A
CRITICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE
POPULAR "JIHÁD."

A
CRITICAL EXPOSITION
OF THE
POPULAR "JIHÁD."
SHOWING THAT
ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE; AND THAT
AGGRESSIVE WAR, OR COMPULSORY CONVERSION,
IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE KORAN.
WITH APPENDICES
PROVING THAT THE WORD "JIHAD" DOES NOT EXEGETICALLY MEAN
'WARFARE,' AND THAT SLAVERY IS NOT SANCTIONED
BY THE PROPHET OF ISLAM.
BY MOULAVI GHERÁGH ALI,
Author of
"REFORMS UNDER MOSLEM RULE,"
"HYDERABAD (DECCAN) UNDER SIR SALAR JUNG."

CALCUTTA:
THACKER, SPINK AND CO.

1885.

CALCUTTA:
PRINTED BY THACKER, SPINK AND CO.

NOTE.

I here take the opportunity of removing a wrong idea of the alleged injunction of the Prophet against our countrymen the Hindús. The Hon'ble Raja Sivá Prasad, in his speech at the Legislative Council, on the 9th March, 1883, while discussing the Ilbert Bill, quoted from Amir Khusro's Tarikh Alái that, "Ala-ud-dín Khiliji once sent for a Kází, and asked him what was written in the Code of Mehammadan law regarding the Hindús. The Kází answered that, the Hindús were Zimmis (condemned to pay the Jízya tax); if asked silver, they ought to pay gold with deep respect and humility; and if the collector of taxes were to fling dirt in their faces, they should gladly open their mouths wide. God's order is to keep them in subjection, and the Prophet enjoins on the faithful to kill, plunder and imprison them, to make Mussulmáns, or to put them to the sword, to enslave them, and confiscate their property....'" [Vide Supplement to the Gazette of India, April 21, 1883, page 807.]

These alleged injunctions, I need not say here, after what I have stated in various places of this book regarding intolerance, and compulsory conversion, are merely false imputations. There are no such injunctions of the Prophet against either Zimmis, (i.e., protected or guaranteed) or the Hindús.


TO
THE HONORABLE
SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C.S.I.,
THIS BOOK
IS, WITHOUT EVEN ASKING PERMISSION.
AND WHOLLY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.
DEDICATED
AS A SLIGHT BUT SINCERE TESTIMONY OF ADMIRATION FOR HIS LONG
AND VARIOUS SERVICES IN THE CAUSE OF ISLAM
AND
IN RESPECT OF HIS RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS IN THE
MOSLIMS OF INDIA,
AND
OF GRATITUDE FOR MUCH PERSONAL KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP,
BY
THE AUTHOR.

Transcriber's Note:

All errata listed below have been corrected in the e-text. Mistakes not listed below have been left as they appeared in the printed book, although missing or misplaced punctuation marks have been corrected.

ERRATA.

PageLineForRead
v 21themOmit
" 22themit
xvii f.n.Maaddite Moaddite
xxxiv21Morra Murra
" 22Soleim Suleim
xlii 9Kauuka Kainuka
xliii22 f.n.MozeimaMozeina
xlv 25KhusainKhushain
liv1Ban Bani
" 10Ghassianide Ghassanide
lxxxviii30KhalipsKhalifs
xci 30CaliphaterCaliphate
1110KurzibnKurz-ibn
18 9God[2] God:
" " desist[3] desist
" 16persecution persecution[2]
" 17(fitnah(fitnah[3])
27 5liberty and liberty, any of
" 6brethern merely brethren, merely
"6-7such a mannersuch manner
" 8Society orSociety, or
" 9of it materiallyof it, materially
" 12deserve pity deserve only pity
34 6Ibu Ibn
61 6RafiRafe
7224ibu ibn
" 25ibu ibn
73 4bil bin
90 1as stallions for breeding purposes
135 28Durar Dinar
136 16Sirni Sirin
1921Jihad does not mean
the waging of war		{Read this as a marginal gloss
" 3Jahad Jahd.
" 14Katal and Kital Read this as a marginal gloss.
" 20ConclusionDitto, ditto.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.

Page.
[Introduction]i-civ
[Note]cv
[Genealogical Table of the Arabs]cvi-cvii

I. [The persecutions suffered by the early Moslems]1-11
II. [The Meccans or the Koreish]11-16
III. [The defensive character of the wars of Mohammad]16-34
IV. [The Jews]34-40
V. [The Christians or Romans]40-41
VI. [The intolerance]42-51
VII. [The ninth chapter of Sura Barát]51-55
VIII. [The alleged interception of the Koreish caravans by the Moslems]55-60
IX. [The alleged assassinations by the command or connivance of Mohammad]60-76
X. [The alleged cruelty in executing the prisoners of war]76-91
XI. [Some miscellaneous objections refuted]91-114
XII. [The popular Jihád or Crusade]114-161

[Appendix A. The word Jihad in the Koran does not mean warfare]163-192
[Appendix B. Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran]193-223
[Appendix C. Koranic references]225-227
[Index]229-249

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Introduction]—
Paras.Page.
1.Object of the book[i]
2.Early wrongs of the Moslem; justification in taking uparms, if taken[ii]
3.Commencement of the war; the Koreish being publicenemy were liable to be treated as suchib.
4.But the Moslems could not take up arms to redress theirwrongs under certain circumstances[iii]
5.Moslems otherwise engaged at Medina had no intentionof suffering the horrors of war by taking the initiative,but were in imminent danger from the enemy[iv]
6.The Koreish first attacked the Moslems at Medina. Theycould not forbear the escape of the Moslems[v]
7.Three battles waged by the Koreish against Mohammad—Badr,Ohad, and Ahzáb: these wars on the Moslem sidewere purely in defence, not waged even to redress theirwrongs or re-establish their rights[vii]
8.The battle of Badr was defensive on the part of Mohammad.Reasons for the same[viii]
9.Mohammad at Medina, owing to the attacks, inroads, andthreatening gatherings of the Koreish and other tribes,had hardly time to think of offensive measures[xi]
10.Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrimsfrom Medina in the vicinity of Mecca. The truce ofHodeibia[xv]
11.The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate theirpledge. War declared against those who had violatedthe truce. War not carried out[xvi]
12.War with foes other than Koreish[xviii]
13.Expedition to Tabúk to check the advancing enemy. Nowar took place[xix]
14.Number of the wars of Mohammad much exaggerated:Ghazava defined; number of actual wars[xx]
15.The Revd. Mr. Green's remarks on the wars of Mohammadcriticised[xxiii]
16.Another view of the wars of Mohammad[xxviii]
17.Caravans if waylaid were waylaid by way of reprisal[xxx]
18.Intolerance; no compulsory conversion enjoined or tookplace during Mohammad's lifetime:
Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted		[xxxi]
19.A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca:
Islam at Mecca;
Islam at Abyssinia;
Conversions at Nakhla		[xxxii]
20.Rapid stride of Islam at Medina[xxxvii]
21.The increasing number of Moslem converts at Meccaafter the Hegira[xxxix]
22.Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribessurrounding Medina. Internicine wars, an obstacle tothe propagation of Islam[xl]
23.Sketch of the intertribal wars in Arabia during the lifetimeof Mohammad[xli]
24.Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medinaafter the Hegira I—VI[xliii]
25.Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the Southerntribes[xliv]
26.Tribal conversions in the sixth year. Conversion amongseveral other tribes of the North and North-east inA.H. VIII[xlv]
27.Surrender of Mecca, A.H. VIII[xlvii]
28.Mecca not compelled to believeib.
29.The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes,A.H. IX and X[xlviii]
30.The various deputations in the 9th and 10th year of theHegira[li]
31.A list of the deputations of conversion received byMohammad at Medina during A.H. IX and X[li]—lviii
32.All conversions, individual and tribal, were without anycompulsion[lix]
33.Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances roundhim. The difficulty Mohammad encountered in hiswork. Marcus Dods quoted:
Dr. Mohseim's causes of the spread of Islam and Hallam quoted		[lx]—lxv
34.Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission andhis success show him to be a true prophet. Mohammad'sefforts established monotheism in Arabia. Hismanly exertions, and his single handed perseverance.The business and office of a prophet described. Sir W.Muir and Stobart quoted[lxv]—lxix
35.The reforms of Mohammad, his iconoclastic policy. Theredemption of Arabia from venal debauchery and infatuatedsuperstition. Muir, Marcus Dods, Stephensquoted[lxix]—lxxvii
36.Indictment against Mohammad. His alleged cruelty andsensuality. Muir, Rev. Hughes, Marcus Dods, andStanley Poole refuted[lxxviii]—lxxxvii
37.Objections to the (1) Finality of the social reforms ofMohammad, (2) positive precepts, (3) ceremonial law,(4) morality, (5) want of adaptability to the varyingcircumstances[lxxxvii]—lxxxix
38.All these objections apply rather to the teaching of theMohammadan Common Law than to the Koran[xc]
39.(1) Finality of social reforms of Mohammad discussed.Intermediary not to be considered final[xc]—xcii
40.(2) Positive precepts and (3) ceremonial law, pilgrimage,Kibla, amount of alms, fasts, forms and attitude ofprayer, &c.: pretentious prayers and ostentatiousalmsgiving[xcii]—xcvii
41.(4) The Koran, both abstract and concrete in morals[xcvii]—cii
42.(5) Adaptability of the Koran to surroundingcircumstances[cii]—ciii
43.Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity[ciii]—civ
Note[cv]
Genealogical tables of the tribes mentioned in para. 31 ofthe Introduction[cvi]—cvii
[ALL THE WARS OF MOHAMMAD WERE DEFENSIVE.]

[I.—The Persecution.]
1.The early persecution of Moslems by the people of Mecca[2]
2.Notices of the persecutions in the Koran[4]
3.Insults suffered by Mohammad[5]
4.Historical summary of the persecutions[8]
5.The Hegira, or the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca[9]
6.The persecution of the Moslems by the Koreish after theirflight from Mecca[11]

[II.—The Meccans or the Koreish.]
7.A Koreish chieftain commits a raid near Medina, A.H. 1ib.
8.The Koreish march to attack Medina. Battle of Badrib.
9.Attack by Abu Sofian upon Medina, A.H. 2[12]
10.Battle of Ohad[12]
11.Mohammad's prestige affected by the defeatib.
12.Abu Sofian threatened the Moslems with another attack nextyear[13]
13.The Koreish again attack Medina with a large army.Mohammad defends the city. The enemy retire. A.H. 5[14]
14.Mohammad with his followers advanced to perform thelesser pilgrimage of Mecca. The Koreish oppose Mohammad,who return disappointed. The treaty of Hodeibia[15]
15.Violation of the treaty by the Koreish and their submission[16]
16.Two other tribes assume the offensiveib.

[III.—The Defensive Character of the Wars.]
17.Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive characterof the wars[25]
18.What the above quoted verses show[26]
19.Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against theiraggressors[27]
20.The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the partof Mohammad[28]
21.The alleged instances examined[29]
22.Hamza and Obeida's expeditionsib.
23.Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira expeditions[30]
24.The affair at Nakhla[31]
25.At Badr Mohammad came only in his defence[33]
26.The first aggression after the Hegira if from Mohammad,might fairly be looked upon as retaliation[34]

[IV.—The Jews.]
27.The Jews broke treatiesib.
28.Bani Kainukaa, Bani Nazeer, Khyber, and Ghatafán[35]
29.Notice of them in Koran[37]
30.The judgment of Sád[38]
31.Defensive character of the expedition against the Jews ofKhyber[40]

[V.—The Christians or Romans.]
32.Tabúk, the last expeditionib.
33.Description of the wars concluded[41]

[VI.—The Intolerance.]
34.Mohammad never taught intolerance[43]
35.In what sense the wars were religious wars[44]
36.The alleged verses of intolerance explained[45]
37.Sir William Muir quoted[47]
38.Comment on the above quotation[50]
39.Object of Mohammad's wars[51]

[VII.—The Ninth Chapter or Sura Barát.]
40.The opening portion of the IX Sura of the Koran onlyrelates to the Koreish who had violated the truce[55]

[VIII.—The alleged Interceptions of the Koreish Caravans.]
41.The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans[57]
42.The interceptions were impossible under the circumstancesin which Mohammad was placed[59]
43.The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way ofreprisal[60]

[IX.—The alleged Assassinations.]
44.Instances of the alleged assassinations cited[61]
45.Mr. Stanley Poole quoted[62]
46.Asma-bint Marwan[63]
47.The story deserves not our belief[64]
48.Abu Afak[65]
49.Kab, son of Ashraf[66]
50.Mohammad could never have had any share in Kab's murder[68]
51.Sofian bin Khalid[69]
52.Justification of Sofian's alleged murder[70]
53.Abu Rafe[72]
54.Oseir bin Zarim[73]
55.The intended assassination of Abu Sofian[74]
56.Irving and Muir quoted; concluding remarks[76]

[X.—The alleged Cruelties in executing Prisoners of War and others.]
57.Treatment of the prisoners of warib.
58.Law of nations regarding the prisoners of war[77]
59.The execution of Nadher Ibn Harith[79]
60.The execution of Okba[80]
61.Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war[81]
62.Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executedib.
63.The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughiraib.
64.Justification of Mughira's execution[82]
65.The intended execution of the prisoners of Badr and thewrong version of Sir W. Muir[83]
66.Mohammad was never blamed in the Koran for releasing prisoners[84]
67.The Koran enjoins the prisoners of war to be either freelyliberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved[87]
68.High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina and theirexecution[88]
69.The whole of the Bani Koreiza were never executedib.
70.The women and children of Bani Koreiza were never sold[89]
71.The exaggerated number of persons executed[91]

[XI.—Some Miscellaneous Objections refuted.]
72.The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage[92]
73.The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers[93]
74.Amputation or banishment substituted temporarily in place ofimprisonment for want of a well organized system of jails[95]
75.Torture of Kinana[96]
76.The alleged execution of a singing girl[97]
77.The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies[98]
78.Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in contraventionto the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia[101]
79.Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reportsin the enemy's camp[102]
80.Deception in war allowed by the International Lawib.
81.Lecky's standard of morality[104]
82.The alleged permission to kill the Jews[106]
83.Sir W. Muir quoted[108]
84.The expulsion of the Bani Nazeerib.
85.Their fruit-trees were not cut down[109]
86.Females and the treaty of Hodeibia[110]
87.Stanley defended[111]
88.Marriage a strict bond of union[113]

[The Popular Jihád.]
89.The Koran enjoins only defensive wars[114]
90.The Mohammadan Common Law and the Jihád[116]
91.When is Jihád a positive injunctionib.
92.The Hedáya quoted and refuted[117]
93.Rule of interpretation[118]
94.The Common Law and its commentators[119]
95.Kifáya quoted[120]
96.Further quotations[121]
97.The Kifáya refuted[122]
98.S. IX, 5, discussed[123]
99.S. II, 189, discussedib.
100.S. II, 189, and VIII, 40, are defensive[124]
101.All injunctions were local and for the time being[125]
102.Ainee quoted and refutedib.
103.Sarakhsee quoted and refuted[126]
104.Ibn Hajar quoted[128]
105.Ibn Hajar refuted[129]
106.Halabi quotedib.
107.Halabi refuted[132]
108.Ainee again quoted and refutedib.
109.Continuation of the above[133]
110.Traditions quoted and refutedib.
111.Early Moslem legists against the Jihád[134]
112.Biographical sketches of the legists[135]
113.European writers' mistakes[137]
114.Sir W. Muir quoted and refuted[138]
115.Islam not aggressive[139]
116.Mr. Freeman quoted and refuted[140]
117.The Revd. Mr. Stephens quoted and refuted[141]
118.Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted and refuted[143]
119.Mr. George Sale quoted and refutedib.
120.Major Osborn quoted[146]
121.Major Osborn refuted[149]
122.The IX Sura of the Koranib.
123.The Revd. Mr. Wherry quoted[150]
124.Example cited from Jewish history explained[152]
125.Mosaic injunctions[153]
126.The Revd. Mr. Hughes quoted and refuted[154]
127.Meaning of the word Jihád[155]
128.Sura XLVIII, 5, explained[156]
129.The Revd. Malcolm MacColl quoted[157]
130.The untenable theories of the Mohammadan Common Law158-161
[APPENDIX A.]
1.Jihád or Jihd in the Koran does not mean war or crusade[163]
2.Classical meaning of Jihád, &c.[164]
3.Post-classical or technical meaning of Jihád[165]
4.The classical logic and Arabian poetsib.
5.The conjugation and declination of Jahd or Jihád in the Koran[166]
6.The number of instances in which they occur in the Koran[167]
7.In what sense they are used in the Koran[168]
8.Conventional significations of Jihád[169]
9.Mohammadan commentators, &c., quoted[170]
10.When the word Jihád was diverted from its original significationto its figurative meaning of waging religious wars[171]
11.All verses of the Koran containing the word Jihád and itsderivations quoted and explained[176]
12.The above verses quoted with remarks[177]

[The Meccan Suras.]
13.Lokman, XXXI, 14ib.
14.Furkan, XXV, 53, 521[178]
15.The Pilgrimage, XXII, 76, 78ib.
16.The Bee, XVI, 108, 111[179]
17.The Spider, XXIX, 5[180]
18.Ibid, 7ib.
19.Ibid, 69ib.
20.The Bee, XVI, 40[181]
21.Creator, XXXV, 40ib.

