nly to fight in his self-defence, but to
propagate his religion by the sword." History of the Conquest of Spain
by the Arab-Moors, by Henry Coppee. Vol. I, page 39. Boston, 1881. But
Dr. A. Sprenger makes the object of the wars of Mohammad purely
defensive. He writes:--"The Prophet now promulgated, in the name of God,
the law to fight their enemies, in order to put a stop to persecutions;
and this became henceforth the watchword of his bloody religion." The
Life of Mohammad, p. 207: Allahabad, 1851.]

[Footnote 31: M. Bluntschili, a modern authority on the International
Law, holds: "A war undertaken for defensive motives is a defensive war,
notwithstanding that it may be militarily offensive." The International
Law, by William Edward Hall, M.A., Oxford, 1880, page 320.]

[Footnote 32: Kent's Commentary on International Law. Edited by J.T.
Abdy, LL.D., Second Edition, page 144.]

[Sidenote: Caravans, if waylaid, were by reprisal.]

17. As regards the threatened attack on the caravans or capturing of it,
there are not any satisfactory grounds of proof; but if they were
attacked and captured, I do not see any reason why they should be
objected to. When hostilities commence, the first objects that naturally
present themselves for detection and seizure are the person and property
of the enemy. Even under the International Law of most civilized
countries, the legitimacy of appropriating the enemy's property rests on
the commencement of the state of war. Under the old customs of war a
belligerent possessed the right to seize and appropriate all the
property belonging to an enemy's state or its subjects, of whatever kind
they be or in whatsoever place where the acts of war are permissible. So
those who object to the early Moslems' threatening, or capturing, or
appropriating the person or property of the enemy, and call them
robbery, rapine or brigandage, show their complete ignorance of the
International Law, ancient or modern.

[Sidenote: Intolerance--no compulsory conversion enjoined, or took
place during Mohammad's life-time.]

18. The subject of the alleged intolerance on the part of Mohammad, the
Prophet, towards the unbelievers has been fully discussed in paragraphs
34-39 (pp. 41-51). It is altogether a wrong assumption of European
writers that the Koran enjoins compulsory conversion of the unbeliever,
or that Mohammad proselytized at the point of the sword. Sir W. Muir
writes:--

[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir quoted