Chapter IV: Introduction: Sidenote: Object of the book (1)

1. In publishing this work, my chief object is to remove the general and erroneous impression from the minds of European and Christian writers regarding Islam, that Mohammad waged wars of conquest, extirpation, as well as of proselytizing against the Koreish, other Arab tribes, the Jews, and Christians;[1] that he held the Koran in one hand and the scimitar in the other, and compelled people to believe in his mission. I have endeavoured in this book, I believe on sufficient grounds, to show that neither the wars of Mohammad were offensive, nor did he in any way use force or compulsion in the matter of belief.

[Footnote 1: "He now occupied a position where he might become the agent for executing the divine sentence, and at the same time triumphantly impose the true religion on those who had rejected it." The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, page 211. London, 1877. (New Edition.)

"The free toleration of the purer among the creeds around him, which the Prophet had at first enjoined, gradually changes into intolerance. Persecuted no longer, Mohammad becomes a persecutor himself; with the Koran in one hand, and scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to the nations the three-fold alternative of conversion, tribute, death."--Mohammed and Mohammedanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith, page 137. Second Edition.]

[Sidenote: Early wrongs of the Moslems.]

[Sidenote: Justification in taking up arms, if taken.]

2. All the wars of Mohammad were defensive. He and those who took interest in his cause were severely oppressed at intervals, and were in a sort of general persecution at Mecca at the hands of the ungodly and fierce Koreish. Those who were weak and without protection had to leave their city, and twice fly to the Christian land of Abyssinia, pursued by the wrathful Koreish, but in vain. Those who remained at Mecca were subject to all sorts of indignities, malignity and a deprivation of all religious and social liberty, because they had forsaken the inferior deities of the Koreish, and believed in the only ONE GOD of Mohammad, in whose mission they had full belief. Mohammad and his followers had every sanction, under the natural and international law, then and there to wage war against their persecutors with the object of removing the (_fitnah_) persecution and obtaining their civil rights of freedom and religious liberty in their native city.

[Sidenote: Commencement of the state of war.]

[Sidenote: The Koreish being public enemies were liable to be treated as such.]

3. The fierce persecutions renewed by the Koreish at the time of the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca were acts of hostility tantamount to a declaration of war. From that time commenced the state of war between the parties. In the Arab society at Mecca there was neither an organized Government, nor any distinction between a public and private person and property. There was no regular army in the State, and what existed was not a permanently organized body, so provided with external marks that it could be readily identified. The form of Government at Mecca was patriarchal, and the chiefs of the Koreish and the citizens of Medina themselves constituted an army when occasion arose. Therefore, since the commencement of hostilities or the state of war, every individual of the Koreish or the Meccans was a public enemy of the Moslems, and liable to be treated as such in his person and property, except those who were unable to take part in the hostilities, or, as a matter of fact, abstained from engaging in them. Therefore it was lawful for the Moslems to threaten or to waylay the caravans of the enemy, which passed to and from Mecca close to Medina, and also to attack the Koreish at Mecca, if they could possibly do so.

[Sidenote: But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress their wrongs under certain circumstances.]

4. But as the people amongst whom the Prophet and his fugitive Moslems now sojourned had only pledged to defend them at Medina, the flying Mohammadans could not take up arms against their aggressors, the Koreish, to defend their rights of religious liberty and citizenship, much less of taking arms to compel the non-believers to believe in Moslem faith, and so they preferred to live in peace at Medina, and enjoy the blessings of their new religion without any disturbance from without, if possible.

[Sidenote: Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intention of suffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative.]

[Sidenote: But were in imminent danger from the enemy.]

5. In fact, the Moslems, after suffering so long such heavy persecutions at Mecca, had at length got an asylum of peace at Medina, where they had very little desire left to entertain any idea of commencing hostilities or undergoing once more the horrors of war, and were too glad to live in peace after their last escape. The people of Medina had only agreed to defend the Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps towards the Koreish. The attention of Mohammad and his followers who had fled with him was mainly occupied in preaching and teaching the tenets of Islam, in establishing a fraternity between the refugees and the citizens, in building a house for prayer, in providing houses for refugees, in contracting treaties of neutrality with the Jews of Medina and other surrounding tribes, Bani Zamra (a tribe connected with Mecca) and also with Bani Mudlij (a tribe of Kinana related to the Koreish), in anticipation of the impending danger[2] from the Koreish, who had pursued them on the similar occasions before, and in organizing, above all these, some of the religious and civil institutions for the Moslems, who were now fast assuming the position of an independent society or commonwealth. Under such circumstances, it was next to impossible for Mohammad or his adherents to think of anything like an offensive war with their inveterate foes, or to take up arms for proselytizing purposes.

[Footnote 2: See Sura XXIV, verse 54.]

[Sidenote: The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. They could not forbear the escape of the Moslems.]