[The Medinite Suras.]
22.The Cow or Heifer, II, 215[182]
23.Al Amran, III, 136ib.
24.The Spoils, VIII, 73[183]
25.Ibid. 75ib.
26.Ibid. 76ib.
27.The Cattle, VI, 109ib.
28.Mohammad, XLVII, 33[184]
29.Battle Array, LXI, 11ib.
30.Woman. IV. 97[185]
31.Light. XXIV, 52ib.
32.The Forbidding. LXVI, 9ib.
33.The Immunity. IX, 74[186]
36.The Tried, LX, 1[187]
35.Hatib's Story[188]
36.The Apartment, XLIX, 15ib.
37.The Immunity, IX, 16ib.
38.Ibid. 19ib.
39.Ibid, 20[189]
40.Ibid, 24ib.
41.Ibid, 41ib.
42.Ibid, 44[190]
43.Ibid, 82ib.
44.Ibid, 87ib.
45.Ibid, 89[191]
46.The Table, V, 39ib.
47.Ibid, 58ib.
48.Ibid, 59ib.
49.Jihád does not mean the waging of war[192]
50.Katal and Kitálib.
51.Conclusionib.
[APPENDIX B.]
1.Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran[193]
2.Measures taken by the Koran to abolish future slavery[194]
3.None of the prisoners of war was enslaved[196]
4.Bani Koreiza not enslaved[198]
5.Rihana[201]
6.Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves[202]
7.Concubinage[203]
8.Maria the Coptic[204]
9.Despatch of Mokowkas[205]
10&11.Maria neither a slave nor a concubine[207]
12.Maria had no son[209]
13.The story of Maria and Haphsa a spurious one[211]
14.The affair not noticed in the early biographies[212]
15.Sir W. Muir's authority not validib.
16.The best commentators and traditionalists refute the story[214]
17.The story not accredited by the Koranib.
18.The story when fabricatedib.
19.Zeinab's case[215]
20.The story a spurious one[216]
21.Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified[217]
22.A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir[219]
23.In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured[220]
24.The false story traced to Mukatilib.
25.Katádas conjectural interpretation not warranted[222]
26.Other conjectures[223]
[APPENDIX C.]
I.—The verses of the Koran referring to the persecution ofthe Koreish at Mecca[225]
II.—The verses of the Koran referring to the aggressions ofthe Koreish at Medina as well as those of the inhabitantsthereofib.
III.—The verses of the Koran alluding to the wars of defenceagainst the Koreish and Arabs, &c., with several referencesto their aggressionsib.
IV.—The verses of the Koran alluding to the various battles[226]

INTRODUCTION.

Object of the book.

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.

Early wrongs of the Moslems.

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.

Commencement of the state of war.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Armed opposition of the Koreish to the Moslem pilgrims in the vicinity of Mecca.

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.

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.

The Koreish again commit hostilities and violate their pledges.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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:—

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.

A brief sketch of the propagation of Islam at Mecca.

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.

Rapid stride of Islam at Medina.

20. Next year twelve new converts were made from persons who had come to see the Prophet from Medina. They returned as missionaries of Islam, and Islam spread rapidly in Medina from house to house and from tribe to tribe. The Jews looked on in amazement at the people whom they had in vain endeavoured from generations to convince of the errors of polytheism, and to dissuade from the abominations of their idolatry, suddenly of their own accord casting away idols and professing belief in the one True God.[42] Thus speedily without let or hindrance, force or compulsion, did Islam take firm root at Medina and attain to a full and mature growth. There remained not a single house among the Aws and Khazraj tribes[43] of Medina in which there were not believing men and women, excepting the branch of the Aws Allah, who were not converts till after the siege of Medina. At this time there were many Moslems in Mecca, Medina, and Abyssinia, and not a single one of them could be said to have been converted to Islam by compulsion: on the contrary, they were used to be forced to renounce Islam.

The increasing number of Moslem converts at Mecca after the Hegira.

21. When the Moslems were obliged to emigrate from Mecca under the severe Koreishite persecutions, all the followers of the Prophet with the exception of those detained in confinement or unable to escape from slavery had emigrated with their families to Medina. But there were many new converts at Mecca since the expulsion of the Moslems. Those unable to fly from Mecca in the teeth of the oppressions of the wrathful Koreish (Sura IV., 77, 79, 100) were increasing. They appealed for deliverance and aid, while the Moslem pilgrims were near Mecca at Hodeibia, six years after the Hegira, and an allusion is made to the great number of the Meccan converts, living at Mecca during that time in Sura XLVIII, 25.

Disturbed state of the public peace among the tribes surrounding Medina. Internecine wars an obstacle to the propagation of Islam.

22. Irrespective of the wars prosecuted by the Koreish from the South against Mohammad at Medina, and the constant danger of inroad and attack upon Medina from the neighbouring tribes—a great obstacle in the propagation of Islam which could only be successfully accomplished in a state of peace and tranquility of both parties,—the most important and great tribes in the North and Centre of Arabia were at war against each other during the life of Mohammad, either before his mission from 570 to 610 A.D. or during his public mission from 610 to 632 A.D. The disastrous internecine wars were kept up for scores of years and the evils necessarily inflicted in their progress were not confined to the belligerents only. It required years to remove the evils of war and to efface the traces of misery and sorrow the wars had brought.[44]

23. Here I will give a brief sketch of the internecine wars which took place among the various Arab tribes during the time of Mohammad.

Wars during Mohammad's Lifetime, between the Arabian Tribes in the North and Centre of Arabia.

Before his mission, 570-610, A.D.

(1.) The battle of Rahrahán between Bani Aamir bin Saasaa and Bani Tamim in Najd, 578, A.D.

(2.) The Bani Abs on the side of Bani Aamir and Bani Zobian on the side of Tamim, 579, A.D., at Sheb Jabala.

(3.) Sacrilegious war at Táyif called Harb fi-jár, 580-590, A.D.

(4.) Several battles between Bani Bakr and Tamim in 604, A.D. and the following years.

During his mission.

(A)—While at Mecca, 610-622, A.D.

(1.) The war of Dáhis between Bani Abs and Zobian, the branches of Ghatafán in Central Arabia; lasted forty years, 568 to 609, A.D.

(2.) The battle of Zú-kár between the Bani Bakr and the Persians in the Kingdom of Hira, 611, A.D.

(3.) The Bani Kinda and Bani Háris attacked Bath Tamim when they had retired to Kuláb in the confines of Yemen and repulsed them.

(4.) The Bani Aws and Khazraj of Medina were at war. The battle of Boás was fought in 615, A.D. The Bani Aws were assisted by two tribes of Ghassan, by Mozeima and the Jewish tribes Nazeer and Koreiza. The Bani Khazraj were supported by Joheina, Ashja and the Jews of Kainuka.

(B)—While at Medina, 622 to 632, A.D.

(1.) The standing warfare between the Bani Hawázin and the Bani Abs, Zobian, and Ashja of Ghatafán was kept up by assassinations and petty engagements till they become converts to Islam.

(2.) The Koreish fought two battles of Badr and Ohad against the Moslems at Medina in 624 and 625, A.D., respectively.

(3.) Several clans of the great Ghatafán family (the Bani Murra, Ashja and Fezára) the Bani Suleim and Sád, a branch of Hawázin, and Bani Asad from Najd Bedouin tribes, and Bani Koreiza the Jews, had besieged Medina in 627, A.D., in confederation with the Koreish.

(4.) Bani Tamim and Bani Bakr renewed their hostilities, and from 615 to 630, A.D., several battles occurred between them. The last battle was that of Shaitain in 630, A.D.

In this year, after the battle, both the tribes were converted to Islam.

(5.) The Bani Ghaus and Jadila branches of Bani Tay in the north of Medina warred against each other. The war of Fasád continued twenty-five years till they embraced Islam in 632, A.D.

Spread of Islam in the surrounding tribes at Medina after the Hegira I-VI.

24. During the six eventful years of Mohammad's sojourn at Medina, from the Hegira to the truce of Hodeibia, where he was every year attacked or threatened by other hostile Arab tribes, acting always in self-defence, he had converted several members or almost entire tribes residing round Medina.

Among them were the following:—

1. The Bani Aslam.[45]
2. Joheina.[46]
3. Mozeina.[47]
4. Ghifár.[48]
5. Saad-bin-Bakr.[49]
6. Bani Ashja.[50]

We never find a single instance even in the Magházis (accounts of the campaigns of Mohammad, however untrustworthy they be) of Mohammad's converting any person, families, or branches of tribes by the scimitar in one hand and the Koran in the other.

Mecca a barrier against the conversion of the southern tribes.

25. Up to this time, notwithstanding the persecutions, exiles and wars against Islam, it had spread by the mere force of persuasion among the Meccans, some of whom had emigrated to Abyssinia and most to Medina, the whole of the influential tribes of Aws and Khazraj at Medina, as well as among the Jews there, and among some of the tribes in the north, and east of Medina and the centre of Arabia. But as Mecca in the south had declared war against Islam, most of the Arab tribes connected somehow with the Meccans, and those inhabiting the southern and south-eastern parts of Arabia, to whom Mecca served geographically as a barrier, watched the proceedings of the war and the fate of Islam, and had no opportunity of coming to Medina to embrace Islam, nor of having friendly intercourse with the Moslems, nor of receiving Mohammadan missionaries in the face of the wars waged by the Koreish who were looked upon as the guardians of the Kaaba, the spiritual or religious centre of the idolatrous Arabs. At the end of the last or the fifth year many Bedouin tribes, among whom might be counted the Bani Ashja, Murra, Fezara, Suleim, Sad-bin-Bakr and Bani Asad, had furnished several thousand Arabs to the Koreish for the siege of Medina. Only when the aggressions of the Koreish against the Moslems were suspended that the warring tribes and those of the Central, Southern and Eastern Arabia could think of what they had heard of the reasonable preaching of Islam against their idolatry and superstitions.

Tribal conversions in the sixth year.

26. Since the truce of Hodeibia at the end of the sixth year after the Hegira Mecca was opened for intercourse, where there were some more and fresh conversions. The Bani Khozaa, descendants of Azd, were converted to Islam at the truce of Hodeibia. At the pilgrimage in the following year some influential men of Mecca adopted Islam. The movement was not confined to these leading men, but was wide and general. In the seventh year the following tribes were converted to Islam and their deputations joined Mohammad at Khyber:

1. Bani Ashár.[51]
2. Khushain.[52]
3. Dous.[53]

Conversions among several other tribes of the North and North-east in A.H., 8.

During the same year Mohammad converted several other tribes in the north and north-east of Arabia. Among them were—

1. Bani Abs.
2. Zobián.
3. Murra.
4. Fezara.[54]
5. Suleim.[55]
6. Ozra.
7. Bali.
8. Juzám.[56]
9. Sálaba.[57]
10. Abdul Kays.[58]
11. Bani Tamim.[59]
12. Bani Asad.[60]

Surrender of Mecca. A.H., 8.

27. The position of Islam at Mecca was greatly strengthened since the truce in A.H. 6, by increase in the number of Moslems, influential and leading, as well as of persons of minor note and importance there, consequently the advocates of Islam, peace and compromise were growing in number and confidence. Among the idolatrous Koreish there were no chiefs of marked ability or commanding influence left at Mecca; almost all of them had gone over to the cause of Islam. In the meantime the infraction of the terms of the truce by the Bani Bakr and Koreish caused the surrender of Mecca without bloodshed.

The Meccans not compelled to believe.

28. Though Mecca had surrendered, all its inhabitants had not already become converts to Islam. Mohammad did not take any compulsory means to convert the people: "Although the city had cheerfully accepted his supremacy," writes Sir W. Muir, "all its inhabitants had not yet embraced the new religion, or formally acknowledged his prophetical claim. Perhaps he intended to follow the course he had pursued at Medina and leave the conversion of the people to be gradually accomplished without compulsion."[61]

The wholesale conversion of the remaining tribes in A.H., 9 & 10.

29. Now it was more than twenty years that the Koran had been constantly preached to the surrounding tribes of Arabs at Mecca at the time of fairs[62] and at the annual pilgrimage gatherings,[63] by Mohammad, and by special missionaries of Islam from Medina, and through the reports of the travellers and merchants coming and going from Mecca and Medina to all parts of Arabia. The numbers of different distant tribes, clans and branches had spread the tidings of Islam. There were individual converts in most of the tribes. Those tribes already not brought over to Islam were ready to embrace it under the foregoing circumstances. Idolatry, simple and loathsome, had no power against the attacks of reason displayed in the doctrines of the Koran. But the idolatrous Koreish opposed and attacked Islam with persecution and the sword, and strengthened idolatry with earthly weapons. The distant pagan tribes on the side of the Koreish, geographically or genealogically, were prevented by them from embracing the new faith. As soon as the hostilities of the Koreish were suspended at the truce of Hodeibia, the Arabs commenced to embrace Islam as already described, and no sooner they surrendered and Kaaba[64] stripped of its idols—and the struggle of spiritual supremacy between idolatry and Islam was practically decided—all the remaining tribes on the south and east who had not hitherto adhered to Islam hastened to embrace it hosts after hosts during the 9th and 10th year of the Hegira.

The various deputations and embassies in the 9th and 10th year of the Hegira.

30. During these two years deputations of conversion to Islam were received by Mohammad at Medina from the most distant parts of the Peninsula, from Yemen and Hazaramaut from Mahra Oman and Bahrein in the south, and from the borders of Syria and the outskirts of Persia. Many of the chiefs and princes of Yemen and Mahra, of Oman, Bahrein and Yemama—christians and pagans—intimated by letter or by embassy their conversion to Islam. The Prophet used to send teachers with deputations and embassies, where they were not already sent, to instruct the newly converted people the duties of Islam and to see that every remnant of idolatry was obliterated.

