Books: The Koran

U >> Unknown >> The Koran

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93

8 Sir J. Maundeville (who, excepting a few silly stories he tells from
hearsay, deserves more credit than some travellers of better reputation),
speaking of the Alcoran, observes, among several other truths, that Mahomet
therein commanded a man should have two wives, or three, or four; though the
Mahometans then took nine wives, and lemans as many as they might sustain.
Maundev. Travels, p. 164. 9 Maimon. in Halachoth Ishoth. c. 14.
10 Idem, ibid. Vide Selden, Uxor. Hebr. l. r, c. 9.
1 Deut. xxiv. 3-4. Jerem. iii. I. Vide Selden, ubi sup. l. r. c. II.
2 Kor. c. 2, p. 24. 3 Vide Selden, ubi sup. l. 3, c. 21, and
Ricaut's State of the Ottom. Empire, bk. ii. c. 21. 4 Deut. xxiv I.
Leo Modena, Hist. de gli Riti hebr. part i. c. 6. Vide Selden, ubi sup.
5 Vide Busbeq. Ep. 3, p. 184; Smith, de Morib. ac Instit. Turcar. Ep.
2, p. 52; and Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. I, p. 169. 6 Kor. c. 4, p.
55. 7 Kor. c. 2, p. 24, and c. 65.

before consummation, she is not obliged to wait any particular time,8 nor is
he obliged to give her more than one-half of her dower.9 If the divorced
woman have a young child, she is to suckle it till it be two years old; the
father, in the meantime, maintaining her in all respects: a widow is also
obliged to do the same, and to wait four months and ten days before she marry
again.1
These rules ar also copied form those of the Jews, according to whom a
divorced woman, or a widow, cannot marry another man, till ninety days be
past, after the divorce or death of the husband:2 and she who gives suck is to
be maintained for two years, to be computed from the birth of the child;
within which time she must not marry, unless the child die, or her milk be
dried up.3
Whoredom, in single women as well as married, was, in the beginning
Mohammedism, very severely punished; such being ordered to be shut up in
prison till they died: but afterwards it was ordained by the Sonna, that an
adulteress should be stoned,4 and an unmarried woman guilty of fornication
scourged with a hundred stripes, and banished for a year.5 A she-slave, if
convicted of adultery, is to suffer but half the punishment of a free woman,6
viz., fifty stripes, and banishment for six months; but is not to be put to
death. To convict a woman of adultery, so as to make it capital, four
witnesses are expressly required,7 and those, as the commentators say, ought
to be men: and if a man falsely accuse a woman of reputation of whoredom of
any kind, and is not able to support the charge by that number of witnesses,
he is to receive fourscore stripes, and his testimony is to be held invalid
for the future.8 Fornication, in either sex, is by the sentence of the Korân
to be punished with a hundred stripes.9
If a man accuse his wife of infidelity, and is not able to prove it by
sufficient evidence, and will swear four times that it is true, and the fifth
time imprecate GOD'S vengeance on him if it be false, she is to be looked on
as convicted, unless she will take the like oaths, and make the like
imprecation, in testimony of her innocency; which is she do, she is free from
punishment, though the marriage ought to be dissolved.10
In most of the last-mentioned particulars the decisions of the Korân also
agree with those of the Jews. By the law of Moses, adultery, whether in a
married women or a virgin betrothed, was punished with death; and the man who
debauched them was to suffer the same punishment.1 The penalty of simple
fornication was scourging, the