6. The Koreish, seeing the persecuted had left almost all their native lands for a distant city out of their approach, except by a military expedition, and losing Mohammad, for whose arrest they had tried their utmost, as well as upon hearing the reception, treatment, religious freedom and brotherly help the Moslems received and enjoyed at Medina, could not subdue their ferocious animosity against the exiles. The hostility of the Koreish had already been aroused. The severity and injustice of the Koreish was so great, that when, in 615 A.D., a party of 11 Moslems had emigrated to Abyssinia, they had pursued them to overtake them. And again, in 616 A.D., when the persecution by the Koreish was hotter than before, a party of about 100 Moslems had fled from Mecca to Abyssinia, the Koreish sent an embassy to Abyssinia to obtain the surrender of the emigrants. There is every reason to believe that the Koreish, enraged as they were on the escape of the Moslems in their third and great emigration in 622 A.D., would naturally have taken every strong and hostile measure to persecute the fugitives.[3]

It was in the second year from the general expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca that the Koreish, with a large army of one thousand strong, marched upon the Moslems at Medina. Medina being 250 miles or 12 stages from Mecca, the aggressive army, after marching 8 stages, arrived at Badr, which is 3 or 4 stages from Medina. Mahommad--with only 300 Moslems, more being from among the people of Medina than the refugees--came out of Medina in self-defence to encounter the Koreish, and the famous battle of Badr was fought only at thirty miles from Medina. There could be no doubt that the affair was purely and admittedly a defensive one.

Sura XXII, verses 39-42, copied at page 17 of this book, was first published in the matter of taking up arms in self-defence after the battle of Badr.

[Footnote 3: The idea of forbearance on the part of the Koreish, as entertained by Sir W. Muir, is not borne out by their former conduct of persecuting the believers and pursuing the fugitives among them. He says: "Mahomet and Abu Bakr trusted their respective clans to protect their families from insult. But no insult or annoyance of any kind was offered by the Coreish. Nor was the slightest attempt made to detain them; although it was not unreasonable that they should have been detained as hostages against any hostile incursion from Medina"[A]. They were contemplating a grand pursuit and attack on the Moslems, and had no reason to detain the families of Mahomet and Abu Bakr as hostages whilst they could not think that the Moslems will take the initiative, as they were too glad to escape and live unmolested.]

[Footnote A: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol II, page 265.]

[Sidenote: The three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad.]

7. The Koreish carried on three aggressive battles against the Moslems at Medina. The first, called the Battle of Badr, took place at thirty miles from Medina, the Koreish having come down 250 miles from Mecca. The second, called the Battle of Ohad, was fought at a distance of one mile from Medina, the enemy having advanced 250 miles from Mecca. The third was the battle of confederates, in which they had mustered an army of ten thousand strong. The city was besieged for several days, and the Moslems defended themselves within the walls of Medina which they had entrenched. These were the only battles between the Koreish and Mohammad, in each the latter always acted on the defensive. Neither he attacked the Koreish offensively to take revenge, nor to compel them by force of arms to accept his religion.

[Sidenote: These wars were purely in defence, not to redress their wrongs or to establish their rights.]

Even these three battles were not waged by Mohammad to redress wrong or establish imperilled rights. They were only to repel force by right of self-defence. Had Mohammad and his Moslems invaded Mecca and fought battles against the Koreish there, he would have been justified for waging war to redress the injuries of person and property inflicted by the Meccans on the Moslems whom they were tormenting for their religion and had expelled them from their homes, and had even barred their yearly visitation to the shrine of Kaába. A war which is undertaken for just causes, to repel or avert wrongful force, or to establish a right, is sanctioned by every law, religious, moral or political.

[Sidenote: The battle of Badr was defensive.]

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

[Sidenote: Reasons for the same.]

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

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

III. The seventh[8] verse of the same Sura shows that while the parties had so accidentally encamped close to each other, the Moslems had desired then and there only to attack the caravan, as a reprisal or by way of retaliation, instead of combating with the Koreish army. This is an argument in support of my contention that there was no previous arrangement to attack the caravan.

IV. The same verse also shows that Mohammad had no intention of attacking the caravan either before his coming out of Medina, as it is alleged by ignorant people, or after coming at Badr in front of the enemy's army.

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

VI. Sura IX, verse 13,[10] at a subsequent event of the violation of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish, very distinctly charges them with attacking first and waging offensive war and being aggressive. As there was no war or attack from the Koreish on the Moslems before Badr, I conclude that in the war of Badr the Koreish were aggressive.

[Footnote 4: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 255, _foot-note_. This note has been expunged in the New Edition of "The Life": _Vide_ page 317.]

[Footnote 5: 5. "_Remember_ how thy Lord caused thee to go forth from thy home on _a mission_ of truth, and verily a part of the believers were quite averse to it."

6. "They disputed with thee about the truth after it had been made clear, as if they were being led forth to death and saw it before them." Sura VIII.]

