A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 20

[Footnote 215: Ibn Abbas was only five years old at that time, and was at Mecca. His evidence is consequently inadmissible.]

[Footnote 216: Yahya-bin Saeed al Ansaree, Ali-bin Abdullah-bin Abbas, Ibnal Mosayyab, Ata Ibrahim-bin Maisura, Mohammad-bin Sireen, Kasim, and Abdullah-bin Omar say that Ikrama was a liar. Vide _Mizanul Etedal_ of Zahabi, _Koukabi Durrari Sharah_, _Saheeh Bokhari_, by Shamsuddin Kirmani; and _Marafat Anwaa-ilm Hadees_, by Abu Omar-ad-Damishki.]

[Footnote 217: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, p. 200.]

[Footnote 218: Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL.D.

Sixth edition, by William Beach Lawrence, Boston, 1855; Part IV, Chapter I, p. 374, quoting Bynkershoek; in p. 416, quoting Bynkershoek and Wolff.]

[Footnote 219: _Ibid_, Chapter II, p. 470.]

[Footnote 220: The collections of Moslem _Apud_ Boreida, _vide_ Mishkat, p. 333.]

[Footnote 221: The collections of Abu Daud in the Book of Jihad, Vol.

II, p. 26.]

[Footnote 222: The Life of Mohammad based on Mohammad-ibn Ishak, by Abdel Malik-ibn Hisham, p. 714.]

[Footnote 223: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, p. 14.]

[Footnote 224: Or Yoseir-bin Razim.]

[Footnote 225: As Khyber was not yet conquered, neither Mohammad could make such a promise, nor the Jews could have been induced to believe it; therefore the story is a false one.]

[Footnote 226: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.

980-981.]

[Footnote 227: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.]

[Footnote 228: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV. p. 20.]

[Footnote 229: The Life of Mohammad, by Abdel Malik-bin Hisham, pp.

992-993. The fighting was, according to Arab custom, in single combats.]

[Footnote 230: Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, p. 118, London, 1869.]

[Footnote 231: Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 20, foot-note.]

[Footnote 232: Compare "Contributions to Political Science," by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Vol. II, p. 250.]

_The alleged Cruelties in executing the Prisoners of War and others_.

[Sidenote: 57. Treatment of the prisoners of war.]

Some of the war prisoners had received the condign punishment of execution for their crimes in conformity with the laws of war. It has been alleged by some European biographers of Mohammad that their (the war prisoners') execution was cruel, and that they were accused of no crime except their scepticism and political antagonism.[233]

The persons executed were as follows:--

1. Nadhr-bin-Harith.

2. Okba.

3. Abul Ozza.

4. Moavia-bin-Mughira.

[Sidenote: The law of nations regarding the prisoners of war.]

Before reviewing the case of each prisoner, I must note, by way of introductory remarks, that, under the international or military law, a prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, and who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the fields or in the hospitals, by individual surrender or capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising _en ma.s.se_ of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except religious persons, officers of medical staff, hospital nurses and servants, all disabled men or officers on the field, or elsewhere, if captured, all enemies who have thrown away their arms and asked for quarters, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as ent.i.tled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. He is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the international infliction of any suffering or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. But a prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's army or people before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.

1.--_Nadhr-bin-Harith_.

[Sidenote: 59. The execution of Nadhr Ibn Harith.]

Nadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle of Badr for his crime of severely tormenting the Moslems at Mecca.

Musab had distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of Mohammad,[234] so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of the Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it is made out by Sir W. Muir.[235] On the other hand, his execution is denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abu Naeem, who say, that Nazr-bin-Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A.H. 8, six years after that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al Harith's name in a foot-note (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr's execution is not a fact. It is also related by the narrators, who a.s.sert Nazr's execution at Badr, that his daughter or sister came to Mohammad and addressed him several verses, the hearing of which produced such a tender emotion in him, that his eyes shed tears and said, he would not have issued orders for his execution had he heard these verses before. The following are two of the verses which Mohammad heard:

_"Ma kan Zarraka lao mananta va rubba mamannal fata va ho-al mughizul mohnihoo."_ Thou wouldst no harm have seen to set him free, Anger how high for pardon has no plea.

But Zobier-bin-Bakar says, he heard some learned men who objected to these verses on the ground that they were all concocted; and I think that the whole story of Nazr's execution is a spurious one.

2.--_Okba-bin-Mueit_.

[Sidenote: 60. The execution of Okba.]

Another prisoner, named Okba, was executed after the battle of Badr for a crime similar to that of Nazr. It is related that while he was going to be executed, he asked who would take care of his little girl.

Mohammad replied, "h.e.l.l-fire!" This is altogether an apocryphal story, and owes its origin to the relation of Okba to the tribe of Banunnar, or the "children of fire." Wackidi does not give his authorities for the story, and Ibn Is-hak gives only one immediately before him, which is cut short of another intervening link of authorities up to the scene of occurrence. Abu Daood narrates it from Masrook, who gave it on the authority of Abdullah-bin-Mas-ood, who does not say he was present at the scene or he heard it directly or indirectly from Mohammad. Besides the circ.u.mstances under which Masrook gave out this story are very suspicious, and show that calumny was at work. Masrook was proposed by Zohak to be entrusted with the administration of a certain district.

Ommara, the son of Okba, objected to this, as Masrook was one of the murderers of Osman, the third Khalif. Masrook in reply said to Ommara, on the authority of Ibn Masood, that "when thy father was being executed, he had asked the Prophet, who will take care of his little girl." The Prophet replied, "h.e.l.l-fire." Therefore, I am satisfied for thee with what the Prophet had chosen for thy father.[236]

There is a discrepancy in the mode of Okba's execution as well as about the person who executed him. Ibn Is-hak says, that it was Asim who killed him, and Ibn Hisham, that it was Ali. Ibrahim is of opinion, that Okba was executed at Taimee,[237] and Mohammad-bin-Khobeib Hashimi,[238]

that he was crucified, from which others differ and say that he was beheaded. I have no belief in Okba's execution at all.

[Sidenote: 61. Free liberty granted to Ozza, a prisoner of war.]

Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, and who was one of the persecutors of the Moslems at Mecca, had besought Mohammad to release him by way of compa.s.sion for his five daughters. Mohammad granted him his life and his liberty.[239] This directly points to the universal generosity of the Prophet, and from this it will appear that the story of Okba's execution runs contrary to his general character and conduct.

On these grounds the execution of Okba might be rejected as a fiction.

3.--_Abul Ozza._

[Sidenote: 62. Abul Ozza proved a traitor and was executed.]

Abul Ozza, one of the prisoners of Badr, was allowed his freedom without any ransom, on the condition that he would never again bear up arms in any war against the Prophet; but he proved a traitor. He exhorted the Arabs to make war on Mohammad, and joined himself the invading army of Mecca. He was doomed to misfortune, he was caught at Hamra, and duly executed.[240] This was in full accordance with the laws and usages of war (_vide ante_, para. 58).

4.--_Moavia Ibn Mughira._

[Sidenote: The execution of Moavia Ibn Mughira.]

Moavia Ibn Mughira, also a prisoner of war, was granted three days'

truce, on the condition that if he were found in Medina after the appointed time, he was to be executed. The period had pa.s.sed, and he was still lurking at Medina. At length he was found out and killed by Zeid and Ammar on their return from Hamra-al-a.s.sad, after five or six days.

It is apparent that Moavia violated his truce, and his lurking in Medina might be either as a spy[241] or scout secretly seeking information.