OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# A Christmas Faggot/Yule Tide

YULE TIDE.
TENNYSON, In Memoriam.
The Royal birthday dawns again, A stricken world to bless; And sufferers forget their pain, And mourners their distress.
Love sings to-day; her eyes so fair With happy tears are wet: She is too humble to despair, Too faithful to forget.
​Her voice is very soft and sweet, Her heart is brave and strong; Her vassal, I would fain repeat Some fragments of her song.
A Birthday-song my heart would sing Its rapture to express; My Father’s son must be a king, And share His consciousness.
Of God’s Self-knowledge comes the Word That utters all His Thought; That Word made Flesh by all is heard Who seek as they are sought.
​His seeking and His finding make Our search an easy thing; He sows good seed, and bids us take The joys of harvesting.
Yet must His children do their part, And what He gives accept; No heart can understand His Heart That has not bled and wept.
All seasons, bring they bale or bliss, His priceless treasures hold; The Winter’s silver all is His, And His the Summer’s gold.
​Life’s harvest is not reaped until The Christ within has grown To perfect manhood, and self-will By love is overthrown.
Such manhood gained concludes the strife That makes the babe a boy; ’Tis thus the seed becomes a life, The life becomes a joy.
The eyes that weep are eyes that see, And swift are pilgrim-feet; Ah! hope at length may come to be Than memory more sweet.
​So keeping festival to-day, With children's laughter near, It is not hard to sing and pray, ’Tis hard to doubt or fear.
Father, my heart to Thee I bring, To Thee my song address; From Winter pain and toil of Spring Grows Summer happiness.
# A Christmas Faggot/Nunc Dimittis

III. NUNC DIMITTIS.
To cradle Mary’s Child his heart  An old man opens wide: Behold him in God’s peace depart,  And in God’s peace abide.
He sings the very Song of Peace,  Responsive to the Word; His lullaby shall never cease  To make its music heard
For all the children of the Bride,  The subjects of the King, With each returning eventide  Have learnt his song to sing.
He sings of 'peace,’ 'salvation,’ 'light:’  His lovely words we take For consolation night by night,  Until God’s morning break.
Then, when our dazzled eyes grow dim,  Breathed with our parting breath The old man's sweet, heart-soothing hymn  Glad welcome gives to death.
We too what Simeon saw may see—  The Mother undefiled, Our hearts enfold as blissfully  The Everlasting Child!
TYROL:1882.
# A Christmas Faggot/Saint Joseph

S. JOSEPH.
A CLOISTERED garden was the place
 Where Mary grew, God's perfect flower;
One, only one, discerned her grace,
 And visited her bower.
God's choice was his; by love made strong
 To guard the Mother of the King;
No heart, save hers, had e'er a song
 So sweet as his to sing.
Yet lives there on the sacred page  No record of a word from him: God’s Ark he guards, a silent sage,  Pure as the Cherubim.
But sweeter than the sweetest word  Recorded of the wise and good, His silence is a music heard  On high, and understood.
Blessed are all who take their part  Amid the carol-singing throng; Thrice blest the meditative heart  Whose silence is a song
Ballachulish: 1884
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/82