[Footnote 6: 43. "When ye were encamped on the near side of the valley, and they were on the further side, and the caravan was below you, if ye have made an engagement to _attack_, ye would assuredly have failed the engagement; but _ye were led into action notwithstanding_, that God might accomplish the thing _destined_ to be done." Sura VIII.]

[Footnote 7: Muir's Life of Mahomet. New Edition, page 226.]

[Footnote 8: "And _remember_ when God promised you that one of the two troops should fall to you, and ye desired that they who had no arms should fall to you: but God purposed to prove true the truth of his words, and to cut off the uttermost part of the infidels."]

[Footnote 9: "But if they seek to deal treacherously with thee--they have already dealt treacherously with God before! Therefore hath He given you power over them."]

[Footnote 10: "Will ye not do battle with a people who have broken their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will you dread them?"]

[Sidenote: Mohammad, owing to the attacks, inroads and threatening gatherings from the Koreish and other Arab tribes, had hardly time to think of offensive measures.]

9. But Mohammad, harassed and attacked every year by the Koreish and other hostile Arab tribes, had hardly any time to wage an aggressive war against his Koreshite foes, to establish his imperilled rights, or to redress the injuries of the Moslems or his own wrong; much less of taking up arms to compel them to renounce idolatry and believe in his Divine mission. During the first year after their expulsion from Mecca, the Moslems were in constant danger from the ferocity of the Koreish, and when Mohammad was contracting treaties of neutrality with the neighbouring tribes, Kurz-bin-Jábir, a Koreish of the desert, committed a raid upon Medina. In the course of the second year the Koreish fought the battle of Badr, followed by a petty inroad of theirs upon Medina at the end of the year. The Bani Nazeer treasoned against Medina by giving intelligence to, and entertaining, the enemy. In the beginning of the third year, the nomad tribes of Suleim and Ghatafán, inhabitants of the plains of Najd, and descendants of a stock common with the Koreish, twice projected a plundering attack upon Medina. At the same time the Moslems were defeated at the battle of Ohad, near Medina, by the Koreish, which circumstance greatly affected the prestige of the Prophet, who was threatened with a similar fate the next year by his victorious enemies. With the opening of the fourth year, the inimical spirit of many of the Bedouins, as well as that of the Jews of Bani Nazeer, was perceptible, and in various quarters large masses were organized to act against Mohammad and to take advantage of the defeat at Medina. The tribes of Bani Asad and Bani Lahyán were brought together to follow the victory of the Koreish at Ohad. And last, not least, the Moslem missionaries were cut to pieces at Ráji and Bir Máuna. At the close of the year, the people of Medina were alarmed by an exaggerated account of the preparations at Mecca to attack Medina as promised last year (Sura III, v. 176). During the fifth year certain tribes of Ghatafán were assembling with suspicious purposes at Zat-al-Rikaa and the marauding bands near Dumatal Jandal threatened a raid upon Medina. The Bani Mustalik, a branch of Khozaa, hitherto friendly to Mohammad's cause, took up arms with a view of joining the Koreish in the intended attack upon Medina. At the end of the year, the Koreish, joined by an immense force of the Bedouin tribes,[11] marched against Medina, and laid siege to it for many days. The Bani Koreiza, having defected from Mohammad, joined the Koreish army when Medina was besieged.

In the beginning of the sixth year Uyeina, the chief of the Bani Fezárá, had committed an inroad upon Medina.[12] A Medinite caravan, under the charge of Zeid-bin-Háris, was seized and plundered by the Bani Fezárá.[13] In the month of Zul-Kada, (the eleventh month of the Arab lunar year), when war was unlawful throughout Arabia, but much more so within the sacred precincts of Mecca, Mohammad and his followers, longing to visit the house of their Lord and the sacred places around it, and to join the yearly pilgrimage which they had grown from their childhood to regard as an essential part of their social and religious life, not to mention their intense desire of seeing their houses and families from which they were unjustly expelled, started from Medina for performing the lesser pilgrimage. They were under the impression that, in the peaceful habits of pilgrims, the Koreish would be morally bound by every pledge of national faith to leave them unmolested, and Mohammad had promised them a peaceful entry. But the Koreish armed themselves and opposed the progress of the Moslems towards Mecca, notwithstanding the pious object and unwarlike attitude of the pilgrims. At length a treaty, in terms unfavourable to the Moslems, but in fact a victory won by Islam, was concluded by Mohammad and the Koreish at Hodeibia. By this peace war was suspended for ten years.

From my brief sketch of Mohammad's first six years' sojourn in Medina, it is evident that during this time Medina was constantly in a sort of military defence. The Moslems were every moment in the danger of an invasion, attack, or inroad from without, and treachery, conspiracy and treason from within. They either had to encounter superior numbers or to disperse hostile gathering or to chastise sometimes marauding tribes. So Mohammad could scarcely breathe freely at Medina, but much less could he find time and opportunity to mature a scheme of attacking the Koreish at Mecca in order to revenge himself and his refugees for the persecutions which the Koreish had inflicted on the Moslems, to redress their wrongs, and to re-establish their rights of civil and religious liberty, or to make converts of them or any other tribes at the point of sword.

