in which an actual fighting took place. Even the latter minimized numbers are not deserving of confidence. The actual expeditions are as follow:--

1. Badr.

2. Ohad.

* Muraisi.

3. Ahazab.

* Koreiza.

4. Khyber.

* Mecca.

5. Honain.

* Tayif.

There are no good authorities for the war at Muraisi with the Bani Mustalik. There were no fightings with the Koreiza, as their affair was but a continuation of the war of Ahzab, and therefore does not require a separate number. At Mecca there was no action, and it surrendered by a compromise. As for Tayif it was a part of the battle of Honain like Autas. It was besieged to lay hold of the fugitives who had sought there a shelter, and subsequently the siege was raised. Thus, there remain only five expeditions, which I have numbered out of nine, in which Mohammad fought against his enemies in his and his followers' defence.

Even these five scarcely deserve the name of battle. From a military point of view, they were but petty skirmishes in their results. The enemy's loss at Badr was 49, at Ohad 20, at Ahzab 3, at Khyber 93, and at Honain 93; but the last two numbers are open to doubt, and seem to be exaggerated. The loss on the Moslem side was 14, 74, 5, 19, and 17 respectively. The whole casualties in these wars on the side of the Moslems were 129, and on that of the enemies 258, which is exactly double those of the Moslems, and looks suspicious; hence it must be accepted with caution.

[Footnote 20: The biographers have only compiled or arranged the ma.s.s of popular romances and favourite tales of campaigns, which had become stereotyped in their time, but were for the most part the inventions of a playful fantasy.]

[Footnote 21: Musa-bin-Akba (died 141 A.H.)]

[Footnote 22: Ibn Sad and Ibn Is-hak as already alluded to.]

[Sidenote: Mr. Green quoted.]

15. The Rev. Samuel Green writes:--

"It has been insinuated that Mahomet first took up arms in his own defence, and by more than one historian he has been justified in seeking to repel or prevent the hostilities of his enemies, and to exact a reasonable measure of retaliation. 'The choice of an independent people,' says Gibbon, 'had exalted the fugitive of Mecca to the rank of a sovereign, and he was invested with the just prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or defensive war.'[23] That such a sentiment was entertained by a Mahometan does not at all surprise us, nor is it marvellous that it should be justified by an infidel; if it be true, war needs nothing to render laudable but the pretext of former injuries and the possession of power. The defence set up for Mahomet is equally availing for every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant; and men, instead of being bound together by the ties of clemency and mutual forgiveness of injuries, are transformed into fiends, watching for the opportunity of destroying each other."[24]

There was no pretence of former injuries on the part of the Moslems to make war on the Koreish. They were actually attacked by the Koreish and were several times threatened with inroads by them and their allies. So it was not until they were attacked by the enemy that they took up arms in their own defence, and sought to repel and prevent hostilities of their enemies. The defence set up for Mohammad is not equally availing of every sanguinary and revengeful tyrant. It was not only that Mohammad was wronged or attacked, but all the Moslems suffered injuries and outrages at Mecca, and when expelled therefrom, they were attacked upon, were not allowed to return to their homes, and to perform the pilgrimage there. The social and religious liberty, a natural right of every individual and nation, was denied them. A cruel or revengeful tyrant may not be justified in taking up arms in his own defence, or in seeking to redress his personal wrongs and private injuries; but the whole Moslem community at Mecca was outraged, persecuted and expelled,--and the entire Mohammadan commonwealth at Medina was attacked, injured and wronged,--their natural rights and privileges were disregarded--after such miseries the Moslems took up arms to protect themselves from the hostilities of their enemies and to repel force by force; and were justified by every law and justice.

The right of self-defence is a part of the law of nature, and it is the indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members. Even if a sanguinary and revengeful tyrant were to do so in his own behalf, he would be quite justified in this particular act. A just war, that is one undertaken for just causes to repel or revert wrongful force, or to establish a right, cannot be impeached on any ground, religious, moral, or political. But the Moslems had tried every possible means of obtaining a pacific solution of the difficulty which had arisen between them and their enemies, the Koreish and the Jews, to avert war and its horrors. Mohammad had repeatedly informed the Koreish that if they desist they will be forgiven.

