78 
J. O’Kinealy —History and Doctrines of the Wahhabis . [No. 1, 
ibn-ul-Khattab so married. These two examples suffice. Sakinah, daughter 
of Husain-bin-’Ali, married four times, and none of her husbands was a 
Fatimite, or of the tribe of Banu Hashim. Such was the custom of our 
ancestors, beyond all cavil. We do not compel any person to marry his 
slave until she demands it, or he is unable to marry his equal. Arabs are 
all equals for Arabs, and the contrary custom which prevails in many cities, 
is simply a proof of pride and a desire to exalt one’s self, which, as has been 
foretold, is a certain cause of great evil. 
A marriage with an unequal is lawful. Thus Zaid who was a slave 
married Zainab, the mother of the faithful, a daughter of the Qoraish tribe. 
This is well known to all sects and is conclusive. 
Suppose it is objected by a person not desirous of embracing the 
truth, that according to our argument, viz., whoever says, “ 0 Prophet of 
God, I ask you to intercede for me,” is a Mushrik, his blood shall be 
shed, applies to the mass of Muhammadans of modern times, and above all 
to the Divines who have believed this, and even despoiled those who op¬ 
posed it. We answer, that it does not follow. The necessary consequence 
of a sect is not the sect itself, as is well known. So it is not necessary that 
we must be Mujassimah, though we speak of the “ form” of God, but on the 
contrary we consider whoever dies in that persuasion is lost. We brand as 
Kafirs only those who having heard our call to the true faith, are deaf to it, 
and who having heard the proofs in its favour, obstinately reject it. These 
are the predominant sects, these we war with, so long as they remain in 
wickedness, prohibit lawful acts, or assist others in committing grievous 
offences. The non-predominant sects we war with only when they assist 
the former, are pleased with them, or join them, and thus increase their num¬ 
bers, becoming as it were predominant with them. Warring with them is 
commanded. We excuse the past generations. They were not protected 
from error, and their errors are excusable. And as to those who despoiled of 
their property such persons as did not agree with them, they were mis¬ 
taken, and making a mistake is no harm. Indeed, better than they have made 
mistakes, as we know from the tradition of the woman and the decision 
about dower. History gives other examples. The companions of the pro¬ 
phet erred, when assembled together, with the prophet in their midst. But 
his glory penetrated them, and they said to a date tree “ give us a sign,” 
and it responded. We say, this is the position of those persons who 
having fallen away from the right way, subsequently awake to their errors; 
but not of those who are aware of proofs, know the words and practice of 
the Imams, and yet remain persistently opposed to them till they die. We 
say that there is no harm in excusing persons in the hrst state, nor do we 
hold them Kafirs , simply because they were in error, or even because they 
continued so. For none of their time opposed their doctrines either by words, 