[Footnote 11: Bani Ashja, Murra Fezárá, Suleim, Sád, Asad, and several clans of Ghatafán, the Jews of Wady-al-Koraa and Khyber.]

[Footnote 12: A party of Moslems at Zil Kassa was slain, and Dihya, sent by Mohammad to the Roman Emperor, on his return, was robbed of every thing by the Bani Juzám beyond Wady-al-Kora.]

[Footnote 13: The Jews at Khyber were enticing the Bani Fezárá and Bani Sad-bin-Bakr and other Bedouin tribes to make depredations upon Medina.]

[Sidenote: Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims in the vicinity of Mecca.]

[Sidenote: Mohammad proclaimed war against the opposing Koreish to obtain the right of civil and religious liberty at Mecca.]

10. It was only when the Moslems, unarmed as they were in pilgrim's garb, were opposed by the armed Koreish, who had encamped at Zú Towa, clothed in panther's skin, or, in other words, with a firm resolution to fight to the last, and when Osman, the Moslem envoy to Mecca, was actually placed in confinement,[14] of whom the rumour was constantly rife that he was murdered at Mecca, and when a party of the Koreish had actually attacked the camp of Mohammad,[15] that excitement, alarm and anxiety prevailed in the Moslem camp, and Mohammad took a solemn oath from the Faithful to stand by their cause even unto death. (Sura XLVIII.[16]) In the meantime appeals were received from the Moslems detained in confinement at Mecca, and otherwise oppressed for deliverance. _Vide_ Sura IV, verses 77, 99, 100; Sura VIII, verses 72, 73. He, on this occasion, proclaimed a war with the Koreish in the event of their attacking first, and enjoining the believers to redress their earlier and later wrongs, to establish their civil and religious liberty, to have free access to their native city, to have the free exercise of their religion, and to make away with the oppressions of Koreish once for all.

The following verses were published on the occasion:--Sura II, verses 186-190, 212-215. The Sura XLVIII afterwards had reference to the occasion, specially verses 10, 22-27. They are quoted in pp. 17-19.

[Sidenote: The war thus proclaimed did not take place.]

But happily a truce was agreed upon, and not a drop of blood was shed on either side. Thus the injunctions contained in the verses referred to above were never carried out. Mohammad, in proclaiming this war, had all the laws and justice on his side. Even this war, had it been waged, would have been defensive, undertaken for the purpose of establishing the civil rights of the Moslems and their religious liberty, hitherto unjustly denied them.

[Footnote 14: Ibn Hisham, p. 746.]

[Footnote 15: _Ibid._ 745, see Sura XLVIII.]

[Footnote 16: Mohammad had gained over some of the Bedouin tribes in the direction of Mecca, and were on friendly terms with him. At this time they were summoned by Mohammad to join him if there be a war. They did not join him except a very few.]

[Sidenote: The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their pledges.]

[Sidenote: War declared against those who had violated the truce.]

11. This truce did not last long. The last act of hostility on the part of the aggressive Koreish was the violation of the truce within two years of its being concluded. This resulted in the submission of Mecca. The tribe of Bani Khozáa,[17] who were now converts to Islam since the truce, and who had entered into an open alliance with Mohammad at the treaty, were attacked by the Koreish and their allies, the Bani Bakr.[18] The aggressed Moslems appealed for aid to Mohammad through a deputation, that displayed their wrongs to Mohammad and his followers in very touching terms, urging in a plaintive tone to avenge them upon the treacherous murderers. War was declared by Mohammad against the aggressors, who had violated the truce, and attacked the Bani Khozáa, to redress their wrongs. A proclamation was issued declaring immunity from God and his Apostle to those who had broken the league and aided the Bani Bakr against the Khozáa. Four months' time was allowed them to make terms, in default of which they were to be warred against, seized, and besieged, in short, to suffer all the hardships of war. Sura IX, verses 1-15, was published declaring the war. It has been copied at pages 22-25 of the book.

[Sidenote: War not carried out.]

But the threatened war did not actually take place, and Mecca surrendered by a compromise. Thus Mohammad obtained his object of civil and religious liberty of the Moslems at Mecca and Medina, and averted the (_fitnah_) persecutions and oppressions of the Koreish without actual war or bloodshed, and also secured peace for his followers in exchange of the constant fear and agitation impending over them. This was promised some years ago in Sura XXIV, verse 54, which runs as follows:--

"God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things
that are right, that He will cause them to succeed other in the
land, as He gave succession to those who went before them, and that
He will establish for them their religion in which they delight,
and that after their fears He will give them security in exchange.
They shall worship Me: nought shall they join with Me: And whoso
after this believe not, they will be the impious."

[Footnote 17: The Bani Khozáa are also taken notice of in Sura VIII, verses 73-74.]

