THE

FAITH OF ISLAM:

BY

THE Rev. EDWARD SELL,
FELLOW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS.

TRÜBNER & CO., LONDON.

ADDISON & CO., MADRAS.

1880.

All rights reserved.

MADRAS:
PRINTED BY ADDISON AND CO., MOUNT ROAD.

PREFACE.

The following pages embody a study of Islám during a residence of
fifteen years in India, the greater part of which time I have been in
daily intercourse with Musalmáns. I have given in the footnotes the
authorities from which I quote. I was not able to procure in Madras a
copy of the Arabic edition of Ibn Khaldoun’s great work, but the French
translation by Baron M. de Slane, to which I so frequently refer, is
thoroughly reliable. The quotations from the Qurán are made from
Rodwell’s translation. The original has been consulted when
necessary.

A few slight and occasional errors in transliteration have occurred,
such as Sulát for Salát, Munkar for Munkir, &c., but in no case is
the meaning affected.

In some words, such as Khalíf, Khalífate, and Omar, I have retained
the anglicised form instead of using the more correct terms, Khalífa,
Khiláfat, ‘Umr. The letter Q has been used to distinguish the
Káf-i-Karashat from the Káf-i-Tází.

E. S.

[v]

CONTENTS.

Introduction. … PAGE ix

CHAPTER I.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF ISLÁM.

The Qurán—Its revelation—Miraculous
nature—Arrangement of Qurán—Osmán’s recension. The
Sunnat—The authority of Sunnat—Tradition—Bid’at or
innovation—Shía’h Traditions. Ijmá’—Ijtihád—Four
orthodox Imáms, Hanífa, Málik, Sháfa’í and Hanbal. Qíás—Established
by the early Mujtahidín—Sterility of Islám … PAGE 1

Note to Chapter I. Ijtihád … PAGE 32

CHAPTER II.

EXEGESIS OF THE QURÁN AND THE TRADITIONS.

Inspiration—The seven readings—Work of a
Commentator—Words and Sentences of the Qurán—Use of the
words—Deductions of arguments from the Qurán—Divisions of the
Qurán—Abrogation—Creation of the Qurán—Hadís or
Tradition—Collections of Traditions—Classification of
Traditions … PAGE 37

CHAPTER III.

THE SECTS OF ISLÁM.

The Shía’hs—The
Imámat—Khárigites—Núr-i-Muhammadí—Imám—Ismá,ílians
and
Imámites—Ghair-i-Mahdís—Dá,irí—Mahmúdíah—Khalífate—Súfíism—Persian
Poetry—Darwíshes—Omar Khayyám—Wahhábís—their
rise—spread in India—doctrines and influence … PAGE 73

Note to Chapter III. Wahhábíism … PAGE 114

[vi]

CHAPTER IV.

THE CREED OF ISLÁM

Imán—God—Attributes of God—Discussions on the nature
of God—The rise of the Mutazilites—The
Sifátíans—Mushábihites—Names of God—Creation of the
Qurán. Angels—Recording Angels—Hárút and Márút—Munkir
and Nakír—Jinn. The Books—Abrogation—Tahríf. The
Prophets—Rank and inspiration of prophets—Nabí and
Rasúl—Sinlessness of prophets—The
Anbiya-ulul-‘Azm—Miracles of prophets—The Mi’ráj. The
Resurrection and the last day—The Trumpets—Descent of the
books—Balances—Bridge—Al-A’ráf—Al-Barzakh—Intercession
of Muhammad—Heaven—Hell. The Predestination of good and
evil—Jabríans—Qadríans—Ash’aríans—Free-will—Apostacy
… PAGE 116

Note to Chapter IV. Muslim Philosophy … PAGE 181

CHAPTER V.

THE PRACTICAL DUTIES OF ISLÁM.

Farz, wájib, sunnat, mustahab and mubáh actions—Harám or
unlawful acts. Tashahhud.
Salát—Wazú—Ghusl—Tayammum—Namáz—Farz,
sunnat, witr and nafl rak’ats—Appointed hours of
prayer—Friday Namáz and sermon—Namáz on a journey and in time
of war—Namáz in Ramazán, during an eclipse and in time of
drought—Funeral service—Its ritual and prayers.
Fasting—Its time and nature. Zakát—Nisáb—Proportion of
property to be given as alms—Recipients of the Zakát. The
Hajj—Farz, sunnat, wájib and mustahab duties connected with the
Hajj—Time for the Hajj—Arrival of the Hájí at
Mecca—Tawáf—Ceremonies of the Hajj—Conclusion of the
Hajj—Formal nature of Islám … PAGE 187

Note to Chapter V. Fatvá on the Namáz … PAGE 233

[vii]

CHAPTER VI.

