Henry Stubbe and the Beginnings of Islam: The Originall & Progress of Mahometanism

T IS A VULGAR OPINION that Mahomet did propagate his doctrine by the sword and not only compelled the Arabians at first to receive his doctrine but obliged his successors by a perpetual vow or precept to endeavor the extirpation of Christianity and all other religions. But how generally so ever this be believed, and how great men so ever they be who assist it, this is no other than a plain mistake. It is most true that Mahomet did levy war in Arabia, but it was <108> under the pretense of restoring an old religion, not to introduce a new one. He taught his followers to abolish idolatry everywhere and that all the world was obliged to the profession of these truths: that there was one God, that He had no associates, that there was a providence and a retribution hereafter proportionate to the good or evil actions of men. But that all mankind were to be enforced to the profession of his religion or that he compelled any thereto is a falsehood.

It is plain that many Christian doctors have held that Christianity may be enforced and that it is a just cause for one prince to invade and conquer another’s territories to propagate the true religion. Thereby, they say that if one king may chastise and reduce under obedience the subjects of another, they may do as much for the Lord paramount of the universe. That kings are the ministers of God to execute wrath upon such as do evil, and that, being the viceroys of the almighty, they ought to assert the glory, cause, and sovereignty of God to be everywhere submitted to, there want not precedents for such actings. Amongst the Jews, Hyrcanus compelled the Idumeans to be circumcised and turn Jews,1 and all Christian annals furnish us with instances of the like nature. It is likewise true that several Christian doctors teach that a nation guilty of enormous sins may be invaded and that it is a just pretense of war to reclaim them from notorious wickedness, it being lawful to compel them to observe those laws of nature, whereto God hath originally subjected them.²

These and sundry other titles of war are treated of and maintained by the divines who write concerning the Spanish rights over the Indians.³ But though the Christian doctors and some popes have urged them, and thereby prepared apologies for the Mahometans, I do not find that Mahomet proceeded any further in Arabia the Desert than to exterminate idolatry everywhere, but not to force men to the profession of Islamism.⁴ He himself did give letters of security and protection to the Jews and Christians in Arabia and never used any violence to them upon the account of religion. At Medina such Jews as peaceably paid tribute continued unmolested, though mortally hated, until the days of Omar, the son of Alchittabi, who expelled them out of Arabia, <109> he being told that Mahomet had prohibited that two different religions should be tolerated within that country, the seat of his empire. But though they were thereupon expelled thence, which was rather an act of civil prudence than religion, yet were they never compelled to Mahometanism, nor banished his other territories.⁵

The same Omar did give the Christians his security upon the taking of Jerusalem: “In the name of God, merciful and gracious, from Omar the son of Alchittabi to the inhabitants of the city Elia: Security and protection is granted as to their persons, children, wives, estates, and all their churches, that they be neither destroyed, alienated, nor prohibited the Christians to resort to.”⁶ And when Amurcus the Saracen general under Abubacr did besiege Gaza, he made this declaration to the Christian governor thereof:

By this declaration, it is manifest that the Mahometans did propagate their empire, but not their religion, by force of arms, and, albeit they did not permit others than Musulmen to enjoy any military or civil commands in their territories or entire conquests, yet the Christians and other religions might peaceably subsist under their protection if they paid the tribute demanded. In Spain the Mozarabick Christians always lived quietly and safely under them, and others in their other kingdoms and dominions, an inviolate justice being preserved towards them; and though the rich and potent nobility and rulers were destroyed or reduced to nothing, which was done to prevent future rebellions, yet it is observed by Scaliger—and it is an assured truth—that the vulgar Greeks live in a better condition under the Turk at present than they did under their own emperors when there were perpetual murders practiced on their princes and tyranny on their people. But they are now secure from <110> injury if they pay their taxes, and it is more the interest of the princes and nobles than of the people at present which keeps all Europe from submitting to the Turks.

The decree of Mahomet in his Alcoran concerning the Moslemicall wars does run thus: Make war upon those which do not believe in God, nor that there is a day of judgment, nor that those things are forbidden them which God and His prophet have forbidden unto them. Nor do administer due justice unto them who have taken cartels of security and, being subdued, do readily pay the appointed tribute.8 Hereby, such as have taken cartels of security he understands such Jews and Christians as had yielded themselves to Mahomet and taken protection under him. Thus Mahomet Ben Achmed expounds him. Elmomin, who collected his “History of the Saracens” out of the best Mahometan writers and was himself secretary of state to one of their princes, avowed that Mahomet did give protection and security to the pagans, Magicians, and Jews, and Christians also which swore fealty to him and paid him yearly tribute.⁹

Moreover, that he sent Omar to the Christians to assure them that they should live securely under his dominion, and that he would esteem their lives as the lives of his Moslemin and of their goods as the goods of those others:¹⁰ to this purpose, there is extant a compact or league betwixt Mahomet and the Christians, published in France by Gabriel Sionita and reprinted by Johannes Fabricius a Dantzicker, which is by him affirmed to be most authentic, and mentioned by Selden, though Grotius takes it to be but a figment of the Christians that they might gain favor with the Moselmin.¹¹ I shall not transcribe it because I think it to be suppositious. It is published in English by Mr. Rycaut in his “Relation of the Turkish Government” liber 2, caput 2. The sum of it is that the Christians submitting to him and paying their tributes duly shall live and enjoy the liberty of their religion without any molestation, and that there shall be a perpetual amity betwixt the Musulmen and them.¹²

