A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 18

[Footnote 197: A name applied to an idol or idols--especially Allat and Ozza, the ancient idols of the Meccans.]

[Footnote 198: The past tense, third person plural, of the infinitive _Fitnah_.]

_The Ninth Chapter, or Sura Barat._

[Sidenote 40. The opening portion of the IXth Sura of the Koran only relates to the Koreish who had violated the truce.]

[Sidenote: The injunctions contained in it were not carried out owing to the compromise.]

Sir William Muir, while relating the publication of some verses of the ninth chapter of the Koran on the occasion of the great pilgrimage A.H.

9, and referring to the opening verses of the Sura (from 1st to 7th inclusive) writes: "The pa.s.sages just quoted completed the system of Mahomet so far as its relations with idolatrous tribes and races were concerned. The few cases of truce excepted, uncompromising warfare was declared against them all."[199] This is not correct. The mistake, he as well as others who follow him commit, lies in their taking the incipient verses of Chapter IX, as originally published at the end of the ninth year of the Hegira, after the conquest of Mecca, in order to set aside every obligation or league with the idolators to wage war with them, either within or without the sacred territory, and "they were to be killed, besieged, and laid in wait for _wheresoever found_."[200] In fact it has no such bearing of generally setting aside the treaties, and declaring _uncompromising warfare_, and was not published for the first time on the occasion stated above. The opening verses of the ninth Sura of the Koran, which I have quoted in full together with necessary notes in para. 17 (pp. 22-25), revealed for the first time, were before the conquest of Mecca, when the idolators thereof had broken the truce of Hodeibia. Their violation of the treaty is expressly mentioned in verses 4, 8, 10 and 13, and the same verses also enjoin to respect and fulfil the treaties of those idolators who had not broken theirs. Therefore only those aggressors who had been guilty of a breach of faith, and instigated others to take up arms against the Moslems in the attack of Bani Bakr, on Khozaa, were to be waged war against, besieged, and taken captives after the expiration of four months from the date of the publication of the verses in question. But fortunately Abu Sofian compromised before the commencement of the sacred months, and before the period of the four months had elapsed. The people of Mecca submitted without bloodshed, and hence it is obvious that the injunctions contained in the commencement of the ninth chapter of the Koran were never carried out. They remained as dead letter, and will, I think, so remain perpetually. Almost all European writers, as far as I know, labour under the delusion that at the end of the ninth year Mohammad published the opening verses of the ninth Sura, commonly designated _Sura Barat_. But the fact is that it was published in the eighth year of the Hegira before the commencement of the sacred months, probably in the month of Shaban, while Mohammad marched in Ramzan against Mecca, not with the intention of prosecuting war, for it was to take place after the lapse of Zikad, Zelhaj and Moharram, but of taking Mecca by compromise and preconcerted understanding between himself and Abu Sofian. If it be admitted that the preliminary verses of Sura IX of the Koran were revealed or published for the first time in the last month of the ninth year of the Hegira, then they--the verses--become aimless, without being pregnant of any object in view. They contain injunctions for carrying hostile operations against those who had broken certain treaties, had helped others against the Moslems, and themselves had also attacked them. They proclaimed war against certain tribes, whose people did not regard ties of blood and good faith, and had been the first aggressors against the Moslems. Not many such persons were in the whole of Arabia at and after the time alleged for the promulgation of these verses, _i.e._, at the last month of the ninth and the whole tenth year.

By this time, almost all Arabia had tendered voluntary submission to the authority of Mohammad.

Deputations from each tribe of the Arabs continued to reach Medina during the whole of this period, and were pledged protection and friends.h.i.+p by the founder of the Islamic faith. From Medina the sound of drums and the bray of clarions had now died away. Hereupon we are able to speak with certainty that these verses could not be, and were not, revealed at the end of the ninth year as it has been a.s.serted by several writers, both Mohammadan and European. And for the above reasons the most suitable occasion for the revelation of these verses is the breach of the truce of Hodeibia by the Koreish and their allies during the eighth year of the Hegira which caused the reduction of Mecca by compromise. Several Mohammadan commentators are unanimous in their opinion as to this point. Consequently the verses, ordaining the manifestation of arms against the treaty-breakers and aggressors, as well as putting them to the sword wherever they were to be found, _i.e._, within or without the harem, or the precincts of the Sacred Mosque, were not complied with owing to the compromise by the Koreish.