8 Ibid. c. 33. 9 Ibid. c. 2, p. 25. 1 Ibid. c. 2, p.
25, and c. 65. 2 Mishna, tit. Yabimoth, c. 4. Gemar. Babyl. ad
eund. tit. Maimon. in Halach. Girushin, Shylhan Aruch, part iii. 3 Mishna,
and Gemara, and Maimon. ubi supra. Gem. Babyl. ad tit. Cetuboth, c. 5, and
Jos. Karo, in Shylhân Aruch, c. 50, § 2. Vide Selden, Ux. Hebr. l. 2, c. II,
and l. 3, c. 10, in fin.
4 And the adulterer also, according to a passage once extant in the Korân,
and still in force, as some suppose. See the notes to Kor. c. 3, p. 34, and
the Prel. Disc. p. 52. 5 Kor. c. 4, p. 55. See the notes there.
6 Ibid. p. 57.
7 Ibid. p. 55. 8 Ibid. c. 24. 9 Ibid. This law relates
not to married people, as Selden supposes; Ux. Heb. l. 3, c. 12. 10
Ibid. p. 288. See the notes there.
1 Levit. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22. The kind of death to be inflicted on
adulterers, in common cases being not expressed, the Talmudists generally
suppose it to be strangling, which they think is designed wherever the phrase
"shall be put to death," or "shall die the death," is used, as they imagine
stoning is by the expression, "his blood shall be upon him;" and hence it has
been concluded by some that the woman taken in adultery mentioned in the
Gospel (John viii.) was a betrothed maiden, because such a one and her
accomplice were plainly ordered to be stoned (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). But the
ancients seem to have been of a different opinion,

general punishment in cases where none is particularly appointed: and a
betrothed bondmaid, if convicted of adultery, underwent the same punishment,
being exempted from death, because she was not free.2 By the same law no
person was to be put to death on the oath of one witness:3 and a man who
slandered his wife was also to be chastised, that is scourged, and fined one
hundred shekels of silver.4 The method of trying a woman suspected of
adultery where evidence was wanting, by forcing her to drink the bitter water
of jealousy,5 though disused by the Jews long before the time of Mohammed,6
yet, by reason of the oath of cursing with which the woman was charged, and to
which she was obliged to say "Amen," bears great resemblance to the expedient
devised by that prophet on the like occasion.
The institutions of Mohammed relating to the pollution of women during
their courses,7 the taking of slaves to wife,8 and the prohibiting of marriage
within certain degrees,9 have likewise no small affinity with the institutions
of Moses;10 and the parallel might be carried farther in several other
particulars.
As to the prohibited degrees, it may be observed, that the pagan Arabs
abstained from marrying their mothers, daughters, and aunts both on the
father's side and on the mother's, and held it a most scandalous thing to
marry two sister, or for a man to take his father's wife;11 which last was,
notwithstanding, too frequently practised,12 and is expressly forbidden in the
Korân.13
Before I leave the subject of marriages, it may be proper to take notice of
some peculiar privileges in relation thereto, which were granted by GOD to
Mohammed, as he gave out, exclusive of all other Moslems. One of them was,
that he might lawfully marry as many wives and have as many concubines as he
pleased, without being confined to any particular number;1 and this he
pretended to have been the privilege of the prophets before him. Another was,
that he might alter the turns of his wives, and take such of them to his bed
as he thought fit, without being tied to that order and equality which others
are obliged to observe.2 A third privilege was, that no man might marry any
of his wives,3 either such as he should divorce during his lifetime, or such
as he should leave widows at his death: which last particular exactly agrees
with what the Jewish doctors have determined concerning the wives of their
princes; it being judged by them to be a thing very indecent, and for that
reason unlawful, for another to marry either the divorced wife or the widow of
a king;4 and Mohammed, it seems, thought an equal respect, at least, due to
the prophetic as to the regal dignity, and therefore ordered that his relicts
should pass the remainder of their lives in perpetual widowhood.

and to have understood stoning to be the punishment of adulterers in general.
Vide Selden, Ux. Hebr. l. 3, c. 11 and 12.
2 Levit. xix. 20. 3 Deut. xix. 15, xvii. 6, and Numb. xxxv. 30.
4 Deut. xxii. 13-19. 5 Numb. v. 11, &c. 6 Vide
Selden, ubi sup. l. 3, c. 15, and Leon. Modena, de' Riti Hebraici, parte iv.
c. 6. 7 Kor. c. 2, p. 23. 8 Ibid. c. 4, p. 53 and 57, &c.
9 Ibid. p. 56 10 See Levit. xv. 24, xviii. 19, and xx. 18;
Exod. xxi. 8-11; Deut. xxi. 10-14; Levit. xviii. and xx. 11
Abulfed. Hist. Gen. al Shahrestani, apud Poc. Spec. p. 321 and 338.
12 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 337, &c. 13 Cap. 4, p. 56. 1
Kor. c. 33. See also c. 66, and the notes there. 2 Kor. c. 33.
See the notes there. 3 Ibid. 4 Mishna, tit. Sanhedr. c. 2,
and Gemar, in eund. tit. Maimon. Halachoth Melachim, c. 2. Vide Selden, Ux.
Hebr. l. I, c. 10. Prid. Life of Mah. p. 118.