List of the deputations of conversion received by Mohammad at Medina during A.H. 9 and 10.

31. Here is a list of the important deputations and embassies as well as the conversion of notable personages during these two years arranged in alphabetical order with geographical and genealogical notes.[65] Sir W. Muir thinks it "tedious and unprofitable" to enumerate them all,[66] while he takes notice of every apocryphal tradition and devours with eagerness all fictions unfavourable to the cause of Islam.

Bani Aámir.[67]
Bani Abd-ul-Kays.[68]
Bani Ahmas.[69]
Bani Anaza.[70]
Bani Asad.[71]
Bani Azd (Shanovah).[72]
Bani Azd (Oman).[73]
Bani Báhila.[74]
Bani Bahra.[75]
Bani Bajíla.[76]
Bani Baka.[77]
Bani Bakr bin Wail.[78]
Bani Bali.[79]
Bani Báriq.[80]
Bani Dáree.[81]
Farwa.[82]
Bani Fezára.[83]
Bani Gháfiq.[84]
Bani Ghánim.[85]
Bani Ghassán.[86]
Bani Hamadán.[87]
Bani Hanífa.[88]
Bani Háris of Najrán.[89]
Bani Hilál bin Aamir bin Sáasáa.[90]
Bani Himyar.[91]
Bani Jaad.[92]
Bani Jaafir bin Kelab bin Rabia.[93]
Jeifer bin al Jalandi.[94]
Bani Joheina.[95]
Bani Jufi.[96]
Bani Kalb.[97]
Bani Khas-am bin Anmár.[98]
Bani Khaulán.[99]
Bani Kiláb.[100]
Bani Kinána.[101]
Bani Kinda.[102]
Bani Mahrah.[103]
Bani Mohárib.[104]
Bani Morád.[105]
Bani Muntafiq.[106]
Bani Murrah.[107]
Bani Nakhá.[108]
Bani Nohd.[109]
Bani Ozra.[110]
Bani Raha.[111]
Bani Rawasa.[112]
Bani Saad Hozeim.[113]
Bani Sadif.[114]
Bani Sadoos.[115]
Bani Sahim.[116]
Bani Sakeef.[117]
Bani Salámáni.[118]
Bani Shaibán.[119]
Bani Sodaa.[120]
Bani Taghlib.[121]
Bani Tajeeb.[122]
Bani Tamim.[123]
Bath Tay.[124]
Bani Zobeid.[125]

All the conversions, individual and tribal, without any compulsion.

32. Thus all these tribal conversions and the speedy spread of Islam in the whole of Arabia was accomplished without any resort to arms, compulsion, threat, or "the scymitar in one hand and the Koran in the other." The Pagan Arabs, the Christians and the Jews, those who embraced Islam, adopted it joyfully and voluntarily. Islam had been much persecuted for many years from the third year of its Prophet's mission to the sixth year after the Hegira—a period of about sixteen years, but it flourished alike during persecutions and oppositions as well as during periods of peace and security of the Moslems. It was the result of Mohammad's staunch adherence to the uncompromising severity of his inflexible principles of preaching the divine Truth and his sincere belief in his own mission that he bore steadfastly all the hardships of persecutions at Mecca and the horrors of the aggressive wars of the Koreish and others at Medina, and persuaded the whole of Arabia, Pagan, Jewish and Christian, to adopt Islam voluntarily.[126]

Mohammad was not favoured with circumstances round him.

33. It was not an easy task for Mohammad to have converted the Arabs from their national idolatry to a religion of pure and strict monotheism. The aspect of Arabia was strictly conservative, and there were no prospects of hopeful changes. The indigenous idolatry and deep-rooted superstition, the worship of visible and material objects of devotion,—idols and unshaped stones,—something that the eyes can see and the hands can handle,—and the dread of invisible genii and other evil spirits, held the Arab mind in a rigorous and undisputed thraldom. Arabia was obstinately fixed in the profession of idolatry which the Peninsula being thickly overspread, widely diffused and thoroughly organized, was supported by national pride and latterly by the sword.

"It was," writes Dr. Marcus Dods, "certainly no hopeful task which Mohammed undertook when he proposed by the influence of religion to combine into one nation tribes so incapable of being deeply influenced by any religion, and so irreconcilably opposed to one another; to abolish customs which had the sanction of immemorial usage; and to root out an idolatry, which, if it had no profound hold upon the spiritual nature, was at least bound up with old family traditions and well-understood tribal interests."[127]

The sacrifices made to, and the requirements essential to Islam, its numerous positive prohibitions, the immediate repudiation of old prejudices, the renunciation of all sorts of idolatry and superstition, the throwing aside of favourite idols and the abandoning of licentious rites and customs, the total abstinence from much-relished vices, the demand for producing practical effect on the will and character, and the reaping of material fruits from holy and religious life—were barriers insurmountable for the speedy progress of Islam.

Notwithstanding these impediments Mohammad succeeded, by the influence of his religion, in combining into one nation the wild and independent tribes, and putting a stop to their internecine wars; in abolishing the custom which had the sanction of immemorial usage; and in rooting out the national idolatry of indigenous growth, without compromising his inflexible principles of truth and sincerity and honesty; and without adopting the superstitions and vices of the people.

Dr. Mosheim thinks that, "the causes of this new religion's rapid progress are not difficult to be discovered: Mahomet's law itself was admirably fitted to the natural disposition of man, but especially to the manners, opinions and vices prevalent among the people of the East; for it was extremely simple proposing few things to be believed; nor did it enjoin many and difficult duties to be performed, or such as laid severe restraints on the propensities."[128]

It is manifest from the history of religions that the people generally try their best to obtain religion's sanction for the vices prevalent among them. But there is no doubt in this that Mohammad never sanctioned the idolatries and superstitions of the Arabs, nor he framed his doctrines according to the opinions and fancies of the people. He preached vehemently against everything he found blamable in the people; he spared not their dear idols and beloved gods and the dreaded genii, nor accommodated his preaching and reform to indulge them in their evil practices; nor did he adopt any of the vices current among the people into his system.

Mohammad certainly did lay stress on the propensities of the mind and made the actions of the heart answerable to God, and preferred inward holiness to outside form.

53. "The heart is prone to evils."—Sura XII.

38. "The hearing and the sight and the heart, each of these shall be inquired of."—Sura XVI.

225. "God will not punish you for a mistake in your oaths; but He will punish you for that which your hearts have assented to. God is gracious, merciful."

284. "Whatever is in the Heavens and in the Earth is God's, and whether ye disclose what is in your minds or conceal it, God will reckon with you for it; and whom He pleaseth will He forgive, and whom he pleaseth will He punish; for God is All-powerful."—Sura II.

5. "And unless made with intent of heart, mistakes in this matter shall be no crimes in you."—Sura XXXIII.

The teachings of the Koran make our natural inclination subject to regulation. It lays stress upon the heart of men. Note the following injunctions regarding internal purity:

120. "Abandon the outside iniquity and its inside."—Sura VI.

152. "Come not near the pollutions outside or inward."—Ibid.

31. "Say: Truly my Lord hath forbidden filthy actions whether open or secret, and iniquity and unjust violence."—Sura VIII.

Referring to Dr. Mosheim's cause of the spread of Islam, I will quote Henry Hallam's opinion regarding the causes of the success of Islam.

Henry Hallam, after enumerating the three important causes of the success of Islam, the first of which is "those just and elevated notions of the divine nature and of moral duties, the gold-ore that pervades the dross of the Koran, which were calculated to strike a serious and reflecting people," and explaining the two others which are not against us, he says:—

"It may be expected that I should add to this what is commonly considered as a distinguishing mark of Mohammedanism,—its indulgence to voluptuousness. But this appears to be greatly exaggerated. Although the character of its founder may have been tainted by sensuality as ferociousness, I do not think that he relied upon inducements of the former kind for the diffusion of his system. We are not to judge of this by rules of Christian purity, or of European practice. If polygamy was a prevailing usage in Arabia, as is not questioned, its permission gave no additional license to the proselytes of Mohammed, who will be found rather to have narrowed the unbounded liberty of oriental manners in this respect; while his decided condemnation of adultery and of incestuous connections, so frequent among barbarous nations, does not argue a very lax and accommodating morality. A devout Mussulman exhibits much more of the stoical than the epicurean character. Nor can any one read the Koran without being sensible that it breathes an austere and scrupulous spirit. And in fact, the founder of a new religion or sect is little likely to obtain permanent success by indulging the vices or luxuries of mankind. I should rather be disposed to reckon the severity of Mohammed's discipline among the causes of its influence. Precepts of ritual observance, being always definite and unequivocal, are less likely to be neglected, after their obligation has been acknowledged than those of moral virtue. Thus the long fasting, the pilgrimages, and regular prayers and ablutions, the constant almsgiving, the abstinence from stimulating liquors, enjoined by the Koran, created a visible standard of practice among its followers, and preserved a continual recollection of their law.

"But the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of its Prophet, and during the first ages of its existence, was chiefly owing to the spirit of martial energy that he infused into it. The religion of Mohammed is as essentially a military system as the institution of chivalry in the west of Europe. The people of Arabia, a race of strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of pillage and murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a license, but a command, to desolate the world, and the promise of all that their glowing imaginations could anticipate of Paradise annexed to all in which they most delighted upon earth."[129]

This is sufficient to refute the opinion of Dr. Mosheim. But what Hallam says regarding the prevalence of Islam in the lifetime of the Prophet, and during the first ages of its existence, that "the people of Arabia, a race of strong passions and sanguinary temper, inured to habits of pillage and murder, found in the law of their native prophet not a license, but a command, to desolate the world," is untenable. There was neither a command nor a license to desolate the world, nor was any person or tribe converted to Islam with that object in view. All the teachings of the Koran and the history of the early spread of Islam falsify such an idea.

Mohammad's unwavering belief in his own mission and his success show him to be a true prophet.

34. I will pause here for a while, and ask the indulgence of the reader to reflect upon the circumstances of the persecutions, insults and injuries, expulsion and attack suffered by Mohammad and his early followers,[130] and his unwavering adherence to preach against the gross idolatry and immorality of his people, which all show his sincere belief in his own mission, and his possession of an irresistible inward impulse to publish the Divine Truth of his Revelations regarding the unity in the Godhead and other moral reforms. His preachings of monotheism, and his enjoining righteousness, and forbidding evil deeds, were not attended to for many years with material success. In proportion as he preached against the gross idolatry and superstition of his people, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn, and finally to an inveterate persecution which ruined his and his follower's fortune. But he unflinchingly kept his path; no threats and no injuries hindered him from still preaching to the ungodly people a purer and higher theology and better morality than had ever been set before them. He claimed no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asked but for simple toleration, for free permission to win men by persuasion into the way of truth. He declared he was sent neither to compel conviction by miracles, nor to constrain outward profession by the sword.[131] Does this leave any doubt of the strong conviction in his mind, as well as in the truth of his claim, to be a man sent by God to preach the Divine Perfection, and to teach mankind the ways of righteousness? He honestly and sincerely conveyed the message which he had received or which he conscientiously or intuitively believed to have received from his God and which had all the signs and marks of truth in itself. What is meant by a True Prophet or a Revelation is not more than what we find in the case of Mohammad.[132]

The general office and main business of a prophet is to proclaim to mankind the Divine Perfection, to teach publicly purer theology and higher morality, to enjoin the people to do what is right and just, and to forbid what is wrong and bad. It is neither a part of the prophet to predict future events, nor to show supernatural miracles. And further, a prophet is neither immaculate nor infallible. The Revelation is a natural product of human faculties. A prophet feels that his mind is illumined by God, and the thoughts which are expressed by him and spoken or written under this influence are to be regarded as the words of God. This illumination of the mind or the effect of the Divine Influence differ in any prophet according to the capacity of the recipient, or according to the circumstances—physical, moral, and religious—in which he is placed.

Striking effects of Mohammad's reforms.

35. Although his mission was only to convey the message and preach publicly what was revealed to him, and he was not responsible for the conversion of the ungodly polytheists to the purer theology and higher morality, or in other words, to the faith of Islam, yet whatever success and beneficial results in the sphere of theology, morality, and reforms in social matters he achieved was a strong evidence of his Divine mission. In the name of God and in the character of His Apostle, he wrought a great reform according to his light in his own country. "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit."—(Matt. VII, 17). Facts are stubborn things, and facts are conclusive in these points.

The effects produced by his preaching, and the changes wrought by them in the religious, social, and political sphere of the polytheists, the idolatrous and grossly superstitious Arabs within a comparatively short period, mostly consisting of persecutions at Mecca, and struggles at Medina, were very striking. From an indiscriminate mass of polytheism and gross superstitious belief in gods, genii, the sons and daughters of God, he gave them a pure monotheistic belief, recognizing no other superior power but the Almighty. He raised the moral standard of his countrymen, ameliorated the condition of women, curtailed and mitigated polygamy and slavery, and virtually abolished them as well as infanticide. He most sternly denounced and absolutely forbade many heinous evils of the Arab society. He united a number of wild and independent tribes into a nation and abolished their internecine wars.

Sir W. Muir says:—

"Few and simple as the positive precepts of Mahomet up to this time appear, they had wrought a marvellous and a mighty work. Never, since the days when primitive Christianity startled the world from its sleep, and waged a mortal combat with Heathenism, had men seen the like arousing of spiritual life, the like faith that suffered sacrifice and took joyfully the spoiling of goods for conscience sake.

"From time beyond memory, Mecca and the whole Peninsula had been steeped into spiritual torpor. The slight and transient influence of Judaism, Christianity, or Philosophy upon the Arab mind, had been but as the ruffling here and there the surface of a quiet lake;—all remained still and motionless below. The people were sunk in superstition, cruelty, and vice. It was a common practice for the eldest son to marry his father's widows inherited as property with the rest of the estate. Pride and poverty had introduced among them, as it has among the Hindus, the crime of female infanticide. Their religion consisted in gross idolatry, and their faith was rather the dark superstitious dread of unseen beings, whose goodwill they sought to propitiate, and to avert their displeasure, than the belief in an over-ruling Providence. The Life to come and Retribution of good and evil were, as motives of action, practically unknown.

"Thirteen years before the Hegira, Mecca lay lifeless in this debased state. What a change those thirteen years had now produced! A band of several hundred persons had rejected idolatry, adopted the worship of one great God, and surrendered themselves implicitly to the guidance of what they believed a revelation from Him;—praying to the Almighty with frequency and fervour, looking for pardon through His mercy, and striving to follow after good works, almsgiving, chastity and justice. They now lived under a constant sense of the Omnipotent power of God, and of His providential care over the minutest of their concerns. In all the gifts of nature, in every relation of life, at each turn of their affairs, individual or public, they saw His hand. And, above all, the new spiritual existence in which they joyed and gloried, was regarded as the mark of His especial grace, while the unbelief of their blinded fellow-citizens was the hardening stamp of His predestined reprobation. Mahomet was the minister of life to them,—the source under God of their new-born hopes; and to him they yielded a fitting and implicit submission.