[Footnote 199: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 211]

[Footnote 200: "Islam and its Founder," by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., p. 179.

London, 1878.]

_The alleged Interception of the Koreis.h.i.+te Caravans._

[Sidenote: 41. The nine alleged interceptions of the Koreish caravans.]

It has been a.s.serted by European biographers of Mohammad that several caravans of the Koreish going to and from Syria were intercepted and waylaid by the Moslems soon after the Hegira. The alleged incursions are as follow:

(1.) Seven months after Mohammad's arrival at Medina, an expedition headed by Hamza surprised a caravan under the conduct of Abu Jahl.

(2.) A month later a party led by Obeida was dispatched in the pursuit of another caravan guided by Abu Sofian.

(3.) After the expiration of another month, a third inroad headed by Sad proceeded to lie in ambush for the Koreish caravan on the way it was expected to pa.s.s.

(4.) Nearly twelve months after the Hegira, a fourth attempt was undertaken to plunder a caravan of the Koreis.h.i.+tes by Mohammad himself at Abwa.

(5.) In the succeeding month Mohammad again marched to Bowat with the sole aim of despoiling a caravan composed of precious freight under the immediate escort of Omeya-bin Khalf.

(6.) After the lapse of two or three months Mohammad set out to Osheira to make aggression on another rich caravan proceeding to Syria led by Abu Sofian.

All these expeditions are said to have been not attended by any success on the part of the Moslems, the vigilance of the caravans in all cases eluding the pursuit made after them.[201]

(7.) In Rajab A.H. 2, a small band composed of some six persons was ordered to march to Nakhla to lie in wait there for the caravan of the Koreish. The party had a scuffle at Nakhla, in which a man of the convoy was killed; while two prisoners and the pilfered goods were taken to Medina. Hereupon Mohammad was much displeased, and told Abdallah-bin Jahsh, "I never commanded thee to fight in the sacred month."

(8.) The caravan of the Koreish, which on its pa.s.sage had safely escaped the chase of the Moslems, as already described in No. 6, was on its way back to Mecca. Mohammad antic.i.p.ated their return, and prepared an attack, which terminated in the famous battle of Badr.

(9.) All these predatory inroads to intercept the caravans of Mecca are said to have happened during the first and the second year of the Hegira, or before the battle of Badr. It remains for me now to mention the only remaining instance of Moslem's foray upon the Koreis.h.i.+te caravan, which took place in the sixth year A.H. at _Al-Is_. The attack was completely successful.

[Sidenote: 42. The interceptions were impossible under the circ.u.mstances in which Mohammad was placed.]

I have already explained (from paras. 21-24) that these early expeditions, numbered 1 to 8, are not corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions, and I have also given the probable nature of those marked 4, 5 and 6.

It was impossible for Mohammad and his adherents, situated as they were, to make any hostile demonstrations or undertake a pillaging enterprise.

The inhabitants of Medina, where the Prophet with his followers had sought a safe asylum, and at whose invitation he had entered their city, had solemnly bound themselves on sacred oaths to defend Mohammad, so long as he was not himself the aggressor, from his enemies as they would their wives and their children.[202] Mohammad, on his own part, had entered into a holy compact with them not to plunder or commit depredations.[203]

Upon these considerations it was impossible that the people of Medina would have permitted or overlooked the irruptions so often committed by Mohammad upon the caravans of the Koreish: much less would they have joined with their Prophet, had he or any of his colleagues ventured to do so. But granting that the Medinites allowed Mohammad to manifest enmity towards the Koreish by a display of arms, or that no restraint was put by them upon him when he encroached upon the territories of the neighbouring tribes, and that the caravans were molested without any grounds of justice, was it possible, I ask, for the people of Medina to avoid the troubles they would be necessarily involved in by the refuge they had given to their Prophet? They had long suffered from internal feuds, and the sanguinary conflict of Boas, a few years ago, which had paralyzed their country, and humiliated its citizens, was but too fresh in their memory yet.

[Sidenote: 43. The interceptions, if occurred, were justified by way of reprisals.]