THE FEASTS AND FASTS OF ISLÁM.

Muharram—’Áshúr Khána—Marsiya—Wáqi’a
Khán—’Alams—Ceremonies of the ‘Áshúrá—Fátihas for ‘Alí,
for Hasan and Husain—Akhir-i-chár Shamba—Bárá
Wafát—Jashn-i-milád-i-Sharif—Ásár-i-Sharíf—Shab
Barát—Ramazán and
‘Íd-ul-Fitr—’Itikáf—Sadqa—Sermon on the
‘Íd-ul-Fitr—Baqr-‘Íd or ‘Íd-uz-Zuhá—Sermon on the
‘Íd-uz-Zuhá—The Qurbán or Sacrifice—Festival of
Madár—Festival of Sálár Mas’úd Ghází—Festival of Khája
Khizr—Feast of Pír Dastgír Sáhib—Festival of Qádir Walí Sáhib
… PAGE 237

Index of Technical Terms … PAGE 265

[ix]

INTRODUCTION.

It is necessary to enter into some explanation as regards the contents
of this work. It does not fall in with its plan to enter into an account
either of the life of Muhammad or of the wide and rapid spread of the
system founded by him. The first has been done by able writers in
England, France and Germany. I could add nothing new to this portion of
the subject, nor throw new light upon it. The political growth of Muslim
nations has also been set forth in various ways.

It seems to me that the more important study at this time is that of
the religious system which has grown out of the Prophet’s teaching, and
of its effect upon the individual and the community. What the Church in
her missionary enterprise has to deal with, what European Governments in
the political world have to do with is Islám as it is, and as it now
influences those who rule and those who are ruled under it.

I have, therefore, tried to show from authentic sources, and from a
practical knowledge of it, what the Faith of Islám really is, and how it
influences men and nations in the present day. I think that recent Fatvás
delivered by the ‘Ulamá in Constantinople show how firmly a Muslim State
is bound in the fetters of an unchangeable Law, whilst the present
practice of orthodox Muslims all the world [x]over is a constant carrying
out of the precepts given in the Qurán and the Sunnat, and an
illustration of the principles I have shown to belong to Islám. On this
subject it is not too much to say that there is, except amongst Oriental
scholars, much misconception.

Again, much that is written on Islám is written either in ignorant
prejudice, or from an ideal standpoint. To understand it aright, one
should know its literature and live amongst its people. I have tried
faithfully to prove every statement I have made; and if, now and again, I
have quoted European authors, it is only by way of illustration. I rest
my case entirely upon Musalmán authorities themselves. Still more, I have
ascertained from living witnesses that the principles I have tried to
show as existing in Islám, are really at work now and are as potent as at
any previous period.

I have thus traced up from the very foundations the rise and
development of the system, seeking wherever possible to link the past
with the present. In order not to interfere with this unity of plan, I
have had to leave many subjects untouched, such as those connected with
the civil law, with slavery, divorce, jihád or religious wars, &c. A
good digest of Muhammadan Law^[1] will give all necessary information on
these points. The basis of the Law which determines these questions is
what I have described in my first chapter. Ijtihád, for example, rules
quite as effectually in a question of domestic [xi]economy or political
jurisprudence as on points of dogma. It was not, therefore, necessary for
me to go into details on these points.

When I have drawn any conclusion from data which Muhammadan
literature, and the present practice of Muslims have afforded me, I have
striven to give what seems to me a just and right one. Still, I gladly
take this opportunity of stating that I have found many Muslims better
than their creed, men with whom it is a pleasure to associate, and whom I
respect for many virtues and esteem as friends. I judge the system, not
any individual in it.

In India, there are a number of enlightened Muhammadans, ornaments to
native society, useful servants of the State, men who show a laudable
zeal in all social reforms, so far as is consistent with a reputation for
orthodoxy. Their number is far too few, and they do not, in many cases,
represent orthodox Islám, nor do I believe their counterpart would be
found amongst the ‘Ulamá of a Muslim State. The fact is that the wave of
scepticism which has passed over Europe has not left the East untouched.
Hindu and Muslim alike have felt its influence, but to judge of either
the one system or the other from the very liberal utterances of a few men
who expound their views before English audiences is to yield oneself up
to delusion on the subject.

