The Alleged Cruelties in Executing the Prisoners of War and Others
57. Treatment of the prisoners of war.
Some of the war prisoners had received the condign punishment of execution for their crimes in conformity with the laws of war. It has been alleged by some European biographers of Mohammad that their (the war prisoners’) execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no crime except their scepticism and political antagonism.233
The persons executed were as follows:—
1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.
2. Okba.
3. Abul Ozza.
4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.
The law of nations regarding the prisoners of war.
Before reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note, by way of introductory remarks, that, under the international or military law, a prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, and who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the fields or in the hospitals, by individual surrender or capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except religious persons, officers of medical staff, hospital nurses and servants, all disabled men or officers on the field, or elsewhere, if captured, all enemies who have thrown away their arms and asked for quarters, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. He is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the international infliction of any suffering or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. But a prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor’s army or people before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.
1.—Nadhr-bin-Harith.
59. The execution of Nadhr Ibn Harith.
Nadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle of Badr for his crime of severely tormenting the Moslems at Mecca. Musáb had distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of Mohammad,234 so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of the Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it is made out by Sir W. Muir.235 On the other hand, his execution is denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abú Naeem, who say, that Nazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A.H. 8, six years after that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al Harith’s name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr’s execution is not a fact. It is also related by the narrators, who assert Nazr’s execution at Badr, that his daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several verses, the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that his eyes shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his execution had he heard these verses before. The following are two of the verses which Mohammad heard:
“Má kán Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mámannal
fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo.”
Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free,
Anger how high for pardon has no plea.
But Zobier-bin-Bakár says, he heard some learned men who objected to these verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think that the whole story of Nazr’s execution is a spurious one.
2.—Okba-bin-Mueit.
60. The execution of Okba.
Another prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the battle of Badr for a crime similar to that of Nazr. It is related that while he was going to be executed, he asked who would take care of his little girl. Mohammad replied, “Hell-fire!” This is altogether an apocryphal story, and owes its origin to the relation of Okba to the tribe of Banunnar, or the “children of fire.” Wackidi does not give his authorities for the story, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before him, which is cut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the scene of occurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on the authority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at the scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides the circumstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very suspicious, and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by Zohak to be entrusted with the administration of a certain district. Ommara, the son of Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the murderers of Osman, the third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara, on the authority of Ibn Masood, that “when thy father was being executed, he had asked the Prophet, who will take care of his little girl.” The Prophet replied, “Hell-fire.” Therefore, I am satisfied for thee with what the Prophet had chosen for thy father.236
There is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba’s execution as well as about the person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who killed him, and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that Okba was executed at Taimee,237 and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi,238 that he was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was beheaded. I have no belief in Okba’s execution at all.
61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war.
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was one of the persecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had besought Mohammad to release him by way of compassion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted him his life and his liberty.239 This directly points to the universal generosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story of Okba’s execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct. On these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.
3.—Abul Ozza.
62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed.
Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his freedom without any ransom, on the condition that he would never again bear up arms in any war against the Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the Arabs to make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of Mecca. He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly executed.240 This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of war (vide ante, para. 58).
4.—Moavia Ibn Mughira.
The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira.
Moavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted three days’ truce, on the condition that if he were found in Medina after the appointed time, he was to be executed. The period had passed, and he was still lurking at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid and Ammar on their return from Hamra-al-Assad, after five or six days. It is apparent that Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina might be either as a spy241 or scout secretly seeking information.
64. Justification of Mughira’s execution.
Sir W. Muir, who calls him Othmân Ibn Mughîra, makes out a favourable case in his behalf. He writes: He “incautiously lingered at Medîna till the last day of his term of grace, when he set out for Mecca.”242 But Ibn Hisham distinctly writes that he “stayed at Medina after the three days had passed and was found lurking there.” Even according to Wackidi he was caught on the fourth day. But this is far from truth, for, according to his own account, Mohammad was absent after the battle of Ohad for five days at Hamra-al-Assad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could have endeavoured to avoid the returning Moslem force from Hamra-al-Assad, and lose his way, as Sir W. Muir gives it out, only on the fourth day?
