The Popular Jihád or Crusade; According to the Mohammadan Common Law

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 worship of the one God, 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 circumstances 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 circumstances, to enjoin a war of defence, clearly setting forth the grounds in its justification and strictly prohibiting offensive measures.

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 circumstances. 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 incumbent on every believer. But attacking unbelievers without any provocation, or offensively, is not incumbent 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

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 Imâm 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.

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 passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect.”293

This assertion 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 passages 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 passages 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 passages, all show that those few verses which are not conditional should be construed as conditional in conformity with other passages 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 passages 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, 186-189. " ″ 212. " ″ 214. Sura IV, 76, 77, 78, 86. " ″ 91, 92, 93. Sura VIII, 39-41, 58-66. " ″ 73, 74. Sura IX, 1-15. " ″ 29, 36. Quoted in pages 16-25, 35.		Sura II, 245, (read together with 247.) Sura IX, 124. The context, parallel passages and their history, show them to be limited and conditional, in conformity with the general scope of the Koran.

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 passage 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 passage is not to be explained in contradiction to many others restricted, conditional, and limited consistently with them, and with proper reservations.

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.

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 incumbent, though they do not attack first.” The author of the Hedaya has mentioned this aggressive measure specially, because apparently the words of God, “if they attack you then slay them,”294 indicate that the fighting against the unbelievers is only incumbent when they fight first, but, however, such is not the case. It is incumbent to fight with them, though they be not the aggressors.295

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 gods with God. God said, ‘wherefore dost thou forgive with kindly forgiveness, and withdraw from those who join other gods 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 God 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. God said, ‘And when the sacred months are passed, kill them who join other gods with God, wherever ye find them, and seize them’ (IX. 5).”

“After this He enjoined for fighting absolutely, at every time and in every place. God said, ‘And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution’ (II. 189; VII. 40).”296

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:

First Period	Forgiveness and withdrawal	Sura XV, 85. VI, 106
Second Period	Summoning	Sura XVI, 126.
Third Period	Fighting in self-defence	Sura XXII, 40. II, 187. VIII, 63.
Fourth Period	Fighting aggressively during certain times	Sura IX, 5.
Fifth Period	Aggressive fighting absolutely.	Sura II, 189. VIII, 40.

He is wrong in history, chronology as well as in understanding the general scope of the Koran and the tenor of the Suras. He does not regard even the context of the verses quoted.

The verses containing injunctions for turning aside, shunning, forgiving, passing over, and withdrawing are found even in the later period of the Medinite Suras.—(Vide Sura II, 103; V, 16, 46; Sura IV, 66, 83; and VII, 198.) They have nothing to do either with war or peace.

The summoning of people to the faith of God was the chief duty of the Prophetical office, and was not confined to any special period, and was alike during times of war and peace. Even during the actual warfare it was incumbent on the Prophet to give quarters to the enemy, if he desired, to listen to his preachings.—(Vide Sura IX, 6.)

98. S. IX, v. 5, discussed.

The fifth verse of the ninth Sura is by no means an injunction to attack first or wage an aggressive war. This verse is one of the several published at Medina after the Meccans had violated the treaty of Hodeibia and attacked the Bani Khozaa, who were in alliance with Mohammad. The Meccans were given four months’ time to submit, in default of which they were to be attacked for their violation of the treaty and for their attacking the Bani Khozaa. They submitted beforehand, and Mecca was conquered by compromise. The verses referred to above (Sura IX, 1-15, &c.) were not acted upon. So there was no injunction to wage an aggressive war. This subject has been discussed at pages 51-55 of this work, and the reader is referred to them for fuller information.

99. S. II, v. 189, discussed.

The 189th verse of the second Sura is not at all an absolute injunction to wage a war of aggression. The verses 186, 187, 188 and 189, if read together, will show that the injunction for fighting is only in defence. The verses are:—

186. And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first; verily God loveth not the unjust.

187. And kill them wherever ye shall find them; and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for (fitnah) persecution is worse than slaughter; yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque until they attack you therein, but if they attack you then slay them: such is the recompense of the infidels!

188. But if they desist, then verily God is Gracious, Merciful—

189. And do battle, against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.

100. S. II, 189, VIII, 40, are defensive.

Besides, this verse as well as the fortieth verse of Sura VIII have indications in themselves of their relating to a defensive war. As the torture, aggression, in short, the persecutions suffered by the Moslems from the Koreish, are very clearly indicated by the word fitnah in these two verses, the object of fighting or counterfighting by the Moslems is plainly set forth, which is to suppress the persecutions.

They have clear reference to the persecution, to stop or remove which they enjoined fighting, and this was fighting in self-defence obviously.

They also show that the Meccans had not desisted from persecuting and attacking the Moslems, and therefore a provision was made that if they discontinue their incursions, there will be no more hostility. This is quite sufficient to show that these verses relate to the defensive wars of Mohammad.

101. All injunctions local and for the time being.

Lastly, supposing the Koran permitted waging aggressive wars against the Meccans, who were the first aggressors, this does not corroborate the theory or principle of the Common Law of making lawful aggressive wars in future on the authority of these verses, as all of them in the Koran on the subject of war relate only to Pagan Arabs, who had long persevered in their hostility to the early Moslems or to the Jews, who, being in league with the Moslems, went over to their enemies, and aided them against the Moslems. These verses are not binding on other persons, who are not under the same circumstance as the Moslems were under, at Medina. [See para. 90.]

102. Ainee quoted and refuted.

Another commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee 297 (who died in 855) follows Kifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on the war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in his work. They are as follows:—

“...Then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,—for no oaths are binding on them—that they may desist.”—(Sura IX, 12.)

“War is prescribed to you, but from this ye are averse.”—(Sura II, 212.)

“March ye forth, the light and heavy, and contend with your substance and your persons on the Way of God.”—(Sura IX, 41.)

The first verse when it is complete runs thus:—“But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,—for no oaths are binding on them—that they may desist;” and fully shows by its wording that it relates to the war of defence, as the breaking of alliances, and reviling of the Moslem religion were the grounds of making war with the object in view that the aggressors may desist. This verse is one of those in the beginning of the ninth Sura, which have already been discussed.—(Vide pages 51-55.)

The second verse (II, 212) does not allow a war of aggression, as the next verse (II, 214) expressly mentions the attacks made by the aggressors on the Moslems. It has been quoted at full length in page 18.

The third verse (IX, 41) was published on the occasion of the expedition of Tábuk, which was certainly a defensive measure, and has been discussed in pages 51 to 55.

103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted.

Sarakhsee generally entitled Shums-ul-a-imma (the Sun of the Leaders), who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his Radd-ul-Muhtár,298 makes several stages in publishing the injunctions for fighting. He writes:—

“Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees. First the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, ‘Profess publicly then what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who join gods with God’ (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly; ‘Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest warning’ (XVI, 126). Then they were allowed to fight, ‘A sanction is given to those who are fought....’ (XXII, 40). Then they were allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers) attacked them, ‘If they attack you, then kill them’ (II, 187). After this they were enjoined to fight on the condition of passing over the sacred months, ‘And when the sacred months are passed, then kill the polytheists’ (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to fight absolutely, ‘And fight for the cause of God....’ (II, 186, 245). And thus the matter was settled.”

There was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the Koran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not allowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse of the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting against those only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse, 245th, of the same Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is explained by the verse 245th), which refers to the defensive measures. This verse is quoted in page 19 of this work.

