullah ibn Abbas, 135.
Abdullah ibn Masood, 79, 80.
Abdullah ibn Oneis, 69, 73.
Abdullah ibn Rawáha, 72, 102.
Abdullah ibn Shuburma, ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, 136.
Abdullah ibn Zubair, 135.
Abdur Razzak, 110 f.n.
Abs, xxxiv, xli, xlii, xlvi.
Abû Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab, 135.
Abu Abd-ur Rahman an Nasai, 221.
Abu Afak, 61, 64, 65.
Abu Avana, 210.
Abu Bakr, vi, lix, 9, 179.
Abu Bakr al Ajurri, 221.
Abu Barda, 83.
Abu Basir, 98, 99, 101.
Abu Bera Amr ibn Malik, a chief of Bani Aamir, xlvi.
Abu Cobeis, 6.
Abu Daood, his book of Jihad, 71 f.n., 78 f.n., 79, 80 f.n.,
96, 133, 207.
Abu Hattim, 207, 209.
Abu Hurera, 215.
Abu Jahl, 7, 55.
Abu Naeem, 78.
Abu Obeida, 107.
Abu Omar-ad-Damishki, 68 f.n.
Abu Omar-al-Madni, 107.
Abu Rafe, chief of the Bani Nazeer, 61, 71-72.
Abu Sofian, viii, 7, 11, 14, 31, 32, 34, 53, 55, 56, 74, 75, 76;
attempted assassination of, 61.
Abu Talib, 6;
his death, 7.
Abu Yola, xxii.
Abu Zara, 208.
Abul Bakhtari, 34.
Abul Hukeik, the chief of Bani Nazeer, 39.
Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, 89, 197, 200, 206.
Abul Ozza, 76, 80, 81.
Abwa, Expedition of, 29, 56.
Abyssinia, The emigration of the Moslems to, v, xxxiii, 5;
the two emigrations of, 11;
Nadhir ibn Hareth's flight to, 78, 179.
Age, The Apostolic, 109.
Ahl Hadis, 160.
Ahmas, lii.
Ahmed bin Hanbal, 221.
Ahmed ibn Abi Daood, 113.
Ahmed Khan, Syed;
his Commentary of the Koran, 95 f.n.
Ahzab, vii, xxii, xxiii, 10, 197.
Ainee, a Commentary of the Hedaya, 125, 132, 134 f.n.
Ajtahada, 164.
Ajtahada fil Amr, 164.
Akhnas, 99.
Al-Aamash, 135.
Al-Amaran, 182.
Al-Amin, 212 f.n.
Al-Auzai, 135.
Ali, 9, 80, 196.
Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas, 68.
Al-Is, 57.
Al-Lat, 7.
Allah, 38.
Allauddin Al Haskafi, 170
Almotarrazi, 164.
Al-Mamun, Khalif, 136.
Al Yafi, 136.
Amalekites, 153.
Amar, commissioned to fight with Abu Sofian, 74, 81, 219.
Amar-bin-Dinar, 134, 135, 136.
Ameer Ali, Moulvie, quoted, 90.
Amr, 64.
Amr bin Saasaa, xxxiv, xli.
Amru ibn Omerga, 75.
Anaza, lii.
Annajmus Saqib (star of piercing radiance), xxxvi.
Annals of the Eastern Caliphate quoted, 193, 202.
Ans, 93 f.n., 136, 197-198, 215.
Ans bin Qizi, 89.
Ansab, 215.
Ansars, people of Medina, 32, 41.
Apartment, The (Sura), 188.
Arabs, their society, ii, 26;
pagan, 125.
Arafat, xlviii.
Arqam, Mohammad sought refuge in the house of, xxxiii.
Asad, xii, xiii, xxxiii, xlvi, lii.
Asas of Zamakhshire, 163 f.n., 164.
Ashar, xvi.
Ashja, xii, xiii, xlii, xliii, xlv.
Ashraf, 66.
Asim, 80.
Aslam, xliii.
Asma bint Marwán, 61, 62-64.
Assemblies of Ali Hariri, translated by Thomas Chenry, 169.
As Sauri, 137.
As Shabi, 136.
Astromancy of the Jinns, xxxvi.
Ata, 68, 116 f.n., 134.
Ata ibn Abi Rabah, 135.
Autas, xxiii, 16.
Aws Allah, xxxix.
Aws Tribes (The), xxxix, xlii, xliv.
Ayesha, 215, 216.
Ayla, the Christian chief, xix.
Azd, xlv, lii.
Azdite Tribes (The), xxxix, xlv.
Azhar, 99.
Azruh, The Jews of, xix.