One of the enemies, who had invaded Medina and attacked Mohammad, was, after being captured, allowed three days’ truce on explicit conditions that he was to be killed there if found after three days, and was also provided with a camel and provisions for the way, was discovered lurking thereabout on the fifth or sixth day, in consequence of which he lost his life. This is called by Sir W. Muir as being “perished by a too great confidence in the generosity of his enemy,”243—i.e., Mohammad.
The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr.
63. The wrong version of Sir W. Muir.
Sir W. Muir writes: “It would even seem to have been contemplated at the close of the battle to kill all the prisoners. Mahomet is represented by tradition as himself directing this course.” In a foot-note he says, “Thus Mahomet said: ‘Tell not Saîd of his brother’s death’” (Mábad, a prisoner, see above, page 110 note); “but kill ye every man his prisoner.”—(Wâckidi, 100.) Again: “Take not any man his brother prisoner, but rather kill him” (page 101). “I would not, however, lay too much stress on these traditions. I am inclined rather to view them as called into existence by the passages quoted below from the Coran.”244 The contemplated execution of the prisoners is not borne out by the traditions which Sir W. Muir himself looks upon as fabricated ones. The true translation of the passages in Wackidi referred to above is as follows:—
First passage.—“Tell not Said of his brother’s killing (i.e., being killed), so he will kill every prisoner in your hands.”—(Wackidi, page 100.) This obviously means, that do not let Saeed know that his brother Wáhid, who was made prisoner and killed by Omar or Abu Barda, was killed. If you do so, he will, being enraged, kill every prisoner now in your hands. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir translates the sentence to mean “kill ye every man his prisoner!”
Second passage.—“No body must take his brother’s prisoner, so that he may be killed,” meaning none of you should seize other person’s prisoner. If you do so, perhaps, the other person may kill the prisoner in the contest. Sir W. Muir has quite misunderstood the sentence.
66. Mohammad never blamed in the Koran for relieving prisoners.
There are some fictitious traditions on the subject that Mohammad was reprimanded in the Koran (Sura, viii, 68, 69) for releasing the prisoners of Badr, meaning that he ought to have executed them. The verse is translated thus:—
“It is not for a Prophet to take prisoners until (hatta) he hath slaughtered in the land. Ye wish to have the goods of this world, but God wishes for the next, for God is Mighty, Wise! Were it not for a book from God that had gone before, there would have touched you, for which ye took, a mighty punishment.”
The verse 68, if it is rightly translated, will mean that prisoners should not be executed. The word ‘hatta’ means ‘until,’ and is also used as a causative word. I prefer the latter, and translate—
“It is not for any Prophet that prisoners may be brought to him in order that he may make slaughter in the land,” which means, that it is not proper for a Prophet to take prisoners of war in order to slaughter them. This meaning is in consonance with the other passage in the Koran (xlvii, 4), which restricts the treatment of the prisoners of war to either free dismissal or ransom.
In the first place, the verse rather reprimanded those who wished to kill the prisoners; and in the second, those who desired to exact ransom for their liberty. They ought to have set them at liberty without any pecuniary advantage, if they knew any good in their deserving free liberty.
Kind Treatment of the Prisoners of War by Mohammad.
67. The Koran enjoins, the prisoners of war to be either freely liberated or ransomed, but neither executed nor enslaved.
The prisoners of war were always treated kindly by Mohammad, and the ancient practice of killing and enslaving them was much discouraged and abolished by the Koran.
“And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds!”
“Then either a free grant (of liberty) or a ransom until the war shall have laid down its burdens.”—Sura, xlvii, 4 and 5.
