2. Again he says
with reference to Sura II, v. 215, which also contains the same word:
"The word (_Jihad_) is the same as that subsequently used for a
religious war, but it had not yet probably acquired its fixed
application. It was applied in its _general_ sense before the Hejira,
and probably up to the battle of Badr."--_Ibid_, p. 74, footnote.]

[Footnote 329: This Sura is generally said to have been revealed at
Mecca, but this is probably only the case as regards verses 1, 24, 43,
56, 60, 65, 67, 75. Mr. Muir places it at the close of the Meccan Suras
of the fifth period. See Nold, p. 158; Rev. Rodwell, p. 500.]

[Footnote 330: _Vide_ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, 74.]

[Footnote 331: _Ibid, footnote._]

[Footnote 332: _Vide_ Sura LXXII, 9; XVII, 69.]

[Footnote 333: _i.e._, from Mecca when driven out of it by the Meccans
in your persecution.]

[Footnote 334: The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 114.]

[Footnote 335: _Kitabul Jihad_, _Maghazi_ and _Tafseer_.]

APPENDIX B.

SLAVERY AND CONCUBINE-SLAVES AS CONCOMITANT EVILS OF WAR.

[Sidenote: Slavery and concubinage not allowed by the Koran.]

1. It is a false accusation against the Koran, that it allows
enslavement of the captives of war, and sanctions female captives to the
conquerors' embrace, or, in other words, female captives are made
concubines on the field of battle. There is not a single sentence in the
Koran allowing either of the above allegations. Sir W. Muir, in his
"Life of Mahomet," could neither quote any verse of the Koran
sanctioning the enslavement of the captives of war or servile
concubinage, nor was he able to relate any instance of them during the
several battles described therein. Yet, in a recent work,[336] he refers
boldly, but vaguely, to the Koran; and regarding the battle of Walaja
fought by Khalid against the Persians in A.H. 12 writes, after quoting
Khalid's oration on gaining the victory:--

"Now, also, the cunning device of the Coran, with respect to the
other sex, began to tell. Persian ladies, both maids and matrons,
'taken captive by the right hand,' were forthwith, without stint of
number, lawful to the conquerors' embrace; and, in the enjoyment of
this privilege, they were nothing loth to execute upon the heathen
'the judgment written.'"

I do not understand why, if such was the case, Khalid did not refer the
believers to the so-called "cunning device" of the Koran? By referrin