The whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed, nor all the male prisoners were put to the sword.[251] The number slain was comparatively very small. That they were not executed at the commands of Mohammad, nor all of them were killed, nor a divine sanction was alleged for it, is shown by the following verse of the Koran:

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

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

The rest of the Bani Koreiza,—male adults, women, and children,—were either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms.[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 exaggerated, though it is immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international law of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of the number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta on the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: "Passing now to the men executed," he says, "one can at once see how it has been exaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even up to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from 700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would seem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike materials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers, 1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the traditions probably exaggerated these numbers.[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.

The barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who was notorious as the mistress of a nest of robbers, by tying her each leg to a separate camel and being torn asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib Wáckidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of Wáckidi, Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wáckidi does not say that the execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the part of Sir W. Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act, because he reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such an inhuman treatment.[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 the camels of Medina and barbarously handled their herdsman, for they cut off his hands and legs, and struck thorny spikes into his tongue and eyes, till he died. The bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by Kurz-bin-Jabir. "They had merited death," says Sir W. Muir, "but the mode in which he inflicted it was barbarous and inhuman. The arms and legs of eight men were cut off, and their eyes were put out. The shapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched Bedouins were then impaled upon the plain of Al Ghâba, until life was extinct."[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 appears to have felt that this punishment exceeded the bounds of humanity. He accordingly promulgated a Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to simple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands and feet is, however, sanctioned as a penal measure; and amputation of the hands is even enjoined as the proper penalty for theft, whether the criminal be male or female. This barbarous custom has accordingly been perpetuated throughout the Mahometan world. But the putting out of the eyes is not recognized among the legal punishments."[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 Jews of Khyber, and his cousin had kept back, in contravention of their compact, a portion of their riches. On the discovery of this attempt at imposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture—'fire being placed upon his breast till his breath had almost departed'—in the hope that he would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Mahomet then gave command, and the heads of the chief and his cousin were severed from their bodies."[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 Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were actually put to death.... The two next were renegade Moslems, who having shed blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were both slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had been in the habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses."

"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subâba. The murder committed by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter unintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to death, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of the other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the present occasion."[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 forgiveness of Mohammad at the time of his victory at Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole with his usual acumen writes:—"But the final keystone was set in the eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when a body of the Kureysh broke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims; and Mohammad forthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men, and the city, defence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the Prophet to show his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet. Will he not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own cruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may prepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.

"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him: he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka. Four criminals, whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription list when he entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies. The army followed the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no house was robbed, no woman insulted."[265]

5.—Abu Basír.

Sir W. Muir says that "Abu Basír, the free-booter, was countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia."[266] It was one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish and Mohammad, that if any one goeth over to Mohammad without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to him.[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 Koreish and their confederates, the army of Medina was harassed and wearied with increasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe, represented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to the Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the confederates from the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game of deception." Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the Koreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got hostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted. And to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from them. "Do not give them," he said, "they have promised Mahomet to give up the hostages to be slain."[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 writes,—"We cannot, indeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by falsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his character in Arab estimation;"[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 Mohammad what hardly "affected his character in Arab estimation," are there no diversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in different ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of tendency.

"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been practised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best Romans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or revengeful assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery has been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable proofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in another as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an historical examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or palliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the gladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted through religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages rendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by the murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of justice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation against crime, and political assassination against usurpation; that the insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy to prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true, but there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be expected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have agreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is contended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very feeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."[275]

The alleged permission to kill the Jews.

It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by others of Europe, that, "on the morning after the murder of Káb, Mahomet gave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they might chance to meet,"[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 such apocryphal traditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the veracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency. He writes:—

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

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer.

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who says: "The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the Prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause."[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 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 stipulation for the surrender of deserters referred only to the male sex. All women who were to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace were, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their profession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were prohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such believing females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX, verse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the Meccans, and says:—"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with believers, provided only that restitution were made of any sums expended by their former husbands as dower upon them."[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, "Stanley on Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above passage, and says that the rule it contains "resembles that of the Apostle," Vol. I, page 145. But there is really no analogy between them; the Gospel rule differs toto cœlo from that of Mahomet:—"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.—And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond de facto annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was only to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage contract."[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 tie. He had made the marriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very exceptional circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and called it "a strict bond of union."[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 writers think that a religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and prescribed by the Koran for the purpose of proselytizing or exacting tribute. But I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Koran, or taught, or preached by Mohammad. His mission was not to wage wars, or to make converts at the point of the sword, or to exact tribute or exterminate those who did not believe his religion. His sole mission was to enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of the one God, to recommend virtue and denounce vice, which he truly fulfilled. That he and his followers were persecuted, that they were expelled from their houses and were invaded upon and warred against; that to repel incursions and to gain the liberty of conscience and the security of his followers' lives and the freedom of their religion, he and they waged defensive wars, encountered superior numbers, made defensive treaties, securing the main object of the war, i.e., the freedom of their living unmolested at Mecca and Medina, and of having a free intercourse to the Sacred Mosque, and a free exercise of their religion: all these are questions quite separate and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the subject in hand, i.e., the popular Jihad, or the crusade for the purpose of proselytizing, exacting tribute, and exterminating the idolaters, said to be one of the tenets of Islam. All the defensive wars, and the verses of the Koran relating to the same, were strictly temporary and transitory in their nature. They cannot be made an example of, or be construed into a tenet or injunction for aggressive wars, nor were they intended so to be. Even they cannot be an example or instruction for a defensive war to be waged by the Mohammadan community or commonwealth, because all the circumstances under which Mohammad waged his defensive wars were local and temporary. But almost all European writers do not understand that the Koran does not teach a war of aggression, but had only, under the adverse circumstances, to enjoin a war of defence, clearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly prohibiting offensive measures.

All the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only in self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that they were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered positive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for coming generations.[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 only a positive injunction "where there is a general summons, (that is, where the infidels invade a Mussulman territory, and the Imâm for the time being issues a general proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,) for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants,"[291]—this is sanctioned by the Law of Nations and the Law of Nature.

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

"The destruction of the sword[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.