"And he caused those of the people of the Book (the Jews) who had aided the confederates to come down of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew; others ye took prisoners."--Sura, x.x.xiii, 26.

The slaying and taking of prisoners is attributed to them to whom the verse is addressed as their own act.

[Sidenote: 70. The women and children of the Bani Koreiza were not sold.]

The rest of the Bani Koreiza,--male adults, women, and children,--were either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms.[252] But there is no authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of Mohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:--

"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into two halves. One-half he sent with Sad bin Obadd to Syria, and the other half with Ans bin Quizi to the land of Ghatafan, and ordered that they may be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good horses."[253]

[Sidenote: 71. The exaggerated number of the persons executed.]

The number of male adults executed has been much exaggerated, though it is immaterial, when an execution duly authorized by the international law of a country takes place, to consider the smallness or greatness of the number. I cannot do better than quote Moulvie Ameer Ali of Calcutta on the subject, who has very judiciously criticised the same: "Pa.s.sing now to the men executed," he says, "one can at once see how it has been exaggerated. Some say they were 400; others have carried the number even up to 900. But Christian historians generally give it as varying from 700 to 800. I look upon this as a gross exaggeration. Even 400 would seem an exaggerated number. The traditions agree in making the warlike materials of the Bani Koreiza consist of 300 cuira.s.ses, 500 bucklers, 1,500 sabres, &c. In order to magnify the value of the spoil, the traditions probably exaggerated these numbers.[254] But taking them as they stand, and remembering that such arms are always kept greatly in excess of the number of fighting men, I am led to the conclusion that the warriors could not have been more than 200 or 300. The mistake probably arose from confounding the whole body of prisoners who fell into the hands of the Moslems with those executed."[255]

Even 200 seems to be a large number, as all of the prisoners were put up for the night in the house of Bint-al-Haris,[256] which would have been insufficient for such a large number.

[Footnote 250: Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Vol. II.

Contributions to Political Science, p. 273, Philadelphia, 1881.]

[Footnote 251: Some of the Koreizites were released, among whom we hear of Zobeir Ibn Bata, and Rifaa. They were pardoned by Mohammad.]

[Footnote 252: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, p. 279.]

[Footnote 253: _History of Mohammad's Campaigns_: Edited by Von Kremer, p. 374.]

[Footnote 254: "Compare the remarks of Ibn-Khaldun (Prelegomenes d' Ibn Khaldoun, traduits par M. de Slane, Part I, p. 14)."]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

_Some Miscellaneous Objections Refuted._

1.--_Omm Kirfa._

[Sidenote: 72. The execution of Omm Kirfa for brigandage.]

The barbarous execution of Omm Kirfa, a female, who was notorious as the mistress of a nest of robbers, by tying her each leg to a separate camel and being torn asunder, is not a fact. It is only mentioned by Katib Wackidi, and is not to be found in any other earliest account of Wackidi, Ibn Is-hak, and Ibn Hisham. Even Katib Wackidi does not say that the execution was ordered by Mohammad, and it is not fair on the part of Sir W. Muir to hold Mohammad an accomplice in the ferocious act, because he reads of no disapprobation expressed by the Prophet at such an inhuman treatment.[257] But in the first place the narration is a mere fiction; and secondly, the traditions are, as a rule, always incomplete; in one place they are given shorter, and in another longer, according to the circ.u.mstances of the occasion on which they are originally recited. Ibn Hisham relates, that "Zaid-bin-Harisa ordered Kays-bin-Mosahhar to execute Omm Kirfa, so he executed her with a violent execution." ('_Katlan Aneefan_,' p. 980.) He does not relate that Mohammad was even informed of the execution after the party had returned from this terrible mission. I think the word '_aneef_'

(_violent_ or _severe_), as used originally by the narrator, might have been the cause of the growth of the story of executing by tying up to two camels, by way of a gratuitous explanation or glossary, as another tradition relates that she was tied to the tails of two horses (_vide Koostalanee_ in his Commentary on Bokharee, Vol. III, p. 307).

2.--_Urnee Robbers._

[Sidenote: 73. The alleged mutilation of the Urnee robbers.]