The laws of the Korân concerning inheritances are also in several respects
conformable to those of the Jews, though principally designed to abolish
certain practices of the pagan Arabs, who used to treat widows and orphan
children with great injustice, frequently denying them any share in the
inheritance of their fathers or their husbands, on pretence that the same
ought to be distributed among those only who were able to bear arms, and
disposing of the widows, even against their consent, as part of their
husbands' possessions.5 To prevent such injuries for the future, Mohammed
ordered that women should be respected, and orphans have no wrong done them;
and in particular that women should not be taken against their wills, as by
right of inheritance, but should themselves be entitled to a distributive part
of what their parents, husbands, and near relations should leave behind them,
in a certain proportion.6
The general rule to be observed in the distribution of the deceased's
estate is, that a male shall have twice as much as a female:1 but to this rule
there are some few exceptions; a man's parents, for example, and also his
brothers and sisters, where they are entitled not to the whole, but a small
part of the inheritance, being to have equal shares with one another in the
distribution thereof, without making any difference on account of sex.2 The
particular proportions, in several cases, distinctly and sufficiently declare
the intention of Mohammed; whose decisions expressed in the Korân3 seem to be
pretty equitable, preferring a man's children first, and then his nearest
relations.
If a man dispose of any part of his estate by will, two witnesses, at the
least, are required to render the same valid; and such witnesses ought to be
of his own tribe, and of the Mohammedan religion, if such can be had.4 Though
there be no express law to the contrary, yet the Mohammedan doctors reckon it
very wrong for a man to give away any part of his substance from his family,
unless it be in legacies for pious uses; and even in that case a man ought not
to give all he has in charity, but only a reasonable part in proportion to his
substance. On the other hand, though a man make no will, and bequeath nothing
for charitable uses, yet the heirs are directed, on the distribution of the
estate, if the value will permit, to bestow something on the poor, especially
such as are of kin to the deceased, and to the orphans.5
The first law, however, laid down by Mohammed touching inheritances, was
not very equitable; for he declared that those who had fled with him from
Mecca, and those who had received and assisted him at Medina, should be deemed
the nearest of kin, and consequently heirs to one another, preferably to and
in exclusion of their relations by blood; nay, though a man were a true
believer, yet if he had not fled his country for the sake of religion and
joined the prophet, he was to be looked on as a stranger:6 but this law
continued not long in force, being quickly abrogated.7
It must be observed that among the Mohammedans the children of their
concubines or slaves are esteemed as equally legitimate with those

5 See c. 4, p. 53, 54, and 56, and the notes there. Vide etiam Poc. Spec.
p. 337. 6 Kor. c. 4, ubi supra.
1 Ibid. p. 54 and 72. Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 293.
2 Kor. ibid. p. 54. 3 Ibid. and p. 72.
4 Kor. c. 5, p. 86. 5 Kor. c. 4, p. 54. 6 Cap. 8.
7 Ibid. and c. 33