Regarding the prisoners of Badr Sir W. Muir writes: “In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medina, and such of the refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration.” “Blessing be on the men of Medina!” said these prisoners in latter days. “They made us ride, while they themselves walked; they gave us wheatened bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.” It is not surprising that when, some time after, their friends came to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been thus received declared themselves adherents of Islam: and to such the Prophet granted a liberty without the usual payment.245
The prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released without paying any ransom.246
The Bani Hawazin were made prisoners of war at Honain, fought in the eighth year of the Hegira, but were all set free without any exaction of ransom from them. Mohammad first released his prisoners, and the men of Mecca and Medina cheerfully followed his example.247 The prisoners were six thousand in number.248
A party of eighty, as related by Moslim in his Saheeh, or of forty or fifty Koreish, as narrated by Ibn Hisham (p. 745), went round about Mohammad’s camp while stationed at Hodeibia in A.H. 6, seeking to cut off any stray followers, and having attacked the camp itself with stones and arrows, they were caught and taken prisoners to Mohammad, who, with his usual generosity, pardoned and released them.
Khalid-Ibn-Waleed, in the year of his victory, A.H. 11, when he was sent to call the Bani Jazima to embrace Islam, had made them prisoners and ordered their execution. Some of the better-informed of the Moslems of the injunctions of the Koran, of releasing prisoners either freely or by exacting ransom, interposed and accused him of committing an act of the Time of Ignorance. Mohammad, much displeased, grieved at the intelligence, and said twice, ‘O God! I am innocent of what Khalid hath done.’249
The Execution of the Bani Koreiza.
68. High treason of the Bani Koreiza against Medina, and their execution.
The Bani Koreiza, a Jewish tribe living in the vicinity of Mecca had entered into an alliance with the Moslem Commonwealth to defend the city of Medina from the attack of the aggressors. While Medina was besieged by the ten thousand Koreish and other Bedouin tribes in A.H. 6, they (the Koreiza), instead of co-operating with the Moslems, defected from their allegiance and entered into negotiations with the besieging foe. After the cessation of the siege, they were besieged in their turn, and a fearful example was made of them, not by Mohammad, but by an arbiter chosen and appointed by themselves. The execution of some of them was not on account of their being prisoners of war; they were war-traitors and rebels, and deserved death according to the international law. Their crime was high treason against Medina while it was blockaded. There had no actual fighting taken place between the Bani Koreiza and the Moslems, after the former had thrown off their allegiance to the latter and had aided and abetted the enemies of the realm. They were besieged by the Moslems to punish them for their high treason, and consequently they were not prisoners of war. Even such prisoners of war suffer for high treason.
“Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages of war, has never prevented the legitimate Government from trying the leaders of the rebellion, or chief rebels for high treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are included in a general amnesty.”250
69. The whole of the Bani Koreiza was never executed.
The whole tribe of the Bani Koreiza was not executed, nor all the male prisoners were put to the sword.251 The number slain was comparatively very small. That they were not executed at the commands of Mohammad, nor all of them were killed, nor a divine sanction was alleged for it, is shown by the following verse of the Koran:
“And he caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided the confederates to come down of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew; others ye took prisoners.”—Sura, xxxiii, 26.
The slaying and taking of prisoners is attributed to them to whom the verse is addressed as their own act.
70. The women and children of the Bani Koreiza were not sold.
The rest of the Bani Koreiza,—male adults, women, and children,—were either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms.252 But there is no authority for this story. Abul Mo’tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of Mohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:—
“Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into two halves. One-half he sent with Sád bin Obádd to Syria, and the other half with Ans bin Quízí to the land of Ghatafán, and ordered that they may be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good horses.”253
71. The exaggerated number of the persons executed.
The number of male adults executed has been much exaggerated, though it is immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international law of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of the number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta on the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: “Passing now to the men executed,” he says, “one can at once see how it has been exaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even up to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from 700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would seem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike materials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuirasses, 500 bucklers, 1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the traditions probably exaggerated these numbers.254 But taking them as they stand, and remembering that such arms are always kept greatly in excess of the number of fighting men, I am led to the conclusion that the warriors could not have been more than 200 or 300. The mistake probably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners who fell into the hands of the Moslems with those executed.”255
Even 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put up for the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris,256 which would have been insufficient for such a large number.