"In so short a period, Mecca had, from this wonderful movement, been rent into two factions, which, unmindful of the old land-marks of tribe and family, were arrayed in deadly opposition one against the other. The believers bore persecution with a patient and tolerant spirit. And though it was their wisdom so to do, the credit of a magnanimous forbearance may be freely accorded to them. One hundred men and women, rather than abjure the precious faith, had abandoned their homes, and sought refuge, till the storm should be overpast, in Abyssinian exile. And now even a larger number, with the Prophet himself, emigrated from their fondly-loved city, with its sacred temple,—to them the holiest spot on earth,—and fled to Medîna. There the same wonder-working charm had within two or three years prepared for them a brotherhood ready to defend the Prophet and his followers with their blood. Jewish truth had long sounded in the ears of the men of Medîna, but it was not till they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian prophet, that they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a new and earnest life."[133]

Further on Sir W. Muir says:—

"And what have been the effects of the system which, established by such instrumentality, Mahomet has left behind him. We may freely concede that it banished for ever many of the darker elements of superstition which had for ages shrouded the Peninsula. Idolatry vanished before the battle-cry of Islam; the doctrine of the unity and infinite perfections of God, and of a special all-pervading Providence, became a living principle in the hearts and lives of the followers of Mahomet, even as it had in his own. An absolute surrender and submission to the divine will (the very name of Islam) was demanded as the first requirement of the religion. Nor are social virtues wanting. Brotherly love is inculcated within the circle of the faith; orphans are to be protected, and slaves treated with consideration; intoxicating drinks are prohibited, and Mahometanism may boast of a degree of temperance unknown to any other creed."[134]

Dr. Marcus Dods writes:—

"But is Mahommed in no sense a Prophet? Certainly he had two of the most important characteristics of the prophetic order. He saw truth about God which his fellowmen did not see, and he had an irresistible inward impulse to publish this truth. In respect of this latter qualification Mahommed may stand comparison with the most courageous of the heroic prophets of Israel. For the truth's sake he risked his life, he suffered daily persecutions for years, and eventually banishment, the loss of property, of the goodwill of his fellow-citizens, and the confidence of his friends—he suffered in short as much as any man can suffer short of death, which he only escaped by flight, and yet he unflinchingly proclaimed his message. No bribe, threat or inducement could silence him. 'Though they array against me the sun on the right hand, and the moon on the left, I cannot renounce my purpose.' And it was this persistency, this belief in his call, to proclaim the Unity of God which was the making of Islam. Other men have been monotheists in the midst of idolaters, but no other man has founded a strong and enduring monotheistic religion. The distinction in his case was his resolution that other men should believe.... His giving himself out as a prophet of God was, in the first instance, not only sincere, but probably correct in the sense in which he himself understood it. He felt that he had thoughts of God which it deeply concerned all around him to receive, and he knew that these thoughts were given him by God, although not, as we shall see, a revelation strictly so called. His mistake lay by no means in his supposing himself to be called upon by God to speak for him and introduce a better religion, but it lay in his gradually coming to insist quite as much on men's accepting him as a prophet as on their accepting the great truth he preached. He was a prophet to his countrymen in so far as he proclaimed the Unity of God, but this was no sufficient ground for his claiming to be their guide in all matters of religion, still less for his assuming the lordship over them in all matters civil as well...."

The learned doctor further on in his book, "Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ," remarks:—

"But as we endeavour to estimate the good and evil of Islam, it gradually appears that the chief point we must attend to is to distinguish between its value to Arabia in the seventh century and its value to the world at large. No one, I presume, would deny that to Mohammed's contemporaries his religion was an immense advance on anything they had previously believed in. It welded together the disunited tribes, and lifted the nation to the forefront of the important powers in the world. It effected what Christianity and Judaism had alike failed to effect—it swept away, once and for ever, idolatry, and established the idea of one true God. Its influence on Arabia was justly and pathetically put by the Moslem refugees in Abyssinia, who when required to say why they should not be sent back to Mecca, gave the following account of their religion and what it had done for them: 'O king, we were plunged in ignorance and barbarism; we worshipped idols; we ate dead bodies; we committed lewdness; disregarded family ties and the duties of neighbourhood and hospitality; we knew no law but that of the strong, when God sent among us a messenger of whose truthfulness, integrity, and innocence we were aware; and he called us to the unity of God, and taught us not to associate any god with him; he forbade us the worship of idols, and enjoined upon us to speak the truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful, and to regard the rights of others; to love our relatives and to protect the weak; to flee vice and avoid all evil. He taught us to offer prayers, to give alms, and to fast. And because we believed in him and obeyed him, therefore are we persecuted and driven from our country to seek thy protection.'"[135]

But after all we have here seen of the opinions of Dr. Marcus Dods and Sir W. Muir, let us turn to what the Rev. Stephens thinks of Mohammad:—

"The aim of Mahomet was to revive among his countrymen the Arabs, as Moses revived among his countrymen the Jews, the pure faith of their common forefather Abraham. In this he succeeded to a very great extent. For a confused heap of idolatrous superstitions he substituted a pure monotheistic faith; he abolished some of the most vicious practices of his countrymen, modified others; he generally raised the moral standard, improved the social condition of the people, and introduced a sober and rational ceremonial in worship. Finally he welded by this means a number of wild independent tribes, mere floating atoms, into a compact body politic, as well prepared and as eager to subdue the kingdoms of the world to their rule and to their faith, as ever the Israelites had been to conquer the land of Canaan.

"The Koran also enjoins repeatedly and in very emphatic language the duty of showing kindness to the stranger and the orphan, and of treating slaves, if converted to the faith, with the consideration and respect due to believers. The duty even of mercy to the lower animals is not forgotten, and it is to be thankfully acknowledged that Mohammedanism as well as Buddhism shares with Christianity the honour of having given birth to hospitals and asylums for the insane and sick.

"The vices most prevalent in Arabia in the time of Mahomet which are most sternly denounced and absolutely forbidden in the Koran were drunkenness, unlimited concubinage and polygamy, the destruction of female infants, reckless gambling, extortionate usury, superstitious arts of divination and magic. The abolition of some of these evil customs, and the mitigation of others, was a great advance in the morality of the Arabs, and is a wonderful and honourable testimony to the zeal and influence of the reformer. The total suppression of female infanticide and of drunkenness is the most signal triumph of his work."[136]

The reverend gentleman quoted above continues:

"First of all, it must be freely granted that to his own people Mahomet was a great benefactor. He was born in a country where political organization, and rational faith, and pure morals were unknown. He introduced all three. By a single stroke of masterly genius he simultaneously reformed the political condition, the religious creed, and the moral practice of his countrymen. In the place of many independent tribes he left a nation; for a superstitious belief in gods many and lords many he established a reasonable belief in one Almighty yet beneficent Being; taught men to live under an abiding sense of this Being's superintending care, to look to Him as the rewarder, and to fear Him as the punisher of evil-doers. He vigorously attacked, and modified and suppressed many gross and revolting customs which had prevailed in Arabia down to his time. For an abandoned profligacy was substituted a carefully regulated polygamy, and the practice of destroying female infants was effectually abolished.

"As Islam gradually extended its conquest beyond the boundaries of Arabia, many barbarous races whom it absorbed became in like manner participators in its benefits. The Turk, the Indian, the Negro, and the Moor were compelled to cast away their idols, to abandon their licentious rites and customs, to turn to the worship of one God, to a decent ceremonial and an orderly way of life. The faith even of the more enlightened Persian was purified: he learned that good and evil are not co-ordinate powers, but that just and unjust are alike under the sway of one All-wise and Holy Ruler, who ordereth all things in heaven and earth.

"For barbarous nations, then, especially—nations which were more or less in the condition of Arabia itself at the time of Mahomet—nations in the condition of Africa at the present day, with little or no civilisation, and without a reasonable religion—Islam certainly comes as a blessing, as a turning from darkness to light and from the power of satan unto God."[137]

Indictment against Mohammad.

36. What the opponents of Mohammad can possibly say against his mission is his alleged moral declension at Medina.[138] They accuse him of cruelty[139] and sensuality[140] during his sojourn in that city after he had passed without any blame more than fifty-five years of his age, and had led a pious missionary life for upwards of fifteen years. These moral stains cannot be inconsistent with his office of being a prophet or reformer. It is no matter if a prophet morally degrades his character under certain circumstances, or morally degrades his character at the end of his age—after leading for upwards of fifty-five years a life of the highest moral principles, and as a paragon of temperance and high-toned living—while he has faithfully conveyed the message, and has sincerely and honestly preached religious reforms, and the sublimity of his preachings have in themselves the marks of divine truth.

If the said prophet defends his stains or immoral deeds by professed revelations, and justifies himself in his flagrant breaches of morality by producing messages from heaven, just and equally as he does when he teaches the purer theology and higher morality for which he is commissioned, then and from that time only we will consider him as an impostor, guilty of high blasphemy in forging the name of God for his licentious self indulgences.

But in the case of Mohammad, in the first place, the charges of cruelty and sensuality during a period of six or seven years towards the end of his life, excepting three years, are utterly false; and secondly, if proved to have taken place, it is not proved that Mohammad justified himself by alleging to have received a divine sanction or command to the alleged cruelties and flagrant breaches of morality. The charges of assassinations and cruelties to the prisoners of war and others, and of the alleged perfidy and craftiness enumerated by Sir W. Muir, have been examined and refuted by me in this book. Vide pp. [60]-73 and pp. [76]-97. The cases of Maria, a slave-girl, and Zeinab not coming directly under the object of this book have been treated separately in [Appendix B], pp. 211-220 of this work.

Mohammad, in his alleged cruelties towards his enemies, is not represented by Sir W. Muir to have justified himself by special revelation or sanction from on high, yet the Rev. Mr. Hughes, whose work has been pronounced as having "the rare merit of being accurate," makes him (Mohammad) to have done them under the sanction of God in the Koran.

"The best defenders of the Arabian Prophet[141] are obliged to admit that the matter of Zeinab, the wife of Zeid, and again of Mary, the Coptic slave, are 'an indelible stain' upon his memory; that he is untrue once or twice to the kind and forgiving disposition of his best nature; that he is once or twice unrelenting in the punishment of his personal enemies, and that he is guilty even more than once of conniving at the assassination of inveterate opponents; but they do not give any satisfactory explanation or apology for all this being done under the supposed sanction of God in the Qurán."[142]

Such is the rare accuracy of Mr. Hughes' work. It is needless for me to repeat here that none of these allegations are either true or facts, or alleged to have been committed under the sanction of God in the Koran.

The Rev. Marcus Dods writes regarding the character of Mohammad:—

"The knot of the matter lies not in his polygamy, nor even in his occasional licentiousness, but in the fact that he defended his conduct, when he created scandal, by professed revelations which are now embodied as parts of the Koran. When his wives murmured, and with justice, at his irregularities, he silenced them by a revelation giving him conjugal allowances which he had himself proscribed as unlawful. When he designed to contract an alliance with a woman forbidden to him by his own law, an inspired permission was forthcoming, encouraging him to the transgression."[143]

Both of these alleged instances given above are mere fabrications. There was no revelation giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which he had himself proscribed as unlawful, nor any permission was brought forward to sanction an alliance forbidden to him by his own law. This subject has been fully discussed by me in my work "Mohammad, the True Prophet," and the reader is referred to that work.[144] A few verses on the marital subject of Mohammad are greatly misunderstood by European writers on the subject, and Dr. Dods shares the generally wrong idea when he says:—

"He rather used his office as a title to license from which ordinary men were restrained. Restricting his disciples to four wives, he retained to himself the liberty of taking as many as he pleased." (Page 23.)

This is altogether a gross misrepresentation of the real state of things. Mohammad never retained to himself the liberty of taking as many wives as he pleased. On the contrary, Sura XXXIII, 52, expressly forbade him all women except those he had already with him, giving him no option to marry in the case of the demise of some or all of them. This will show that he rather used his office as a restraint against himself of what was lawful for the people in general to enjoy. The only so-called privilege above the rest of the believers (Sura XXXIII, 49) was not "to retain to himself the liberty of taking as many wives as he pleased," but to retain the wives whom he had already married and whose number exceeded the limit of four under Sura IV, 3. Other believers having more wives than four as in the case of Kays, Ghailán, and Naofal, were requested to separate themselves from the number exceeding the limit prescribed for the first time. This was before polygamy was declared to have been virtually abolished, i.e., between the publication of vv. 3 and 128 of Sura IV. There was neither any breach of morality, nor anything licentious in his retaining the marriages lawfully contracted by him before the promulgation of Sara IV, 3. Even this privilege (Sura XXXIII, 49) was counterbalanced by Ibid, 52, which runs thus:—

"Women are not allowed thee hereafter, nor to change them for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except those already possessed by thee."

Mr. Stanley Lane Poole suffers under the same misrepresentation as other European writers[145] do when he says that:—

"The Prophet allowed his followers only four wives, he took more than a dozen himself."

He writes:—

"When, however, all has been said, when it has been shown that Mohammad was not the rapacious voluptuary some have taken him for, and that his violation of his own marriage-law may be due to motives reasonable and just from his point of view rather than to common sensuality."

"Did Mohammad believe he was speaking the words of God equally when he declared that permission was given him to take unto him more wives, as when he proclaimed, 'There is no god but God?'"[146]

Mohammad did not violate his own marriage-law, and never pretended that permission was given to him to take more wives than what was allowed for other people. All his marriages (which are wrongly considered to have been about a dozen) were contracted by him before he published the law unjustly said to have been violated by him. He retained these wives after the law was promulgated, and their number exceeded four, but he was interdicted to marry any other women in the place of these in case of their demise or divorce. Other believers were advised after the promulgation of the law to reduce the number of their wives exceeding four, but were at liberty to replace their wives within the limit assigned in the case of their demise or divorce. Mohammad's case had no breach of morality or sensual license in it. It was very wise of Mohammad to retain all the wives he had married before Sura IV, 3, came into force, for the reason that the wives thus repudiated by him might have married some of the unbelievers, even some of his enemies, which would have been derogatory to the Prophet in the eyes of his contemporaries and a laughing-stock for his enemies.

Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.

Positive precepts.

Ceremonial law.

Concrete morals of the Koran.

Want of adaptibility of the Koran to surrounding circumstances.

37. It has been said with much stress regarding the teachings of Mohammad: (1) That although under the degraded condition of Arabia, they were a gift of great value, and succeeded in banishing those fierce vices which naturally accompany ignorance and barbarism, but an imperfect code of ethics has been made a permanent standard of good and evil, and a final and irrevocable law, which is an insuperable barrier to the regeneration and progress of a nation. It has been also urged that his reforms were good and useful for his own time and place, but that by making them final he has prevented further progress and consecrated half measures. What were restrictions to his Arabs would have been license to other men.[147] (2) That Islam deals with positive precepts rather than with principles,[148] and the danger of a precise system of positive precepts regulating the minute detail, the ceremonial worship, and the moral and social relations of life, is, that it should retain too tight a grip upon men when the circumstances which justified it have changed and vanished away, and therefore the imposition of a system good for barbarians upon people already possessing higher sort of civilization and the principles of a purer faith is not a blessing but a curse. Nay more, even the system which was good for people when they were in a barbarous state may become positively mischievous to those same people when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its influence into a higher condition.[149] (3) That the exact ritual and formal observations of Islam have carried with them their own Nemesis, and thus we find that in the worship of the faithful formalism and indifferences, pedantic scrupulosity and positive disbelief flourish side by side. The minutest change of posture in prayer, the displacement of a simple genuflexion, would call for much heavier censure than outward profligacy or absolute neglect.[150] (4) That morality is viewed not in the abstract, but in the concrete. That the Koran deals much more with sin and virtue in fragmentary details than as a whole. It deals with acts more than principles, with outward practice more than inward motives, with precepts and commands more than exhortation. It does not hold up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of all sin as a whole.[151] (5) "That Islam is stationary; swathed in the rigid bands of the Coran, it is powerless, like the Christian dispensation,[152] to adapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place, and to keep pace with, if not to lead and direct, the progress of society and the elevation of the race. In the body politic the spiritual and secular are hopelessly confounded, and we fail of perceiving any approach to free institutions or any germ whatever of popular government."[153]

The preceding objections not applicable to the Koran.