of their legal and ingenuous wives; none being accounted bastards, except such
only as are born of common women, and whose fathers are unknown.
As to private contracts between man and man, the conscientious performance
of them is frequently recommended in the Korân.1 For the preventing of
disputes, all contracts are directed to be made before witnesses,2 and in case
such contracts are not immediately executed, the same ought to be reduced into
writing in the presence of two witnesses3 at least, who ought to be Moslems
and of the male sex; but if two men cannot be conveniently had, then one man
and two women may suffice. The same method is also directed to be taken for
the security of debts to be paid at a future day; and where a writer is not to
be found, pledges are to be taken.4 Hence, if people trust one another
without writing, witnesses, or pledge, the party on whom the demand is made is
always acquitted if he denies the charge on oath, and swears that he owes the
plaintiff nothing, unless the contrary be proved by very convincing
circumstances.5
Wilful murder, though forbidden by the Korân under the severest penalties
to be inflicted in the next life,6 is yet, by the same book, allowed to be
compounded for, on payment of a fine to the family of the deceased, and
freeing a Moslem from captivity; but it is in the election of the next of kin,
or the revenger of blood, as he is called in the Pentateuch, either to accept
of such satisfaction, or to refuse it; for he may, if he pleases, insist on
having the murderer delivered into his hands, to be put to death in such
manner as he shall think fit.7 In this particular Mohammed has gone against
the express letter of the Mosaic law, which declare that no satisfaction shall
be taken for the life of a murderer;8 and he seems, in so doing, to have had
respect to the customs of the Arabs in his time, who, being of a vindictive
temper, used to revenge murder in too unmerciful a manner,9 whole tribes
frequently engaging in bloody wars on such occasions, the natural consequence
of their independency, and having no common judge of superior.
If the Mohammedan laws seem light in case of murder, they may perhaps be
deemed too rigorous in case of manslaughter, or the killing of a man
undesignedly, which must be redeemed by fine (unless the next of kin shall
think fit to remit it out of charity), and the freeing of a captive: but if a
man be not able to do this, he is to fast two months together, by way of
penance.1 The fine for a man's blood is set in the Sonna at a hundred
camels,2 and is to be distributed among the relations of the deceased,
according to the laws of inheritances; but it must be observed that, though
the person slain be a Moslem, yet if he be of a nation or party at enmity, or
not in confederacy with those to whom the slayer belongs, he is not then bound
to pay any fine at all, the redeeming a captive being, in such case, declared
a sufficient penalty.3 I

1 Cap. 5, p. 73; c. 17; c. 2, p. 31, &c. 2 Cap. 2, p. 31.
3 The same seems to have been required by the Jewish law, even in cases
where life was not concerned. See Deut. xix. 15, Matth. xviii. 16, John viii.
17, 2 Cor. xiii. I.
4 Kor. c. 2, p. 30, 31. 5 Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p.
294, &c., and the notes to Kor. c. 5, p. 86.
6 Kor. c. 4, p. 64. 7 Cap. 2, p. 18, 19; c. 17. Vide Chardin, ubi
sup. p. 299, &c. 8 Numb. xxxv. 31.
9 This is particularly forbidden in the Korân, c. 17. 1 Kor. c.
4, p. 64. 2 See the notes to c. 37
3 Kor. c. 4, p. 64.