88. "But if they desist, then verily G.o.d is gracious, merciful."

189. "But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."--_Sura II._

19. "_O Meccans!_ if ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come to you. It will be better for you to give over _the struggle_.

If ye return _to it_, we will return; and your forces, though they be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because G.o.d is with the faithful."

39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they turn _to it_, they have already before them the doom of the former."--_Sura VIII._

And the same was the case regarding the Jews.

104. "Many of those who have Scripture would like to bring you back to unbelief after you have believed, out of selfish envy, even after the truth hath been shown to them. Forgive them then, and shun them till G.o.d shall come with his decree. Truly G.o.d hath power over all things."--_Sura II._

63. "But if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust in G.o.d. He verily is the hearing, the knowing."--_Sura VIII._

16. ... "Thou wilt not cease to discover the treacherous ones among them, except a few of them. But forgive them and pa.s.s it over.

Verily G.o.d loveth those who act generously."--_Sura V._

But there could be no peace or mutual agreement on the part of the enemy until the truce of Hodeibia, which was also violated by them in a short time.

Even in the wars which were waged for self-preservation, the Prophet had very much mitigated the evils which are necessarily inflicted in the progress of wars. Fraud, perfidy, cruelty, killing women, children and aged persons were forbidden by Mohammad;[25] and a kind treatment of the prisoners of war enjoined. But foremost of these all--slavery, and domestication of concubinary slaves, the concomitant evils of war--were abolished by him, ordering at the same time that prisoners of war should be either liberated gratis or ransomed. Neither they were to be enslaved nor killed. (_Vide_ Sura XLVII, verses 4 and 5; and Appendix B of this work.) Attacking offensively was forbidden by the Koran (II, 186 _La Taatadu_, _i.e._ 'Do not attack first'). Mohammad had taken oaths from the Moslems to refrain from plundering (_vide_ page 58 of this book).

"All hostilities and plundering excursions between neighbouring tribes that had become Musalman he forbade on pain of death; and this among those who had hitherto lived by plunder or by war, and who he knew might be deterred by such prohibition from joining him.

'Let us make one more expedition against the Temim,' said a tribe that was almost, but not altogether, persuaded to embrace the faith, 'and then we will become Musalmans.'"[26]

"In avenging my injuries," said he (Mohammad), "molest not the harmless votaries of domestic seclusion; spare the weakness of the softer s.e.x, the infant at the breast, and those who in the course of nature are hastening from this scene of mortality. Abstain from demolishing the dwellings of the unresisting inhabitants; destroy not their means of subsistence, respect their fruit trees, and touch not the palm, so useful to the Syrians for its shade, and delightful for its verdure."[27]

"The Bani Bakr," writes Sir W. Muir, "meanwhile, foreseeing from the practice of the Prophet that, under the new faith, their mutual enmities would be stifled, resolved upon a last pa.s.sage of arms with their foes. The battle of _Shaitain_ fought at the close of 630 A.D. was a b.l.o.o.d.y and fatal one to the Bani Tamim."[28]

[Footnote 23: "Decline and Fall, Chap. 1."]

[Footnote 24: The Life of Mahomet, founder of the religion of Islamism and of the Empire of the Saracens, by the Rev. Samuel Green, page 126: London, 1877.]

[Footnote 25: Mohammad's instruction to Abdal-Rahman was--"In no case shalt thou use deceit or perfidy, nor shalt thou kill any child."--Muir, Vol. IV, p. 11.]

[Footnote 26: 'Quoted by Dr. Cazenove,' "Christian Remembrancer,"

January, 1855, page 71, from Caussin de Perceval. Mohammed & Mohammedanism. By R. Bosworth Smith, Second Edn., pp. 257 & 258. London, 1876.]