38. All these objections more or less apply rather to the teachings of the Mohammadan Common Law (canon and civil), called Fiqah or Shara, than to the Koran, the Mohammadan Revealed Law. Our Common Law, which treats both ecclesiastical and the civil law, is by no means considered to be a divine or unchangeable law. This subject has been treated by me in a separate work[154] on the Legal, Political and Social Reforms to which the reader is referred. The space allowed to me in this Introduction, which has already exceeded its proper limit, does not admit a full and lengthy discussion of the objections quoted above, but I will review them here in as few words as possible.

Finality of the social reforms of Mohammad.

39. (1) Mohammad had to deal with barbarous nations around him, to be gradually reformed, and besides this the subject of social reforms was a secondary question. Yet it being necessary to transform the character of the people and to reform the moral and social abuses prevailing among them, he gradually introduced his social reforms which proved immense blessings to the Arabs and other nations in the seventh century. Perhaps some temporary but judicious, reasonable and helpful accommodations had to be made to the weakness and immaturity of the people, as halting stages in the march of reforms only to be set aside at their adult strength, or to be abolished when they were to begin to emerge from their barbarism under its influence to a higher civilization. Consequently gradual amelioration of social evils had necessarily to pass several trials during progress of reform. The intermediate stages are not to be taken as final and irrevocable standard of morality and an insuperable barrier to the regeneration of the Arabian nation. Our adversaries stick indiscriminately to these temporary measures or concessions only, and call them half measures and partial reforms made into an unchangeable law which exclude the highest reforms, and form a formidable obstacle to the dawn of a progressive and enlightened civilization. I have in view here the precepts of Mohammad for ameliorating the degraded condition of women for restricting the unlimited polygamy and the facility of divorce, together with servile concubinage and slavery.[155] Mohammad's injunctions and precepts, intermediary and ultimate, temporary and permanent, intended for the removal of these social evils, are interwoven with each other, interspersed in different Suras and not chronologically arranged, in consequence of which it is somewhat difficult for those who have no deep insight into the promiscuous literature of the Koran to find out which precept was only a halting stage, and which the latest. It was only from some oversight on the part of the compilers of the Common Law that, in the first place, the civil precepts of a transitory nature and as a mediate step leading to a higher reform were taken as final; and in the second place, the civil precepts adapted for the dwellers of the Arabian desert were pressed upon the neck of all ages and countries. A social system for barbarism ought not to be imposed on a people already possessing higher forms of civilizations.

Positive precepts.

Ceremonial law.

40. (2) In fact the Koran deals with positive precepts as well as with principles, but it never teaches a precise system of precepts regulating in minute details the social relations of life and the ceremonial of worship. On the contrary, its aim has been to counteract the tendency to narrowness, formality, and severity which is the consequence of a living under a rigid system of positive precepts. Mohammad had to transform the character of the Arab barbarians who had no religious or moral teacher or a social reformer before his advent. It was therefore necessary to give them a few positive precepts, moulding and regulating their moral and social conduct, to make them 'new creatures' with new notions and new purposes, and to remodel the national life. (3) But lest they should confuse virtue as identical with obedience to the outward requirements of the ceremonial law,—the formal ablutions, the sacrifices in pilgrimages, the prescribed forms of prayers, the fixed amount of alms, and the strict fasts, the voice of the Koran has ever and anon been lifted up to declare that a rigid conformity to practical precepts, whether of conduct or ceremonial, would not extenuate, but rather increase in the eyes of God the guilt of an unprincipled heart and an unholy life.

Pilgrimage.

Regarding the pilgrimage[156] or the sacrifices (its chief ceremony), the Koran says:—

"By no means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their blood, but piety on your part reacheth him. Thus hath he subjected them to you, that ye might magnify God for his guidance: and announce glad tidings to the doers of good."—Sura XXII, 38.

Kibla.

Regarding the Kibla in prayers it is said in the Koran:—

"The west and the east is God's: therefore whichever way ye turn there is the face of God."—Sura II, 109.

"All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn them; but wherever ye be, hasten emulously after good."—Ibid, 143.

"There is no piety in turning your faces toward the east or west, but he is pious who believeth in God and the last day, and the angels and the scripture, and the prophets; who for the love of God disburseth his wealth to his kindred; and to the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and for ransoming; who observeth the prayer, and payeth alms, and who is of those who are faithful to their engagements when they have engaged in them, and patient under ills and hardships, and in time of trouble, these are they who are just, and these are they who fear the Lord."—Ibid, 172.

Amount of alms.

In the place of a fixed amount of alms the Koran only says to give what ye can spare.

"They will ask thee also what shall they bestow in alms:

"Say: What ye can spare."—Ibid, 216, 217.

Fasts.

Instead of imposing a very strict fast, which in the middle of summer is extremely mortifying, the Koran makes its observance optional.

"And as for those who are able to keep it and yet observe it not, the expiation of this shall be the maintenance of a poor man. And he who of his own accord performeth a good work, shall derive good from it: and good shall it be for you to fast, if ye knew it."—Ibid, 180.

No prescribed forms of prayer.

The Koran does not teach any prescribed forms of worship and other ritualistic prayers. No attitude is fixed, and no outward observance of posture is required. There is no scrupulosity and punctiliousness, neither the change of posture in prayer nor the displacement of a single genuflexion calls any censure on the devotee in the Koran. Simply reading the Koran (Suras LXXIII, 20; XXIX, 44), and bearing God in mind, standing and sitting; reclining (III, 188; IV, 104) or bowing down or prostrating (XXII, 76) is the only form and ritual, if it may be called so, of prayer and worship taught in the Koran.

"Recite then as much of the Koran as may be easy to you."—Sura LXXIII, 20.

"Recite the portions of the Book which have been revealed to thee and discharge the duty of prayer; verily prayer restraineth from the filthy and the blameworthy. And assuredly the gravest duty is the remembrance of God; and God knoweth what ye do."—Sura XXIX, 44.

"And when the Koran is rehearsed, then listen ye to it and keep silence: haply ye may obtain mercy."

"And think within thine ownself on God, with lowliness and with fear and without loud-spoken words, at even and at morn; and be not of the heedless."—Sura VII, 203, 204.

Pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving condemned.

The Koran condemns pretentious prayers and ostentatious almsgiving.

"Verily the hypocrites would deceive God; but he will deceive them! When they stand up for prayer, they stand carelessly to be seen of men, and they remember God but little"—Sura IV, 141.

"Woe then to those who pray,"

"Who in their prayer are careless;"

"Who make a show of devotion,"

"But refuse help to the needy."—Sura CVII, 4-7.

"And they fall down on their faces weeping, and it increaseth the humility."—Sura XVII, 110.

"O ye who believe! make not your alms void by reproaches and injury; like him who spendeth his substance to be seen of men, and believeth not in God and in the latter day. The likeness of such an one is that of a rock with a thin soil upon it, on which a heavy rain falleth, but leaveth it hard. No profit from their works shall they be able to gain; for God guideth not the unbelieving people."—Sura II, 266.

"We have made ready a shameful chastisement for the unbelievers, and for those who bestow their substance in alms to be seen of men, and believe not in God and in the last day. Whoever hath satan for his companion, an evil companion hath he!"—Sura IV, 42.

No indispensable hours or places for prayers.

There are no indispensable hours or places to be observed for prayers. In Suras XI, 116; and IV, 104, the time of prayer is set down in general terms without specifying any fixed hour. There are some more times named in Suras XVII, 81, 82; XX, 130; L, 38, 39; and LII, 48, 49, but they are special cases for Mohammad himself, and "as an excess in the service." Vide Sura XVII, 81. On this subject Dr. Marcus Dods observes:—

"There are two features of the devout character which the Mohammedans have the merit of exhibiting with much greater distinctness than we do. They show not the smallest hesitation or fear in confessing God, and they reduce to practice the great principle that the worship of God is not confined to temples or any special place:—

"Most honour to the men of prayer,
Whose mosque is in them everywhere!
Who amid revel's wildest din,
In war's severest discipline,
On rolling deck, in thronged bazaar,
In stranger land, however far,
However different in their reach
Of thought, in manners, dress or speech,—
Will quietly their carpet spread.
To Mekkeh turn the humble head,
And, as if blind to all around,
And deaf to each distracting sound,
In ritual language God adore,
In spirit to his presence soar,
And in the pauses of the prayer,
Rest, as if rapt in glory there."

"There are of course formalists and hypocrites in Islam as well as in religions of which we have more experience. The uniformity and regularity of their prostrations resemble the movements of a well-drilled company of soldiers or of machines, but the Koran denounces "woe upon those who pray, but in their prayers are careless, who make a show of devotion, but refuse to help the needy;" while nowhere is formalism more pungently ridiculed than in the common Arabic proverb, "His head is towards the Kibleh, but his heels among the weeds." We could almost excuse a touch of formalism for the sake of securing that absolute stillness and outward decorum in worship which deceives the stranger as he enters a crowded mosque into the belief that it is quite empty. Persons who hold themselves excused from the duty of worship by every slight obstacle might do worse than get infected with the sublime formalism of Cais, son of Sad, who would not shift his head an inch from the place of his prostration, though a huge serpent lifted its fangs close to his face and finally coiled itself round his neck. And if some are formal, certainly many are very much in earnest."[157]

Ablutions.

The ablutions have not been imposed as burdens, or as having any mysterious merit, but merely as a measure of cleanliness.

"God desireth not to lay a burden upon you, but he desireth to purify you."

Koran both abstract and concrete in morals.

41. (4) The Koran seems fully aware of the danger of the precise and fixed system of positive precepts moulding and regulating every department of life. The danger is that the system of formalism in which men are tied down to the performance of certain religious functions, minutely and precisely fixed in respect to time, place and manner, so that neither less nor more is required of them, retains too tight a grip upon them, when the circumstances which justified it have changed or vanished away. The moral growth of those who live under such a system of minute and punctilious restraint is stunted and retarded. The tendency of mankind to formalism is so strong that they very commonly, though often unconsciously, fall into the error of imagining that there is a peculiar intrinsic merit and virtue in the mere discharge of those prescribed forms of duties and religious ceremonies. Morality is with them not in the abstract but in the concrete, as consisting of a mass of religious observances, rather than of a certain disposition of heart towards God and man. The Koran deals with vice and virtue as a whole as well as in fragmentary details. It treats of inward motives as much as of outward practice, of exhortations equally with precepts and commands. It holds up before man the hatefulness and ugliness of vice as a whole. It does not enclose the whole of the practical morality and piety within the narrow compass of a fixed number of precepts. It lays the foundation of that far-reaching charity which regards all men as equal in the sight of God, and recognizes no distinction of races and classes.

120. "And abandon the semblance of wickedness and wickedness itself. They, verily, whose only acquirement is iniquity shall be repaid for what they have gained."

152. "Say: Come, I will rehearse what your Lord hath made binding on you, that ye assign not aught to Him as sharers of his Divine honour, and that ye be good to your parents; and that ye slay not your children because of poverty, for them and for you will We provide; and that ye come not near to pollutions, outward or inward; and that ye slay not anyone whom God hath forbidden you, unless for a just cause. This hath He enjoined on you: haply ye will understand."—Sura VI.

31. "Say: Only hath my Lord forbidden filthy actions, whether open or secret, and iniquity, and unjust violence, and to associate with God that for which He hath sent down no warranty, and to speak of God that of which ye have no knowledge."—Sura VII.

33. "To those who avoid great crimes and scandals, but commit only lighter faults, verily, thy Lord will be rich in forgiveness. He well knew you when He produced you out of the earth, and when ye were embryos in your mothers' womb. Assert not then your own purity. He best knoweth who feareth him."—Sura LIII.

13. "O men! verily We have created you of a male and a female: and We have divided you into peoples and tribes that ye might take knowledge one of another. Truly the most worthy of honour in the sight of God is he who feareth Him most. Verily God is Knowing, Cognizant."—Sura XLIX.

143. "And every nation has a quarter of the Heavens. It is God who turneth them towards it: hasten then emulously after good: wheresover ye be, God will one day bring you all together: verily God is all powerful."—Sura II.

52. "And to thee We have sent down the Book of the Koran with truth, confirmatory of previous scripture and its safeguard. Judge therefore between them by what God hath sent down, and follow not their desires, after the truth which hath come unto thee. To everyone of you have We given a rule and an open way."

53. "And if God had pleased He had surely made you all one people; but He would test you by what He hath given to each. Be emulous then in good deeds. To God do ye all return, and He will tell you concerning the subjects of your disputes."—Sura V.

127 "And vie in haste for pardon from your Lord, and a Paradise, vast as the Heavens and the Earth, prepared for the God-fearing."

128. "Who gives alms, alike in prosperity and in distress, and who master their anger, and forgive others! And God loveth the doer of good."

129. "And who, after they have done a base deed or committed a wrong against their own souls, remember God and implore forgiveness of their sins—and who can forgive sins but God only?—and persevere not in what they have willingly done amiss."—Sura III.

21. "Vie in hasting after pardon from your Lord, and Paradise—whose outspread is as the outspread of the Heaven and of the Earth. Prepared is it for those who believed in God and his apostles. Such is the bounty of God: to whom He will He giveth it: and of immense bounty is God!"—Sura LII.

183. "Ye shall assuredly be tried in your possessions and in yourselves. And many hurtful things shall ye assuredly hear from those to whom the scriptures were given before you, and from those who join other gods with God. But if ye be steadfast and fear God, then this verily is God's decree for the affairs of life."—Sura III.

16. "O my son! observe prayer and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and be patient under whatever shall betide thee: verily this is a bounden duty."—Sura XXXI.

38. "Yet let the recompense of evil be only a like evil; but he who forgiveth and maketh peace, shall find his reward for it from God; verily He loveth not those who act unjustly."

39. "And there shall be no way open against those who, after being wronged, avenge themselves."

40. "Only shall there be a way open against those who unjustly wrong others, and act insolently on the earth in disregard of justice. These! a grievous punishment doth await them."

41. "And whoso beareth wrongs with patience and forgiveth,—this verily is a bounden duty."—Sura XLII.

Adaptability of the Koran to surrounding circumstances.

42. (5) The Koran keeps pace with the most fully and rapidly-developing civilization, if it is rationally interpreted, not as expounded by the Ulema in the Common Law Book and enforced by the sentiment of a nation. It is only the Mohammadan Common Law, with all its traditions or oral sayings of the Prophet,—very few of which are genuine reports, and the supposed chimerical concurrence of the learned Moslem Doctors and mostly their analogical reasonings (called Hadees, Ijma, and Kias), passed under the name of Fiqah or Shariat, that has blended together the spiritual and the secular, and has become a barrier in some respects regarding certain social and political innovations for the higher civilization and progress of the nation. But the Koran is not responsible for this all.