imagine that Mohammed, by these regulations, laid so heavy a punishment on
involuntary manslaughter, not only to make people beware incurring the same,
but also to humour, in some degree, the revengeful temper of his countrymen,
which might be with difficulty, if at all, prevailed on to accept a lighter
satisfaction. Among the Jews, who seem to have been no less addicted to
revenge than their neighbours, the manslayer who had escaped to a city of
refuge was obliged to keep himself within that city, and to abide there till
the death of the person who was high priest at the time the fact was
committed, that his absence and time might cool the passion and mitigate the
resentment of the friends of the deceased; but if he quitted his asylum before
that time, the revenger of blood, if he found him, might kill him without
guilt;4 nor could any satisfaction be made for the slayer to return home
before the prescribed time.5
Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the
hand,6 which, at first sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian,
forbidding a thief to be maimed,7 is more reasonable; because, stealing being
generally the effect of indigence, to cut off that limb would be to deprive
him of the means of getting his livelihood in an honest manner.8 The Sonna
forbids the inflicting of this punishment, unless the thing stolen be of a
certain value. I have mentioned in another place the further penalties which
those incur who continue to steal, and of those who rob or assault people on
the road.9
As to injuries done to men in their persons, the law of retaliation, which
was ordained by the law of Moses,10 is also approved by the Korân:1 but this
law, which seems to have been allowed by Mohammed to his Arabians for the same
reasons as it was to the Jews, viz., to prevent particular revenges, to which
both nations were extremely addicted,2 being neither strictly just nor
practicable in many cases, is seldom put in execution, the punishment being
generally turned into a mulct or fine, which is paid to the party injured.3
Or rather Mohammed designed the words of the Korân relating thereto should be
understood in the same manner as those of the Pentateuch most probably ought
to be; that is, not of an actual retaliation, according to the strict literal
meaning, but of a retribution proportionable to the injury: for a criminal had
not his eyes put out, nor was a man mutilated, according to the law of Moses,
which, besides, condemned those who had wounded any person, where death did
not ensue, to pay a fine only,4 the expression "eye for eye and tooth for
tooth" being only a proverbial manner of speaking, the sense whereof amounts
to this, that every one shall be punished by the judges according to the
heinousness of the fact.5
In injuries and crimes of an inferior nature, where no particular
punishment is provided by the Korân, and where a pecuniary compensation will
not do, the Mohammedans, according to the practice of the

4 See Numb. xxxv. 26, 27, 28. 5 Ibid. v. 32. 6 Kor. c.
5, p. 78. 7 Novell. 134, c. 13.
8 Vide Pufendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent. l. 8, c. 3, § 26. 9 See the
notes to c. 5, p. 78. 10 Exod. xxi. 24, &c., Levit. xxiv. 20, Deut.
xix. 21. 1 Cap. 5, p. 79. 2 Vide Grotium , de Jure Belli et
Pacis, l. I, c. 2, § 8.
3 Vide Chardin, t. 2, p. 299. The talio, likewise established among the old
Romans by the laws of the twelve tables, was not to be inflicted, unless the
delinquent could not agree with the person injured. Vide A. Gell. Noct.
Attic. l. 20, c. I, and Festum, in voce Talio.
4 See Exod. xxi. 18, 19, and 22. 5 Barbeyrac, in Grot. ubi supra.
Vide Cleric. in Exod. xxi. 24, and Deut. xix. 21.

Jews in the like case,6 have recourse to stripes or drubbing, the most common
chastisement used in the east at this day, as well as formerly; the cudgel,
which for its virtue and efficacy in keeping their people in good order, and
within the bounds of duty, they say came down from heaven, being the
instrument wherewith the judge's sentence is generally executed.7
Notwithstanding the Korân is by the Mohammedans in general regarded as the
fundamental apart of their civil law, and the decisions of the Sonna among the
Turks, and of the Imâms among those of the Persian sect, with the explications
of their several doctors, are usually followed in judicial determinations, yet
the secular tribunals do not think themselves bound to observe the same in all
cases, but frequently give judgment against those decisions, which are not
always consonant to equity and reason; and therefore distinction is to be made
between the written civil law, as administered in the ecclesiastical courts,
and the law of nature or common law (if I may so call it) which takes place in
the secular courts, and has the executive power on its side.1
Under the head of civil laws may be comprehended the injunction of warring
against infidels, which is repeated in several passages of the Korân,2 and
declared to be of high merit in the sight of GOD, those who are slain fighting
in defence of the faith being reckoned martyrs, and promised immediate
admission into paradise.3 Hence this duty is greatly magnified by the
Mohammedan divines, who call the sword the key of heaven and hell, and
persuade their people that the least drop of blood spilt in the way of GOD, as
it is called, is most acceptable unto him, and that the defending the
territories of the Moslems for one night is more meritorious than a fast of
two months:4 on the other hand, desertion, or refusing to serve in these holy
wars, or to contribute towards the carrying them on, if a man has ability, is
accounted a most heinous crime, being frequently declaimed against in the
Korân.5 Such a doctrine, which Mohammed ventured not to teach till his
circumstances enabled him to put it in practice,6 it must be allowed, was well
calculated for his purpose, and stood him and his successors in great stead:
for what dangers and difficulties may not be despised and overcome by the
courage and constancy which these sentiments necessarily inspire? Nor have
the Jews and Christians, how much soever they detest such principles in
others, been ignorant of the force of enthusiastic heroism, or omitted to
spirit up their respective partisans by the like arguments and promises. "Let
him who has listed himself in defence of the law," says Maimonides,7 "rely on
him who is the hope of Israel, and the saviour thereof in the time of
trouble;8 and let him know that he fights for the profession of the divine
unity: wherefore let him put his life in his hand,9 and think neither of wife
nor children, but banish the memory of them from his heart, having his mind
wholly fixed on the war. For if he should begin to waver in his thoughts, he
would not only confound himself, but sin against the law;

