| | First Period |Forgiveness and withdrawal | Sura XV, 85. VI, 106 ---------------+-------------------------------+------------------------- | | Second Period |Summoning | Sura XVI, 126.

---------------+-------------------------------+------------------------- | | Third Period |Fighting in self-defence | Sura XXII, 40. II, 187.

| | VIII, 63.

---------------+-------------------------------+------------------------- | | Fourth Period |Fighting aggressively | Sura IX, 5.

|during certain times | | | ---------------+-------------------------------+------------------------- | | Fifth Period |Aggressive fighting absolutely.| Sura II, 189. VIII, 40.

He is wrong in history, chronology as well as in understanding the general scope of the Koran and the tenor of the Suras. He does not regard even the context of the verses quoted.

The verses containing injunctions for turning aside, shunning, forgiving, pa.s.sing over, and withdrawing are found even in the later period of the Medinite Suras.--(_Vide_ Sura II, 103; V, 16, 46; Sura IV, 66, 83; and VII, 198.) They have nothing to do either with war or peace.

The summoning of people to the faith of G.o.d was the chief duty of the Prophetical office, and was not confined to any special period, and was alike during times of war and peace. Even during the actual warfare it was inc.u.mbent on the Prophet to give quarters to the enemy, if he desired, to listen to his preachings.--(_Vide_ Sura IX, 6.)

[Sidenote: 98. S. IX, v. 5, discussed.]

The fifth verse of the ninth Sura is by no means an injunction to attack first or wage an aggressive war. This verse is one of the several published at Medina after the Meccans had violated the treaty of Hodeibia and attacked the Bani Khozaa, who were in alliance with Mohammad. The Meccans were given four months' time to submit, in default of which they were to be attacked for their violation of the treaty and for their attacking the Bani Khozaa. They submitted beforehand, and Mecca was conquered by compromise. The verses referred to above (Sura IX, 1-15, &c.) were not acted upon. So there was no injunction to wage an aggressive war. This subject has been discussed at pages 51-55 of this work, and the reader is referred to them for fuller information.

[Sidenote: 99. S. II, v. 189, discussed.]

The 189th verse of the second Sura is not at all an absolute injunction to wage a war of aggression. The verses 186, 187, 188 and 189, if read together, will show that the injunction for fighting is only in defence.

The verses are:--

186. And fight for the cause of G.o.d against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice _of attacking them first_; verily G.o.d loveth not the unjust.

187. And kill them wherever ye shall find them; and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for (_fitnah_) persecution is worse than slaughter; yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque until they attack you therein, but if they attack you then slay them: such is the recompense of the infidels!

188. But if they desist, then verily G.o.d is Gracious, Merciful--

189. And do battle, against them until there be no more (_fitnah_) persecution and the only worship be that of G.o.d: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers.

[Sidenote: 100. S. II, 189, VIII, 40, are defensive.]

Besides, this verse as well as the fortieth verse of Sura VIII have indications in themselves of their relating to a defensive war. As the torture, aggression, in short, the persecutions suffered by the Moslems from the Koreish, are very clearly indicated by the word _fitnah_ in these two verses, the object of fighting or counterfighting by the Moslems is plainly set forth, which is to suppress the persecutions.

They have clear reference to the persecution, to stop or remove which they enjoined fighting, and this was fighting in self-defence obviously.

They also show that the Meccans had not desisted from persecuting and attacking the Moslems, and therefore a provision was made that if they discontinue their incursions, there will be no more hostility. This is quite sufficient to show that these verses relate to the defensive wars of Mohammad.

[Sidenote: 101. All injunctions local and for the time being.]

Lastly, supposing the Koran permitted waging aggressive wars against the Meccans, who were the first aggressors, this does not corroborate the theory or principle of the Common Law of making lawful aggressive wars in future on the authority of these verses, as all of them in the Koran on the subject of war relate only to Pagan Arabs, who had long persevered in their hostility to the early Moslems or to the Jews, who, being in league with the Moslems, went over to their enemies, and aided them against the Moslems. These verses are not binding on other persons, who are not under the same circ.u.mstance as the Moslems were under, at Medina. [See para. 90.]

[Sidenote: 102. Ainee quoted and refuted.]

Another commentator of the Hedaya, Ainee[297] (who died in 855) follows Kifaya already quoted, and mentions some other verses of the Koran on the war of aggression, which the author of Kifaya has left uncited in his work. They are as follows:--

"... Then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths are binding on them--that they may desist."--(Sura IX, 12.)

