Believe me all the following are unauthentic sources except the two which I will discuss below.
1 Vol. V, No. 1.
2 See B.N. (i.e. “Birthday Number”) pp. 9, 14-16, etc.
3 Some of the writers in this number are a little unfortunate when they begin to handle modern critical apparatus. Thus Mr. S. Khuda Bukhsh quotes “Bosworth, Smith,” and others. Does he give us the whole considered verdict of these (two!) gentlemen? He also refers prejudiced Christians to “the monumental work of Caetini (sic) in Italian.” It is obvious he has never read a line of “Caetini”. No more weighty and severe judgements could be imagined than some which Caetani has passed on several scenes in the life of Mohammed, although his standpoint is purely historic and objective.
4 Italics ours.
5 Ibn Hisham, sub loco; see Wüstenfeld’s edition, p. 653.
6 A writer in the Birthday Number (on page 25) makes his boast of Abu Bakr’s humanity as a warrior in explicitly commanding his men “to cut down no palms”! Sometimes a disciple is greater than his master, then.
7 The subsequent indemnification for the act in a Koran utterance is the reverse of impressive.
8 Translated from the Musnad of Ahmed ibn Hanbal i 178.
9 Arnold (Preaching of Islam p. 30) asserts Mohammed “disapproved of the act,” on the return of the triumphing ‘Abdallah. If so, on the face of the above, the disapproval was manifest hypocrisy. And the point remains, Mohammed did sanction the violation of the Sacred Truce. Arnold suppresses entirely this cardinal fact that Mohammed finally condoned the act and sanctioned the practice. He also suppresses most of the facts of the case mentioned above.
10 The fact that means were recommended by the Prophet (in at least one case not successfully) to prevent conception only increases one’s sense of disgust.
11 Halabi ii 296,7; Waqidi (Kitab el Maghazi, translated by Wellhausen page 179). In the hadith anthology, Mishkat al Masabih, the tradition is marked as muttafaq ‘alaih, i.e. found in all the great collections.
12 Halabi loc. cit..
13 Hisham p. 759, Waqidi (ed. Wellhausen) p. 282.
14 Mishkat al Masabih, Kitab an nikah, v. i. 9; Waqidi p. 366.
15 This is perfectly clear both from the wording of the tradition from Muslim and from the analogy of the Bani Mustaliq affair. The three-months limit (‘idda) was only in case of conception were not artificially prevented, and did not hinder immediate violation. Indeed Waqidi makes this point explicit (op. cit. p. 366); but it is unmistakable even without this.
16 Whether the account of al-Bukhari or of Ibn Hisham is considered, it is utterly impossible to say that anything in them justifies the sequel. Moreover it is to be remembered that in no single one of these cases of alleged offence is it possibleaudire alteram partem.
17 Vol. i, 1360 “wahuwa yuridu qatlahum”
18 Ibn Hisham p. 546 makes this perfectly clear.
19 Nevertheless, the Caliph Omar later hustled away the remnant of these poor people out of the peninsula.
20 The warning of Abu Lubaba (Hisham p. 686) makes this perfectly clear. It is to be feared that this story also proves that Abu Lubaba had been sent to mislead the garrison into surrendering in order to save their lives, the destruction of which had nevertheless been settled on. They asked him if they should surrender, and he answered ‘yes’: but with a significant gesture of hand to the throat signifying that their fate would certainly be butchery (Ibn Hisham p. 688). The narrative goes on to say that an instant after Abu Lubaba “felt he had betrayed God and the Apostle.” It is obvious he had been instructed to encourage them to surrender, and equally obvious that their tragic fate had nevertheless been decided on. It is another proof that the arbitration of Sa’d was a mere subterfuge.
21 Musnad of ibn Hanbal vi 55, iii 207.
22 ib. iii 350.
23 Sira Nabawiyya on a margin of al-Halabi ii p. 150.
24 ib. ii p. 154.
25 Hisham p. 763, 4.
26 The historians represent that her husband had ill-used her. She is certainly made out as having showed no love for him alive or dead. See Hisham p. 763.