There are also sundry passages in the Alcoran wherein he permits the unbelievers to hold their own religion and declares that every of them—Jew, Christian, or other—might be saved if he hold that there was one God creator, a day of judgment, and lived justly and uprightly. In fine, it is <111> manifest that Mahomet and his followers do make war not to enforce others to their religion but to enlarge their empire and reduce all under their subjection. This is the direct injunction of the Alcoran in the place already mentioned, and is avowed by Selden and Salmasius, and albeit they do call the territories of the Christians Dar Elharb, or the enemy’s country, and think they have a perpetual right to make war upon such, yet it is only upon the grounds aforesaid. So that the controversy betwixt them and the Christians is not whether religion may be propagated by arms, but whether it be lawful to make war on others nearly for the enlargement of empire. And herein Mahomet, as in other cases, hath the Jews for his defenders whose opinion for the affirmative is generally the same with his as to this matter. And it was heretofore the sense of most emperors. And if the Christians do not own the same sentiments, few princes do believe other, though they cloak their own ambition with different and more specious pretences. Maimonides and the Jews call such wars “praelia majestatis contra gentes alias, ut dilatet terminos regni & augeat magnitudinem ejus una cum famâ.”¹³

As Mahomet seems to have deduced his laws for an offensive war from the Jewish doctors, so did he derive his laws for conquest out of them.14 If he did everywhere destroy idolatry and not only within Arabia and the Caaba, this is agreeable to the Jewish rulers who did oblige the conquered nations to become stranger proselytes and submit to the seven commandments of Noah, one whereof was against idolatry.¹⁵ But if he did only condemn and not extirpate idolatry, if he only conquered the Gentiles and left them tributaries with permission to continue idolaters (which is probable), since the Turks and Moguls do so, and they would not do it were there any passage in the Alcoran or any Assoniah or tradition to the contrary,¹⁶ then likewise, had he the Mosaical Laws for his precedent. For by the Mosaical direct law against idolatry, Deuteronomy 12:2, Exodus 34:13, such false worship was only to be extirpated out of the land of promise, and not in other acquests. It was by force only of an intervenient and prudential law of the Jewish Sanhedrin that idolatry was well to be exterminated out of the conquered territories lest thereby the Jews should be perverted from the worship of <112> the true God thereunto.¹⁷

So that Mahomet, in that he commanded all other religions to be excluded Arabia the Desert (for they are not prohibited elsewhere), did imitate the divine institution for the holy land, and in permitting variety in other places had the same great example for his precedent. But this is not all. The demeanor of the Saracens upon a victory is entirely consonant to the Jewish laws of war, as a Jew taken in war did not become a slave to a Jew, but all other captives did become slaves and were at the disposal of the conqueror, to be sold or employed in what service he pleased. So neither can a Mahometan be enslaved by a Mahometan, but all other captives are at the disposal of the conqueror and he may employ or make sale of them as he pleases.18 As to those that were not taken captive in war, but yielded themselves by surrender on articles, it was a perpetual law among the Jews that all places subdued by them should be reduced under bondage and the inhabitants be retained in servitude, though not absolute slavery. They were to live in an abject manner, paying a great submission and an arbitrary tribute to the victor, and never to bear any command in Israel, and were also liable to sundry personal services, occasionally in the building of public edifices, fortifications, the temple, et cetera. So the nations that, upon invasion, did render themselves were to be brought into servitude and made tributaries (Deuteronomy 20:10–11). Thus upon the children of the Ammonites and who had yielded to the victorious Israelites upon terms did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service, and they wrought personally at his public buildings (1 Kings 9:21, 2 Chronicles 8:7). So did David (1 Chronicles 22:2).

As the Mahometans do herein conform to the Mosaical Law so that they do nothing herein that is repugnant to the most exact rules of war, I find Grotius to justify.¹⁹ And if there be no injury offered thereby to them that are made captives, or subdued, I do not comprehend any reason that the Christians should complain of their hard usage under the Mahometans.

But to proceed. How equitable that Mahometan tenet is that wars are just for the enlargement of empire I will not determine.²⁰ <113> It is an opinion not so barbarous or uncouth but that old Greece and Rome, as well as Jewry, will avow it. But most certain it is that Mahomet did render a great testimony of his wisdom by introducing it among his followers, for it conduced much to the vastness of that empire which he designed, since the Mahometans could never want a pretense for war against others. It conduced much to the public tranquility of that empire which, being erected upon a military prudence, would run into civil broil and confusion were not there that Mahometan precept enjoined them to be continually solicitous to enlarge their territories. It brings also this additional benefit that since great kingdoms ought to know no period of their growth (it being therein as in natural bodies which when once arrived to a determinate pitch immediately decline and go to ruin), their opinion contributes to the subsistence and perpetuity of their monarchy.²¹ And how repugnant so ever the continuance of slavery be unto Christian charity, it is not absolutely unlawful or any more repugnant thereto than is war itself.

Nay, it is a moderation in the effects and rights of war, and I am sure Christian statesmen such as Busbecq have condemned the European policy for relinquishing so wise and so beneficial a practice.22 For the advantage to particular soldiers doth add to their courage, as also doth the continual sight of those they by servitude lead in a continual triumph. It makes the same enemies always despicable to them, whose ancestors and kindred they see every day to be their slaves. It makes them more desperate in fight,²³ the indignities of a lasting slavery seeming worse than death to a valiant person, besides the profit that accrues to the public thereby, it being in vain to expect that such extraordinary pieces of architecture and fortification should ever be performed by the moderns as the ancients effected by their slaves.²⁴

To conclude: though the principles of the Christians seem to condemn slavery, yet in Portugal and other places it is frequently practiced, and perhaps the Christian laws and customs against such usage had no higher rise than ecclesiastical and civil policy, which the successors have indiscreetly (and not out of conscience duly informed) retained still.²⁵ <114>