A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 24

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

[Footnote 275: History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne.

By William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.]

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

[Footnote 277: _Ibid_, p. 149.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 281: The tradition that Mohammad had gone to Bani Nazeer asking their aid in defraying a certain price of blood, and they attempted upon his life (Muir, III, 208-209) as related by Ibn Is-hak (in Ibn Hisham, page 652) is a _Mursal_ (_vide_ Zoorkanee, Part II, page 95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic Age.]

[Footnote 282: Ibn Ockba, an earliest biographer of Mohammad, died 140, says,--the cause of the expedition against the Bani Nazeer was this: that they had instigated the Koreish to fight against Mohammad, and had reconnoitred the weak points of Medina. Ibn Mardaveih Abd-bin-Hameed, and Abdu Razzak have related traditions to the effect that, after the event of Badr, the Koreish had written to the Jews of Medina to make war upon Mohammad, and the Bani Nazeer had resolved to break the compact.

_Vide_ Zoorkanee, Part II, pp, 96-97.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 286: The verses of the Koran are given below:

10. "O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees, then make trial of them. G.o.d best knoweth their faith; but if ye have also ascertained their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they are not lawful for them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for these women.

But give them back what they have spent. No crime shall it be in you to marry them, provided you give them their dowers. Do not retain a right in the infidel women, and demand back what you have spent and let them demand back what they have spent. This is the ordinance of G.o.d which He ordaineth among you: and G.o.d is Knowing, Wise."

11. "And if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels from whom you afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have fled away, the like of what they shall have spent; and fear G.o.d in whom ye believe."--Sura LX.]

[Footnote 287: Sura IV, 25. Rodwell's translation.

How Mohammad discouraged divorce and took several steps in the Koran to prohibit the facility of divorce prevailing in the Arab society has been fully discussed by me in my book "The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms under Moslem Rule," pp. 129-143, Bombay Education Society Press, 1883.]

[Footnote 288: "Some of the baser sort from amongst the Coreish, hearing of her departure, went in pursuit, determined to bring her back. The first that appeared was Habbar, who struck the camel with his spear, and so affrighted Zeinab as to cause her a miscarriage."--Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 7.]

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

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

Almost all the common Mohammadan and European writers think that a religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and prescribed by the Koran for the purpose of proselytizing or exacting tribute. But I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Koran, or taught, or preached by Mohammad. His mission was not to wage wars, or to make converts at the point of the sword, or to exact tribute or exterminate those who did not believe his religion. His sole mission was to enlighten the Arabs to the true wors.h.i.+p of the one G.o.d, to recommend virtue and denounce vice, which he truly fulfilled. That he and his followers were persecuted, that they were expelled from their houses and were invaded upon and warred against; that to repel incursions and to gain the liberty of conscience and the security of his followers' lives and the freedom of their religion, he and they waged defensive wars, encountered superior numbers, made defensive treaties, securing the main object of the war, _i.e._, the freedom of their living unmolested at Mecca and Medina, and of having a free intercourse to the Sacred Mosque, and a free exercise of their religion: all these are questions quite separate and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the subject in hand, _i.e._, the popular _Jihad_, or the crusade for the purpose of proselytizing, exacting tribute, and exterminating the idolaters, said to be one of the tenets of Islam. All the defensive wars, and the verses of the Koran relating to the same, were strictly temporary and transitory in their nature. They cannot be made an example of, or be construed into a tenet or injunction for aggressive wars, nor were they intended so to be. Even they cannot be an example or instruction for a defensive war to be waged by the Mohammadan community or commonwealth, because all the circ.u.mstances under which Mohammad waged his defensive wars were local and temporary. But almost all European writers do not understand that the Koran does not teach a war of aggression, but had only, under the adverse circ.u.mstances, to enjoin a war of defence, clearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly prohibiting offensive measures.

[Sidenote 90. The Common Law and Jihad.]

All the fighting injunctions in the Koran are, in the first place, only in self-defence, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. In the second place, it is to be particularly noted that they were transitory in their nature, and are not to be considered positive injunctions for future observance or religious precepts for coming generations.[289] They were only temporary measures to meet the emergency of the aggressive circ.u.mstances. The Mohammadan Common Law is wrong on this point, where it allows unbelievers to be attacked without provocation. But this it places under the category of a non-positive injunction. A positive injunction is that which is inc.u.mbent on every believer. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or offensively, is not inc.u.mbent on every believer. The Hedaya has:--"The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one _party_ or _tribe_ of _Mussulmans_; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest."[290]

[Sidenote 91. Jihad when positive.]

The Mohammadan Common Law makes the fighting only a positive injunction "where there is a _general summons_, (that is, where the infidels invade a _Mussulman_ territory, and the _Imam_ for the time being issues a general proclamation, requiring all persons to stand forth to fight,) for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants,"[291]--this is sanctioned by the Law of Nations and the Law of Nature.

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

The Hedaya, or a Commentary of the Mohammadan Common Law by Nuraddin Ali of Murghinan (died in 593, A.H.) has:--

"The destruction of the sword[292] is incurred by the infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from the various pa.s.sages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect."[293]

This a.s.sertion is not borne out by the sacred injunction of the Koran, and, on the contrary, is in direct contradiction to the same. There are several pa.s.sages in the Koran already quoted in pages 16-25, which expressly forbid the taking of offensive measures, and enjoin only defensive wars. There are some other pa.s.sages which are not so expressive as the several others referred to above, or in other words, are not conditional. But the law of interpretation, the general scope and tenor of the Koran, and the context of the verses and parallel pa.s.sages, all show that those few verses which are not conditional should be construed as conditional in conformity with other pa.s.sages more clear, expressive, and conditional, and with the general laws of scriptural interpretation. Now, the author of the Hedaya and other writers on the Common Law quote only those few pa.s.sages from the Koran which are absolute or unconditional, and shut their eyes against those many conditional verses, and general scope and tenor of the Koran.

Limited, or _Conditional_. |General, or _Absolute_.

---------------------------------+--------------------------------------- | Sura XXII, 39-42. |Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.) Sura II, 186-189. |Sura IX, 124.

" " 212. | " " 214. |The context, parallel pa.s.sages Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. |and their history, show them " " 91, 92, 93. |to be limited and conditional, Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. |in conformity with the general " " 73, 74. |scope of the Koran.

Sura IX, 1-15. | " " 29, 36. | | _Quoted in pages_ 16-25, 35. | |

[Sidenote: 93. Rule of interpretation.]

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 95. Kifaya quoted.]

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

[Sidenote: 96. Further quotation.]

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

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

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

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

(VIII. 63)."

"Then he enjoined to fight aggressively during a certain period. G.o.d said, 'And when the sacred months are pa.s.sed, kill them who join other G.o.ds with G.o.d, wherever ye find them, and seize them' (IX. 5)."

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

[Sidenote: 97. The Kifaya refuted.]

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