Let us suppose that these alleged interceptions of the Meccan caravans by the Moslems did actually take place, as related by the biographers of Mohammad, were they not all justified by the International Code of the Arabs, or the ancient usage and military law of nations. It has been proved beyond all dispute that the Meccans were the first aggressors in persecuting the Moslems, and expelling them from their dear homes at Mecca with the unbearable annoyance, they caused the converts of the new faith in the peaceful prosecution of their religion; taking all these causes of offence into consideration, as well as the International law and the law of Nature, the Moslems might be said to have law and justice both on their sides in waging war with their hara.s.sers for the restoration of their property and homes, and even in retaliating and making reprisals until they attained the object long sought by them.

When the Meccans, on their own part, had first trumpeted hostility against the Moslems, the right of self-defence, as well as military necessity, compelled the latter to destroy their property, and obstruct the ways and channels of communication by which their traffic was prospering; for, "from the moment one State is at war with another, it has, on general principles, a right to seize on all the enemy's property of whatsoever kind and wheresoever found, and to appropriate the property thus taken to its own use, or to that of the captors."[204]

[Footnote 201: I have closely followed Sir W. Muir in these expeditions; _vide_ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 64-69.]

[Footnote 202: "The people of Medina were pledged only to defend the Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggressive steps against the Coreish." Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64.]

[Footnote 203: Bokharee relates from Obada-bin Samat with the usual chain of narrators, that "I am one of the _Nakeebs_ who pledged to the Prophet. We pledged that we will not join any other G.o.d with the G.o.d, and will not commit theft, and will not commit fornication, and will not commit murder, and will not plunder." Saheeh of Bokharee, Book of Campaigns, chapter on Deputations from Ansars.]

[Footnote 204: Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 419, Boston, 1855; Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings; Political science, Vol. II, p.

250, Philadelphia, 1881.]

_The alleged a.s.sa.s.sinations._

[Sidenote: 44. Instances of alleged a.s.sa.s.sinations cited.]

There were certain executions of culprits who had perpetrated the crime of high treason against the Moslem Commonwealth. These executions, and certain other cases of murders not grounded on any credible evidences, are narrated by European biographers of Mohammad as a.s.sa.s.sinations committed through the countenance and connivance which he lent them.

They were about five or six in number, and they are styled a.s.sa.s.sinations from there being no trials of the prisoners by a judge and a jury, nor by any systematic court-martial. The punishment of death was inflicted upon the persons condemned, either from private enmity or for the unpardonable offence of high treason against the State, but it cannot be said, as I will hereafter show, that these so-called cases of a.s.sa.s.sinations had received the high sanction of Mohammad, or they were brought about at his direct instigation and a.s.sent for their commission.

The alleged instances are as follows:--

1. Asma-bint Marwan.

2. Abu Afak.

3. Kab-ibn Ashraf.

4. Sofian-ibn Khalid.

5. Abu Rafe.

6. Oseir-ibu Zarim.

7. The attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Abu Sofian.

[Sidenote: 45. Mr. Poole quoted.]

Before reviewing the truth and falsity of evidence in each of these cases, and showing how far the Prophet was privy to them, I will avail myself of a quotation from Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, who has remarked with his usual deep discernment and accurate judgment, in his Introduction to Mr. E.W. Lane's Selections from the Koran:

"The execution of the half-dozen marked Jews is generally called a.s.sa.s.sination, because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals. The reason is almost too obvious to need explanation. There were no police or law-courts, or even courts-martial, at Medina; some one of the followers of Mohammad must therefore be the executer of the sentence of death, and it was better it should be done quietly, as the executing of a man openly before his clan would have caused a brawl and more bloodshed and retaliation, till the whole city had become mixed up in the quarrel. If secret a.s.sa.s.sination is the word for such deeds, secret a.s.sa.s.sination was a necessary part of the internal government of Medina. The men must be killed, and best in that way. In saying this I a.s.sume that Mohammad was cognisant of the deed, and that it was not merely a case of private vengeance; but in several instances the evidence that traces these executions to Mohammad's order is either entirely wanting or is too doubtful to claim our credence."[205]

1.--_Asma-bint Marwan._

[Sidenote: 46. Asma-bint Marwan.]