27 In the case of Juwairiyya, the old historians state with the utmost freedom that the prophet was smitten with her beauty the moment he set eyes on her. See Halabi ii p. 291, 292, where the jealous ‘A’isha tells the story: “Juwairiyya was a lovely woman (hilwa) whom men no sooner saw than they became smitten with her…. She came in, and by Allah I no sooner set eyes on her than I was vexed at her coming in, and knew that the Apostle of God would see her in her just what I saw.” The meaning is obvious, and is made explicit by the following: “I felt certain that if once the Apostle of God saw her he would admire her” (‘for she knew’, adds the historian, ‘the influence of beauty on him’). “Well, then, she spoke to him, and he said to her, ‘Better still, I will pay the ransom and marry thee myself’.” See also Hisham p. 729. The marriage was consummated that very day, — the day, by the way, when Juwairiyya’s fellow tribes-women were being raped by the bridegroom’s comrades at the wells of Marasi’ (see above). We hope we shall now hear no more of the neo-Moslem pretence mentioned above.
28 Musnad of Ibn Hanbal, iii p. 123.
29 That is, that before marrying a widow a man must wait at least three months to make sure she is not with child by her first husband. When, in the “Reproach of Islam”, I erroneously stated that Raihana — again a celebrated beauty who also had just lost her husband at Mohammed’s hands — was taken to his embraces immediately after his execution, I was severely taken to task by a well-known neo-Moslem apologist of Cairo for gross ignorance. Did I not know that the law of ‘idda would itself have made such a thing impossible? I keenly regretted the slip. But this gentleman did not see fit to mention this case of Safiyya! Was this disingenuousness? Or was my gross ignorance balanced by his? — See also above, where it shows that, given certain circumstances, the law of the ‘idda was irrelevant.
30 e.g. Hisham pp 415-6, Waqidi p. 33; Tab. i. p. 1265.
31 op. cit. i. p. 2 and twice on p. 3.
32 Hisham p. 415.
33 Caetani vol i, pp. 358-9 and reff.
34 For some of them see previous note.
35 Arnold (Preaching of Islam, p. 30) is equally untrustworthy. To facts he opposes theories. It is extraordinary, and a real pity, how this useful book is spoiled by its being a brief. We have had an example of this already in his treatment of the fight in the sacred month. Here is another example. Take the crucial point of the object of the first expedition against the Quraish. Arnold:— “We find mention of several reconnoitering parties that went out in small numbers to watch the movements of the Quraish” (p. 30). Now the historians:— (on the first raid, not accompanied by Mohammed) “to intercept the camels of the Quraish”, Ibn Sa’d i. p. 3, Hal. ii, p. 134:— (on the first expedition accompanied by Mohammed himself, “to intercept the camels of the Quraish”, Ibn Sa’d i. p. 4! Another grossly misleading remark is found in a footnote to p. 30, where the raid of the Quraishite Kurz (see Muir p. 207) is brought in with the sole point of showing that the Quraish practiced the first hostilities. Now in the first place there is not the smallest proof that this marauder had been sent by the Quraish: and what shall we say, further, when we learn that his raid, such as it was, took place after Mohammed or his officers had already some four times taken the field! (Hisham p. 423, Tabari I, pp 1269).
36 Annali II pp 9, 10; We commend this passage to the notice of Mr. Bukhsh and his friends, but to spare their feelings refrain from translating it.
37 Ed. Wellhausen, p. 190.
38 Ed. Wellhausen p. 224. Considering that Waqidi mentions that a few months later the head of the tribe wanted peace with Mohammed, nothing important having happened in the meantime, one need not take these unsupported assertations of Khaybarite plotting very seriously.
39 A remarkable tradition is recorded by Muslim. (ii p. 237) “The Prophet gave the standard to ‘Ali and said ‘Forward! And do not look back until Allah gives you the victory.’ ‘Ali went forward a few steps and halted, and without looking back shouted out ‘O Apostle of Allah, to what end am I to fight the folk?’ He replied, ‘Fight them so that they may witness that there is no god save Allah and that Mohammed is Allah’s Apostle. If they do this they have redeemed their lives from you: or else they must buy their lives with the price of them.”
