A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'

Chapter X: Introduction: Sidenote: Object of the book (7)

Text size

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._

[Sidenote: 75. 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._

[Sidenote: 76. The alleged execution of a singing-girl.]

"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.

[Sidenote: 77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies.]

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._

[Sidenote: 78. Abu Basír not countenanced by the Prophet in contravention of the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia.]

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._

[Sidenote: 79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reports in the enemy's camp.]

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.

[Sidenote: 80. Deception in way allowed by the international law.]

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]

[Sidenote: 81. Lecky's Standard of Morality.]

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._

[Sidenote: 82. Murder of Ibn Sanina.]

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.

[Sidenote: 83. Sir W. Muir quoted.]

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

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

"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when
Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and
Hishâmi has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet
directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would
have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not
been so strong and positive."[279]

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

_The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer._

[Sidenote: 84. 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.

[Sidenote: 85. Fruit-trees not cut down.]

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._

[Sidenote: 86. 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.)

[Sidenote: 87. Stanley defended.]

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 coelo_ 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]

[Sidenote 88. Marriage a strict bond of union.]

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.

[Footnote 257: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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."]

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

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 262: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.]

[Footnote 263: _Vide_ Mishkát Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.]

[Footnote 264: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.]

[Footnote 265: Introduction to Lane's Selections from the Kur-án, by Stanley Lane Poole, p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.]

[Footnote 266: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.]

[Footnote 267: _Ibid_, p. 35.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 269: Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 266.]

[Footnote 270: _Seerat Halabi_, or _Insan-al-Oyoon_, Vol II, page 79.]

[Footnote 271: History of _Mohammad's Campaigns_, by Wackidi, pp. 368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.]

[Footnote 272: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.]

[Footnote 273: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.]

[Footnote 274: Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.]

[Footnote 275: History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne. By William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.]

[Footnote 276: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.]

[Footnote 277: _Ibid_, p. 149.]

[Footnote 278: Ibn Hisham, p. 554.]

[Footnote 279: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149, _foot-note_.]

[Footnote 280: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 283: Compare Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and 302, _foot-note_.]

[Footnote 284: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.]

[Footnote 285: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

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

[Sidenote 89. The Koran enjoined only defensive wars.]

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.

[Sidenote 90. The Common Law and Jihad.]

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]

[Sidenote 91. Jihad when positive.]

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.

[Sidenote: 92. The Hedaya quoted and refuted.]

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.

[Sidenote: 93. Rule of interpretation.]

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

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

[Sidenote: 94. The Common Law and its commentators.]

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

[Sidenote: 95. Kifaya quoted.]

The author of Kifaya, a commentary on the Hedaya, who flourished in the seventh century of the Hegira, remarks on the words of the text, "The destruction of the sword is incurred by the infidels, although they be not the first aggressors," already quoted in the 92nd para., and says; "Fighting against the infidels who do not become converts to Islam, and do not pay the capitation-tax, is incumbent, though they do not attack first." The author of the Hedaya has mentioned this aggressive measure specially, because apparently the words of God, "if they attack you then slay them,"[294] indicate that the fighting against the unbelievers is only incumbent when they fight first, but, however, such is not the case. It is incumbent to fight with them, though they be not the aggressors.[295]

[Sidenote: 96. Further quotation.]

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

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

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

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

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

"After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in every place. God said, 'And do battle against them until there be no more (_fitnah_) persecution' (II. 189; VII. 40)."[296]

[Sidenote: 97. The Kifaya refuted.]

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 98. S. IX, v. 5, discussed.]

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

[Sidenote: 99. S. II, v. 189, discussed.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 100. S. II, 189, VIII, 40, are defensive.]

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 101. All injunctions local and for the time being.]

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

[Sidenote: 102. Ainee quoted and refuted.]

Another commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee[297] (who died in 855) follows Kifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on the war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in his work. They are as follows:--

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted.]

Sarakhsee generally entitled _Shums-ul-a-imma_ (the Sun of the Leaders), who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his _Radd-ul-Muhtár_,[298] makes several stages in publishing the injunctions for fighting. He writes:--

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

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

[Sidenote: 104. Ibn Hajar quoted and refuted.]

Shahábudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:--

"Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined only to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the unbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, God gave sanction to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said, 'And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you' (II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first revealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a sanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then the war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months, 'When the sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth year of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was enjoined absolutely by the words of God; 'March ye forth, the light and the heavy' (IX, 41); and 'attack those who join gods with God in all' (IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the preceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both bear on the same subject, _i.e._, of the sword."[299]

[Sidenote: 105. Ibn Hajar refuted.]

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

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

[Sidenote: 106. Halabi quoted.]

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

Previous Next

Comments

A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'Chapter X: Introduction: Sidenote: Object of the book (7)

0%36 min left in chapter