104. Ibn Hajar quoted and refuted.

Shahábudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:—

“Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined only to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the unbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, God gave sanction to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said, ‘And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you’ (II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first revealed verse sanctioning it was, ‘A sanction is given to those who are fought, because they have suffered outrages’ (XXII, 40): that is a sanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word ‘fought.’ Then the war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months, ‘When the sacred months are over....’ (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth year of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was enjoined absolutely by the words of God; ‘March ye forth, the light and the heavy’ (IX, 41); and ‘attack those who join gods with God in all’ (IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the preceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both bear on the same subject, i.e., of the sword.”299

105. Ibn Hajar refuted.

I have already explained the several verses quoted by the author in preceding paras., but have only to pass remarks on the only verse, i.e. (IX, 36), which the authors cited have not dared to mention, because it goes contrary to their assertion. Perhaps it is a slip in the rapidity of Ibn Hajar remarks, for which he may be excused. But I will not hesitate in saying that generally the Mohammadan legists, while quoting the Koran in support of their theories, quote some dislocated portion from a verse without any heed to its context, and thus cause a great and irreparable mischief by misleading others, especially the European writers, as it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Lane quoted in para. 113 of this work.

The verse referred to by the author mentioned in the last para., Ibn Hajar Makki, is as follows: “Attack those who join gods with God in all, as they attack you in all.”—(IX, 36.) This speaks evidently of the defensive war, and has not the slightest or faintest idea of a war of aggression on the part of the Moslems. This verse refers to the expedition of Tábuk.

106. Halabi quoted.

Nooruddeen Ali al Halabi (died 1044 A.H.), the author of Insan-ul-Oyoon, a biography of the Prophet, writes:—

“It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning and summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe persecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on his followers, because God had enjoined him to warn and to have patience to bear the injuries by withholding from them, in accordance with His words, ‘Withdraw from them’ (V, 46); and ‘endure them with patience’ (XVI, 128; XVIII, 27; XXXI, 16; LII, 48; and LXXIII, 10). He also used to promise them victory. His companions at Mecca used to come to him beaten and injured, and he used to tell them, ‘Endure with patience, I am not commanded to fight,’ because they were but a small party at Mecca. After this, when he was settled at Medina after the Hegira and his followers became numerous who preferred him to their fathers, children, and wives, and the unbelievers persisted in their idolatry, charging him with falsehoods, then God permitted his followers to fight, but against those only who used to fight against them (the Moslems), and were aggressors, as he said, ‘If they fight you, then kill them’ (II, 187). This was in the year of Safar A.H. 2.... Then the whole Arab host marched against the Moslems to fight against them from every direction. The Moslems passed whole nights in arms, and during the day they were in the same state, and longed to pass peaceful nights without fear from anybody except from God. Then it was revealed, ‘God hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things that are right, that he will cause them to succeed others in the land, as he gave succession to those who were before them, and that He will establish for them that religion which they delight in, and after their fears He will give them security in exchange’ (S. XXIV, 54). After this to attack first was allowed against those who had not fought, but in other than the sacred months, viz., Rajab, Zulkada, Zulhijja, and Mohuram, according to the precept, ‘And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join gods with God...’ (IX, 5). Then the order became incumbent after the victory of Mecca, in the next year, to fight absolutely without any restriction, without any regard to any condition and time, by the words of God, ‘Attack those who join gods with God in all’ at any time (IX, 36). So it is known that the fighting was forbidden before the Hegira up to the month of Safar in its second year, as the Prophet was in this period ordered to preach and warn without any fighting, which was forbidden in seventy and odd verses. Then it was permitted to fight against only those who fought against them. Then it was allowed to fight against those who fought aggressively in other than the sacred months. After this it was enjoined absolutely to wage war against them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether during the sacred months, or others of the year.”300

107. Halabi refuted.

Neither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-sixth of the same, allowed war of aggression. Both of them were published on the occasions of defensive wars, and the party against whom they were directed were the aggressors. All the verses quoted by Halabi, bearing on the subject, have been discussed and explained in the foregoing pages, from 92 to 106.

108. Ainee again quoted and refuted.

Ainee, the author of the commentary on the Hedaya, called Binayah, in justifying the war of aggression against the unbelievers, quotes two verses from the Koran,301 and two traditions from the Prophet,302 and says,—“If it be objected that these absolute injunctions are restricted by the word of God, ‘if they attack you, then kill them’ (II, 187), which shows that the fighting is only incumbent when the unbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it was held by Souri, the reply is that the verse was abrogated by another, ‘So fight against them until there be no more persecution’ (II, 189), and ‘fight against those who do not believe in God.’ (IX, 29).”303 But he is wrong in asserting that the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There is no authority for such a gratuitous assumption. And besides, both these verses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been already explained in paras. 96-99.

109. Continuation of the above.

The verse 189 shows by its very wording the existence of fitnah or persecution, torture, and fighting on the part of the aggressors. By suppressing the Meccans’ persecution, the Moslems had to regain their civil and religious liberty, from which they were so unjustly deprived. And this war of the Moslems to repel the force of their aggressors was the war of defence and protection enjoined in the verse. The 29th verse of the ninth Sura appertains to the expedition of Tábuk if not to that of Khyber. These expeditions were of a defensive character. Vide pages 37 and 41.

110. Traditions quoted and refuted.

The jurists further quote a tradition from the compilation of Abú Daood that the Prophet had said, “The Jihád will last up to the day of the Resurrection:” But in the first place, Jihád does not literally and classically mean warfare or fighting in a war. It means, as used by the classical poets as well as by the Koran, to do one’s utmost; to labour; to toil; to exert one’s-self or his power, efforts, endeavours, or ability; to employ one’s-self vigorously, diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly, or with energy; to be diligent or studious, to take pains or extraordinary pains. Vide Appendix A.

In the second place, Yezid bin Abi Shaiba, a link in the chain of the tradition, is a Mujhool,304 i.e., his biography is not known, therefore his tradition can have no authority.

There is also another tradition in Bokháree to the effect that the Prophet had said, “I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess that there is no god but the God.” This tradition goes quite contrary to the verses of the Koran which enjoin to fight in defence,—that is, until the persecution or civil discord was removed.—(Vide Sura II, 189; VIII, 40.) Thus it appears that either the whole tradition is a spurious one, or some of the narrators were wrong in interpreting the words of the Prophet.

111. Early Moslem legists quoted against Jihád.

That the Koran did not allow war of aggression either when it was revealed, or in future as the early jurisconsults did infer from it, will be further shown from the opinions of the early Moslems; legists of the first and second century of the Hegira, like Ibn (son of) Omar the second khalif, Sotian Souri, Ibn Shobormah, Atá and Amar-bin-Dinar. All these early legists held that the fighting was not religiously incumbent (wájib), and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those were to be fought against who attacked the Moslems.305

Biographical sketches of the legists.

I will give here short biographical sketches of the legists named above—

(1.) “Abû Abd-ur-Rahman Abdullah ibn Omar ibn-al Khattab was one of the most eminent among the companions of Muhammad by his piety, his generosity, his contempt of the world, his learning and his virtues. Though entitled by birth to aspire to the highest places in the empire, he never hearkened to the dictates of ambition; possessing a vast influence over the Moslims by his rank, his instruction, and his holy life, he neither employed nor abused it in favour of any party, and during the civil wars which raged among the followers of Islamism, he remained neutral, solely occupied with the duties of religion. For a period of thirty years persons came from all parts to consult him and learn from him the Traditions.... He died at Mekka A.H. 73 (A.D. 692-3) aged 84 years....”—[Tabakat al Fokaha, fol. 5.]