The alleged permission to kill the Jews.
[Sidenote: 82. Murder of Ibn Sanina.]
It is related by some of the biographers of Mohammad, eagerly recited by others of Europe, that, "on the morning after the murder of Káb, Mahomet gave a general permission to his followers to slay any Jews whom they might chance to meet," and that the murder of Ibn Sanina, a Jewish merchant, by Muheiasa, a Moslem, was the direct consequence of this order. "When Huweisa upbraided Muheiasa for killing his confederate the Jew, and appropriating his wealth,—"By the Lord!" replied Muheiasa, "if he that commanded me to kill him commanded to kill thee also, I would have done it." "What!" Huweisa cried, "wouldst thou have slain thine own brother at Mahomet's bidding?"—"Even so," answered the fanatic. "Strange indeed!" Huweisa responded. "Hath the new religion reached to this pitch! Verily it is a wonderful Faith." And Huweisa was converted from that very hour."
Ibn Is-hak says this story was related to him by a freedman of the Bani Hárisa tribe from the daughter of Muheiasa, who had heard it from her father. (1) Now there is nothing known of this mysterious person, the freedman of the tribe of Háris, therefore no reliance can be put on his story. (2) We have no knowledge of the daughter of the murderer Muheiasa, or Moheisa, as he is called by the biographer, Ibn Hisham. (3) Muheiasa himself has not that respectable character which can lend even a shadow of veracity to his narration. (4) And lastly, the story that Mohammad had given general permission to his followers to slay any Jew whom they might chance to meet, and consequently Muheiasa killed Ibn Sanina, and Huweisa became a convert to Islam, is contradicted by another counter-tradition in Ibn Hisham (pp. 554-555), who has related from Abú Obeida, who relates from Abú Omar-al-Madaní, that, "during the execution of the Bani Koreiza (vide para. 68), one Káb-bin-Yahooza was made over to Muheiasa for execution. When the latter executed his victim, Huweisa, his brother, who was still unbelieving, upbraided Muheiasa. "If he," responded Muheiasa, "that commanded me to kill him had commanded me to kill thee also, I would have killed thee." Huweisa was quite surprised at his brother's reply, and went away astonished. During the night he used to wake up repeatedly, and wonder at his brother's staunch devotion to his faith. In the morning, he said, "By the Lord! This is a wonderful faith," and came to the Prophet to embrace Islam. These remarks show that the alleged permission to kill the Jews, and Ibn Sanina's murder, and Huweisa's conversion in consequence thereof, is all a mere concoction.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 148.
* ↑ Ibid, p. 149.
* ↑ Ibn Hisham, p. 554.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/83

[Sidenote: 83. Sir W. Muir quoted.]
Even Sir W. Muir, though very fond of collecting all such apocryphal traditions reflecting on the character of the Prophet, doubts the veracity of this one, and declares its improbability and inexpediency. He writes:—
    "But the order itself is a strange one, and must, one would suppose, have been accompanied by some conditions or reservations not here apparent. It was surely not expedient for the Prophet's cause at this time that the streets of Medîna should have flowed with blood by the strict execution of this command. Yet such is the distinct tenor of the best traditions.
    "The order was not an unlikely one to have issued at a time when Mahomet was irritated against the Jews by their treachery; and Hishâmi has a tradition that it was promulgated when Mahomet directed the massacre of all the males of the Coreitza, which would have been the more likely version, if the other tradition had not been so strong and positive."
But the tradition quoted by him is by no means the best or strongest as I have shown above. Hishamee does not say that the order was promulgated at the execution of the Bani Koreiza. He simply narrates the story of Muheiasa and Huweisa to have taken place at that time.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 148 & 149, foot-note.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/88