"War is prescribed to you, but from this ye are averse."--(Sura II, 212.)

"March ye forth, the light and heavy, and contend with your substance and your persons on the Way of G.o.d."--(Sura IX, 41.)

The first verse when it is complete runs thus:--"But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity,--for no oaths are binding on them--that they may desist;" and fully shows by its wording that it relates to the war of defence, as the breaking of alliances, and reviling of the Moslem religion were the grounds of making war with the object in view that the aggressors may desist. This verse is one of those in the beginning of the ninth Sura, which have already been discussed.--(_Vide_ pages 51-55.)

The second verse (II, 212) does not allow a war of aggression, as the next verse (II, 214) expressly mentions the attacks made by the aggressors on the Moslems. It has been quoted at full length in page 18.

The third verse (IX, 41) was published on the occasion of the expedition of Tabuk, which was certainly a defensive measure, and has been discussed in pages 51 to 55.

[Sidenote: 103. Sarakhsee quoted and refuted.]

Sarakhsee generally ent.i.tled _Shums-ul-a-imma_ (the Sun of the Leaders), who died in 671 A.H., as quoted by Ibn Abdeen in his _Radd-ul-Muhtar_,[298] makes several stages in publishing the injunctions for fighting. He writes:--

"Know thou, that the command for fighting has descended by degrees.

First the Prophet was enjoined to proclaim and withdraw, 'Profess publicly then what thou hast been bidden and withdraw from those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d' (XV, 94). Then he was ordered to dispute kindly; 'Summon thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and with kindly warning: dispute with them in the kindest warning' (XVI, 126). Then they were allowed to fight, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought....'

(XXII, 40). Then they were allowed to fight if they (the unbelievers) attacked them, 'If they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187). After this they were enjoined to fight on the condition of pa.s.sing over the sacred months, 'And when the sacred months are pa.s.sed, then kill the polytheists' (IX, 5). After this they were enjoined to fight absolutely, 'And fight for the cause of G.o.d....' (II, 186, 245). And thus the matter was settled."

There was no injunction for fighting absolutely or aggressively in the Koran. I have already explained the 5th verse of the ninth Sura as not allowing an offensive war. And the same is the case with the 186th verse of the second Sura, which has in itself the condition of fighting against those only who fought against the Moslems. The other verse, 245th, of the same Sura is restricted by the verse 186th, (and is explained by the verse 245th), which refers to the defensive measures.

This verse is quoted in page 19 of this work.

[Sidenote: 104. Ibn Hajar quoted and refuted.]

Shahabudeen Ahmed-bin-Hajr Makki writes:--

"Fighting was prohibited before the Hegira, as the Prophet was enjoined only to preach and warn and to be patient in the persecutions of the unbelievers in order to conciliate them. After this, G.o.d gave sanction to the Moslems for fighting, (after that had been prohibited in seventy and odd verses), when the unbelievers were the aggressors, and said, 'And fight for the cause of G.o.d against those who fight against you'

(II, 187). And it is a genuine tradition from Zohri that the first revealed verse sanctioning it was, 'A sanction is given to those who are fought, because they have suffered outrages' (XXII, 40): that is a sanction was given for fighting on the ground of the word 'fought.' Then the war of aggression was made lawful in other than the sacred months, 'When the sacred months are over....' (IX, 5). After this, in the eighth year of the Hegira, after the victory of Mecca, the fighting was enjoined absolutely by the words of G.o.d; 'March ye forth, the light and the heavy' (IX, 41); and 'attack those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d in all'

(IX, 36). And this is the very verse of the sword, and some say the preceding verse is the verse of the sword, while others think that both bear on the same subject, _i.e._, of the sword."[299]

[Sidenote: 105. Ibn Hajar refuted.]

I have already explained the several verses quoted by the author in preceding paras., but have only to pa.s.s remarks on the only verse, _i.e._ (IX, 36), which the authors cited have not dared to mention, because it goes contrary to their a.s.sertion. Perhaps it is a slip in the rapidity of Ibn Hajar remarks, for which he may be excused. But I will not hesitate in saying that generally the Mohammadan legists, while quoting the Koran in support of their theories, quote some dislocated portion from a verse without any heed to its context, and thus cause a great and irreparable mischief by misleading others, especially the European writers, as it is apparent from the testimony of Mr. Lane quoted in para. 113 of this work.