(2.) Atá Ibn Abi Rabah.—“He held a high rank at Mekka as a juris-consult, a Tâbî, and a devout ascetic; and he derived (his knowledge of the law and the Traditions) from the lips of Jábir Ibn Abd Allah al-Ansárí, and Abd Allah Ibn Abbas, Abd Allah Ibn Zubair, and many others of Muhammad’s companions. His own authority as a traditionist was cited by Amr ibn Dinár, Al-Aamash, Al-Auzái, and a great number of others who had heard him teach. The office of Mufti at Mekka devolved on him and on Mujáhid, and was filled by them whilst they lived.... He died A.H. 115 (A.D. 733-4); some say 114 at the age of eighty-eight years.”—[Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, translated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane; Vol. II, pp. 203-204. London, MDCCCXLIII.]

(3.) Amr Ibn Dinár.—“He is counted among the most eminent of the Tábis and considered as a traditionist of very highest authority. He was only one of the Mujatahid Imáms. Died A.H. 126, (A.D. 743-4), aged eighty years.”—[Tab-al-Fokaha].

(4.) “Abd Allah Ibn Shuburma ibn Tufail ad Dubbi, a celebrated Imám, and Tábi was an eminent jurisconsult of Kufa. He learned the Traditions from Ans, As-Shabi, and Ibn Sírín, and his own authority was cited for Traditions by Soffian Ath-Thauri, Sofyan ibn Oyaina, and others. His veracity and his eminence as a doctor of the law was universally acknowledged. He was an abstemious, intelligent, devout, generous, of a handsome countenance, and possessing a talent for poetry. He acted under the Khalif Al-Mamun, as kadí of the cultivated country (Sawád) around Kufa. Born A.H. 92, (A.D. 710-11); died A.H. 144 (A.D. 761-2).”—[Tabal-Fak. Al-Yáfi.]

(5.) “Sofyan Ath-Thauri (As-Sauri) was native of Kúfa and a master of the highest authority in the Traditions and other sciences; his piety, devotion, veracity, and contempt for worldly goods were universally acknowledged, and as an Imám, he is counted among the Mujtahids.... Sofyan ibn Oyaina declared that he did not know a man better informed than Soyfan Ath-Thauri respecting what was permitted and what was forbidden by the law.... Sofyan was born A.H. 95 (A.D. 713-4). Other accounts place his birth in 96 or 97. He died A.H. 161 (A.D. 713-4) at Basra.... It has been stated by some that Sofyan died A.H. 162, but the first is the true date.”—[Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, translated from the Arabic by Baron MacGuckin De Slane, Vol. I, pp. 576-8. London, MDCCCXLIII.]

113. European writers’ mistake.

That it is a mistake on the part of the European writers to assert that the Koran allows wars of aggression, or in other words, to wage war against the unbelievers without any provocation, is shown by the testimony of Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Edward William Lane. The latter writes: “Misled by the decision of those doctors, and an opinion prevalent in Europe, I represented the laws of ‘holy war’ as more severe than I found them to be according to the letter and spirit of the Kur-án, when carefully examined, and according to the Hanafee code. I am indebted to Mr. Urquhart for suggesting to me the necessity of revising my former statement on the subject; and must express my conviction that no precept is to be found in the Kur-án, which, taken with the context, can justify unprovoked war.”306

114. Sir William Muir quoted.

I will quote several remarks of European writers, including clergymen and Indian missionaries, to show how astray they go in attributing to the Koran and Mohammad the wars of aggressions and compulsory proselytizing. Sir William Muir represents the principles of Islam as requiring constant prosecutions of war, and writes—

“It was essential to the permanence of Islam that its aggressive course should be continuously pursued, and that its claim to an universal acceptance, or at the least to an universal supremacy, should be enforced at the point of the sword. Within the limits of Arabia the work appeared now to be accomplished. It remained to gain over the Christian and idolatrous tribes of the Syrian desert, and then in the name of the Lord to throw down the gauntlet of war before the empires of Rome and Persia, which, having treated with contempt the summons of the Prophet addressed to them in solemn warning four years ago, were now rife for chastisement.”307

The occasion to which Sir W. Muir refers here was to wipe out the memory of the reverse at Muta. The expedition to Muta was occasioned by the murder of a messenger or envoy dispatched by Mohammad to the Ghassànide prince at Bostra. A party was sent to punish the offending chief, Sharahbil. This could, by no means, be maintained as a warlike spirit or an aggressive course for the prosecution of war, or for enforcing the claim of universal supremacy at the point of the sword.

115. Islam not aggressive.

That Islam as preached by Mohammad was never aggressive has been fully shown in several places of the Koran. During the whole time of his ministry, Mohammad was persecuted, rejected, despised and at last made an outlaw by the Koreish at Mecca, and a fugitive seeking protection in a distant city; exiled, attacked upon, besieged, defeated, and prevented from returning to Mecca or visiting the Holy Kaaba by the same enemies at Mecca and other surrounding tribes who had joined them, and even from within Medina plotted against by the Jews who were not less aggressive towards him than their confederates of Mecca, the Koreish, whom they had instigated to make war on him and had brought an overwhelming army, had proved traitors, and, even more injurious than the Koreish themselves. Consequently, he was constantly in dangers and troubles, and under such circumstances it was impossible for him to be aggressive, to get time or opportunity to pursue any aggressive course, or enforce, at the point of the sword, any attempt of his for universal acceptance, or universal supremacy even if he had designed so. But it was far from his principles to have cherished the object of universal conquest. “That Islam ever stepped beyond the limits of Arabia and its border lands,” admits Sir. W. Muir in his Rede Lecture for 1881, just twenty years after he had written the passage I am dealing with, “was due to circumstances rather than design. The faith was meant originally for the Arabs. From first to last, the call was addressed primarily to them.” He writes in a footnote of the same lecture (page 5):

“It is true that three or four years before, Mahomet had addressed dispatches to the Kaiser, and the Chosroes, and other neighbouring potentates, summoning them to embrace the true faith. But the step had never been followed up in any way.”308

116. Mr. Freeman quoted.

Mr. Freeman writes regarding Mohammad:—

“Mahomet had before him the example of Mosaic Law, which preached a far more rigorous mandate of extermination against the guilty nations of Canaan. He had before him the practice of all surrounding powers, Christian, Jewish, and Heathen; though, from the disaffection of Syria and Egypt to the orthodox throne of Constantinople, he might have learned how easily persecution defeats its own end.... Under his circumstances, it is really no very great ground to condemnation that he did appeal to the sword. He did no more than follow the precedents of his own and every surrounding nation. Yet one might say that a man of such mighty genius as Mahomet must have been, might have been, fairly expected to rise superior to the trammels of prejudice and precedent.”309

Mohammad never professed to have followed the footsteps of Moses and Joshua in waging war of extermination and proselytism. He only appealed to the sword in his and his followers’ defence. Never he seems to have been anxious to copy the practice of the surrounding nations, Christians, Jews, and Egyptians. His wars of defence, as they certainly all were, were very mild, specially with regard to the treatment of children, women, and old men who were never to be attacked; and above all, in the mildness shown towards the captives of war who were either to be set free or ransomed,—but were never to be enslaved,—contrary to the practice of all the surrounding nations. This virtual abolition of slavery (vide Sura XLVII, 5, and Appendix B) has been a great boon to mankind in general as a beneficial result of Mohmamad’s wars of defence.