Islám in India has also felt the influence of contact with other races
and creeds, though, theologically speaking, the Imán and the Dín, the
faith and the practice, are unchanged, and remain as I have [xii]described them
in chapters four and five. If Islám in India has lost some of its
original fierceness, it has also adopted many superstitious practices,
such as those against which the Wahhábís protest. The great mass of the
Musalmán people are quite as superstitious, if not more so, than their
heathen neighbours. Still the manliness, the suavity of manner, the deep
learning, after an oriental fashion, of many Indian Musalmáns render them
a very attractive people. It is true there is a darker side—much
bigotry, pride of race, scorn of other creeds, and, speaking generally, a
tendency to inertness. It is thus that in Bengal, Madras and perhaps in
other places, they have fallen far behind the Hindus in educational
status, and in the number of appointments they hold in the Government
service. Indeed, this subject is a serious one and deserves the special
attention of the Indian Government. In Bengal the proportion of Musalmáns
to Hindus in the upper ranks of the Uncovenanted Civil Service in 1871
was 77 to 341. In the year 1880 it had declined to 53 to 451. The state
of affairs in Madras is equally bad. Yet an intelligent Muslim, as a
rule, makes a good official.

Looking at the subject from a wider stand-point, I think the Church
has hardly yet realised how great a barrier this system of Islám is to
her onward march in the East. Surely special men with special training
are required for such an enterprise as that of encountering Islám in its
own strongholds. No better pioneers of the Christian [xiii]faith could
be found in the East than men won from the Crescent to the Cross.

All who are engaged in such an enterprise will perhaps find some help
in this volume, and I am not without hope that it may also throw some
light on the political questions of the day.

[1]

THE FAITH OF ISLÁM.

CHAPTER I.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF ISLÁM.

The creed of Islám, “Lá-iláha-il-lal-láhu wa Muhammad-ur-Rasúl-Ulláh,”
(There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God) is very
short, but the system itself is a very dogmatic one. Such statements as:
“The Qurán is an all-embracing and sufficient code, regulating
everything,” “The Qurán contains the entire code of
Islám—that is, it is not a book of religious precepts merely, but
it governs all that a Muslim does,” “The Qurán contains the whole
religion of Muhammad,” “The Qurán which contains the whole Gospel of
Islám” are not simply misleading, they are erroneous. So far from the
Qurán alone being the sole rule of faith and practice to Muslims,
there is not one single sect amongst them whose faith and practice is
based on it alone. No one among them disputes its authority or casts any
doubt upon its genuineness. Its voice is supreme in all that it concerns,
but its exegesis, the whole system of legal jurisprudence and of
theological science, is largely founded on the Traditions. Amongst the
orthodox Musalmáns, the foundations of the Faith are four in number, the
Qurán, Sunnat, Ijmá’ and Qíás. The fact that all the sects do not agree
with the orthodox—the Sunnís—in this matter illustrates
another important fact in Islám—the want of unity amongst its
followers. [2]

1. The Qurán.—The question of the
inspiration will be fully discussed, and an account of the laws of the
exegesis of the Qurán will be given in the next chapter. It is sufficient
now to state that this book is held in the highest veneration by Muslims
of every sect. When being read it is kept on a stand elevated above the
floor, and no one must read or touch it without first making a legal
ablution.^[2] It is not
translated unless there is the most urgent necessity, and even then the
Arabic text is printed with the translation. It is said that God chose
the sacred month of Ramazán in which to give all the revelations which in
the form of books have been vouchsafed to mankind. Thus on the first
night of that month the books of Abraham came down from heaven; on the
sixth the books of Moses; on the thirteenth the Injíl, or Gospel, and on
the twenty-seventh the Qurán. On that night, the Laylut-ul-Qadr, or
“night of power,” the whole Qurán is said to have descended to the lowest
of the seven heavens, from whence it was brought piecemeal to Muhammad as
occasion required.^[3] “Verily
we have caused it (the Qurán) to descend on the night of power.” (Súra
xcvii. 1.) That night is called the blessed night, the night better than
a thousand months, the night when angels came down by the permission of
their Lord, the night which bringeth peace and blessings till the rosy
dawn. Twice on that night in the solitude of the cave of Hira the voice
called, twice though pressed sore “as if a fearful weight had been laid
upon him,” the prophet struggled [3]against its influence. The third time he heard
the words:—