[Sidenote 88. Marriage a strict bond of union.]
Mohammad had no loose ideas regarding the marriage tie. He had made the marriage contract more firm and irrevocable, except under very exceptional circumstances, than it was under the Arab society; and called it "a strict bond of union." Mohammad's own daughter, Zeinab, was the wife of an unbelieving husband and had fled to her father at Medina under the persecution at Mecca after the Hegira. Her marriage with her unbelieving partner was not cancelled by Mohammad, and on the conversion of the son-in-law, when he came after a period of six years after his wife had come to Medina, Mohammad rejoined them together under their previous marriage. Theirs was neither a fresh marriage nor a fresh dowry. (Vide Ibn Abbas' tradition in the collections of Ahmed, Ibn Abi Daood, Ibn Maja and Trimizee.) Safwan-bin-Omayya and Ikrama-bin Abi Jahl had believing wives at the time of the conquest of Mecca, and their marriages were not dissolved by Mohammad. (Vide Ibn Shahab's tradition in Movatta by Malik, and in the Tabakat of Ibn Sad Katib Wákidi.) Similarly Ibn Sofian and Hakeem-bin-Hizam had their unbelieving wives retained by them after they had themselves been converted to Islam, and their former connubial connection was not severed by Mohammad. (Vide the several traditions in Baihakee to the above effect.) It was only the legists and juris-consults of a later age who wrongly construed the passage in Sura LX, 10, to mean that the unbelief of either party dissolved the marriage tie.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sura IV, 25. Rodwell's translation. How Mohammad discouraged divorce and took several steps in the Koran to prohibit the facility of divorce prevailing in the Arab society has been fully discussed by me in my book "The Proposed Political, Legal, and Social Reforms under Moslem Rule," pp. 129-143, Bombay Education Society Press, 1883.
* ↑ "Some of the baser sort from amongst the Coreish, hearing of her departure, went in pursuit, determined to bring her back. The first that appeared was Habbâr, who struck the camel with his spear, and so affrighted Zeinab as to cause her a miscarriage."—Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, page 7.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/79

6.—Employment of Nueim to break up the confederates who had besieged Medina.
[Sidenote: 79. Nueim not employed by the Prophet to circulate false reports in the enemy's camp.]
When Medina was besieged for several days by the Koreish and their confederates, the army of Medina was harassed and wearied with increasing watch and duty. Nueim, an Arab of a neutral tribe, represented himself as a secret believer, and offered his services to the Prophet, who accepted them, and employed him to hold back the confederates from the siege, if he could, saying "war verily was a game of deception." Nueim excited mutual distrust between the Jews and the Koreish. He told the Jews not to fight against Mohammad until they got hostages from the Koreish as a guarantee against their being deserted. And to the Koreish he said that the Jews intended to ask hostages from them. "Do not give them," he said, "they have promised Mahomet to give up the hostages to be slain."
This is one tradition, and there is another to the effect that the Jews had themselves asked for the hostages, but the Koreish had not replied yet, when Nueim came to the Jews and said, he was there with Abu Sofian when their messenger had come for the demand of hostages, and that Abu Sofian is not going to send them any.
A third tradition in Motamid Ibn Solyman's supplement to Wackidi's Campaigns of Mohammad gives no such story at all. It has altogether a different narration to the effect, that there was a spy of the Koreish in the Moslem camp who had overheard Abdullah-bin-Rawaha saying, that the Jews had asked the Koreish to send them seventy persons, who, on their arrival, would be killed by them. Nueim went to the Koreish, who were waiting for his message, and told what he had heard as already related. This contradicts the story given by Ibn Hisham and Mr. Muir. But anyhow the story does not prove that Mohammad had given permission to Nueim to speak falsehood or spread treacherous reports.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Hishamee, page 681; Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 266.
* ↑ "Seerat Halabi", or Insan-al-Oyoon, Vol II, page 79.
* ↑ History of Mohammad's Campaigns, by Wackidi, pp. 368-369: Edited by Von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/85

[Sidenote: 85. Fruit-trees not cut down.]
It is said that Mohammad cut down the surrounding date trees and burned the choicest of them during the siege of the Bani Nazeer, and justified himself by publishing the verses of the LIX Sura of the Koran. But the date trees cut down were neither bearing fruit, nor did they supply any staple article of food to the Bani Nazeer, or the public in general. The Leena mentioned in the verse referred to above is a tree without fruit. Thus no fruit trees were destroyed. (Zoorkánee Vol. II, page 98.) Trees not bearing fruits were only cut, which is also justified under the Law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy XX, 20.)

