7. Out of the above, the verses containing the words "Jahd" and "Johd,"--_i.e._, v, 58; vi, 109; xvi, 40; xxiv, 52; xxxv, 40; and ix, 80, marked *, are altogether out of dispute, as in all the former passages, except the last one, its obvious meaning is _most_ or _utmost_ solemn oaths,[325] or most _energetic_ oaths or _strongest_ or most forcible oaths,[326] and the latter signifies small provisions upon which a man possessing a little property can live with difficulty. The rest are of two kinds--_first_, the verses occurring in the Meccan Suras. As then the Moslems had not resorted to arms in their defence, though suffering from persecutions, Mohammadan commentators and jurists and Christian writers are unanimous in construing _Jihad_ in its natural sense of exertion, effort, energy, and painstaking. Secondly, the verses containing the same words occurring in the Medina Suras, which were revealed or published when the Moslems had taken arms in their defence. As regards this period, the words are considered to have an entirely new and an altogether fortuitous meaning, _viz._, a religious war of aggression. Even some verses of this period are rendered by Mohammadans and Christians in the literal sense of the word. [Sidenote: Conventional significations of _Jihad_.] 8. I fully admit that in the post-classical language of the Arabs,--_i.e._, that in use subsequent to the time of Mohammad, when the language was rapidly corrupted, the word "Jihad" was used to signify "warfare" or fighting, but this was in a military sense. Since that period the word has come to be used as meaning the waging of a war or a crusade only in military tactics, and more recently it found its way in the same sense into the Mohammadan law-books and lexicons of later dates. But the subsequent corrupt or post-classical language cannot be accepted as a final or even a satisfactory authority upon the point.