[Sidenote: 64. Justification of Mughira"s execution.]
Sir W. Muir, who calls him Othman Ibn Mughira, makes out a favourable case in his behalf. He writes: He "incautiously lingered at Medina 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 pa.s.sed 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-a.s.sad; then how he (Ibn Mughira) could have endeavoured to avoid the returning Moslem force from Hamra-al-a.s.sad, 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.
[Footnote 233: Muir"s Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 307.]
[Footnote 234: Wackidi Campaigns of Mohammad, p. 101, Calcutta, 1855.]
[Footnote 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 Sad.]
[Footnote 236: Abu Daood as before.]
[Footnote 237: Zorkanee, Vol. II, p. 541.]
[Footnote 238: Sirat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 371.]
[Footnote 239: Wackidi, 105. Insan-ul Oyoon or Sirat Halabi, Vol. II, p.
464.]
[Footnote 240: Wackidi, p. 105; Hishami, p. 591; Insan-ul-Oyoon or Sirat Halabi, Vol. II, p. 464.]
[Footnote 241: Ibn Hisham, p. 591; Wackidi, pp. 324 and 325.]
[Footnote 242: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 185.]
[Footnote 243: Muir"s Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 185.]
_The intended Execution of the Prisoners of Badr._
[Sidenote: 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 Said of his brother"s death"" (Mabad, a prisoner, see above, page 110 note); "but kill ye every man his prisoner."--(Wackidi, 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages in Wackidi referred to above is as follows:--
_First pa.s.sage._--"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 Wahid, 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 pa.s.sage._--"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.
[Sidenote: 66. Mohammad never blamed in the Koran for relieving prisoners.]
There are some fict.i.tious 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 G.o.d wishes for the next, for G.o.d is Mighty, Wise! Were it not for a book from G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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.
[Footnote 244: _Ibid_, p. 117.]
_Kind Treatment of the Prisoners of War by Mohammad._
[Sidenote: 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 ma.s.sacred 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 G.o.d! I am innocent of what Khalid hath done."[249]
[Footnote 245: Muir"s Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, pp. 122 and 123.]
[Footnote 246: _Ibid_, Vol. III, p. 243.]
[Footnote 247: _Ibid_, Vol. IV. pp. 148 and 149.]
[Footnote 248: Ibn Hisham, p. 877.]
[Footnote 249: Ibn Hisham, pp. 833 and 835.]
_The Execution of the Bani Koreiza._
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: 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: