[Sidenote: 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 Tabuk if not to that of Khyber. These expeditions were of a defensive character. _Vide_ pages 37 and 41.
[Sidenote: 110. Traditions quoted and refuted.]
The jurists further quote a tradition from the compilation of Abu Daood that the Prophet had said, "The Jihad will last up to the day of the Resurrection:" But in the first place, Jihad does not literally and cla.s.sically mean warfare or fighting in a war. It means, as used by the cla.s.sical 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 Bokharee to the effect that the Prophet had said, "I have been enjoined to fight the people until they confess that there is no G.o.d but the G.o.d." 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.
[Sidenote: 111. Early Moslem legists quoted against Jihad.]
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, Ata and Amar-bin-Dinar. All these early legists held that the fighting was not religiously inc.u.mbent (_wajib_), and that it was only a voluntary act, and that only those were to be fought against who attacked the Moslems.[305]
[Sidenote: Biographical sketches of the legists.]
I will give here short biographical sketches of the legists named above--
(1.) "Abu 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 ent.i.tled 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.) Ata Ibn Abi Rabah.--"He held a high rank at Mekka as a juris-consult, a _Tabi_, and a devout ascetic; and he derived (_his knowledge of the law and the Traditions_) from the lips of Jabir Ibn Abd Allah al-Ansari, 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 Dinar, Al-Aamash, Al-Auzai, and a great number of others who had heard him teach. The office of _Mufti_ at Mekka devolved on him and on Mujahid, 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 Dinar.--"He is counted among the most eminent of the Tabis and considered as a traditionist of very highest authority. He was only one of the Mujatahid Imams. 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 Imam, and Tabi was an eminent jurisconsult of Kufa. He learned the Traditions from Ans, As-Shabi, and Ibn Sirin, 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 kadi of the cultivated country (Sawad) around Kufa. Born A.H. 92, (A.D. 710-11); died A.H. 144 (A.D.
761-2)."--[_Tabal-Fak. Al-Yafi._]
(5.) "Sofyan Ath-Thauri (As-Sauri) was native of Kufa 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 Imam, 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._]
[Sidenote: 113. European writers" mistake.]
That it is a mistake on the part of the European writers to a.s.sert 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-an, 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-an, which, taken with the context, can justify unprovoked war."[306]
[Sidenote: 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt."[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 Gha.s.sanide 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.
[Sidenote: 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sage I am dealing with, "was due to circ.u.mstances 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]
[Sidenote: 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 circ.u.mstances, 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.
[Sidenote: 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 G.o.d"--"Stir up the faithful to war," such are commands which Mahomet believed to be given him by G.o.d.
"Fight against them who believe not a G.o.d, 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 a.s.sertions 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 pa.s.sages. 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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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 Koran, 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 G.o.d.
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 pa.s.siveness 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 a.s.sistance of those of Medina to make head against his enemies, than he gave out, that G.o.d 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 inst.i.tutions for any length of time had they not been armed. The first pa.s.sage of the Koran, 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.
[Sidenote: 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 G.o.d, 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"