[Footnote 18: The Bani Bakr, son of Abd Monát, were a branch of Kinána of the Moaddite stock.]

[Sidenote: War with foes other than the Koreish.]

12. Now I shall dispense with the Koreish and refer to the wars of other enemies of the early Moslems. There is only one war of the Arab tribes other than the Koreish noticed in the Koran, and that is the battle of Honain. In this war the Sakifites were the aggressors. The battle of Muraisia is not noticed in the Koran, but it is stated by biographers that information of a new project against him after the defeat at Ohad in the direction of Mecca, and the Bani Mustalik's raising fresh forces with a view of joining the Koreish in the threatened attack of Medina having reached Mohammad, he resolved by a bold attempt to prevent their design. I have shown in the book that the expedition of Mohammad against Khyber was purely in self-defence. A war undertaken to protect ourselves from the impending danger of an attack from the enemy and with the purpose of checking its advance, is a defensive war under the Law. I am not going to treat of expedition of the Bani Koreizá separately, but this much is necessary to say here, that they had treacherously defected from the Moslem with whom they had entered into a defensive alliance, and had joined the confederate army against the Moslems. For a detail account of them, the reader is referred to pages 87-91 of this book.

[Sidenote: Expedition to Tabúk to check the advancing enemy. No war took place.]

13. The expedition of Mecca, already described, ended in a submission and compromise without any resort to arms; that against Tabúk was undertaken, as it is admitted by all writers, Moslem and European, for purely defensive purposes. Mohammad was much alarmed on this occasion owing to the threatening news of a foreign invasion against the Moslem commonwealth. The following verses of the Ninth Sura are most probably directed towards the Romans and their Jewish and Christian allies,[19] if not towards the Jews of Khyber:--

29. "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been
given as believe not in God or in the last day, and who forbid not
that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not
the profession of the Truth, until they pay tribute out of hand,
and they be humbled."

124. "Believers wage war against such of the unbelievers as are
your neighbours, and let them assuredly find rigour in you, and
know that God is with those who fear him."--_Sura IX._

Mohammad returned without any war, and there was no occasion to carry out the injunctions contained in these verses.

Mohammad had taken great pains, according to the severity of the impending danger, to induce the Moslems to go to war in their own defence. But as the season was hot, and the journey a long one, some of them were very backward in doing so.

There is a very violent denunciation against those who on various false pretences held back on the occasion.

[Footnote 19: The Jews of Macna Azrúh and Jabra, and the Christian Chiefs of Ayla and Dúma.]

[Sidenote: Number of the wars of Mohammad.]

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

1. Badr.
2. Ohad.
* Muraisi.
3. Ahazáb.
* Koreiza.
4. Khyber.
* Mecca.
5. Honain.
* Táyif.

There are no good authorities for the war at Muraisi with the Bani Mustalik. There were no fightings with the Koreiza, as their affair was but a continuation of the war of Ahzab, and therefore does not require a separate number. At Mecca there was no action, and it surrendered by a compromise. As for Táyif it was a part of the battle of Honain like Autás. It was besieged to lay hold of the fugitives who had sought there a shelter, and subsequently the siege was raised. Thus, there remain only five expeditions, which I have numbered out of nine, in which Mohammad fought against his enemies in his and his followers' defence. Even these five scarcely deserve the name of battle. From a military point of view, they were but petty skirmishes in their results. The enemy's loss at Badr was 49, at Ohad 20, at Ahzáb 3, at Khyber 93, and at Honain 93; but the last two numbers are open to doubt, and seem to be exaggerated. The loss on the Moslem side was 14, 74, 5, 19, and 17 respectively. The whole casualties in these wars on the side of the Moslems were 129, and on that of the enemies 258, which is exactly double those of the Moslems, and looks suspicious; hence it must be accepted with caution.

[Footnote 20: The biographers have only compiled or arranged the mass of popular romances and favourite tales of campaigns, which had become stereotyped in their time, but were for the most part the inventions of a playful fantasy.]

[Footnote 21: Musa-bin-Akba (died 141 A.H.)]

[Footnote 22: Ibn Sád and Ibn Is-hak as already alluded to.]

[Sidenote: Mr. Green quoted.]

15. The Rev. Samuel Green writes:--

"It has been insinuated that Mahomet first took up arms in his own
defence, and by more than one historian he has been justified in
seeking to repel or prevent the hostilities of his enemies, and to
exact a reasonable measure of retaliation. 'The choice of an
independent people,' says Gibbon, 'had exalted the fugitive of
Mecca to the rank of a sovereign, and he was invested with the just
prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or
defensive war.'[23] That such a sentiment was entertained by a
Mahometan does not at all surprise us, nor is it marvellous that it
should be justified by an infidel; if it be true, war needs nothing
to render laudable but the pretext of former injuries and the
possession of power. The defence set up for Mahomet is equally
availing for every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant; and men,
instead of being bound together by the ties of clemency and mutual
forgiveness of injuries, are transformed into fiends, watching for
the opportunity of destroying each other."[24]

There was no pretence of former injuries on the part of the Moslems to make war on the Koreish. They were actually attacked by the Koreish and were several times threatened with inroads by them and their allies. So it was not until they were attacked by the enemy that they took up arms in their own defence, and sought to repel and prevent hostilities of their enemies. The defence set up for Mohammad is not equally availing of every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant. It was not only that Mohammad was wronged or attacked, but all the Moslems suffered injuries and outrages at Mecca, and when expelled therefrom, they were attacked upon, were not allowed to return to their homes, and to perform the pilgrimage there. The social and religious liberty, a natural right of every individual and nation, was denied them. A cruel or revengeful tyrant may not be justified in taking up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to redress his personal wrongs and private injuries; but the whole Moslem community at Mecca was outraged, persecuted and expelled,--and the entire Mohammadan commonwealth at Medina was attacked, injured and wronged,--their natural rights and privileges were disregarded--after such miseries the Moslems took up arms to protect themselves from the hostilities of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were justified by every law and justice.

The right of self-defence is a part of the law of nature, and it is the indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members. Even if a sanguinary and revengeful tyrant were to do so in his own behalf, he would be quite justified in this particular act. A just war, that is one undertaken for just causes to repel or revert wrongful force, or to establish a right, cannot be impeached on any ground, religious, moral, or political. But the Moslems had tried every possible means of obtaining a pacific solution of the difficulty which had arisen between them and their enemies, the Koreish and the Jews, to avert war and its horrors. Mohammad had repeatedly informed the Koreish that if they desist they will be forgiven.

88. "But if they desist, then verily God is gracious, merciful."

189. "But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save
against wrong-doers."--_Sura II._

19. "_O Meccans!_ if ye desired a decision, now hath the decision
come to you. It will be better for you to give over _the struggle_.
If ye return _to it_, we will return; and your forces, though they
be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with the
faithful."

39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist what is now past shall be
forgiven them; but if they turn _to it_, they have already before
them the doom of the former."--_Sura VIII._

And the same was the case regarding the Jews.

104. "Many of those who have Scripture would like to bring you back
to unbelief after you have believed, out of selfish envy, even
after the truth hath been shown to them. Forgive them then, and
shun them till God shall come with his decree. Truly God hath power
over all things."--_Sura II._

63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy
trust in God. He verily is the hearing, the knowing."--_Sura VIII._

16. ... "Thou wilt not cease to discover the treacherous ones among
them, except a few of them. But forgive them and pass it over.
Verily God loveth those who act generously."--_Sura V._

But there could be no peace or mutual agreement on the part of the enemy until the truce of Hodeibia, which was also violated by them in a short time.

Even in the wars which were waged for self-preservation, the Prophet had very much mitigated the evils which are necessarily inflicted in the progress of wars. Fraud, perfidy, cruelty, killing women, children and aged persons were forbidden by Mohammad;[25] and a kind treatment of the prisoners of war enjoined. But foremost of these all--slavery, and domestication of concubinary slaves, the concomitant evils of war--were abolished by him, ordering at the same time that prisoners of war should be either liberated gratis or ransomed. Neither they were to be enslaved nor killed. (_Vide_ Sura XLVII, verses 4 and 5; and Appendix B of this work.) Attacking offensively was forbidden by the Koran (II, 186 _La Taatadú_, _i.e._ 'Do not attack first'). Mohammad had taken oaths from the Moslems to refrain from plundering (_vide_ page 58 of this book).

"All hostilities and plundering excursions between neighbouring
tribes that had become Musalman he forbade on pain of death; and
this among those who had hitherto lived by plunder or by war, and
who he knew might be deterred by such prohibition from joining him.
'Let us make one more expedition against the Temim,' said a tribe
that was almost, but not altogether, persuaded to embrace the
faith, 'and then we will become Musalmans.'"[26]

"In avenging my injuries," said he (Mohammad), "molest not the
harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the
softer sex, the infant at the breast, and those who in the course
of nature are hastening from this scene of mortality. Abstain from
demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy
not their means of subsistence, respect their fruit trees, and
touch not the palm, so useful to the Syrians for its shade, and
delightful for its verdure."[27]

"The Bani Bakr," writes Sir W. Muir, "meanwhile, foreseeing from
the practice of the Prophet that, under the new faith, their mutual
enmities would be stifled, resolved upon a last passage of arms
with their foes. The battle of _Shaitain_ fought at the close of
630 A.D. was a bloody and fatal one to the Bani Tamím."[28]

[Footnote 23: "Decline and Fall, Chap. 1."]

[Footnote 24: The Life of Mahomet, founder of the religion of Islamism and of the Empire of the Saracens, by the Rev. Samuel Green, page 126: London, 1877.]