Mr. Stanley Lane Poole writes:—

"The Korān does not contain, even in outline, the elaborate ritual and complicated law which now passes under the name of Islam. It contains merely those decisions which happened to be called for at Medina. Mohammad himself knew that it did not provide for every emergency, and recommended a principle of analogical deduction to guide his followers when they were in doubt. This analogical deduction has been the ruin of Islam. Commentators and Jurists have set their nimble wits to work to extract from the Korān legal decisions which an ordinary mind could never discover there; and the whole structure of modern Mohammadanism has been built upon the foundation of sand. The Koran is not responsible for it."[158]

I can only differ from the above in the allegation that Mohammad recommended a principle of analogical deduction.

Suitability of the Koran to all classes of humanity.

43. Thus the system of religious and moral teaching of the Koran admirably suits the lower and the higher forms of humanity. The precepts which regulate some department of social life, moral conduct, and religious ceremonial are blessings to the barbarous; and that portion of the Koran which inculcates large principles, for the due application of which much must be left to the individual conscience, suits the same people when they begin to emerge from their barbarism under its influence into a higher condition, or to those already possessing the higher forms of civilization. For instance, the command to give full measure, to weigh with just balance, to abstain from wine and gambling, and to treat persons with kindness are intended for men not reaching the high forms of civilization. The teachings of the Koran regarding the graces of truth, honesty and temperance and mercy, the virtues of meekness, and the stress laid upon thoughts and inclinations are fit to instruct persons who have attained the higher forms of civilization, and have outgrown the need of positive precepts of minute detail.

C. Ali.
Hyderabad,
Deccan,
March 1884.

FOOTNOTES

[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.

[2] See Sura XXIV, verse 54.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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."

[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."

[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?"

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

[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.

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

[14] Ibn Hisham, p. 746.

[15] Ibid. 745, see Sura XLVIII.

[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.

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

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

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

[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.

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

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

[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."

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[41] Sura XLVI, verses 28, 29. These people were from Nisibin and Nineveh in Mesopotamia. They were Chaldeans, soothsayers, and cabalists. In the book of Daniel the Chaldeans are classed with magicians and astronomers, and evidently form a sort of the priest class who have a peculiar "tongue" and "learning" (Dan. I. 4). In Arabic, persons of similar professions were called Kahins. Some of this class of people pretended to receive intelligence of what was to come to pass from certain satans or demons, whom they alleged to hear what passed in the heavens. Others pretended to control the stars by enchanting them. They produced eclipses of the sun and moon by their alleged efficiency in their own enchantments. They practised astrology as well as astronomy and fortune-telling.

It appears that the Chaldeans (Kaldai or Kaldi) were in the earliest times merely one out of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting the great alluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia. In process of time as the Kaldi grew in power, their name prevailed over that of the other tribes inhabiting the country; and by the era of the Jewish captivity it had begun to be used generally for all the inhabitants of Babylonia. It had thus come by this time to have two senses, both ethnic: in the one, it was the special appellative of a particular race to whom it had belonged from the remotest times; in the other, it designated the nation at large in which the race was predominant. Afterwards it was transferred from an ethnic to a mere restricted sense, from the name of a people to that of a priest caste or sect of philosophers. The Kaldi proper belonged to the Cushite race. While both in Assyria and in Babylonia, the sernitic type of speech prevailed for special purposes, the ancient Cushite dialect was purely reserved for scientific and religious literature. This is no doubt the "learning" and the "tongue" to which reference is made in the Bible (Dan. I. 4). It became gradually inaccessible to the great mass of people who had emigrated by means, chiefly, of Assyrian influence. But it was the Chaldean learning in the old Chaldean or Cushite language. Hence all who studied it, whatever their origin or race, were, on account of their knowledge, termed Chaldeans. In this sense Daniel himself, "the master of Chaldeans" (Dan. V. 11.), would, no doubt, have been reckoned among them, and so we find Seleucas, a Greek, called a Chaldean by Strabo (XVI. 1, § 6). The Chaldeans were really a learned class, who by their acquaintance with the language of science became its depositaries. They were priests, magicians or astronomers, as their preference for one or other of those occupations inclined them; and in the last of these three capacities they probably effected discoveries of great importance. The Chaldeans, it would appear, congregated into bodies forming what we may perhaps call universities, and they all engaged together in it for their progress. They probably mixed up to some extent astrology with their astronomy, even in the earlier times, but they certainly made great advance in astronomical science to which their serene sky and transparent atmosphere specially invited them. In later times they seem certainly to have degenerated into mere fortune-tellers (vide Smith's Dict. of the Bible, Art. Chaldeans).

In their practice of astromancy or enchanting the stars, and in pretending to overhear what passed in the heavens, they, the Jinns, used to sit on the tops of lofty mansions at night-time for hours offering sacrifices to the stars and enchanting them. In their peculiar tongue and learning they called this practice "stealing a hearing" and "sitting for listening" (Suras XV, verse 17, and LXXII, verses 8, 9).

Now at the time of Mohammad's assuming the Prophet's office there had been an unusually grand display of numerous falling stars, which at certain periods are known to be specially abundant. At the same time there were good many comets visible in different parts of heavens, which certainly might have smitten with terror these Jinns, i.e., the astromancers and soothsayers. There was one comet visible in 602 A.D., and other two appeared in 605 A.D. In 607 A.D. two more comets were visible; another one appeared in 608 A.D. Each of the years 614 and 615 had one comet. There were also comets visible in 617 A.D. (vide Chambers's Descriptive Astronomy). These comets are most probably noticed in the contemporary record (i.e. the Koran). A comet is called Tariq, or "night comer," in Sura LXXXVI, verse 1; and described as the star of piercing radiance. (Annajmus Saqib. Ibid 3.)

The Kahins were very much alarmed at the stupendous phenomena of the falling stars and the comets; and had stopped their soothsaying and divinations. Whenever they used to sit on their places of listening, enchanting, and divination during night-time, looking at the heavens, their eyes met with showers of shooting stars and brilliant comets which bewildered them very much. It is said that the first whose attention was attracted to the unusual shooting stars was a clan of the Sakeefites of Us-Tayif (Ibn Hisham, page 131). These Jinns, when they were converted to Islam at Nakhla near Tayif, expressed their bewilderment from the unusual shower of falling stars and the appearance of numerous comets in their peculiar language:—

"The heaven did we essay but found it filled with mighty garrison and of darting flames."

"We sat on some of the seats to listen, but whoever now listeneth findeth a darting flame in ambush for him."

"We know not whether evil be meant for them that are on earth, or whether their Lord meaneth true guidance for them."—Sura LXXII, verses 8-10.

So the pretenders of hearing the discourses of heavenly bodies being quite harassed by the extraordinary showers of the falling stars, and the appearances of numerous comets, had stopped their divination. This was taken notice of in the Koran:—

"They overhear not exalted chiefs, and they are darted from every side."

"Driven off and consigned to a lasting torment; while if one steal by stealth then a glistering flame pursueth him."—Sura XXXVII, verses 8-10.

"Save such as steal a hearing, and him do visible flames pursue."—Sura XV, verse 18.

"The satans were not sent down with this Koran. It beseemed them not, and they had not the power. For they are far removed from the hearing."—Sura XXVI, verses 210-212.

As an instance of terror and bewilderment caused by meteors and shooting stars among credulous people, I will quote the following anecdote:

About the middle of the tenth century an epidemic terror of the end of the world had spread over Christendom. The scene of the last judgment was expected to be in Jerusalem.

In the year 999 the number of pilgrims proceeding eastwards, to await the coming of the Lord in that city, was so great that they were compared to a desolating army. During the thousandth year the number of pilgrims increased. Every phenomenon of nature filled them with terror. A thunderstorm sent them all upon their knees. Every meteor in the sky seen at Jerusalem brought the whole Christian population into the streets to weep and pray. The pilgrims on the road were in the same alarm. Every shooting star furnished occasion for a sermon, in which the sublimity of the approaching judgment was the principal topic (vide Extraordinary Popular Delusions by Charles Mackay, LL.D., London, pp. 222 and 223).

It was a conceit or imposture of the Kahins to pretend that their demons had access to the outskirts of the heavens, and by assiduous eavesdropping secured some of the secrets of the upper world and communicated the same to the soothsayers or diviners upon earth. The Jews had a similar notion of the demons (schedim), learning the secrets of the future by listening behind the veil (pargôd). The Koran falsified them in their assertions. It says that the heavens (or the stars) are safe and protected against the eavesdropping (or enchantments) of the soothsayers.

"We have set the signs of Zodiac in the heavens, and we have decked them forth for the bewilders."

"And we guard them from every stoned satan."—Sura XV, verses 16, 17.

"Verily we have adorned the lower heaven with the adornment of the stars;"

"And we have guarded them against every rebellious satan."—Sura XXXVII, verses 6, 7.

" ... And we have furnished the lower heaven with lights and have protected it...."—Sura XLI, verse 11.

The Koran further says that the soothsayers impart to their votaries or to those who go to consult them what they have heard from other people and are liars:—

"They impart what they have heard, but most of them are liars."—Sura XXVI, verse 223.

It is nowhere said in the Koran that the stars are darted or hurled at the Satans. Sura LXVII, verse 5, literally means, "of a surety we have decked the lower heaven with lights and have made them to be (means of) 'Rojúm' conjectures to the (or for the) devils, i.e. the astrologer." The primary meaning of Rajm is a thing that is thrown or cast like a stone: pl. 'Rojúm,' but it generally means speaking of that which is hidden, or conjecturing or speaking by conjecture, as in Sura XVIII, verse 21. In Sura XIX, verse 47, the word "La-arjomannaka" has been explained both ways, meaning (1) "I will assuredly cast stones at thee," and (2) "I will assuredly say of thee, (though) speaking of that which is hidden (from me) or unknown (by me), what thou dislikest or hatest." Vide Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, page 1048.

[42] "After five centuries of Christian evangelization, we can point to but a sprinkling here and there of Christian converts;—the Bani Hârith of Najrân: the Bani Hanîfa of Yemâma; some of the Bani Tay at Tayma, and hardly any more. Judaism, vastly more powerful, had exhibited a spasmodic effort of proselytizm under Dzu Nowâs; but, as an active and converting agent the Jewish faith was no longer operative."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, page ccxxxix.

[43] The Aws or Khazraj were two branches of the Azdite tribes of Yemen from the Kahlanite stock. After their emigration to the North they separated themselves from the Ghassinides and returned to Medina, where they settled.

[44] The same remarks apply to the wars fought during Mohammad's lifetime but before his public mission.

[45] The Bani Aslam tribe settled north of Medina in the valley of Wady-al-Koraa. They were a branch of the Kozaaite tribes descended from Himyar.

[46] Joheina were a branch of Kozaa, the descendants of Himyar. This tribe inhabited in the vicinity of Yenbo, north of Medina.

[47] Mozeina were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Mecca. They inhabited in Najd, north-east of Medina.

[48] Ghifár were sons of Moleil-bin-Zamra, the descendants of Kinána, one of the Moaddite tribes.

[49] Saad-bin-Bakr were a branch of Hawazin. Mohammad had been nursed among them.

[50] The Bani Ashja were a branch of the Ghatafán of the Meccan stock of the Moaddites. The Bani Ashja appear all to have been hostile to Mohammad. They fought against the Prophet at the siege of Medina with four hundred warriors in their contingent. Sir W. Muir says, "The Bani Ashjâ, who had joined in the siege of Medina, gave in their adhesion shortly after the massacre of the Coreitza; they told Mahomet that they were so pressed by his warring against them, that they could stand out no longer.—K. Wackidi, page 60." Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, 107, footnote. This story is altogether false. We never hear of Mohammad warring against Bani Ashja; on the contrary, they had themselves invaded Medina.

[51] The Bani Ash-ár inhabited Jedda. They were of the Kahlánite stock, the descendants of Al-Azd.

[52] The Bani Khushain were a clan of Kozaá, of Himiarite stock.

[53] The Bani Dous belong to the Azdite tribe of the stock of Kahtán. They lived at some distance south of Mecca. They had joined Mohammad at Khyber.

[54] These were the sub-tribes of Ghatafán of the Meccan stock. The chief families of Ghatafán were the Bani Ashja, Zobian, and the Bani Abs. Murra and Fezára were the branches of Zobian. They all inhabited Najd. Uyenia, the chief of the Bani Fezára, had committed an inroad upon Medina in A.H. 6. In the same year the Bani Fezára had waylaid a Medina caravan and plundered it.

[55] The Bani Suleim, a branch of the Bani Khasafa and a sister tribe to Hawázin, who lived near Mecca, and in whose charge, Mohammad, when but an infant, was placed, were also a tribe of the Meccan stock descended through Khasafa from Mozar and Moádd. Bani Suleim, like Bani Murra and Fezára, branches of Ghatafán, had long continued to threaten Mohammad with attacks. The Bani Suleim having joined Aamir bin Tofeil, chief of Bani Aamir, a branch of the tribe of Hawázin with their clans Usseya, Ril, and Zakawán, had cut to pieces a party of Moslem missionaries at Bir Mauna, invited by Abu Bera Amr ibn Málik, a chief of the Bani Aamir, who had pledged for their security. The Bani Suleim had joined also the Koreish army at the siege of Medina. In the seventh year, they had slain another body of Moslem missionaries sent to them.

[56] The Bani Ozra were a tribe of Kozaá, like Joheina. They, together with the Bani Bali and Juzám, inhabited the north of Arabia in the part of the territory belonging to Ghassan. The family of Himyar, descendants from Kahtán in Yemen, had flourished through the line of Kozaá, the Bani Ozza, Joheina and other important tribes to the north of the Peninsula on the border of Syria. It has been quoted by Sir W. Muir from Katib Wakidi that the chief of the Bani Juzám carried back to them a letter from Mohammad to this tenor: "Whoever accepteth the call of Islam, he is among the confederates of the Lord; whoever refuseth the same, a truce of two months is allowed for him for consideration." (Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 107, foot-note). The words "for consideration" are not in the original Arabic.—Vide Ibn Hisham, p. 963. It is not clear what was meant by the two months' truce he was advised to give them, to make terms before he could commence hostilities, if the tradition for which there is no authority be true. This has nothing to do with their compulsory conversions.

[57] Salaba was a branch of the Zobián.

[58] The Bani Abd-ul-Kays are a Moaddite tribe, the descendants of Rabia. They inhabited Bahrein on the Persian Gulf.

[59] The Bani Tamim were branch of Tábikha, a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Mecca and a sister tribe of Mozeina. They are famous in the history of Najd, a province north-east of Medina, from the confines of Syria to Yemen. Some of these branches were with Mohammad at the expeditions to Mecca and Honain. All the branches of the tribes that had not yet embraced Islam were now converted.

[60] The Bani Asad ibn Khozeima were a powerful tribe residing near the hill of Katan in Najd. They were of the Moaddite tribe of the Meccan stock. Tuleiba, their chief, had assembled a force of cavalry and rapid camel-drivers to make a raid upon Medina in A.H. 4. They were dispersed by the Moslems. In the next year they joined the Koreish in the siege of Medina.

[61] The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 136. Those who had newly joined the Moslem Camp at Mecca to repel the threatening gathering of Hawázin, and those of them who preferred submission to the authority of Mohammad, are called by Sir W. Muir "his new converts." (IV., 149). But in fact they were not called believers. They are called simply Muallafa Qolubohum in the Koran (IX., 60) which means whose hearts are to be won over.

[62] Okáz between Táyif and Nakhla. Mujanna in the vicinity of Marr-al Zahrán, and Zul-Majáz behind Arafat, both near Mecca.

[63] "From time immemorial, tradition represents Mecca as the scene of a yearly pilgrimage from all quarters of Arabia:—from Yemen, Hadhramaut and the shores of the Persian Gulph, from the deserts of Syria, and from the distant environs of Híra and Mesopotamia."—Muir, I, ccxi.

