A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 23

[Sidenote: 80. Deception in way allowed by the international law.]

Sir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he writes,--"We cannot, indeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by falsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his character in Arab estimation;"[272] and further on he writes,--"When Medina was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports: for," said he, "what else is war but a game at deception."[273] The utmost that can be made out from the former tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another tradition of equal force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by quoting the proverbial saying, that "war is a game at deception." In this he had the sanction of the military law or the international law, as deception in war is a "military necessity," and allowed by the law and usages of war. A modern author on the international law says:--

"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of _armed_ enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally _unavoidable_ in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist."[274]

[Sidenote: 81. Lecky's Standard of Morality.]

But supposing the modern morality does not approve of Mohammad what hardly "affected his character in Arab estimation," are there no diversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in different ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of tendency.

"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been practised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best Romans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or revengeful a.s.sa.s.sinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery has been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable proofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in another as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an historical examination will reveal special circ.u.mstances explaining or palliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the gladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted through religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages rendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by the murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of justice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation against crime, and political a.s.sa.s.sination against usurpation; that the insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy to prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true, but there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be expected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have agreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is contended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very feeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."[275]

_The alleged permission to kill the Jews._

[Sidenote: 82. Murder of Ibn Sanina.]

It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by others of Europe, that, "on the morning after the murder of Kab, Mahomet gave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they might chance to meet,"[276] and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish merchant, by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this order. "When Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the Jew, and appropriating his wealth,--"By the Lord!" replied Muheiasa, "if he that commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would have done it." "What!" Huweisa cried, "wouldst thou have slain thine own brother at Mahomet's bidding?"--"Even so," answered the fanatic.

"Strange indeed!" Huweisa responded. "Hath the new religion reached to this pitch! Verily it is a wonderful Faith." And Huweisa was converted from that very hour."[277]

Ibn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani Harisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her father.[278] (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person, the freedman of the tribe of Haris, therefore no reliance can be put on his story. (2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer Muheiasa, or Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3) Muheiasa himself has not that respectable character which can lend even a shadow of veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that Mohammad had given general permission to his followers to slay any Jew whom they might chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn Sanina, and Huweisa became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by another counter-tradition in Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related from Abu Obeida, who relates from Abu Omar-al-Madani, that, "during the execution of the Bani Koreiza (_vide_ para. 68), one Kab-bin-Yahooza was made over to Muheiasa for execution. When the latter executed his victim, Huweisa, his brother, who was still unbelieving, upbraided Muheiasa. "If he," responded Muheiasa, "that commanded me to kill him had commanded me to kill thee also, I would have killed thee." Huweisa was quite surprised at his brother's reply, and went away astonished.

During the night he used to wake up repeatedly, and wonder at his brother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he said, "By the Lord! This is a wonderful faith," and came to the Prophet to embrace Islam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the Jews, and Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence thereof, is all a mere concoction.

[Sidenote: 83. Sir W. Muir quoted.]

Even Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all such apocryphal traditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the veracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency.

He writes:--

"But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or reservations not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for the Prophet's cause at this time that the streets of Medina should have flowed with blood by the strict execution of this command. Yet such is the distinct tenor of the best traditions.

"The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and Hishami has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet directed the ma.s.sacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not been so strong and positive."[279]

But the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as I have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated at the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of Muheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.

_The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer._

[Sidenote: 84. The Bani Nazeer.]

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who says: "The pretext on which the Bani Nadhir were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the Prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause."[280]

A whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does not hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the Prophet or their expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the subject are unsupported, _ex parte_, and legendary. Had such a tradition been current at the time of Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the first or Apostolic Age), we should certainly have had scores of narrators on the subject.[281] Their crime was treachery,[282] and they were a dangerous element to Medina, for a combination, at any period, between the treacherous Jews and the aggressive Koreish, or other enemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to the safety of Medina. But their banishment was too mild a punishment.

[Sidenote: 85. Fruit-trees not cut down.]