## Footnotes

* ↑ Compare Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, pp. 213 and 302, foot-note.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/81

[Sidenote: 81. Lecky's Standard of Morality.]
But supposing the modern morality does not approve of Mohammad what hardly "affected his character in Arab estimation," are there no diversities in moral judgments? The moral unity to be expected in different ages is not a unity of standard or of facts, but a unity of tendency.
"That some savage kill their old parents, that infanticide has been practised without compunction by even civilized nations, that the best Romans saw nothing wrong in the gladiatorial shows, that political or revengeful assassinations have been for centuries admitted, that slavery has been sometimes honoured and sometimes condemned, are unquestionable proofs, that the same act may be regarded in one age as innocent, and in another as criminal. Now it is undoubtedly true, that in many cases an historical examination will reveal special circumstances explaining or palliating the apparent anomaly. It has been often shown that the gladiatorial shows were originally a form of human sacrifice adopted through religious motives; that the rude nomadic life of savages rendering impossible the preservation of aged and helpless members of the tribe, the murder of parents was regarded as an act of mercy both by the murderer and the victim; that before an effective administration of justice was organized, private vengeance was the sole preservation against crime, and political assassination against usurpation; that the insensibility of some savages to the criminality of theft arises from the fact that they were accustomed to have all things in common; that the Spartan law legalizing theft arose partly from a desire to foster military dexterity among the people, but chiefly from a desire to discourage wealth; that slavery was introduced through motives of mercy to prevent conquerors from killing their prisoners. All this is true, but there is another and a more general answer. It is not to be expected, and it is not maintained, that men in all ages should have agreed about the application of their moral principles. All that is contended for is, that these principles are themselves the same. Some of what appear to us monstrous acts of cruelty were dictated by that very feeling of humanity, the universal perception of the merit of which they are cited to disprove; and even when this is not the case, all that can be inferred is, that the standard of humanity was very low. But still humanity was recognized as a virtue, and cruelty as a vice."

## Footnotes

* ↑ History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne. By William Edward Hartpole Lecky, M.A., Vol. I, pp. 101-102.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/80

[Sidenote: 80. Deception in way allowed by the international law.]
Sir W. Muir is not justified in his remarks when he writes,—"We cannot, indeed, approve the employment of Nueim to break up the confederacy by falsehood and deception, but this perhaps would hardly affect his character in Arab estimation;" and further on he writes,—"When Medîna was beleagured by the confederate army, Mahomet sought the services of Nueim, a traitor, and employed him to sow distrust among the enemy by false and treacherous reports: for," said he, "what else is war but a game at deception." The utmost that can be made out from the former tradition quoted by Mr. Muir, and contradicted by another tradition of equal force, is that Mohammad allowed deception in war by quoting the proverbial saying, that "war is a game at deception." In this he had the sanction of the military law or the international law, as deception in war is a "military necessity," and allowed by the law and usages of war. A modern author on the international law says:—
"Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist."

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 282.
* ↑ The Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, pages 308-309.
* ↑ Lieber's Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. II, page 250.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/86

Females and the Treaty of Hodeibia.
[Sidenote: 86. Females and the treaty of Hodeibia.]
Females were not included in the truce of Hodeibia. The stipulation for the surrender of deserters referred only to the male sex. All women who were to come over to Medina from Mecca during the period of the peace were, by the dictates of Sura LX, 10, to be tried, and if their profession was found sincere, they were to be retained. They were prohibited from marrying the unbelievers. The guardians of such believing females were to receive from the Moslem commonwealth what they had spent upon their charges. Sir W. Muir understands from Sura LX, verse 10, that the women referred to therein were the wives of the Meccans, and says:—"The unbelief of their husbands dissolved the previous marriage; they now might legally contract fresh nuptials with believers, provided only that restitution were made of any sums expended by their former husbands as dower upon them." But there is nothing either to show that the women had their husbands at Mecca, or to prove, that, on account of their husbands' unbelief, their marriages were annulled. As marriage with women with husbands is forbidden in Sura IV, verse 28, and the verse LX, 10, under discussion, does not designate them as married women, I fairly conclude that this verse treats only of such as were not married. It is not the Law of the Koran that the unbelief of either party dissolves their previous marriage. It only enjoins neither to marry idolatresses, nor to wed Moslem daughters with idolaters until they believe.—(Sura II, 220.)