[64] Sir W. Muir thinks: "The possession of Mecca now imparted a colour of right to his pretensions; for Mecca was the spiritual centre of the country, to which the tribes from every quarter yielded a reverential homage. The conduct of the annual pilgrimage, the custody of the holy house, the intercalation of the year, the commutation at will of the sacred months,—institutions which affected all Arabia,—belonged by ancient privilege to the Coreish and were now in the hands of Mahomet.... Moreover, it had been the special care of Mahomet artfully to interweave with the reformed faith all essential parts of the ancient ceremonial. The one was made an inseparable portion of the other."—The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 169. But the remaining tribes who had not hitherto embraced Islam, and the chiefs of the Southern and Eastern Arabia, did not adopt Islam, because Mohammad possessed Mecca, a position of no political supremacy. No paramount authority throughout the Peninsula had ever been vested in the chief who possessed Mecca. Mohammad on the surrender of Mecca had abolished all the idolatrous institutions which might have served as political or social inducements to the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam. The intercalation of the year and commutation of the sacred months were cancelled for ever in the plain words of the Koran: "Verily, twelve months is the number of months with God, according to God's book, since the day when He created the Heavens and the earth, of these, four are sacred; this is the right usage." ... "To carry over a sacred month to another is an increase of unbelief only. They who do not believe are led into error by it. They allow it one year and forbid it another, that they may make good the number of months which God hath hallowed, and they allow that which God hath prohibited. The evil of their deeds hath been prepared for them by Satan; for God guideth not the people who do not believe."—Sura IX, verses 36, 37. The custody of the house was no more an office of honour or privilege. The ancient ceremonial of pilgrimage was not interwoven with the reformed faith. The rites of Kaaba were stripped of every idolatrous tendency. And the remaining and essential part of the pilgrimage was depreciated. "By no means can their flesh reach unto God, neither their blood; but piety on your part reacheth Him."—Sura XXII, verse 38. And after all the idolaters were not allowed to enter it. "It is not for the votaries of other gods with God, witnesses against themselves of infidelity, to visit the temples of God."—Sura IX, verse 28. Sir W. Muir himself says regarding Mohammad: "The rites of Kaaba were retained, but stripped by him of every idolatrous tendency; and they still hang, a strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of Islam."—Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxviii.

[65] For these deputations see Ibn Is-hak (died 151), Hishamee (died 213), Ibn Sad (died 213), Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, Chap. 30th, Seerat Shámí (died 942), and Halabí (died 1044). For the genealogies of these tribes consult Qalqashandi's Dictionary of Tribes, and Ibn Khaldún's History. Regarding the geographical positions of these tribes the reader is referred to the most valuable map of Arabia in Sir W. Muir's Annals of Early Caliphate, London 1882.

[66] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 181 and 226.

[67] A branch of Hawázin and sister tribe of the Sakeef inhabited the province of Najd and were of the Moaddite stock. The tribe had taken little share with the rest of the Bani Hawázin at the battle of Honain against the Moslems A.H. 8. The famous poet Lebid, author of one of the Moallakas, belonged to that tribe. [See the Life of Lebid from Ketab-ul-Aghani, in an article on the Moallaqah by Lebid, by C.J. Lyall, C.S., in the Journals of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, No. 1, 1877, pp. 62-76: Calcutta.]

[68] Bani Abd-ul-Kays from Bahrein. The tribe has been described at page 47. There were many persons in the embassy. They were Christians before they embraced Islam.

[69] Descended from Anmár of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen.

[70] A sub-tribe of Asad, descendants of Rabia of the Moaddite stock. These are the Aneze of Burkhardt.

[71] Already described at p. 47. The rest of them now embraced Islam. It is said that Sura xlix, 17, refers to them.

[72] Bani Azd (Shanovah) from Yemen. This tribe was a portion of the Azdite tribe left at Yemen at the time of the northern emigration of Azd. They were a branch of Kahtan of the Kahtanite stock. In their emigration northward from Yemen they resided a long time in Hijaz at Batn Murr near Mecca. In their journey further on to the north of Syria, leaving Kozaa, they changed their name to Ghassán from their long residence, by the way, near a fountain of that name. The tribes Aus and Khazraj had separated afterwards from these Ghassanides, and settled at Yathrib, afterwards known as Medina. One Surad was the chief of the embassy of Azd from Yemen to Mohammad at Medina. Sir W. Muir says: "This person was recognized by Mahomet as the ruler of his clan, and commission was given to him to war against the heathen tribes in his neighbourhood." (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 219.) The Arabic word "yojáhid," in the original biographies, only means "to strive," and does not mean "to make war," as understood by Sir W. Muir. He has himself translated the same word as "striving" in Vol. III, page 32. At page 265 of the same volume he translates it by "to do utmost." I have discussed the subject in full in [Appendix A.] of this work.

[73] Another branch of the Azd described above.

[74] Bani Báhila, otherwise called Sáad Manát, descendants of Ghatafán of the Moaddite stock.

[75] Bani Bahra (bin Amr bin Al-Háf bin Kozaá), who were a branch of the Kozaá of the Himyarite stock, had emigrated to the north, and settled in the Ghassanide territory.

[76] Bani Bajíla, a sister of Khas-am and descendants of Anmar bin Nizar of the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited Yemen. The Bajíla after professing Islam had destroyed the famous image of Kholasa.

[77] A branch of Bani Aamir bin Sáasáa in the centre of Arabia.

[78] They lived about Yemama and the shores of the Persian Gulf. They were one of the Moaddite tribes. The war of Basus between Bani Bakr and their sister tribe Bani Taghlib had lasted for forty years. There have been famous poets in the Bani Bakr tribe, among whom are Tarafa, Haris bin Hiliza, and Maimún Al-Asha. The Bani Bakr and Bani Tamim were constantly at war, which was abandoned under the influence of Islam, when both the parties were converted to it during the lifetime of Mohammad.

[79] They were a branch of the Kozaá from the Himyarite stock, the descendants of Kahtan, and had settled in the north of Arabia in the Ghassanide territory on the borders of Syria.

[80] A sub-tribe of Kozaá.

[81] A clan of the tribe of Lakhm.

[82] An Arab of the Bani Juzam in the north of Arabia and Governor of Amman in the Ghassanide territory announced his conversion to Mohammad by a despatch in A.H. 8.

[83] They have already been described at page 46. Their deputation waited upon Mohammad on his return from Tabúk.

[84] Descendants of Anmár of the Kahtanite stock.

[85] A sub-tribe of Azd at Yemen.

[86] Already described under Bani Azd.

[87] Bani Hamadán of the Kahtanite descent. An important tribe in the east of Yemen.

[88] A Christian branch of the Bani Bakr who inhabited Yemama.

"The account of the embassy of the Bani Hanífa is more decidedly unfavourable to Christianity, but its details appear of doubtful authority. Moseilama, the false Prophet, was among the number, and there are some unlikely anticipations of his sacrilegious claims.

"As the embassy were departing, Mahomet gave them a vessel in which were the leavings of the water with which he had performed his lustration; and he said,—'When you reach your country, break down your church, and sprinkle its sight with this water, and make in its place a mosque'....

"The story appears to me improbable, because nowhere else is Mahomet represented as exhibiting such antagonism to Christians and their churches when they submitted themselves to him."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 303-4, footnote. The author changes his opinion in the fourth volume of his work and says: "I have there stated (in Vol. II) the story to be improbable. But I am now inclined to think that during the last year or two of Mahomet's life, there was quite enough of antagonistic feeling against Christianity as it presented itself in the profession of the Arab and Syrian tribes to support the narrative."—Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 218, footnote.

This is a mere presumption on the part of the writer, and there is no proof of Mohammad's antagonism towards Christianity at any period of his life except against those who waged war with him. The following verse of the Koran will show how far I am true:—

"Verily they who believe (Moslems), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians and Sabeites, whoever of those believeth in God and the Last Day, and doth that which is right shall have their reward with their Lord: Fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved."

[89] Also a Christian tribe in Yemen descended from the Kahtanite stock of the Bani Madhij, and collateral therefore with Bani Kinda. Two of the embassy, one of them being Akil or Abd-ul-Masih, the chief of the deputation, adopted Islam. The rest returned with a full guarantee from Mohammad for the preservation of their social and religious liberty. Further information regarding the Bani Háris of Najrán will be found at pp. [48] and [106] of this book.

"Kâtib al Wâckidi, p. 69. The subsequent history of the Najrán Christians is there traced. They continued in possession of their lands and rights under the treaty during the rest of Mohammad's life and the whole of Abu Bakr's Caliphate. Then they were accused of taking usury, and Omar expelled them from the land, and wrote as follows:—

"The despatch of Omar, the Commander of the Faithful, to the people of Najrán. Whoever of them emigrates is under the guarantee of God. No Moslem shall injure them;—to fulfil that which Mahomet and Abu Bakr wrote unto them.

"Now to whomsoever of the chiefs of Syria and Irâc they may repair, let such chiefs allot them lands, and whatever they cultivate therefrom shall be theirs; it is an exchange for their own lands. None shall injure or maltreat them; Moslems shall assist them against oppressors. Their tribute is remitted for two years. They will not be troubled except for evil deeds.

"Some of them alighted in Irâc, and settled in Najránia near to Cufa.

"That the offence of usury is alleged in justification of this measure appears to me to disprove the common tradition that a command was said to have been given by Mahomet on his deathbed for the Peninsula to be swept clear of all other religions but Islam."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 301-2.

[90] Descendants of the great Ghatafán tribe already described.

[91] Bani Himyar from Yemen. The Himyarites are too well-known to be described. The Himyarite princes of Ro-en, Mu-afir, Hamadan and Bazan, all of the Christian faith in Yemen, embraced Islam and announced their conversion by letter sent to Mohammad through their emissaries which reached him after his return from Tabúk.

[92] Either a clan of Lakhm, or a branch of Bani Aámir.

[93] A sub-tribe of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already described.

[94] The King of Omán, together with the people of Omán, embraced Islam during A.H. 8 and 9. The people of Omán were of the Azdite stock.

[95] Already described at page 43.

[96] A branch of Saad-al-Ashira from the Kahtanite stock. This tribe inhabited Yemen. They had some peculiar prejudice against eating the heart of an animal. Mohammad had caused their chief to break his superstition, which he did by making him eat the roasted heart of an animal.

But they returned disgusted when told that his (the chief's) mother who had committed infanticide was in hell. However they sent another deputation a second time and finally embraced Islam.

[97] They settled in Dumat-ul-Jundal, now Jal-al-Jowf, north of Arabia. They were a tribe of the Bani Kozaá descended from Himyar.

[98] A tribe of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen. They lived in a hilly country of that name in Yemen.

[99] They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock on the coast of Yemen.

[100] A clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa of the Hawázin tribe already described.

[101] Descendants of Khazima of the Moaddite stock.

[102] The Bani Kinda princes, Vail bin Hijar and Al-Ash-as bin Kays; the former, the chief of the coast, and the latter, the chief of the Hazaramaut in the south of Arabia. They with their whole clans embraced Islam. Bani Kinda were a powerful tribe of the Kahálánite stock.

[103] A clan of Ozra from Kozaá described at page 46.

[104] Descendants of Ghatafán of the Moaddite stock.

[105] They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen, and were a tribe of Muzhie of the Kahtanite stock.

[106] A branch of the tribe of Aámir bin Sáasáa.

[107] A branch of Zobian.

[108] They were a tribe of the Kahtanite stock, residing in Yemen. Their deputation consisted of two hundred persons. It is said this was the last deputation received by Mohammad. Some time before this Ali was sent to the Bani Nakh-a and other tribes of the Mudhij stock in Yemen.

[109] A tribe of Kozaá of the Himyarite stock at Yemen.

[110] A sub-tribe of Kozaá inhabiting Syria described at page 46.

[111] A tribe of Muzhij of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.

[112] They were a clan of the Bani Aámir bin Sáasáa already described.

[113] A tribe of the Kozaá of the Moaddite stock, and according to some from Yemen.

[114] Descendants of Hazaramaut of the Kahtanite stock at Yemen.

[115] A clan of the Bani Hanifa, descendants of Bakr bin Wail already described.

[116] A clan of the Bani Shaiban, the descendants of Bakr bin Wail already mentioned.

[117] The Bani Sakeef (Thackif) were a branch of the Mazar tribes of the Moaddite stock. They were a sub-tribe of the Hawázin and sister tribe to the Bani Adwán, Ghatafán, and Suleim. They (the Bani Sakeef) lived at Tayif and worshipped the idol Lat or Táqhia. Orwa, a chief of Tayif, had gone to Medina to embrace Islam. His first generous impulse was to return to Tayif and invite his fellow-citizens to share in the blessings imparted by the new faith. Upon his making public his conversion, he was wounded by a mob and suffered martyrdom. But he left a favourable impression of Islam at Tayif. Their deputation consisted of six chiefs with fifteen or twenty followers. The Prophet received them gladly and pitched a tent for their accommodation in the court of his mosque. Every evening after supper he paid them there a visit and instructed them in the faith till it was dark. Sir W. Muir writes:—"The martyrdom of Orwa compromised the inhabitants of Tayif, and forced to continue the hostile course they had previously been pursuing. But they began to suffer severely from the marauding attacks of Bani Hawazin under Malik. That chief, according to his engagement, maintained the increasing predatory warfare against them."—Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 204. At page 155 he says regarding Malik,—"being confirmed in his chiefship he engaged to maintain a constant warfare with the citizens of Tayif." But there was no such engagement with Málik. The authority (Hishamee) referred to by Sir W. Muir does not speak anything of the alleged engagement. Vide Hishamee, page 879. Hishamee has only so much that Mohammad made Malik chief of those who were converted from the tribe. These were the clans of Somála, Salma, and Fahm, and that he used to fight with them against the Sakifites. Sir W. Muir further writes that the inhabitants of Tayif said among themselves: "We have not strength to fight against the Arab tribe all around that have plighted their faith to Mahomet, and bound themselves to fight in his cause" (Vol. IV, p. 205). The italics are mine and these words are not to be found in the original authorities. Hishamee (page 914) has Bayaoo va Aslamoo, i.e., they have plighted and submitted (or converted to Islam).

[118] Descendants of the Kozaá inhabited the hills of that name (Salámán).

[119] Descendants and branch of Bakr bin Wail.

[120] A tribe of the Kahtanite stock from Yemen.

[121] The Bani Taghlib bin Wail were a tribe of the Moaddite stock of Meccan origin and a sister tribe to the Bani Bakr bin Wail. Their wars are famous in the annals of Arabia. The war of Basús has been already alluded to under Bani Bakr. These tribes, the Bani Bakr and Taghlib, were located in Yemama, Bahrein, Najd, and Tihama, but lastly the Bani Taghlib had emigrated to Mesopotamia and professed the Christian faith. The members of their deputation to Mohammad wore golden crosses. When invited to Islam, they did not embrace it, but promised to allow their children to become Moslems. Mohammad allowed them to maintain unchanged their profession of Christianity. Their Christianity was of a notoriously superficial character. "The Taghlib," said Ali, the fourth Khalif, "are not Christians; they have borrowed from Christianity only the custom of drinking wine."—Dozy Historie, i, 20.

[122] A clan of Kinda from the sub-tribe of Sakun at Yemen.