It is said that Mohammad cut down the surrounding date trees and burned the choicest of them during the siege of the Bani Nazeer, and justified himself by publis.h.i.+ng the verses of the LIX Sura of the Koran.[283] But the date trees cut down were neither bearing fruit, nor did they supply any staple article of food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general.

The _Leena_ mentioned in the verse referred to above is a tree without fruit. Thus no fruit trees were destroyed. (Zoorkanee Vol. II, page 98.) Trees not bearing fruits were only cut, which is also justified under the Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX, 20.)

_Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia._

[Sidenote: 86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia.]

Females were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The stipulation for the surrender of deserters referred only to the male s.e.x. All women who were to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace were, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their profession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were prohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such believing females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX, verse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the Meccans, and says:--"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with believers, provided only that rest.i.tution were made of any sums expended by their former husbands as dower upon them."[284] But there is nothing either to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca, or to prove, that, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages were annulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura IV, verse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate them as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of such as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the unbelief of either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only enjoins neither to marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with idolaters until they believe.--(Sura II, 220.)

[Sidenote: 87. Stanley defended.]

Sir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says, "Stanley on Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above pa.s.sage, and says that the rule it contains "resembles that of the Apostle," Vol. I, page 145.

But there is really no a.n.a.logy between them; the Gospel rule differs _toto coelo_ from that of Mahomet:--"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.--And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond _de facto_ annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was only to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage contract."[285] I think Stanley is quite correct, and the Gospel and the Koranic rule resemble each other in this respect. Because the order, "they (the believing women) are not lawful for them (unbelievers), nor are the unbelievers lawful for these (believing women)," does not relate to the women already married; and the words, "do not retain any right in the infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels ..." are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, "But if the unbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."[286]

[Sidenote 88. Marriage a strict bond of union.]

Mohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage tie. He had made the marriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very exceptional circ.u.mstances, than it was under the Arab society; and called it "a strict bond of union."[287] Mohammad's own daughter, Zeinab, was the wife of an unbelieving husband and had fled to her father at Medina under the persecution at Mecca after the Hegira.[288]

Her marriage with her unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad, and on the conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of six years after his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them together under their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh marriage nor a fresh dowry. (_Vide_ Ibn Abbas' tradition in the collections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.) Safwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi Jahl had believing wives at the time of the conquest of Mecca, and their marriages were not dissolved by Mohammad. (_Vide_ Ibn Shahab's tradition in _Movatta_ by Malik, and in the _Tabakat_ of Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi.) Similarly Ibn Sofian and Hakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives retained by them after they had themselves been converted to Islam, and their former connubial connection was not severed by Mohammad. (_Vide_ the several traditions in Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists and juris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the pa.s.sage in Sura LX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage tie.

[Footnote 257: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 13.]

[Footnote 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 Jabir in Ibn Mardaveih's collections to the same effect is not authentic, as Jabir, 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.]

[Footnote 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, G.o.d will mutilate me, though I be a Prophet."]

[Footnote 260: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 19.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 262: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 68.]

[Footnote 263: _Vide_ Mishkat Book of Retaliation, pp. 243-244.]

[Footnote 264: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 131, foot-note.]

[Footnote 265: Introduction to Lane's Selections from the Kur-an, by Stanley Lane Poole, p. lxvii. London: Trubner and Co., 1879.]

[Footnote 266: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 308.]

[Footnote 267: _Ibid_, p. 35.]

[Footnote 268: _Vide_ Zoorkanee on _Movahib_, Vol. II, page 244; also _Zad-ul-Maad_, by Ibn-al-Kyyim, Vol. I, page 376, Cawnpore, 1298 A.H.; and _Seerat-ul-Mohammadiya_, by Mohammad Karamat-ul-Ali of Delhi, in loco. The Life is compiled from _Seerat Halabi_ and _Seerat Shamee_ and was lithographed in Bombay.]

[Footnote 269: Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 266.]

[Footnote 270: _Seerat Halabi_, or _Insan-al-Oyoon_, Vol II, page 79.]

[Footnote 271: History of _Mohammad's Campaigns_, by Wackidi, pp.

368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.]

[Footnote 272: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.]

[Footnote 273: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.]