[Footnote 25: Mohammad's instruction to Abdal-Rahman was--"In no case shalt thou use deceit or perfidy, nor shalt thou kill any child."--Muir, Vol. IV, p. 11.]

[Footnote 26: 'Quoted by Dr. Cazenove,' "Christian Remembrancer," January, 1855, page 71, from Caussin de Perceval. Mohammed & Mohammedanism. By R. Bosworth Smith, Second Edn., pp. 257 & 258. London, 1876.]

[Footnote 27: An History of Mohammedanism; comprising the Life and Character of the Arabian Prophet; by Charles Mills, page 27. London 1818.]

[Footnote 28: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxxvii. London, 1861.]

[Sidenote: Another view of the wars of Mohammad.]

16. There is another view of the wars of Mohammad held by some of the European and American writers that he commenced hostilities on the caravans of the Koreish which passed from Medina by way of reprisal and retaliation,[29] and that he at first took up arms in his self-defence, but at last he proclaimed, and waged, offensive wars against the Koreish.[30] I have already shown how improbable the line of action was on the part of Mohammad under the circumstances at Medina; and this line of policy is quite contrary to the several verses of the Koran on the subject, all enjoining the waging of wars in self-defence. But supposing that hostilities were first commenced by Mohammad after the Hegira, the state of war having commenced at the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca, it was lawful for him to take up arms to redress the wrongs of the Moslems and to establish their lawful right by force of arms. A war commenced on these grounds is a defensive war, though from a military point of view it may be an offensive one.[31]

"The right of self-defence," writes Kent, a great authority on the
International Law, "is part of the law of our nature, and it is the
indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members in the
enjoyment of their rights, both of person and property. This is the
fundamental principle of the social compact.... The injury may
consist, not only in the direct violation of personal or political
rights, but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in the
refusal of a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or of
adequate explanation or security in respect to manifest and
impending danger."[32]

[Footnote 29: Sir W. Muir doubts the intense hatred and bitter cruelty attributed by tradition to the Koreish, and says: "In accordance with this view is the fact that the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered and blood had thus been shed that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms." The Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, page 265, foot-note. London, 1861. This note disappears in the new edition of 1877. In his work "The Coran," page 24, London, 1878, Sir W. Muir says: "The caravans of Mecca offered a tempting opportunity for reprisals, and several expeditions were organized against them."]

[Footnote 30: Mr. G. Sale writes: "He gave out that God had allowed him and his followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them." _The Prelim. Dis. Sect. 11._ Mr. Henry Coppée writes regarding Mohammad: "But he soon found that he must take up arms in self defence, and in the thirteenth year of his mission, he announced that God permitted him not only to fight in his self-defence, but to propagate his religion by the sword." History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppée. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But Dr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely defensive. He writes:--"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of God, the law to fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions; and this became henceforth the watchword of his bloody religion." The Life of Mohammad, p. 207: Allahabad, 1851.]

[Footnote 31: M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International Law, holds: "A war undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war, notwithstanding that it may be militarily offensive." The International Law, by William Edward Hall, M.A., Oxford, 1880, page 320.]

[Footnote 32: Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T. Abdy, LL.D., Second Edition, page 144.]

[Sidenote: Caravans, if waylaid, were by reprisal.]

17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or capturing of it, there are not any satisfactory grounds of proof; but if they were attacked and captured, I do not see any reason why they should be objected to. When hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally present themselves for detection and seizure are the person and property of the enemy. Even under the International Law of most civilized countries, the legitimacy of appropriating the enemy's property rests on the commencement of the state of war. Under the old customs of war a belligerent possessed the right to seize and appropriate all the property belonging to an enemy's state or its subjects, of whatever kind they be or in whatsoever place where the acts of war are permissible. So those who object to the early Moslems' threatening, or capturing, or appropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call them robbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the International Law, ancient or modern.

[Sidenote: Intolerance--no compulsory conversion enjoined, or took place during Mohammad's life-time.]

18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of Mohammad, the Prophet, towards the unbelievers has been fully discussed in paragraphs 34-39 (pp. 41-51). It is altogether a wrong assumption of European writers that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the unbeliever, or that Mohammad proselytized at the point of the sword. Sir W. Muir writes:--

[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir quoted.]

"Persecution, though it may sometimes have deterred the timid from
joining his ranks, was eventually of unquestionable service to
Mahomet. It furnished a plausible excuse for casting aside the garb
of toleration; for opposing force to force against those who
obstructed the ways of the Lord; and last of all for the compulsory
conversion of unbelievers."[33]

Opposing force to force and even redressing our wrongs and re-establishing our imperilled rights is not 'intolerance.' Mohammad did repel the force of his enemies when it was quite necessary for the Moslem self-preservation and protection, but he never compelled any of his enemies or unbelievers, whether a single individual, or a body of men, or a whole tribe, to believe in him. The Koran and history contradict such an allegation. The Koran everywhere in the Meccan and Medinite Suras preaches complete toleration of every religion. History nowhere authentically records any instance of Mohammad's enforcing conversion by means of the sword.

[Footnote 33: The Life of Mahomet from original sources, by Sir W. Muir, LL.D. New Edition, page 68, London, 1877. See also page 57 of the same.]

[Sidenote: A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca.]

[Sidenote: Conversion at Nakhla.]

19. Mohammad propagated his religion both at Mecca and Medina before, as well as after, the Hegira, by persuasion and preaching sustained by reasonable evidence. It prevailed against all persecution and opposition of the Koreish and Jews. In fact, it flourished and prospered under the severe persecutions and crushing oppositions by the mere dint of its own truth.[34] Sometimes the persecution of the Koreish itself was the cause of conversion to the Moslem faith.[35] The number of converts during the first three years after the assumption by Mohammad of his prophetical office is estimated at fifty. Then commenced the general persecution and the overwhelming opposition. Mohammad had, in order to prosecute his endeavours peaceably and without interruption, occupied the house of Arqam, one of his early converts, and there preached and recited the Koran to those who used to be conducted to him. A great multitude believed therein; but the brunt of the jealousy and enmity of the Koreish fell upon the converted slaves, as well as upon strangers and believers among the lower classes, who had no patron nor protector. Some believers, sixteen in number, had already left for Abyssinia. Some came back and brought tidings of their kind reception there. At this time about a hundred Moslems emigrated to Abyssinia.[36] This shows the increasing number of the converts, who represented for the most part fugitives of Mecca. There were some Christian converts to Islam at Abyssinia also.[37] The Koreish being disquieted by the hospitable reception of the refugees at Abyssinia, and enraged by the refusal of Najashee to surrender them, sought to stay the progress of secession from their ranks by utterly severing the party of the Prophet from social and friendly communication with them. In the seventh year of the Prophet's mission the ban commenced, and lasted for full three years. There could be very few conversions during the period of this weary seclusion. The efforts of the Prophet were chiefly confined to the conversions of the members of his own noble clan, the Bani Hàshim, who, though unbelievers in his mission, had resolved to defend his person, and were with him in their confinement. The time of pilgrimage alone afforded Mohammad a wider field. He preached against idolatry at the fairs and assemblages of the pilgrims[38]. After his release from imprisonment in the tenth year of his mission, he went to preach at Tàyif, but was ignominiously expelled the city[39]. On his return to Mecca he converted a party of the tribe of Jinn[40] (not Genii according to the vulgar notion)[41] at Nakhla. After his return from Tàyif he preached to an audience of six or seven persons from Medina, who believed and spread Islam there.

[Footnote 34: I do not mean to say that flourishing under persecution is a convincing proof of the divine origin of a religion. Not that a religion established by force is altogether of human invention. Almost all religions are divine however they may have been established, but flourishing under opposition and persecution is a natural course. Christianity suffered from persecutions and other harrowing evils for 300 years, after which time it was established, and paganism abolished by public authority, which has had great influence in the propagation of the one and destruction of the other ever since.]

[Footnote 35: "The severity and injustice of the Cureish, overshooting the mark, aroused personal and family sympathies; unbelievers sought to avert or to mitigate the sufferings of the followers of the Prophet; and in so doing they were sometimes themselves gained over to his side." The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Second Edition, page 68.]

[Footnote 36: Among them were the representatives of the following tribes or clans of the Koreish, the Háshimites, Omiyyiads, Bani Abd Shams, Bani Asad, Bani Abd bin Kosáyy, Bani Abd-ud-Dár, Bani Zohrá, Bani Taym bin Morra, the Mukwhumites, the Jomahites, and the Bani Sahm. _Vide_ Sprenger, page 190, Allahabad, 1851.]

[Footnote 37: _Vide_ Hishamee, page 259. An allusion to these converts may be found in Sura V, verses 85 and 86, if it does not refer to those of Najrán.]

[Footnote 38: He preached to the following tribes among others:--Bani Aamr bin Sasaa, Bani Mohárib, Bani Hafasa (or Khafasa), Bani Fezára, Bani Ghassán, Bani Kalb, Bani Háris, Bani Kab, Bani Ozra, Bani Murra, Bani Hanifa, Bani Suleim, Bani Abs, Bani Nazr, Bani Bakka, Bani Kinda, and Bani Khozaimah.]

[Footnote 39: "There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of Mahomet to Tâyif; a solitary man, despised and rejected by his own people, going boldly forth in the name of God,--like Jonah to Nineveh--and summoning an idolatrous city to repentance and to the support of his mission. It sheds a strong light on the intensity of his own belief in the divine origin of his calling."--The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. II, page 207.]

[Footnote 40: The Arabs also had a similar clan named Bani Shaitán, a clan of the Hinzala tribe, the descendants of Tamim, through Zeid Monat of the Moaddite stock. The Bani Shaitán (the children of Satan) dwelt near Kúfa.--_Vide_ Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Arab Tribes.]