40 Hal. III, 206.
41 It will be noticed that in deference to Moslems we drop the notion of personal animosity. Let these assassinations be “executions” conceived and executed with passionless, judicial sternness.
42 She was a poetess and a satirist, and she had satirized Mohammed. We do not forget that modern researches (see Goldziher’s Abhandlungen) have made it clearer that these hija poets had uncanny power in those days, and that their satires were much more to be dreaded by governments than those of Mr. Punch. So, let her satire be high-treason. Still…! This by the way was the man who “made the woman sex almost sacred” (B.N. p. 32). Mohammed’s contempt for the “female sex” is notoriously proved from the traditions.
43 Halabi I 67.
44 op. cit. pp. 239, 240.
45 Close of Ibn Hisham’s narrative p. 980 f.
46 As in the case of the son of ‘Abdallah ibn Ubayy, Hisham p. 727.
47 As here.
48 See the following incident.
49 Hisham p. 553.
50 loc. cit. When he heard that his brother would have had as little hesitation in killing him, he is said to have exclaimed, “By Allah, such a religion is a wonderful religion,” and incontinently embraced Islam. We wonder what is thought of thisargument for Islamizing.
51 Still the very Sura which, after this horrible incident, humanely forbade punishment by torture or crucifixion, commanded that robbers, both male and female, should have their hands cut off, and their feet to follow, one after the other, if the crime were repeated. Are we, by the way, to work this also into our ideal penal code?
53 Muir p. 227 note.
54 Hisham p. 458.
55 Waqidi p. 68.
56 To which the commentator: “They washed their hands of him in their despair for his life and their fear of the Prophet’s anger.
57 Musnad I 383.
58 Loc. cit. la yanfalitanna ahadun minkum illa bifida’in aw dar-bati ‘unq: “Let not one escape you except he pay a ransom, or else have his head struck off.”
59 The Armenian horrors, in which the alternative of Islam or death was many a time horribly presented, were justly represented by Moslems as contrary to the law of Islam. We suspect however that very many Moslems justified these in their hearts on the score of the sezmimmis’ loss of rights through rebellion — an excuse which can be stretched to fit almost any case. [sezmimmis = dhimmis; the web editor]
60 We suspect that the fact that the first great campaigns were against People of a Book — for the expression was stretched to embrace even the Persians — mitigated the rigour of Sura ix. The Arabs were from the first sensitive to humanizing and civilizing influences. It was noted as noteworthy that when India was reached the polytheists got the benefit of the tribute privilege, whereby they kept their heads and their polytheism. Still, when Timur “turned Northern India into a shambles,” we imagine he was able to make out a fairly good case for himself.
61 Isaba I 453.
62 Halabi II p. 294.
63 Waqidi pp. 266, 7.
64 ‘Umar seems to have been a sort of voluntary headsman to the court, being devoted to the argument of the sword at all times (see his conduct after Badr). Later responsibility seems greatly to have elevated and enlarged his character.
65 Lam yakhrug il hablu min ‘unqika illa su’udan, Waqidi, p. 267.
66 The incident of Abu Lubaba sent by Mohammed to parley with the Bani Quraiza, offers a similar instance of doubtful good-faith.
67 Muslim II 237.
68 Zaharu bil ‘islam wa ttakhadhuhu hannatan min al qatl.
69 Li yakun dhalik sababan l iftitah il qital wa li taqwa gulubu ashabihi ‘ala l qitali shai’an fa shai’an, etc. vol. I. p. 417
The battle of Khyber:
See the reason mentioned by wikipedia:
On the reasons for the war, there had been a plan by Jews living in Khaybar to unite with other Jews from Banu Wadi Qurra, Taima’, Fadak as well as Ghafataan Arab tribe to attack Madinah.Read more
Saying to be living in peaceful deal with Muslims,they were killing the Muslims and stripping the Muslim women too.This was simply dissolving the treaty.
They were saying:
Muhammad , do you think that we are like your people? Do not be deluded by the fact that you met a people with no knowledge of war and that you made good use of your opportunity. By God, if you fight us you will know that we are real men