A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 15

5. "And when the sacred months are pa.s.sed[168] kill those who join other G.o.ds with G.o.d[169] wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they repent and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way.[170] Verily, G.o.d is Gracious, Merciful."

6. "If any one of those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of G.o.d; then let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge."

7. "How can they who add G.o.ds to G.o.d be in league with G.o.d and His Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So long as they are true to you,[171] be ye true to them: verily, G.o.d loveth those who fear Him."

8. "How _can they_? since if they prevail against you, they will not regard in their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith: With their mouths they content you, but their hearts are averse, and most of them are perverse doers."

9. "They sell the signs of G.o.d for a mean price, and turn others aside from his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!"

10. "They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good faith; and these are the transgressors!"

11. "Yet if they turn to G.o.d and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for men of knowledge."[172]

12. "But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity--verily there is no faith in them! Haply they will desist."

13. "Will ye not do battle with a people (_the Meccans_) who have broken their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first?

Will ye dread them? G.o.d truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are believers!"

14. "Make war on them: By your hands will G.o.d chastize them and put them to shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who believe."

36. "... and attack those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d one and all, as they attack you one and all."--Sura, ix.

[Sidenote: 18. What the above-quoted verses show.]

I need not repeat here what these verses and the facts related above show, that the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were merely defensive, and the Koreish were the aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite justified in taking up arms against them.

"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend," writes Mr.

Edward Gibbon,[173] "by force of arms, his person and his possessions; to repel, or even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend his hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation.

In the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen imposed a feeble restraint; and Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful and benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice of his countrymen." It has been fully shown in the foregoing paragraphs that the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed neither safety nor security. Religious freedom was denied to them, though they were harmless and peaceful members of the community. Besides this they were expelled from their homes, leaving their families and their property in the hands of their persecutors, and were prevented from returning to Mecca, and were refused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all, they were attacked by the Meccans in force at Medina.

[Sidenote: 19. Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against their aggressors.]

The persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was on religious grounds. They would not allow the believers to renounce the religion of their forefathers and profess Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and harsh that they tortured some of the professors of the new faith to renounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. "Taking away the lives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren, merely for serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they ought, when by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of it, materially, is evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity: for it is punis.h.i.+ng those who have not injured us, and who, if they mistake, deserve only pity from us."[174] The early Moslems had had every international right to resent persecution and intolerance of the Meccans and to establish themselves by force of arms, to enjoy their religious liberty and to practise their religion freely.

[Sidenote 20. The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part of Mohammad.]

Some of the European biographers of Mohammad say, "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."[175]

This is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the Koreish, who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the Moslems by an attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his followers had taken refuge. Even taking it for granted that the Moslems were the first aggressors after the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or expulsion itself (leaving aside the previous persecutions and oppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the commencement of hostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure their moral and religious freedom, and to protect themselves and their relatives from further aggressions?

Sir William Muir admits, that "hostilities, indeed, were justified by the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca."[176] "It may be said,"

says Major Vans Kennedy, "that, in these wars, Mohammad was the aggressor by his having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept the caravans of Mecca. But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the conspiracy of the Koreish to a.s.sa.s.sinate Mohammad, and when to save his life he fled from Mecca, himself and his followers were thus deprived of their property, and obliged to depend for their subsistence on the hospitality of the men of Medina, it could not be reasonably expected that they would allow the caravans of their enemies to pa.s.s unmolested."[177]

[Sidenote: 21. The alleged instances examined.]

There is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira, commenced hostilities against the Koreish by intercepting their caravans. The alleged instances of the caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also internal evidences of their improbability. The Medina people had pledged themselves only to defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him in any aggressive steps against the Koreish.[178] Therefore, it seems impossible that they should have allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive steps against the Koreish which would have involved them in great trouble.

[Sidenote: 22. Hamza and Obeida expedition.]

The alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by Hamza and the other by Obeida in pursuit of caravans which escaped, are in themselves improbable. Mohammad would not send fifty or sixty persons to waylay a caravan guarded by two or three hundred armed men.

[Sidenote: 23. The Abwa, Bowat, & Osheira expeditions.]

The alleged expeditions of Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira, said to have been led by Mohammad himself to intercept the Mecca caravans, but in vain, are altogether without foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at all, to Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani Dhumra[179] and Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.

[Sidenote: 24. The affair at Nakhla.]

The affair of the _Nakhla_ marauding party, as related in the traditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether inconsistent and untrustworthy. The very verse (Sura, ii, verse 214) which the biographers say was revealed on the occasion, and which I have quoted above (para. 16), contains a reference to the Meccans' fighting against the Moslems, which runs counter to the a.s.sumption of the European biographers, who make it an aggressive attack on the part of Mohammad.

It is probable that Mohammad might have sent some six or eight scouts to bring in news of the movements and condition of the Koreish, whose att.i.tude towards Mohammad had become more hostile since his flight to Medina. As the Koreish had a regular and uninterrupted route to Syria for traffic, it was only reasonable on the part of Mohammad to take precautions, and he was always on his guard. The biographers _Ibn Is-hak_, _Ibn Hisham_ (p. 424), _Tabri_ (Vol. II, p. 422), _Ibnal Athir_ in _Kamil_ (Vol. II, p. 87), _Halabi_ in _Insanul Oyoon_ (Vol. III, p.