[Footnote 27: An History of Mohammedanism; comprising the Life and Character of the Arabian Prophet; by Charles Mills, page 27. London 1818.]

[Footnote 28: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. I, Intro., p. ccxxvii. London, 1861.]

[Sidenote: Another view of the wars of Mohammad.]

16. There is another view of the wars of Mohammad held by some of the European and American writers that he commenced hostilities on the caravans of the Koreish which pa.s.sed from Medina by way of reprisal and retaliation,[29] and that he at first took up arms in his self-defence, but at last he proclaimed, and waged, offensive wars against the Koreish.[30] I have already shown how improbable the line of action was on the part of Mohammad under the circ.u.mstances at Medina; and this line of policy is quite contrary to the several verses of the Koran on the subject, all enjoining the waging of wars in self-defence. But supposing that hostilities were first commenced by Mohammad after the Hegira, the state of war having commenced at the expulsion of the Moslems from Mecca, it was lawful for him to take up arms to redress the wrongs of the Moslems and to establish their lawful right by force of arms. A war commenced on these grounds is a defensive war, though from a military point of view it may be an offensive one.[31]

"The right of self-defence," writes Kent, a great authority on the International Law, "is part of the law of our nature, and it is the indispensable duty of civil society to protect its members in the enjoyment of their rights, both of person and property. This is the fundamental principle of the social compact.... The injury may consist, not only in the direct violation of personal or political rights, but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in the refusal of a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or of adequate explanation or security in respect to manifest and impending danger."[32]

[Footnote 29: Sir W. Muir doubts the intense hatred and bitter cruelty attributed by tradition to the Koreish, and says: "In accordance with this view is the fact that the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered and blood had thus been shed that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms." The Life of Mahomet, Vol. II, page 265, foot-note.

London, 1861. This note disappears in the new edition of 1877. In his work "The Coran," page 24, London, 1878, Sir W. Muir says: "The caravans of Mecca offered a tempting opportunity for reprisals, and several expeditions were organized against them."]

[Footnote 30: Mr. G. Sale writes: "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." _The Prelim. Dis. Sect. 11._ Mr. Henry Coppee writes regarding Mohammad: "But he soon found that he must take up arms in self defence, and in the thirteenth year of his mission, he announced that G.o.d permitted him not only to fight in his self-defence, but to propagate his religion by the sword." History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppee. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But Dr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely defensive. He writes:--"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of G.o.d, the law to fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions; and this became henceforth the watchword of his b.l.o.o.d.y religion." The Life of Mohammad, p. 207: Allahabad, 1851.]

[Footnote 31: M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International Law, holds: "A war undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war, notwithstanding that it may be militarily offensive." The International Law, by William Edward Hall, M.A., Oxford, 1880, page 320.]

[Footnote 32: Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T.

Abdy, LL.D., Second Edition, page 144.]

[Sidenote: Caravans, if waylaid, were by reprisal.]

17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or capturing of it, there are not any satisfactory grounds of proof; but if they were attacked and captured, I do not see any reason why they should be objected to. When hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally present themselves for detection and seizure are the person and property of the enemy. Even under the International Law of most civilized countries, the legitimacy of appropriating the enemy's property rests on the commencement of the state of war. Under the old customs of war a belligerent possessed the right to seize and appropriate all the property belonging to an enemy's state or its subjects, of whatever kind they be or in whatsoever place where the acts of war are permissible. So those who object to the early Moslems' threatening, or capturing, or appropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call them robbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the International Law, ancient or modern.

[Sidenote: Intolerance--no compulsory conversion enjoined, or took place during Mohammad's life-time.]

18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of Mohammad, the Prophet, towards the unbelievers has been fully discussed in paragraphs 34-39 (pp. 41-51). It is altogether a wrong a.s.sumption of European writers that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the unbeliever, or that Mohammad proselytized at the point of the sword. Sir W. Muir writes:--