117. The Revd. Stephens quoted.

The Reverend Mr. Stephens writes:—

“In the Koran, the Mussulman is absolutely and positively commanded to make war upon all those who decline to acknowledge the Prophet until they submit, or, in the case of Jews and Christians, purchase exemption from the conformity by the payment of tribute. The mission of the Mussulman, as declared in the Koran, is distinctly aggressive. We might say that Mahomet bequeathed to his disciples a roving commission to propagate his faith by the employment of force where persuasion failed. ‘O Prophet, fight for the religion of God’—‘Stir up the faithful to war,’ such are commands which Mahomet believed to be given him by God. ‘Fight against them who believe not a God, nor the last day,’ ’attack the idolatrous in all the months,’ such are his own exhortations to his disciples.”310

The Reverend gentleman is very much mistaken in his assertions against the Koran. There is no absolute or positive command in the Koran for a war of aggression or compulsory proselytism. The sentences quoted by Mr. Stephens are but mutilated verses forcibly dislocated from their context. A disjointed portion of a verse, or a single sentence of it cannot be brought forth to prove any doctrine or theory. Due regard must be made for the context, the general scope, and parallel passages. The verses referred to by Mr. Stephens are Sura IV, 86, and Sura IX, 29, 36. All these have been quoted in full and discussed elsewhere.311 They relate only to defensive wars.

118. Mr. Bosworth Smith quoted.

Mr. Bosworth Smith says:—

“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, Mohammed becomes a persecutor himself; with the Koran in one hand, the scymitar in the other, he goes forth to offer to the nations the threefold alternative of conversion, tribute, death.”312

Mohammad never changed his practice of toleration nor his own teachings into intolerance; he was always persecuted at Mecca and Medina, but, for all we know, he himself never turned a persecutor. The three-fold alternative so much talked of, and so little proved, is nowhere to be found in the Koran. This subject has been fully discussed in paras. 34-39.

119. Mr. G. Sale quoted.

Mr. George Sale, in his celebrated preliminary discourse to the translation of the Koran, writes, referring to the thirteenth year of Mohammad’s mission:—

“Hitherto Mohammed had propagated his religion by fair means, so that the whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Medina, must be attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this second oath of fealty or inauguration at al Akaba, he had no permission to use any force at all; and in several places of the Korân, which he pretended were revealed during his stay at Mecca, he declares his business was only to preach and admonish; that he had no authority to compel any person to embrace his religion; and that whether people believed or not, was none of his concern, but belonged solely to God. And he was so far from allowing his followers to use force, that he exhorted them to bear patiently those injuries which were offered them on account of their faith; and when persecuted himself chose rather to quit the place of his birth and retire to Medina, than to make any resistance. But this great passiveness and moderation seems entirely owing to his want of power and the great superiority of his oppressors for the first twelve years of his mission; for no sooner was he enabled by the assistance of those of Medina to make head against his enemies, than 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, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by experience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they were not utterly overthrown, and knowing on the other hand that innovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can compel, seldom run any risk; from whence, the politician observes, it follows, that all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed ones have failed. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus would not have been able to establish the observance of their institutions for any length of time had they not been armed. The first passage of the Korân, which gave Mohammed the permission of defending himself by arms, is said to have been that in the twenty-second chapter: after which a great number to the same purpose were revealed.

“That Mohammed had a right to take up arms for his own defence against his unjust persecutors, may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought afterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his religion, is a question which I will not here determine. How far the secular power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature, mankind are not agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no very favourable idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is disallowed by every body in those of another religion, though the same persons are willing to admit of it for the advancement of their own; supposing that though a false religion ought not to be established by authority, yet a true one may; and accordingly force is as constantly employed in these cases by those who have the power in their hands as it is constantly complained of by those who suffer the violence.”313

I do not agree with these words of Mr. George Sale regarding Mohammad, “and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword;” he never attacked the Koreish or others except in his own defence. The destruction of idolatry was the chief mission of Mohammad, and that even was not resorted to by force of arms. There were neither compulsory conversions nor his history points to any extirpation of the idolaters at the point of sword from their native countries, as the chief objects of his mission. The persecutions and civil discord were to be removed or put a stop to, and force was used to repel force, but nothing more. Conversion by the sword was not enforced on any proselyte by Mohammad.

120. Major Osborn quoted.

Major Osborn has drawn a very dark picture of what he calls “The Doctrine of Jehad,” in his Islam under the Arabs.314 The defensive wars of Mohammad are explained by him as “means of livelihood congenial to the Arab mind, and carrying with it no stain of disgrace or immorality. This was robbery. Why should not the faithful eke out their scanty means by adopting this lucrative and honourable profession, which was open to everyone who had a sword and knew how to use it?... Surely, to despoil these infidels and employ their property to feed the hungry and clothe the naked among the people of God, would be a work well pleasing in His sight.... And thus was the first advance made in the conversion of the religion of Islam with the religion of the sword” (pages 46-47). After this the Major writes again: “The ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet’s proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam” (page 52). Then he quotes several verses, some of them half sentences, violently distorted, from the eighth and ninth Suras, in a consecutive form, without giving the numbers. These are Sura IX, 20, 34, 35, 82, 121; Sura VIII, 67; Sura IX, 36, 5, 29, 19; Sura XLVII, 4; Sura IX, 5; and Sura VIII, 42. Lastly, the learned Major concludes by saying,—“Such was the character of the Sacred War enjoined upon the Faithful. It is Muhammad’s greatest achievement and his worst. When subjected himself to the pains of persecution he had learned to perceive how powerless were torments applied to the body to work a change of conviction in the mind. ‘Let there be no violence in religion’ had then been one of the maxims he had laid down. ‘Unto every one of you,’ he had said in former days, speaking of Jews and Christians, ‘have we given a law, and an open path; and if God had pleased He had surely made you one people; but He hath thought fit to give you different laws, that he might try you in that which He hath given you respectively. Therefore, strive to excel each other in good works; unto God shall ye all return, and then will He declare unto you that concerning which ye have disagreed.’ But the intoxication of success had long ago stilled the voice of his better self. The aged Prophet standing on the brink of the grave, and leaving as his last legacy a mandate of universal war, irresistibly recalls, by force of contrast, the parting words to his disciples of another religious teacher that they should go forth and preach a gospel of peace to all nations. Nor less striking in their contrast is the response to either mandate;—the Arab, with the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other, spreading his creed amid the glare of burning cities, and the shrieks of violated homes, and the Apostles of Christ working in the moral darkness of the Roman world with the gentle but irresistible power of light, laying anew the foundations of society, and cleansing at their source the polluted springs of domestic and national life.”

121. Major Osborn refuted.

The learned author quoted above has either misunderstood the character of the wars of the Prophet of Islam, or has grossly misrepresented it. He errs in two points: First, he makes the wars as wars of conquest, compulsion, and aggression, whereas they were all undertaken in the defence of the civil and religious rights of the early Moslems, who were, as I have said before, persecuted, harassed, and tormented at Mecca for their religion, and after a long period of persecution with occasional fresh and vigorous measures, were condemned to severer and harder sufferings, were expelled from their homes, leaving their dear relations, and religious brethren to endure the calamities of the persecution, and while taking refuge at Medina were attacked upon by superior numbers, several of the surrounding tribes of Arabs and Jews joining the aggressive Koreish, making ruinous inroads and threatening the Moslems with still greater and heavier miseries. From this statement it will appear that these wars were neither of conquest nor of compulsory conversion. The second great mistake under which Major Osborn seems to labour is that he takes the injunctions of war against the Meccans or other aggressors as a general obligation to wage war against all unbelievers in the Moslem faith. In fact, these injunctions were only against those aggressors who had actually committed great encroachments on the rights and liberties of the early Moslems, and had inflicted very disastrous injuries on them. These injunctions had and have nothing to do with the future guidance of the Moslem world.

122. The IXth Sura of the Koran.

It is a great misrepresentation on the part of Major Osborn to assert that “the ninth Sura is that which contains the Prophet’s proclamation of war against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam.” No statement could be farther from truth than this of his. The ninth Sura, or, more correctly, the beginning or opening verses of it, contain the Prophet’s proclamation of war against those of the Meccan idolaters, who, in violation of the treaty of Hodeibia, had attacked the Moslems.—(Sura IX, 4, 8, 10, 12 & 13, vide pages 23-25.) They were allowed four months’ time (IX, 2, 5) to make terms. They submitted, and Mecca was taken by compromise, in consequence of which the threatened war was never waged. Those who had not broken their treaties were especially mentioned, with whom the proclamation or the period allowed for peace had no connection.—(Vide Sura IX, 4, 7, quoted above, pages 23-24.) Thus it is quite clear that the proclamation of war was only against the violators and aggressors, and not against the votaries of all creeds other than that of Islam. I have further discussed the ninth Sura in para. 40 of this work. The other verses of this Sura refer to the expedition of Tabúk, which was purely defensive in its nature as has been described in para. 33 of this book. (See also para. 42.)

123. The Reverend Wherry quoted.

The Reverend E.M. Wherry, M.A., in his note on Sale’s Preliminary Discourse, says:—

“Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed himself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of destruction; but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytism. The Israelite was not permitted to proselytize from among the Canaanites, (Exod. XXIII. 27-33), but Muslims are required to proselytize by sword-power.”315

Mohammad never had said that he did follow the footsteps of Moses in giving the command of fighting in self-defence, and in repelling force by force. There could be no comparison whatsoever between the wars of Moses, which were merely wars of conquest, aggression, extermination, and expatriation, and those of Mohammad waged only in self-defence. Mohammad did not inaugurate his career by prosecuting war as a means of proselytism, and never did proselytized any one by the sheer strength of the sword. Mr. T.H. Horne, M.A., writes regarding the extirpation of the Canaanites:—

“After the time of God’s forbearance was expired, they had still the alternative, either to flee elsewhere, as in fact, many of them did, or to surrender themselves, renounce their idolatries, and serve the God of Israel. Compare Deut. XX. 10-17.”316 This was certainly compulsory conversion and proselytizing at the point of the sword.

124. Example cited from the Jewish history.

There is only one instance in the Koran in which an example is cited for the war of defence by Mohammad, from the Jewish History. It is the asking of the children of Israel their prophet Samuel to raise up a king for them to fight in their defence against the Philistines, who had very much oppressed the Israelites. Saul was appointed king over the Israelites, and David killed Goliath, called Jálut in the Koran, which was in defence of the Israelites. I have quoted the verses relating to the above subject from the Koran (Sura II, 247 and 252) in page 19th of this work.

“Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—‘Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?’ He said, ‘May it not be that when fighting is ordained you, ye would not fight?’ They said, ‘And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?’....

This shows that what the Koran or Mohammad took as an example from the history of the Jews was only their defensive war.

125. Mosaic injunctions.

It is very unfair of the Christians to make too much of the wars of Mohammad, which were purely of a defensive nature, and offer apologies for the most cruel wars of conquest and extermination by Moses, Joshua and other Jewish worthies under the express commands of God.—(Vide Numbers XXXI; Deut. XXI, &c.) But see what Mr. Wherry says. He writes in his comments on the 191 verse of the second Sura of the Koran.

“(191). Kill them, &c. Much is made of expressions like this, by some Christian apologists, to show the cruel character of the Arabian prophet, and the inference is thence drawn that he was an impostor and his Qurán a fraud. Without denying that Muhammad was cruel, we think this mode of assault to be very unsatisfactory to say the least, as it is capable of being turned against the Old Testament Scriptures. If the claim of Muhammad to have received a divine command to exterminate idolatry by the slaughter of all impenitent idolaters be admitted, I can see no objection to his practice. The question at issue is this. Did God command such slaughter of idolaters, as he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites or of the Amalekites? Taking the stand of the Muslim, that God did so command Muhammad and his followers, his morality in this respect may be defended on precisely the same ground that the morality of Moses and Joshua is defended by the Christian.”317

126. The Revd. T.P. Hughes quoted.

The Revd. T.P. Hughes in his Notes on Muhammadanism writes:—

“Jihád (lit. ’an effort’) is a religious war against the infidels, as enjoined by Muhammad in the Qurán.”

Súrat-un-Nisa (VI.)

“Fight therefore for the religion of God.”

“God hath indeed promised Paradise to every one. But God hath preferred those who fight for the faith.” (IV, 97.) Súrat-ul-Muhammad (XLVII).

“Those who fight in the defence of God’s true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish.” (XLVII, 5.)318

The first verse quoted by Mr. Hughes appertains to the war of defence. The verse in itself has express indications of its relating to the war of defence, but Mr. Hughes was not inclined, perhaps, to copy it in full. He merely quotes half a sentence, and shuts his eyes from other words and phrases of the same verse. The verse has been quoted in page 20. It is as follows:—

“Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir up the faithful. The powers of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God is stronger in prowess, and stronger to punish.”—(Sura IV, 86.)

The severe persecution, the intense torture and mighty aggression of the Meccans and their allies is referred to in the original word Báss, rendered prowess into English and referred to in the previous verse 77, which shows that the war herein enjoined was to restrain the aggressions of the enemy and to repel force by force.

It is very unfair on the part of the Revd. T.P. Hughes to twist or dislocate half a sentence from a verse and put it forth to demonstrate and prove a certain object of his.

127. Meaning of Jihad.

The second verse quoted by the same author is a mere mistranslation. There is no such word in the original which admits of being rendered as “fighting.” The true translation of the sentence quoted above from Sura IV, verse 97, is as follows:—

“Good promises hath he made to all. But God hath assigned to the strenuous a rich recompense above those who sit still at home.”

The word rendered “strenuous” is originally “mojahid” (plural “Mojahidin,” from Jihád), which in classical Arabic and throughout the Koran means to do one’s utmost, to make effort, to strive, to exert, to employ one’s-self diligently, studiously, sedulously, earnestly, zealously, or with energy, and does not mean fighting or warfare. It was subsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Koran in such a sense. (Vide Appendix A.)

128. Sura XLVII, v. 5.

The third instance quoted by Mr. Hughes is also a mistranslation of a sentence in verse 5, Sura XLVII. The original word is “kotelú,” which means “those who are killed,” and not “those who fight,” as explained and translated by the author. The correct rendering of the sentence is this: “And those who are killed, their work God will not suffer to miscarry.”

Some read the word “kátalú,” which means “those who fought,” but the general and authorized reading is “kotelú,” i.e., “those who are killed.” Even if it be taken for granted that the former is the correct reading, it will be explained by several other verses which mean fighting in defence, and not fighting aggressively, which not only has been never taught in the Koran but is always prohibited (II, 186). The verse to that effect runs thus:—

“And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you; but commit not the injustice of attacking them first. Verily God loveth not the unjust.”—(II, 186.)

This verse permitted only defensive war and prohibited every aggressive measure. All other verses mentioned in connection with fighting on the part of the Moslems must be interpreted in conformity with this.