Some _Urnee_ robbers, lately converted, had plundered the camels of Medina and barbarously handled their herdsman, for they cut off his hands and legs, and struck th.o.r.n.y spikes into his tongue and eyes, till he died. The bandits were pursued, captured, and executed by Kurz-bin-Jabir. "They had merited death," says Sir W. Muir, "but the mode in which he inflicted it was barbarous and inhuman. The arms and legs of eight men were cut off, and their eyes were put out. The shapeless, sightless trunks of these wretched Bedouins were then impaled upon the plain of Al Ghaba, until life was extinct."[258] As the robbers had mutilated the herdsman, this gave currency to their having been mutilated in retaliation. But in fact Mohammad never ordered mutilation in any case. He was so averse to this practice, that several traditions from various sources emanating from him to the effect, prove that he prohibited mutilation lest he himself be mutilated by divine judgment.[259]

[Sidenote: 74. Amputation or banishment subst.i.tuted temporarily in place of imprisonment for want of a well-organized system of jails.]

Sir W. Muir continues:--"On reflection, Mahomet appears to have felt that this punishment exceeded the bounds of humanity. He accordingly promulgated a Revelation, in which capital punishment is limited to simple death or crucifixion. Amputation of the hands and feet is, however, sanctioned as a penal measure; and amputation of the hands is even enjoined as the proper penalty for theft, whether the criminal be male or female. This barbarous custom has accordingly been perpetuated throughout the Mahometan world. But the putting out of the eyes is not recognized among the legal punishments."[260]

These alternative punishments were prescribed for the heinous crimes of highway robbery, dacoity, and theft by house-breaking. They were (i) capital punishment, (ii) amputation, and (iii) banishment (Sura, v, 37, 42), according to the circ.u.mstances of the case. The last two were of a temporary nature subst.i.tuted for imprisonment for want of an organized system of jails and prisons. When the Commonwealth was in its infancy, the troubles of the invasions and wars of the aggressive Koreish and their allies had left neither peace nor security at Medina to take such administrative measures as to organize a system of building, guarding, and maintaining jails, their inmates and their establishments. As soon as jails were established in the Mohammadan Commonwealth, amputation and banishment gave way to imprisonment. The prisoners of war, not being criminals, used to be made over by Mohammad to some citizens of Medina, as in the case of the prisoners of the battle of Badr, to keep them in their houses as guests, on account of the want of prisons; but as for the other criminals--the highway robbers, dacoits, and house-breakers--they could not be treated and entertained so hospitably.

Thus there was left no alternative for them except either to banish such criminals, or to award them corporal punishment in the shape of amputation.[261]

3.--_Torture of Kinana._

[Sidenote: 75. Torture of Kinana.]

It is related by the biographers "that Kinana, chief of the Jews of Khyber, and his cousin had kept back, in contravention of their compact, a portion of their riches. On the discovery of this attempt at imposition, Kinana was subjected to cruel torture--'fire being placed upon his breast till his breath had almost departed'--in the hope that he would confess where the rest of his treasures were concealed. Mahomet then gave command, and the heads of the chief and his cousin were severed from their bodies."[262]

The story of Kinana's being subjected to extortion and put to death for hiding some treasure, for which he had contravened his contract, is altogether a spurious one. Kinana was executed in retaliation for treacherously killing Mahmud, the brother of Mohammad-bin-Moslama, to whom he was made over for execution. There is one tradition, without any authority, to the effect, that Zobeir was producing fire on Kinana's breast by the friction of flint and steel. This, if it be a fact, does not show that it was done by Mohammad's direction and approval. On the contrary, there are several traditions from the Prophet himself in which he has forbidden to punish any one with fire. It is related by Bokharee from Ibn Abbas, that Mohammad said, "G.o.d only can punish with fire." It is also related by Abu Daood from Abdullah, that the Prophet said, "No body ought to punish any one with fire except the Lord of the fire."[263]

4.--_A Singing-Girl executed._

[Sidenote: 76. The alleged execution of a singing-girl.]

"From general amnesty extended to the citizens of Mecca, Mahomet excluded ten or twelve persons. Of these, however, only four were actually put to death.... The two next were renegade Moslems, who having shed blood at Medina had fled to Mecca, and abjured Islam. They were both slain, and also a singing-girl belonging to one of them, who had been in the habit of annoying the Prophet by abusive verses."

"Their names are Abdallah ibn Khalal and Mikyas ibn Subaba. The murder committed by the former is said to have been wilful, that of the latter unintentional. Abdallah had two singing-girls. Both were sentenced to death, but one escaped and afterwards obtained quarter; the execution of the other appears to have been the worst act committed by Mahomet on the present occasion."[264]

Abdullah had committed cold-blooded murder, and most probably the singing-girl belonging to him had taken a share in his crime. Her execution was owing to her being an accomplice or abettor in the foul act which was justified by law. Then why should the execution be considered a worst act? Mohammad felt the deepest respect for the weaker s.e.x, and had enjoined during the warfares "not to kill women;" but the law makes no difference amongst the s.e.xes, both s.e.xes being liable to punishment according to their deserts.