## Footnotes

* ↑ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 44.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/87

[Sidenote: 87. Stanley defended.]
Sir William Muir, after quoting Sura LX, 10-12, says, "Stanley on Corinthians (1 Cor. VII, 1-40) quotes the above passage, and says that the rule it contains "resembles that of the Apostle," Vol. I, page 145. But there is really no analogy between them; the Gospel rule differs toto coelo from that of Mahomet:—"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.—And similarly the case of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband. (1 Cor. VII, 12-16.) Whereas Mahomet declares the marriage bond de facto annulled by the unbelief of either party, which indeed was only to be expected from his loose ideas regarding the marriage contract." I think Stanley is quite correct, and the Gospel and the Koranic rule resemble each other in this respect. Because the order, "they (the believing women) are not lawful for them (unbelievers), nor are the unbelievers lawful for these (believing women)," does not relate to the women already married; and the words, "do not retain any right in the infidel woman ... if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels ..." are to the same purport as 1 Cor. VII, 15, "But if the unbelieving depart let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."

## Footnotes

* ↑ Muir's Life of Mahomet, Vol. IV, p. 46, foot-note.
* ↑ The verses of the Koran are given below: 10. "O Believers! when believing women come over to you as refugees, then make trial of them. God best knoweth their faith; but if ye have also ascertained their faith, let them not go back to the infidels; they are not lawful for them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for these women. But give them back what they have spent. No crime shall it be in you to marry them, provided you give them their dowers. Do not retain a right in the infidel women, and demand back what you have spent and let them demand back what they have spent. This is the ordinance of God which He ordaineth among you: and God is Knowing, Wise." 11. "And if any of your wives escape from you to the infidels from whom you afterwards take any spoil, then give to those whose wives shall have fled away, the like of what they shall have spent; and fear God in whom ye believe."—Sura LX.
# A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád'/Chapter 11/84

The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer.
[Sidenote: 84. The Bani Nazeer.]
The expulsion of the Bani Nazeer has been censured by Sir W. Muir, who says: "The pretext on which the Bani Nadhîr were besieged and expatriated (namely, that Gabriel had revealed their design against the Prophet's life), was feeble and unworthy of an honest cause."
A whole Sura in the Koran is devoted to the Bani Nazeer, but it does not hint at the alleged crime of their attempt on the life of the Prophet or their expulsion for the same cause. The traditions on the subject are unsupported, ex parte, and legendary. Had such a tradition been current at the time of Mohammad, or what is called Sadr Av-val (the first or Apostolic Age), we should certainly have had scores of narrators on the subject. Their crime was treachery, and they were a dangerous element to Medina, for a combination, at any period, between the treacherous Jews and the aggressive Koreish, or other enemies of Islam, would have proved fatal to the safety of Medina. But their banishment was too mild a punishment.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. IV, page 308.
* ↑ The tradition that Mohammad had gone to Bani Nazeer asking their aid in defraying a certain price of blood, and they attempted upon his life (Muir, III, 208-209) as related by Ibn Is-hak (in Ibn Hisham, page 652) is a "Mursal" (vide Zoorkánee, Part II, page 95), and consequently was not current in the Apostolic Age.
* ↑ Ibn Ockba, an earliest biographer of Mohammad, died 140, says,—the cause of the expedition against the Bani Nazeer was this: that they had instigated the Koreish to fight against Mohammad, and had reconnoitred the weak points of Medina. Ibn Mardaveih Abd-bin-Hameed, and Abdu Razzak have related traditions to the effect that, after the event of Badr, the Koreish had written to the Jews of Medina to make war upon Mohammad, and the Bani Nazeer had resolved to break the compact. Vide Zoorkánee, Part II, pp, 96-97.