“When the voice had ceased to speak, telling how from minutest
beginnings man had been called into existence, and lifted up by
understanding and knowledge of the Lord, who is most beneficent, and who
by the pen had revealed that which man did not know, Muhammad woke up
from his trance and felt as if “a book had been written in his heart.” He
was much alarmed. Tradition records that he went hastily to his wife and
said—”O Khadíja! what has happened to me!” He lay down and she
watched by him. When he recovered from his paroxysm, he said “O Khadíja!
he of whom one would not have believed (i.e., himself) has become
either a soothsayer (káhin) or mad.” She replied, “God is my protection,
O Ab-ul-kásim. He will surely not let such a thing happen unto thee, for
thou speakest the truth, dost not return evil for evil, keepest faith,
art of a good life and art kind to thy relatives and friends, and neither
art thou a talker abroad in the bazaars. What has befallen thee? Hast
thou seen aught terrible?” Muhammad replied “Yes.” And he told her what
he had seen. Whereupon she answered and said:—”Rejoice, O dear
husband and be of good cheer. He in whose hands stands Khadíja’s life, is
my witness that thou wilt be the Prophet of this people.”^[4] The next Súra, the 74th, was revealed at
Mecca, after which there seems to have been an intermission, called the
Fatrah. It was during this time that the Prophet gained some knowledge of
the contents of the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures.

Gabriel is believed to have been the medium of communication. This
fact, however, is only once stated in the Qurán:—”Say, whoso is the
enemy of Gabriel—For he it is [4]who by God’s leave hath
caused the Qurán to descend on thy heart” (Súra ii. 91.) This Súra was
revealed some years after the Prophet’s flight to Madína. The other
references to the revelation of the Qurán are:—”Verily from the
Lord of the worlds hath this book come down; the Faithful Spirit
(Rúh-ul-Ámín) hath come down with it” (Súra xxvi. 192.) “The Qurán is no
other than a revelation revealed to him, one terrible in power
(Shadíd-ul-Quá) taught it him.” (Súra liii. 5.) These latter passages do
not state clearly that Gabriel was the medium of communication, but the
belief that he was is almost, if not entirely, universal, and the
Commentators say that the terms “Rúh-ul-Ámín” and “Shadíd-ul-Quá” refer
to no other angel or spirit. The use of the word “taught” in the last
Súra quoted, and the following expression in Súra lxxv. 18. “When we have
recited it, then follow thou the recital,” show that the Qurán is
entirely an objective revelation and that Muhammad was only a passive
medium of communication. The Muhammadan historian, Ibn Khaldoun, says on
this point:—”Of all the divine books the Qurán is the only one of
which the text, words and phrases have been communicated to a prophet by
an audible voice. It is otherwise with the Pentateuch, the Gospel and the
other divine books: the prophets received them under the form of
ideas.”^[5] This expresses the
universal belief on this point—a belief which reveals the
essentially mechanical nature of Islám.

The Qurán thus revealed is now looked upon as the standing miracle of
Islám. Other divine books, it is admitted, were revelations received
under the form of ideas, but the Qurán is far superior to them all for
the actual text was revealed to the ear of the prophet. Thus we read in
Súra lxxv. 16-19:—

[5]