129. The Rev. Mr. Malcolm MacColl quoted.

The Rev. Malcolm MacColl writes:—

“The Koran divides the earth into parts: Dar-ul-Islam, or the House of Islam; and Dar-ul-Harb, or the House of the enemy. All who are not of Islam are thus against it, and it is accordingly the duty of the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, or are destroyed. This is called the Djihad or Holy War, which can only end with the conversion or death of the last infidel on earth. It is thus the sacred duty of the Commander of the Faithful to make war on the non-Mussulman world as occasion may offer. But Dar-ul-Harb or the non-Mussulman world, is subdivided into Idolaters and Ketabi, or ‘People of the Book,’—i.e., people who possess divinely inspired Scriptures, namely, Jews, Samaritans, and Christians. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are infidels, and consequently outside the pale of Salvation. But the Ketabi are entitled to certain privileges in this world, if they submit to the conditions which Islam imposes. Other infidels must make their choice between one of two alternatives—Islam or the sword. The Ketabi are allowed a third alternative, namely, submission and the payment of tribute. But if they refuse to submit, and presume to fight against the True Believers, they lapse at once into the condition of the rest of Dar-ul-Harb and may be summarily put to death or sold as slaves.”319

I am very sorry the Rev. gentleman is altogether wrong in his assertions against the Koran. There is neither such a division of the world in the Koran, nor such words as “Dar-ul-Islam” and “Dar-ul-Harb” are to be found anywhere in it. There is no injunction in the Koran to the True Believers to fight against the infidels till they accept Islam, failing which they are to be put to death. The words “Dar-ul-Islam” and “Dar-ul-Harb” are only to be found in the Mohammadan Common Law, and are only used in the question of jurisdiction. No Moslem magistrate will pass a sentence in a criminal case against a criminal who had committed an offence in a foreign country. The same is the case in civil courts 320. All the inhabitants of Dar-ul-Harb are not necessarily infidels. Mohammadans, either permanently or temporarily by obtaining permission from the sovereign of the foreign land, can be the inhabitants of a Dar-ul-Harb, a country out of the Moslem jurisdiction, or at war with it.

130. The untenable theories of the Common Law and conclusion.

It is only a theory of our Common Law, in its military and political chapters, which allow waging unprovoked war with non-Moslems, exacting tribute from “the people of the Book,” and other idolaters, except those of Arabia, for which the Hanafi Code of the Common Law has nothing short of conversion to Islam or destruction by the sword. As a rule, our canonical legists support their theories by quotations from the Mohammadan Revealed Law, i.e., the Koran, as well as from the Sonnah, or the traditions from the Prophet, however absurd and untenable may be their process of reasoning and argumentative deductions. In this theory of waging war with, and exacting tribute or the capitation-tax from, the non-Moslem world, they quote the 9th and other Suras. These verses have been copied and explained elsewhere in this book. The casuistic sophistry of the canonical legists in deducing these war theories from the Koran is altogether futile. These verses relate only to the wars waged by the Prophet and his followers purely in their self-defence. Neither these verses had anything to do with waging unprovoked war and exacting tributes during Mohammad’s time, nor could they be made a law for future military conquest. These were only temporary in their operations and purely defensive in their nature. The Mohammadan Common Law is by no means divine or superhuman. It mostly consists of uncertain traditions, Arabian usages and customs, some frivolous and fortuitous analogical deductions from the Koran, and a multitudinous array of casuistical sophistry of the canonical legists. It has not been held sacred or unchangeable by enlightened Mohammadans of any Moslem country and in any age since its compilation in the fourth century of the Hejira. All the Mujtahids, Ahl Hadis, and other non-Mokallids had had no regard for the four schools of Mohammadan religious jurisprudence, or the Common Law.

Sura XLVII, 16, and Sura XLVII, 4 and 5.

Sura XLVIII, 16, is not generally quoted by the canonical legists in support of their theory of Jehád, but by some few. It is not in the shape of a command or injunction; it is in a prophetical tone:—

“Say to those Arabs of the desert who stayed behind, Ye shall be called forth against a people of mighty valour; Ye shall do battle with them, or they shall submit (Yoslemoon)321....”

The verses 4 and 5 of Sura XLVII, like all other verses on the subject, appertain to the wars of defence, and no one has ever quoted them for wars of aggression. These verses have already been quoted at page 85. The abolition of the future slavery as enjoined in the 5th verse has been treated separately in Appendix B. The Arabs, like other barbarous nations round them, used either to kill the prisoners of war or to enslave them; but this injunction of the Koran abolished both of these barbarous practices. The prisoners henceforward were neither to be killed nor enslaved, but were to be set at liberty with or without ransom.

Footnotes

159 Islam and its Founder, by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., page 76.
But, in fact, there was no such permission. The verse quoted above says, that the wrath and punishment of God will be on those who deny God, except those who do so by being forced. The latter were not put on the same footing as the former; in short, those who denied God under compulsion were not counted unbelievers.

160 “The support of the Medina adherents, and the suspicion of an intended emigration, irritated the Koreish to severity; and this severity forced the Moslems to petition Mahomet for leave to emigrate. The two causes might co-exist and re-act one another; the persecution would hasten the departure of the converts, while each fresh departure would irritate the Koreish to greater cruelty.”—William Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 242, 243, foot-note.

161 Unfortunately several missionary expeditious sent by Mohammad were met with unfavorable circumstances. The party sent to Bani Suleim, demanding their allegiance to the faith of Islam, was slain. Another party sent to Bani Leith was surprised, and its camels plundered. A small party sent by Mohammad to Fadak was cut to pieces by Bani Murra. Another party sent to Zat Atlah to call upon the people to embrace Islam, of which only one person escaped. Mohammad’s messenger despatched to the Ghassanide Prince at Bostra was murdered by the chief of Muta. His army sent to avenge the treachery of the chief was defeated. All these mishaps and reverses dangerously affected the prestige of Mohammad, and encouraged the Meccans to violate the truce.

162 Or defend, ‘Yadafeo’ repel.

163 Yokâtaloona, or who fight Yokateloona. The former reading is the authorized and general.

164 The primary signification of fitnah is burning with fire. It signifies a trial or probation and affliction, distress or hardship; and particularly an affliction whereby one is tried, proved, or tested.—Vide Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 2335.

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.

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.

167 Vide note 2 in p. 17.

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.

169 And have violated the Hodeibia Truce. Compare verses 4, 8, and 12.

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.

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

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.

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

174 Archbishop Secker’s Works, III, p. 271.

175 Sir W. Muir, II, p. 265.

176 Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.

177 Remarks on the character of Mohammad (suggested by Voltaire’s Tragedy of Mahomet) by Major Vans Kennedy. Vide Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay for 1821, Vol. III, p. 453, reprint Bombay, 1877.

178 “Mahomet did not send the Medina converts on any hostile expedition against the Koreish, until they had warred with him at Badr, and the reason is, that they had pledged themselves to protect him only at their homes.”—K. Wackidi, 48; Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 64, note.

179 “K. Wackidi, 98-1/2. The provisions are noted only generally, “that neither party would levy war against the other, nor help their enemies.” The version quoted by Weil binding the Bani Dhumra to fight for the faith, &c., is evidently anticipatory and apocryphal. It is not given by the Secretary of Wackidi in his chapter of treaties.”—Muir’s Life of Mahomet, III, p. 67, note.

180 Contributions to Political Science by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Vol. II of his miscellaneous writings, p. 251, London, 1881.

181 Hishamee, p. 545. Gottengen, 1859; or, The Life of Muhammad, by Abd etl Malik ibn Hishám. London: Trübner and Co., 1867.