318), say, that Mohammad had given written instructions to Abdoollah-bin-Jahsh, which was to the effect "bring me intelligence of their affairs." They also say that Mohammad was displeased with Abdoollah's affair at Nakhla, and said, "I never commanded thee to fight in the Sacred Month." The biographers also relate that Mohammad even paid blood-money for the slain.

[Sidenote: 25. At Badr Mohammad had come only in his defence.]

Some of the European biographers of Mohammad allege, that the battle of Badr was brought by Mohammad himself. They appear to hesitate to justify Mohammad in defending himself against the superior numbers of the Koreish, who had advanced to attack him as far as Badr, three stages from Medina. It is alleged that Mohammad intended to attack the caravans returning from Syria, conducted by Abu Sofian, his arch-enemy, therefore he set out upon his march with eighty refugees and two hundred and twenty-five people of Medina, and halted at Safra to waylay the caravan.

Abu Sofian, warned of Mohammad's intention, sent some one to Mecca for succour. The Koreish, with nine hundred and fifty strong, marched forth to rescue the caravan. In the meantime, the caravan had pa.s.sed unmolested, but the Koreish held a council whether to return or go to war. On the one hand, the biographers say, it was argued that the object for which they had set out having been secured, the army should at once retrace its steps. Others demanded that the army should advance. Two tribes returned to Mecca, the rest marched onwards; but it is not fair to allege that Mohammad had set forth to attack the caravan. Had he any such intention, the people of Medina, who had pledged themselves only to defend him against personal attack, would not have accompanied him. The presence of a large number of the _Ansars_, the people of Medina, more than double that of the _Mohajirins_, the refugees, is a strong proof that they had come out only in their defence.

Mohammad, on receiving intelligence of the advancing force of the Koreish, set out from Medina to check the advance of the Meccan force, and encountered it at Badr, three days' journey from Medina. The Meccan army had advanced nine days' journey from Mecca towards Medina. The forces met at Badr on the 17th of Ramzan (13th January 623), the Meccans had left Mecca on the 8th of Ramzan (4th January), and Mohammad started only on the 12th of Ramzan (8th January), about four days after the Meccan army had actually set out to attack him. Supposing Abu Sofian had some reason for apprehending an attack from Medina, and sent for succour from Mecca, but the object of the Meccan army of the Koreish for which they had set out having been secured, the caravan having pa.s.sed unmolested, they ought at once to have retraced their steps. The fact that Mohammad left Medina four days after the Koreish had left Mecca with a large army advancing towards Medina, is strongly in his favour.

[Sidenote: 26. The first aggressions after the Hegira, if from Mohammad, might fairly be looked upon as retaliation.]

Even taking it for granted that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of the Moslems, and that several of the caravans of the Koreish had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed, it would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks, had they been made, might fairly be looked upon as a retaliation for the ill-treatment of the Moslems before the flight from Mecca. "Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political continuous societies, forming organized units called states or nations, whose const.i.tuents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the const.i.tuents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hards.h.i.+ps of war."[180] The almost universal rule of most remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous nations, that the private individual of a hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every description of family ties. But Mohammad protected the inoffensive citizen or private individual of the hostile country. He even protected those who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at Badr, but were reluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be given to several persons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa, Harith Ibn Amir, Abbas and other Bani Has.h.i.+m were amongst those named.

[Footnote 162: Or defend, '_Yadafeo_' repel.]

[Footnote 163: _Yokataloona_, or who fight _Yokateloona_. The former reading is the authorized and general.]

[Footnote 164: The primary signification of _fitnah_ is burning with fire. It signifies a _trial_ or _probation_ and affliction, distress or hards.h.i.+p; and particularly an _affliction whereby one is tried, proved, or tested_.--_Vide_ Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 2335.]

[Footnote 165: Desist from persecuting you and preventing you to enter your native city and prohibiting access to the sacred mosque and attacking you, and from religious intolerance.]

[Footnote 166: _i.e._, the religious persecution and intolerance and hindrance to visit the sacred mosque being suppressed; you may profess, preach and practice your religion freely.]

[Footnote 167: _Vide_ note 2 in p. 17.]

[Footnote 168: Shaw-wal, Zulkada, Zulhij, and Moharram, the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 1st months of the Arabian year.

These verses were promulgated in Ramzan, the 9th month of the year.]

[Footnote 169: And have violated the Hodeibia Truce. Compare verses 4, 8, and 12.]

[Footnote 170: It is not meant that they should be forced to observe prayer or pay obligatory alms, or in other words be converted to Islam; the context and general scope of the Koran would not allow such a meaning. The next verse clearly enjoins toleration.]

[Footnote 171: The Bani Kinana and Bani Zamara had not violated the truce of Hodeibia while the Koreish and Bani Bakr had done so.]

[Footnote 172: This is the same as verse 5. It only means, if meanwhile they become converts to Islam, they are to be treated as brethren in religion. But it cannot mean that it was the sole motive of making war with them to convert them. Such an interpretation is quite contrary to the general style of the Koran.]

[Footnote 173: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. VI, p. 245.]

[Footnote 174: Archbishop Secker's Works, III, p. 271.]