[123] The Bani Tamim were descendants of Tabikha bin Elyas of the Moaddite stock. They are famous in the history of Najd, the northeastern desert of which from the confines of Syria to Yemama they inhabited. They were at constant warfare with the Bani Bakr bin Abd Monát, descendants of Kinána of the Moaddite stock, from 615 to 630 A.D. All the branches of the tribe which had not yet converted to Islam were now converted in A.H. 9.

[124] The Bani Tay was a great tribe of the Kahtanite stock of Yemen, had moved northwards, and settled in the mountains of Ajá and Salmá to the north of Najd and Hijaz and the town of Tyma. They had adopted Christianity, but some of them were Jews and Pagans. Their intertribal war has been alluded to in para. 26. The whole tribe now embraced Islam. "A deputation from the Bani Tay, headed by their chief, Zeid-al-Khail, came to Medina to ransom the prisoners, soon after Ali's expedition. Mahomet was charmed with Zeid, of whose fame both as a warrior and a poet he had long heard. He changed his name to Zeid al Kheir (the beneficent), granted him a large tract of country, and sent him away laden with presents."

Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 178.

[125] They were a branch of Sad-al-Ashirá of the Mazhij tribe of the Kahtanite stock. They inhabited the sea-coast of Yemen.

[126] The rebellion of almost the whole of Arabia—wrongly called apostasy—after the death of Mohammad was chiefly against the Government of Abu Bakr, the first Khalifa of the Republic of Islam. No such paramount power over the whole of Arabia was ever vested in the chiefs of Mecca, and the Arabs were unaccustomed to this new form of Government. They had neither rebelled against Islam, nor apostatized from their religion, except a very few of them who had attached themselves to Moseilama for a short time.

[127] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., page 83.

[128] Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chap. III, page 73.

[129] Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. II, pp. 118-9.

[130] The early followers of Mohammad bore persecutions and exile with patience and steadfastness; and never recanted. Look to the increasing number of these early Moslems, their magnanimous forbearance, and the spontaneous abandonment of their dear homes and relations, and their defending their Prophet with their blood. The number of Christian believers during the whole lifetime of Christ was not more than 120 (Act I, 15). They had a material view of the Messiah's kingdom, and had fled at the first sound of danger. Two of the disciples when walking to Emmaus observed, "We trusted that it had been He who should have redeemed Israel," and the apostle asked Jesus after the so-called resurrection, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?"

"During the periods thus indicated as possible for comparison, persecution and rejection were the fate of both. But the thirteen years' ministry of Mahomet had brought about a far greater change to the external eye than the whole lifetime of Christ. The apostles fled at the first sound of danger, and however deep the inner work may have been in the 500 by whom our Lord was seen, it had produced as yet but little outward action. There was among them no spontaneous quitting of their homes, nor emigration by hundreds, such as distinguished the early Moslems; nor any rapturous resolution by the converts of a foreign city to defend the Prophet with their blood."—The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. II, page 274.

[131] "Let us for a moment look back to the period when a ban was proclaimed at Mecca against all the citizens, whether professed converts or not, who espoused his cause; when they were shut up in the Sheb or quarter of Abu Tâlib, and there for three years without prospect of relief endured want and hardship. Those must have been steadfast and mighty motives which enabled him amidst all this opposition and apparent hopelessness of success, to maintain his principles unshaken. No sooner was he relieved from confinement, than, despairing of his native city, he went forth to Tâyif and summoned its rulers and inhabitants to repentance; he was solitary and unaided, but he had a message, he said, from his Lord. On the third day he was driven out of the town with ignominy, blood trickling from the wounds inflicted on him by the populace. He retired to a little distance, and there poured forth his complaint to God: then he returned to Mecca, there to carry on the same outwardly hopeless cause with the same high confidence in its ultimate success. We search in vain through the pages of profane history for a parallel to the struggle in which for thirteen years the Prophet of Arabia in the face of discouragement and threats, rejection and persecution retained his faith unwavering, preached repentance, and denounced God's wrath against his godless fellow-citizens. Surrounded by a little band of faithful men and women, he met insults, menaces, dangers, with a high and patient trust in the future. And when at last the promise of safety came from a distant quarter, he calmly waited until his followers had all departed, and then disappeared from amongst his ungrateful and rebellious people."—Muir, Vol. IV, pages 314-15.

[132] "That he was the impostor pictured by some writers is refuted alike by his unwavering belief in the truth of his own mission, by the loyalty and unshaken confidence of his companions, who had ample opportunity of forming a right estimate of his sincerity, and finally, by the magnitude of the task which he brought to so successful an issue. No impostor, it may safely be said, could have accomplished so mighty a work. No one unsupported by a living faith in the reality of his commission, in the goodness of his cause, could have maintained the same consistent attitude through long years of adverse fortune, alike in the day of victory and in the hour of defeat, in the plenitude of his power and at the moment of death."—Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, M.A., page 23.

"Of the sincerity of his belief in his own mission there can be no doubt. The great merit is his that among a people given up to idolatry he rose to a vivid perception of the Unity of God, and preached this great doctrine with firmness and constancy, amid ridicule and persecution. But there it seems to me that the eulogy of the Prophet ought to cease."—Islam under the Arabs by R.D. Osborn. London 1876, p. 90.

[133] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, LL.D., Vol. II, pp. 269-71.

[134] The Life of Mahomet by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, pp. 320-21.

[135] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 17-19 & 119.

[136] Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 94, 104, 112, London, 1877.

[137] Christianity and Islam: The Bible and the Koran, by the Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 129-30, London, 1877.

[138] "We may readily admit that at the first Mahomet did believe, or persuaded himself to believe, that his revelations were dictated by a divine agency. In the Meccan period of his life there certainly can be traced no personal ends or unworthy motives to belie this conclusion. The Prophet was there, what he professed to be, 'a simple Preacher and a Warner;' he was the despised and rejected teacher of a gainsaying people; and he had apparently no ulterior object but their reformation. Mahomet may have mistaken the right means to effect this end, but there is no sufficient reason for doubting that he used those means in good faith and with an honest purpose.

"But the scene altogether changes at Medîna. There the acquisition of temporal power, aggrandisement, and self-glorification mingled with the grand object of the Prophet's previous life, and they were sought after and attained by precisely the same instrumentality. Messages from Heaven were freely brought forward to justify his political conduct, equally with his religious precepts. Battles were fought, wholesale executions inflicted, and territories annexed, under pretext of the Almighty's sanction. Nay, even baser actions were not only excused, but encouraged by the pretended divine approval or command. A special license was produced, allowing Mahomet a double number of wives; the discreditable affair of Mary the Coptic slave was justified in a separate Sura; and the passion for the wife of his own adopted son and bosom friend was the subject of an inspired message in which the Prophet's scruples were rebuked by God; a divorce permitted, and marriage with the object of his unhallowed desires enjoined."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 317-8.

[139] "But the darker shades of character as well as the brighter must be depicted by a faithful historian. Magnanimity or moderation are nowhere discernible as features in the conduct of Mahomet towards such of his enemies as failed to tender a timely allegiance. Over the bodies of the Coreish who fell at Badr he exulted with savage satisfaction; and several prisoners, accused of no crime but that of scepticism and political opposition, were deliberately executed at his command. The prince of Kheibar, after being subjected to inhuman torture for the purpose of discovering the treasures of his tribe, was, with his cousin, put to death on the pretext of having treacherously concealed them; and his wife was led away captive to the tent of the conqueror. Sentence of exile was enforced by Mahomet with rigorous severity on two whole Jewish tribes at Medîna; and of a third like his neighbours, the women and children were sold into distant captivity, while the men amounting to several hundreds were butchered in cold blood before his eyes.

"In his youth Mahomet earned among his fellows the honourable title of 'the Faithful.' But in later years, however much sincerity and good faith may have guided his conduct in respect of his friends, craft and deception were certainly not wanting towards his foes. The perfidious attack at Nakhla, where the first blood in the internecine war with the Coreish was shed, although at first disavowed by Mahomet, for its scandalous breach of the sacred usages of Arabia, was eventually justified by a pretended revelation. Abu Basîr, the freebooter, was countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia. The surprise which secured the easy conquest of Mecca was designed with craftiness, if not with duplicity. 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. When Medîna was beleaguered 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?' In his prophetical career, political and personal ends were frequently compassed by the flagrant pretence of Divine revelations, which a candid examination would have shewn him to be nothing more than the counterpart of his own wishes. The Jewish and Christian systems, at first adopted honestly as the basis of his own religion, had no sooner served the purpose of establishing a firm authority, than they were ignored, if not disowned. And what is perhaps worst of all, the dastardly assassination of political and religious opponents, countenanced and frequently directed as they were in all their cruel and perfidious details by Mahomet himself leaves a dark and indelible blot upon his character."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 307-9.

"The reader will observe that simultaneously with the anxious desire to extinguish idolatry, and to promote religion and virtue in the world, there was nurtured by the Prophet in his own heart a licentious self-indulgence; till in the end, assuming to be the favourite of Heaven, he justified himself by 'revelations' from God in the most flagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while Mahomet cherished a kind and tender disposition, 'weeping with them that wept,' and binding to his person the hearts of his followers by the ready and self-denying offices of love and friendship, he could yet take pleasure in cruel and perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of an entire tribe, and savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of hell."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 322-3.

[140] "In domestic life the conduct of Mahomet with one grave exception was exemplary. As a husband his fondness and devotion was entire, bordering, however, at times upon jealousy. As a father he was loving and tender. In his youth he is said to have lived a virtuous life. At the age of twenty-five he married a widow forty years old; and for five and twenty years he was a faithful husband to her alone. Yet it is remarkable that during this period was composed most of those passages of the Coran in which the black-eyed Houris, reserved for believers in Paradise, are depicted in such glowing colours. Shortly after the death of Khadija the Prophet married again; but it was not till the mature age of fifty-four that he made the dangerous trial of polygamy, by taking Ayesha, yet a child, as the rival of Sauda. Once the natural limits of restraint were overpassed, Mahomet fell an easy prey to his strong passion for the sex. In his fifty-sixth year he married Haphsa; and the following year, in two succeeding months, Zeinab bint Khozeima and Omm Salma. But his desires were not to be satisfied by the range of a harem already greater than was permitted to any of his followers; rather as age advanced, they were stimulated to seek for new and varied indulgence. A few months after his nuptials with Zeinab and Omm Salma, the charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she kindled in his breast; and, by divine command, she was taken to his bed. In the same year he married a seventh wife, and also a concubine. And at last, when he was full three score years of age, no fewer than three new wives, besides Mary the Coptic slave, were within the space of seven months added to his already well-filled harem."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 309-10.

[141] "Vide Muhammad and Muhammadanism, by Mr. R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., an Assistant Master of Harrow School."

[142] Notes on Muhammadanism, by the Rev. T.P. Hughes, Missionary to the Afghans, Peshawar; Second Edition, page 4, London, 1877.

[143] Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 24 & 25.

[144] Vide pp. 48-61. This work is being printed at Education Society's Press, Byculla, Bombay. It appears that Dr. Dods, in the first instance, had in view Sura XXXIII, 51. This is by no means giving Mohammad conjugal allowances which he himself had proscribed as unlawful. As a preliminary measure to abolish polygamy and to accustom the people to monogamy, Mohammad, when reducing the unlimited polygamy practised in Arabia, had put a strong condition to treat their wives, when more than one, equitably in every sense of the word,—i.e., in the matter of social comfort, love and household establishment (Sura IV, 3). When the measure had given a monogamous tendency to the Arab society, it was declared that it was impossible practically to treat equitably in all respects the contemporary wives (Sura IV, 128), and those who had already contracted contemporaneous marriage before the measure referred to above was introduced were absolved from the condition laid down in Sura IV, 3, but were advised, regarding their then existing wives, not to yield wholly to disinclination. Similarly Mohammad was also relieved from that condition in Sura XXXIII, 51, without "giving him any conjugal allowance which he had himself pronounced unlawful." The second instance is of Zeinab's case I suppose. Zeinab was in no way, when divorced by Zeid, "a woman forbidden to him by his own laws."

[145] "The Apostle becomes a creature so exalted that even the easy drapery of Mohammadan morality becomes a garment too tight-fitting for him. 'A peculiar privilege is granted to him above the rest of the believers.' He may multiply his wives without stint; he may and he does marry within the prohibited degrees."—Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, London 1876, p. 91.

[146] Studies in a Mosque, by S.L. Poole, pp. 77 and 80, London, 1880.

[147] Vide Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 229, London, 1878; and Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 122-23, London, 1878. Major Osborn writes, "But to the polity erected on these rude lines was given the attribute of finality. In order to enforce obedience and eliminate the spirit of opposition, Mohammad asserted that it was, down to the minutest details, the work of a Divine Legislature."—Islam under the Arabs, pp. 45 and 46.

[148] Vide The Faith of Islam, by the Rev. Edward Sell, page 7, London, 1880.

[149] Vide Christianity and Islam, the Bible, and the Koran, by the Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 95 and 131, London, 1877.

[150] Vide Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 237; and Stephens' Christianity and Islam, page 121. Major Osborn writes: "From the hour of his birth the moslem becomes a member of a system in which every act of his life is governed by a minute ritual. He is beset on every side with a circle of inflexible formalities."—Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, pp. 78-9. He further writes in a footnote, p. 79: "Thus prayer is absolutely useless if any matter, legally considered impure, adheres to the person of the worshipper, even though he be unconscious of its presence. Prayer also is null and void unless the men and women praying are attired in a certain prescribed manner."

[151] Vide Christianity and Islam, by W.R.W. Stephens, pp. 122-23. Major Osborn writes: "The Prophet knew of no religious life where the external rite was not deemed of greater importance than the inner state, and, in consequence, he gave that character to Islam also. Hence there are no moral gradations in the Koran. All precepts proceed from the will of God, and all are enforced with the same threatening emphasis. A failure of performance in the meanest trivialities of civil life involves the same tremendous penalties as apostacy and idolatry."—Islam under Khalifs, p. 5. He further says: "In their religious aspect, these traditions are remarkable for that strange confusion of thought which caused the Prophet to place on one level of wickedness serious moral crimes, breaches of sumptuary regulations, and accidental omissions in ceremonial observations. Sin, throughout, is regarded as an external pollution, which can, at once, be rectified by the payment of a fine of some kind." Ibid, page 62.

[152] "Occasionally our author would seem to write what he certainly does not mean; thus, in the middle of an excellent summary of the causes of Islam's decadence, it is stated,—'Swathed in the rigid bands of the Koran, Islam is powerless like the Christian dispensation to adapt itself to the varying circumstances of time and place.'"—The Saturday Review, June 23, 1883.

[153] Vide Annals of the Early Caliphate, by Sir W. Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., D.C.L., page 456, London, 1883.

[154] Reforms, Political, Social and Legal, under the Moslem Rule, Bombay Education Society's Press, 1883.

[155] "The cankerworm of polygamy, divorce, servile concubinage and veil lay at the root. They are bound up in the character of its existence. A reformed Islam which should part with the divine ordinances on which they rest, or attempt in the smallest degree to change them by a rationalistic selection, abetment or variation would be Islam no longer." Annals of the Early Caliphate by Sir W. Muir, page 458.

[156] The institution of pilgrimage is a harmless one, and conducive to unity in religion for Arabs, and gives moreover an impetus to trade at large.

[157] Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, by Marcus Dods, D.D., pp. 30-1.

[158] The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad, by Stanley Lane Poole, pages lii and liii, Introduction, London, 1882.

Transcriber's Note:

Despite the reference to a "Note" on page cv in the Table of Contents, no such page exists in this edition of the printed book.