182 Hishamee, p. 757.

183 The Jews of Khyber, if it does not relate to Tabook. Sir W. Muir calls this hostile declaration against Jews and Christians, and says,—“The exclusion and growingly intolerant position of Islam is sufficiently manifested by the ban issued against the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy precincts of the Meccan temple; and by the divine commands to war against them until, in confession of the superiority of Islam, they should consent to the payment of a tribute.”—Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 289. The command referred to by Sir W. Muir refers to the treatment of those who took up arms against the Mussalmans, rather than to their ordinary condition. No ban was issued against the Jews and Christians, as unfit for the sacred rites and holy precincts of the Meccan temple. On the contrary, the Christians of Najran, when arrived at Medina, were accommodated by the Prophet in his Mosque, and they used to say their prayers there.

184 Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 61.

185 Islam under the Arabs, by Major R.D. Osborne, London, 1876, p. 27.

186 XVIII, 28.

187 II, 257.

188 V, 73.

189 IX, 6.

190 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 79.

191 From attacking and persecuting you and preventing you from entering your homes and visiting the sacred mosque.

192 That is, if again attack you and commit aggressions.

193 Meaning those who were defeated at Badr.

194 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 319.

195 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 282.

196 There is only one instance of intolerance, i.e., making converts at the point of sword, which Sir W. Muir, so zealous in accusing Mohammad of religious persecution during the Medina period, has succeeded in finding out during the ten eventful years of Mohammad’s sojourn in Medina. I refer to the story of Khalid’s mission in the beginning of the tenth year A.H., to Bani Haris, a Christian tribe at Najran, whose people had entered into a covenant of peace with Mohammad, and to whom an ample pledge had been guaranteed to follow their own faith. According to Sir W. Muir, Khalid was instructed to call on the people to embrace Islam, and if they declined, he was, after three days, to attack and force them to submit (Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 224). The version of the story thus given by the Biographers of Mohammad is too absurd to be believed; because it is a well-established fact that the Bani Haris, or the Christians of Najran, had sent a deputation to Mohammad only a year ago, i.e., in A.H. 9, and obtained terms of security from him (Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, p. 299; Ibn Hisham, p. 401). It is quite an unfounded, though a very ingenious, excuse of Sir W. Muir to make the Bani Haris consist of two sects,—one of Christians, and the other of idolators,—and to say that the operations of Khalid were directed against the portion of Bani Haris still benighted with paganism; thus reconciling the apocryphal tradition with the fact of the Bani Haris being at a treaty of security, toleration and freedom, with Mohammad.
“I conclude,” he writes in a note, “the operations of Khâlid were directed against the portion of Bani Hârith still idolaters:—at all events not against the Christian portion already under treaty” (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, foot-note, p. 224). See the account of the conversion of Bani Hárith to Christianity long before Islam in Hishamee, pp. 20-22. Gibbon, Chapter XLII, Vol. V, p. 207, foot-note; and Muir’s Vol. I, p. ccxxviii.

197 A name applied to an idol or idols—especially Allat and Ozza, the ancient idols of the Meccans.

198 The past tense, third person plural, of the infinitive Fitnah.

199 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 211

200 “Islam and its Founder,” by J.W.H. Stobart, B.A., p. 179. London, 1878.

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

202 “The people of Medîna 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.

203 Bokharee relates from Obada-bin Sámat 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 god with the God, 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 Ansárs.

204 Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, p. 419, Boston, 1855; Lieber’s Miscellaneous Writings; Political science, Vol. II, p. 250, Philadelphia, 1881.

205 Selections from the Kur-án by Edward William Lane, with an Introduction by Stanley Lane Poole. Intro., p. xliv: Trübner & Co., London, 1879.

206 Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, p. 60, London, 1876.

207 Wákidi’s Campaigns of Mohammad, pp. 172 & 173: Calcutta Baptist Mission Press; edited by A. Von Kremer.

208 Sir W. Muir writes that “Hishami says, that Mahomet, being vexed by Asma’s verses, said publicly, ‘Who will rid me of this woman?’” But there is no such word in Ibn Hishám which may be rendered ‘publicly.’

209 Ibn Hisham, p. 994. Wakidi does not give this sentence. On the contrary, he says, Sálim had taken a vow to kill Abú Afak or die himself.

210 Ibn Sad Kátib Wákidí, pp. 186, 187.

211 The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, pp. 147-148.

212 In the collections of Bokhári in the Book of Campaigns; and in the Book of Jihád by Moslim.

213 Mohammad-bin Sád Kátib Wakidi and Mohammad-bin Ishak. The latter in Ibn Hisham, p. 551.

214 Vide Osaba-fi Tamiz Issahába; or, Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajr-al-Askalani. Part I, No. 1021, p. 434.

215 Ibn Abbás was only five years old at that time, and was at Mecca. His evidence is consequently inadmissible.

216 Yahya-bin Saeed al Ansaree, Ali-bin Abdullah-bin Abbás, Ibnal Mosayyab, Atá Ibrahim-bin Maisura, Mohammad-bin Sireen, Kásim, and Abdullah-bin Omar say that Ikrama was a liar. Vide Mizánul Etedal of Zahabi, Koukabi Durrári Sharah, Saheeh Bokhari, by Shamsuddin Kirmáni; and Márafat Anwaá-ilm Hadees, by Abu Omar-ad-Damishki.

217 The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 200.

218 Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D. Sixth edition, by William Beach Lawrence, Boston, 1855; Part IV, Chapter I, p. 374, quoting Bynkershoek; in p. 416, quoting Bynkershoek and Wolff.

219 Ibid, Chapter II, p. 470.

220 The collections of Moslem Apud Boreida, vide Mishkat, p. 333.

221 The collections of Abú Daúd in the Book of Jihád, Vol. II, p. 26.

222 The Life of Mohammad based on Mohammad-ibn Ishak, by Abdel Malik-ibn Hisham, p. 714.

223 The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 14.

224 Or Yoseir-bin Razim.

225 As Khyber was not yet conquered, neither Mohammad could make such a promise, nor the Jews could have been induced to believe it; therefore the story is a false one.

226 The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp. 980-981.

227 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.

228 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 20.

229 The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp. 992-993. The fighting was, according to Arab custom, in single combats.

230 Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, p. 118, London, 1869.

231 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 20, foot-note.

232 Compare “Contributions to Political Science,” by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Vol. II, p. 250.

233 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 307.

234 Wackidi Campaigns of Mohammad, p. 101, Calcutta, 1855.

235 “It was at Otheil that the cruel and vindictive spirit of Mahomet towards his enemies first began to display itself.”—Muir’s Life of Mohamet, Vol. III, p. 115. After this, the author narrates the execution of Nazr. Ibn Is-hak. Vide Ibn Hisham, p. 458; Wackidi, p. 108; Abu Daood, Vol. II, p. 10. This story is not given by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sád.

236 Abu Daood as before.

237 Zorkánee, Vol. II, p. 541.

238 Sírat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 371.

239 Wackidi, 105. Insán-ul Oyoon or Sírat Halabí, Vol. II, p. 464.

240 Wackidi, p. 105; Hishami, p. 591; Insán-ul-Oyoon or Sírat Halabí, Vol. II, p. 464.

241 Ibn Hisham, p. 591; Wackidi, pp. 324 and 325.

242 The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 185.

243 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 185.

244 Ibid, p. 117.

245 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 122 and 123.

246 Ibid, Vol. III, p. 243.

247 Ibid, Vol. IV. pp. 148 and 149.

248 Ibn Hisham, p. 877.

249 Ibn Hisham, pp. 833 and 835.

250 Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Vol. II. Contributions to Political Science, p. 273, Philadelphia, 1881.