6 See Deut. xxv. 2, 3. 7 Vide Grelot, Voy. de Constant. p. 220,
and Chardin, ubi supra, p. 302. 1 Vide Chardin, ubi supra, p. 290,
&c. 2 Cap. 22; c. 2, p. 20; c . 4, p. 62, &c.; c. 8; c. 9; c. 47 and
c. 61, &c. 3 Cap. 2, p. 17; c. 3, p. 47; c. 47; c. 61. 4
Reland. de Jure Milit. Moham. p. 5, &c. 5 Vide c. 9; c. 3, p. 47, &c.
6 See before, p. 37. 7 Halach. Melachim, c. 7. 8
Jerem. xiv. 8. 9 Job xiii. 14.

nay, the blood of the whole people hangeth on his neck; for if they are
discomfited, and he has not fought stoutly with all his might, it is equally
the same as if he had shed the blood of them all; according to that saying,
let him return, lest his brethren's heart fail as his own."1 To the same
purpose doth the Kabala accommodate that other passage, "Cursed be he who doth
the work of the LORD negligently, and cursed be he who keepeth back his sword
from blood.2 On the contrary, he who behaveth bravely in battle, to the
utmost of his endeavour, without trembling, with intent to glorify GOD'S name,
he ought to expect the victory with confidence, and to apprehend no danger or
misfortune, but may be assured that he will have a house built him in Israel,
appropriated to him and his children for ever; as it is said, GOD shall
certainly make my lord a sure house, because he hath fought the battles of the
LORD, and his life shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the LORD his
GOD."3 More passages of this kind might be produced from the Jewish writers;
and the Christians come not far behind them. "We are desirous of knowing,"
says one4 writing to the Franks engaged in the holy war, "the charity of you
all; for that every one (which we speak not because we wish it) who shall
faithfully lose his life in this warfare, shall be by no means denied the
kingdom of heaven." And another5 gives the following exhortation: "Laying
aside all fear and dread, endeavour to act effectually against the enemies of
the holy faith, and the adversaries of all religions: for the Almighty
knoweth, if any of you die, that he dieth for the truth of the faith, and the
salvation of his country, and the defence of Christians; and therefore he
shall obtain of him a celestial reward." The Jews, indeed, had a divine
commission, extensive and explicit enough, to attack, subdue, and destroy the
enemies of their religion; and Mohammed pretended to have received one in
favour of himself and his Moslems, in terms equally plain and full; and
therefore it is no wonder that they should act consistently with their avowed
principles: but that Christians should teach and practise a doctrine so
opposite to the temper and whole tenour of the Gospel, seems very strange; and
yet the latter have carried matters farther, and shown a more violent spirit
of intolerance than either of the former.
The laws of war, according to the Mohammedans, have been already so exactly
set down by the learned Reland,6 that I need say very little of them. I
shall, therefore, only observe some conformity between their military laws and
those of the Jews.
While Mohammedism was in its infancy, the opposers thereof taken in battle
were doomed to death, without mercy; but this was judged too severe to be put
in practice when that religion came to be sufficiently established, and past
the danger of being subverted by its enemies.1 The same sentence was
pronounced not only against the seven Canaanitish nations,2 whose possessions
were given to the Israelites, and without whose destruction, in a manner, they
could not have settled themselves in the country designed them, but against
the