[Sidenote: 77. The charitable spirit of Mohammad towards his enemies.]

The magnanimity, clemency, forbearance, and forgiveness of Mohammad at the time of his victory at Mecca were very remarkable. Mr. Stanley Lane Poole with his usual ac.u.men writes:--"But the final keystone was set in the eighth year of the flight (A.D. 630), when a body of the Kureysh broke the truce by attacking an ally of the Muslims; and Mohammad forthwith marched upon Mekka with ten thousand men, and the city, defence being hopeless, surrendered. Now was the time for the Prophet to show his bloodthirsty nature. His old persecutors are at his feet. Will he not trample on them, torture them, revenge himself after his own cruel manner? Now the man will come forward in his true colours: we may prepare our horror, and cry shame beforehand.

"But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him: he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka.

Four criminals, whom justice condemned, made up Mohammad's proscription list when he entered as a conqueror the city of his bitterest enemies.

The army followed the example, and entered quietly and peaceably; no house was robbed, no woman insulted."[265]

5.--_Abu Basir._

[Sidenote: 78. Abu Basir not countenanced by the Prophet in contravention of the spirit of the treaty of Hodeibia.]

Sir W. Muir says that "Abu Basir, the free-booter, was countenanced by the Prophet in a manner scarcely consistent with the letter, and certainly opposed to the spirit, of the truce of Hodeibia."[266] It was one of the articles of the treaty of Hodeibia between the Koreish and Mohammad, that if any one goeth over to Mohammad without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to him.[267] A short time after, Abu Basir, a Moslem imprisoned at Mecca, effected his escape and appeared at Medina. His guardians, Azhar and Akhnas, sent two servants to Mohammad with a letter and instructions to bring the deserter back to his house. The obligation of surrender was at once admitted by Mohammad, though Abu Basir pleaded the persecution which he used to suffer at Mecca as the cause of refusing to return, but Mohammad argued that it was not proper for him to break the terms of the peace, and Abu Basir was compelled to set out for Mecca. But he had travelled only a few miles when he treacherously seized the sword of one of his escorts and slew him. The other servant fled back to Medina, whither Abu Basir also followed him. On the return of the latter, he contended that the Prophet had already fulfilled the treaty to its very letter in delivering him up, but the Prophet replied, "Alas for his mother! What a kindler of war, if he had with him any one!" When he heard this "he knew that the Prophet was again going to send him back to his guardians,[268] the Koreish, so he went away to the seash.o.r.e, where he, with others who had joined him after their flight from captivity at Mecca, used to waylay the caravans from Mecca." This story, which is also briefly narrated by Ibn Is-hak, and more fully by Shamee, Zoorkanee and Ibn-al-Kyyim, does not show that Mohammad acted against the spirit and letter of the truce of Hodeibia.

He himself never countenanced Abu Basir; on the contrary, he delivered him up in conformity with the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia, and when he had returned, Abu Basir had every reason to believe that Mohammad would again despatch him to the quarters whence he had come. But it appears Abu Basir went away to the seash.o.r.e, out of Mohammad's jurisdiction, and it was not the duty of the Prophet to effect his arrest and send him back to Mecca whilst he was not with him, or rather out of his jurisdiction. Had he even kept him with himself at Medina after he had once made him over to the party sent forth to take charge of him, and were no other demands made for his delivery, I do not think Mohammad could be fairly blamed for it according to the international law of the Arabs, or even according to the terms of the treaty of Hodeibia itself.

6.--_Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged Medina._

[Sidenote: 79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reports in the enemy's camp.]

When Medina was besieged for several days by the Koreish and their confederates, the army of Medina was hara.s.sed and wearied with increasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe, represented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to the Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the confederates from the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game of deception." Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the Koreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got hostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted.

And to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from them. "Do not give them," he said, "they have promised Mahomet to give up the hostages to be slain."[269]

This is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews had themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied yet, when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian when their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu Sofian is not going to send them any.[270]

A third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's _Campaigns of Mohammad_ gives no such story at all. It has altogether a different narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish in the Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that the Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on their arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who were waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already related.[271] This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr.

Muir. But anyhow the story does not prove that Mohammad had given permission to Nueim to speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.