251 Some of the Koreizites were released, among whom we hear of Zobeir Ibn Batá, and Rifáa. They were pardoned by Mohammad.

252 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 279.

253 History of Mohammad’s Campaigns: Edited by Von Kremer, p. 374.

254 “Compare the remarks of Ibn-Khaldún (Prelégoménes d’ Ibn Khaldoun, traduits par M. de Slane, Part I, p. 14).”

255 A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed, by Syed Ameer Ali, Moulvi, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, p. 113: William and Norgate, London, 1873.

256 Ibn Hisham, p. 689. Others say the males were kept in the house of Osman-bin-Zaed, and the females and children in the house of Bint-al-Haris. Vide Insan-al-Oyoon, by Halabi. Vol. III, p. 93.

257 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.

258 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.
In the collections of Bokharee the story is traced to Ans. But Ans could not be a witness to Mohammad’s command for mutilation, as Ans did not come until the expedition to Khyber; and the execution of those robbers took place before that. The story from Jábir in Ibn Mardaveih’s collections to the same effect is not authentic, as Jábir, who says he was sent by Mohammad in pursuit of the robbers, and committed the act, was not a convert at that time. Koostalanee, the author of Mooahib, has declared the tradition of Ibn Jarir Tabari on the subject as an apocryphal, i.e., “Zaeef.” Vide Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, p. 211.

259 Ibn Hisham (p. 463) relates from Ibn Is-hak that Omar asked permission to mutilate Sohail, but Mohammad replied, “I would not mutilate him; if I do, God will mutilate me, though I be a Prophet.”

260 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.

261 This subject has been fully and judiciously discussed by the Honorable Syed Ahmed Khan Bahadur, C.S.I., in his “Commentary of the Koran;” Sura. iv. pp. 198-204.

262 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.

263 Vide Mishkát Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.

264 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.

265 Introduction to Lane’s Selections from the Kur-án, by Stanley Lane Poole, p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.

266 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.

267 Ibid, p. 35.

268 Vide Zoorkanee on Movahib, Vol. II, page 244; also Zád-ul-Maád, by Ibn-al-Kyyim, Vol. I, page 376, Cawnpore, 1298 A.H.; and Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya, by Mohammad Karámat-ul-Ali of Delhi, in loco. The Life is compiled from Seerat Halabi and Seerat Shámee and was lithographed in Bombay.

269 Hishamee, page 681; Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 266.

270 Seerat Halabi, or Insan-al-Oyoon, Vol II, page 79.

271 History of Mohammad’s Campaigns, by Wackidi, pp. 368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.

272 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.

273 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.

274 Lieber’s Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.

275 History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne. By William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.

276 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.

277 Ibid, p. 149.

278 Ibn Hisham, p. 554.

279 The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149, foot-note.

280 The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.

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 Zoorkánee, Part II, page 95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic Age.

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 Zoorkánee, Part II, pp, 96-97.

283 Compare Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and 302, foot-note.

284 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.

285 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.

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. God 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 God which He ordaineth among you: and God 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 God in whom ye believe.”—Sura LX.

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.

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 Habbâr, 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.

289 Ata, a learned legist of Mecca, who flourished at the end of the first century of the Hegira, and held a high rank there as a juris-consult, (vide para. 112) held, that Jihad was only incumbent on the Companions of the Prophet, and was not binding on any one else after them. See para. 112, and Tafsír Majma-ul-Bayán by Tabrasee under Sura II. 212.

290 The Hedaya or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 140 London, MDCCXCI.

291 The Hedaya or Guide; or, A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, translated by Charles Hamilton; Vol. II, Book IX, Ch. I, page 141.

292 “Arab Kattâl; meaning war in its operation, such as fighting, slaying,” &c.

293 The Hedaya, Vol. II, 141.

294 Sura II, 187.

295 The Hedaya, with its commentary called Kifaya, Vol. II, p. 708. Calcutta Medical Press, 1834.
As a general rule the Mohammadan authors do not refer to the verses of the Koran by their number. They generally quote the first sentence, or even a portion of it. The No. of verses are mine. I have followed Fluegel and Rodwell’s numbers of verses in their editions and translations of the Koran.

296 Kifaya as before.

297 Binayah, a commentary of the Hedaya, by Ainee. Vol. II, Part II, page 789.

298 Part. III, page 219.

299 Tuhfatul Muhtáj fi Sharah-al-Minhaj, Part IV, page 137.

300 Insan-ul-Oyoon, Part II, pp. 289, 291. Chapter on “Campaign.”

301 Sura IX, 5 and 12. These verses have been discussed at pages 51-55.

302 “The Jihád will last till the day of the Resurrection.”
“I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess there is no god but the God.” For these traditions see the next para.

[303] Vide Ainee’s Commentary of the Hedaya, Vol. II, Part II, p. 790.

304 Vide Ainee’s Commentary of the Hedaya, Vol. II, Part II, p. 798.

305 Vide Kázee Budrudeen Mahmood bin Ahmed Ainee’s (who died in 855 A.H.) Commentary on the Hedaya called Binayah, and generally known by the name of Ainee, Vol. II, pp. 789-90, “Book of Institute.”

306 The Modern Egyptians, by Edward William Lane; Vol. I, p. 117, note: fifth edition, London, 1871.

307 Muir’s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 251-252.

308 The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam, being the Rede Lecture for 1881, delivered before the University of Cambridge by Sir William Muir, K.C.S.I., LL.D., page 5, London, 1881.

309 The History and Conquests of the Saracens, by Edward. A. Freeman, D.C.L., LL.D., pp. 41-42; London, 1877.

310 Christianity and Islam; The Bible and the Koran; by the Rev. W.R.W. Stephens, London, 1877, pp. 98-99.

311 Vide paras. 17, 29, 126.

312 Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lectures delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in February and March 1874, by R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., Second Edition, page 137; London, 1876.

313 The Koran, by George Sale. The “Chandos Classics.” The Preliminary Discourse, Section II, pp. 37-38.

314 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1876, pp. 46-54.

315 A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qurán; comprising Sale’s Translation and Preliminary Discourse, with additional Notes and Emendations, by the Revd. E.M. Wherry, M.A., page 220; London: Trübner & Co., 1882.

316 An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scripture, by Thomas Hartwell Horne, Esq., M.A. Vol. II, page 524; London. 1828.

317 Commentary on the Qurán by the Revd. Wherry, page 358.

318 Notes on Muhammadanism; being outlines of the Religious System of Islam, by the Revd. T.P. Hughes, M.R.A.S., C.M.S., Missionary to the Afghans, page 206; Second Edition, 1877.

319 The Nineteenth Century; London, December 1877, page 832.

320 This subject has been fully treated in my “The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms in Moslem States,” pp. 22-25: Bombay Education Society Press, 1883.

321 Sir W. Muir, with other European translators of the Koran, translates the word “they shall profess Islam” (The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 39, footnote). It ought to be translated “they shall submit.” There is a difference of opinion among the commentators and canonical legists in this word. Some translate the word Yoslemoon “shall profess Islam,” and others “shall submit.” This difference in the interpretation of the same word is merely of a sectarian nature, each party wishing to serve their own purpose. Those legists who held that the polytheists and idolaters may either be fought against or be submitted to the authority of Islam by being tributaries, took the word in its proper sense of submission. Those who held that “the people of the Book” ought only to be made tributaries, while all other idolaters and polytheists should be compelled either to perish or to embrace Islam, interpret the word technically to mean the religion of Islam. But as the verse is not a legal command, we condemn at once the casuistic sophistry of the legists.

← Back to A Critical Exposition of the Popular ‘Jihád’