The verse referred to by the author mentioned in the last para., Ibn Hajar Makki, is as follows: "Attack those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d in all, as they attack you in all."--(IX, 36.) This speaks evidently of the defensive war, and has not the slightest or faintest idea of a war of aggression on the part of the Moslems. This verse refers to the expedition of Tabuk.

[Sidenote: 106. Halabi quoted.]

Nooruddeen Ali al Halabi (died 1044 A.H.), the author of _Insan-ul-Oyoon_, a biography of the Prophet, writes:--

"It is not hidden that the Prophet for ten and odd years was warning and summoning people without fighting, and bearing patiently the severe persecutions of the Meccan Arabs and the Medinite Jews on himself and on his followers, because G.o.d had enjoined him to warn and to have patience to bear the injuries by withholding from them, in accordance with His words, 'Withdraw from them' (V, 46); and 'endure them with patience'

(XVI, 128; XVIII, 27; x.x.xI, 16; LII, 48; and LXXIII, 10). He also used to promise them victory. His companions at Mecca used to come to him beaten and injured, and he used to tell them, 'Endure with patience, I am not commanded to fight,' because they were but a small party at Mecca. After this, when he was settled at Medina after the Hegira and his followers became numerous who preferred him to their fathers, children, and wives, and the unbelievers persisted in their idolatry, charging him with falsehoods, then G.o.d permitted his followers to fight, but against those _only_ who used to fight against them (the Moslems), and were aggressors, as he said, 'If they fight you, then kill them'

(II, 187). This was in the year of Safar A.H. 2.... Then the whole Arab host marched against the Moslems to fight against them from every direction. The Moslems pa.s.sed whole nights in arms, and during the day they were in the same state, and longed to pa.s.s peaceful nights without fear from anybody except from G.o.d. Then it was revealed, 'G.o.d hath promised to those of you who believe and do the things that are right, that he will cause them to succeed others in the land, as he gave succession to those who were before them, and that He will establish for them that religion which they delight in, and after their fears He will give them security in exchange' (S. XXIV, 54). After this to attack first was allowed against those who had not fought, but in other than the sacred months, _viz._, _Rajab_, _Zulkada_, _Zulhijja_, and _Mohuram_, according to the precept, 'And when the sacred months are pa.s.sed, kill those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d ...' (IX, 5). Then the order became inc.u.mbent after the victory of Mecca, in the next year, to fight absolutely without any restriction, without any regard to any condition and time, by the words of G.o.d, 'Attack those who join G.o.ds with G.o.d in all' at any time (IX, 36). So it is known that the fighting was forbidden before the Hegira up to the month of Safar in its second year, as the Prophet was in this period ordered to preach and warn without any fighting, which was forbidden in seventy and odd verses. Then it was permitted to fight against _only_ those who fought against them. Then it was allowed to fight against those who fought aggressively in other than the sacred months. After this it was enjoined absolutely to wage war against them whether they did or did not fight, at all times, whether during the sacred months, or others of the year."[300]

[Sidenote: 107. Halabi refuted.]

Neither the fifth verse of the ninth Sura, nor the thirty-sixth of the same, allowed war of aggression. Both of them were published on the occasions of defensive wars, and the party against whom they were directed were the aggressors. All the verses quoted by Halabi, bearing on the subject, have been discussed and explained in the foregoing pages, from 92 to 106.

[Sidenote: 108. Ainee again quoted and refuted.]

Ainee, the author of the commentary on the Hedaya, called _Binayah_, in justifying the war of aggression against the unbelievers, quotes two verses from the Koran,[301] and two traditions from the Prophet,[302]

and says,--"If it be objected that these absolute injunctions are restricted by the word of G.o.d, 'if they attack you, then kill them' (II, 187), which shows that the fighting is only inc.u.mbent when the unbelievers are the aggressors in fighting, as it was held by Souri, the reply is that the verse was abrogated by another, 'So fight against them until there be no more persecution' (II, 189), and 'fight against those who do not believe in G.o.d.' (IX, 29)."[303] But he is wrong in a.s.serting that the verse II, 187 was abrogated by II, 189, and IX, 29. There is no authority for such a gratuitous a.s.sumption. And besides, both these verses (II, 189, and IX, 29) relate to defensive wars as it has been already explained in paras. 96-99.