The Qurán is, then, believed to be a miraculous revelation of divine
eloquence, as regards both form and substance, arrangement
of words, and its revelation of sacred things. It is asserted that each
well-accredited prophet performed miracles in that particular department
of human skill or science most flourishing in his age. Thus in the days
of Moses magic exercised a wide influence, but all the magicians of
Pharaoh’s court had to submit to the superior skill of the Hebrew
prophet. In the days of Jesus the science of medicine flourished. Men
possessed great skill in the art of healing; but no physician could equal
the skill of Jesus, who not only healed the sick, but raised the dead. In
the days of Muhammad the special and most striking feature of the age was
the wonderful power of the Arabs in the art of poetry. Muhammad-ud-Damiri
says:—”Wisdom hath alighted on three things—the brain of the
Franks, the hands of the Chinese and the tongue of the Arabs.” They were
unrivalled for their eloquence, for the skill with which they arranged
their material and gave expression to their thoughts. It is in this very
particular that superior excellence is claimed for the Qurán.^[6] It is to the Muhammadan mind
a sure evidence of its miraculous origin that it should excel in this
respect. Muslims say that miracles have followed the revelations given to
other prophets in order to confirm the divine message. In this case the
Qurán is both a revelation and a miracle. [6]Muhammad himself
said:—”Each prophet has received manifest signs which carried
conviction to men: but that which I have received is the revelation. So I
hope to have a larger following on the day of resurrection than any other
prophet has.” Ibn Khaldoun says that “by this the Prophet means that such
a wonderful miracle as the Qurán, which is also a revelation, should
carry conviction to a very large number.”^[7] To a Muslim the fact is quite clear, and
so to him the Qurán is far superior to all the preceding books. Muhammad
is said to have convinced a rival, Lebid, a poet-laureate, of the truth
of his mission by reciting to him a portion of the now second Súra.
“Unquestionably it is one of the very grandest specimens of Koranic or
Arabic diction…. But even descriptions of this kind, grand as they be,
are not sufficient to kindle and preserve the enthusiasm and the faith
and the hope of a nation like the Arabs…. The poets before him had sung
of valour and generosity, of love and strife and revenge … of early
graves, upon which weeps the morning cloud, and of the fleeting nature of
life which comes and goes as the waves of the desert sands, as the tents
of a caravan, as a flower that shoots up and dies away. Or they shoot
their bitter arrows of satire right into the enemy’s own soul. Muhammad
sang of none of these. No love-minstrelsy his, not the joys of the world,
nor sword, nor camel, nor jealousy, nor human vengeance, not the glories
of tribe or ancestor. He preached Islám.” The very fierceness with which
this is done, the swearing such as Arab orator, proficient though he may
have been in the art, had never made, the dogmatic certainty with which
the Prophet proclaimed his message have tended, equally with the
passionate grandeur of his utterances, to hold the Muslim world
spell-bound to the letter and imbued with all the narrowness of the
book.

So sacred is the text supposed to be that only the [7]Companions^[8] of the Prophet are deemed
worthy of being commentators on it. The work of learned divines since
then has been to learn the Qurán by heart and to master the traditions,
with the writings of the earliest commentators thereon. The revelation
itself is never made a subject of investigation or tried by the ordinary
rules of criticism. If only the Isnád, or chain of authorities for any
interpretation, is good, that interpretation is unhesitatingly accepted
as the correct one. It is a fundamental article of belief that no other
book in the world can possibly approach near to it in thought or
expression. It deals with positive precepts rather than with principles.
Its decrees are held to be binding not in the spirit merely but in the
very letter on all men, at all times and under every circumstance of
life. This follows as a natural consequence from the belief in its
eternal nature.

The various portions recited by the Prophet during the twenty-three
years of his prophetical career were committed to writing by some of his
followers, or treasured up in their memories. As the recital of the Qurán
formed a part of every act of public worship, and as such recital was an
act of great religious merit, every Muslim tried to remember as much as
he could. He who could do so best was entitled to the highest honour, and
was often the recipient of a substantial reward.^[9] The Arab love for poetry facilitated the
exercise of this faculty. When the Prophet died the revelation ceased.
There was no distinct copy of the whole, nothing to show what was of
transitory importance, what of permanent value. There is nothing which
proves that the Prophet took any special care of any portions. There
seems to have been no definite order in which, when the book was [8]compiled,
the various Súras were arranged, for the Qurán, as it now exists, is
utterly devoid of all historical or logical sequence. For a year after
the Prophet’s death nothing seems to have been done; but then the battle
of Yemana took place in which a very large number of the best Qurán
reciters were slain. Omar took fright at this, and addressing the Khalíf
Abu Bakr, said, “The slaughter may again wax hot amongst the repeaters of
the Qurán in other fields of battle, and much may be lost therefrom. Now,
therefore, my advice is that thou shouldest give speedy orders for the
collection of the Qurán.” Abu Bakr agreed, and said to Zeid who had been
an amanuensis of the Prophet:—”Thou art a young man, and wise,
against whom no one amongst us can cast an imputation; and thou wert wont
to write down the inspired revelations of the Prophet of the Lord,
wherefore now search out the Qurán and bring it all together.” Zeid being
at length pressed to undertake the task proceeded to gather the Qurán
together from “date leaves, and tablets of white stone, and from the
hearts of men.” In course of time it was all compiled in the order in
which the book is now arranged. This was the authorized text for some
twenty-three years after the death of Muhammad. Owing, however, either to
different modes of recitation, or to differences of expression in the
sources from which Zeid’s first recension was made, a variety of
different readings crept into the copies in use. The Faithful became
alarmed and the Khalíf Osmán was persuaded to put a stop to such a
danger. He appointed Zeid with three of the leading men of the Quraish as
assistants to go over the whole work again. A careful recension was made
of the whole book which was then assimilated to the Meccan dialect, the
purest in Arabia. After this all other copies of the Qurán were burnt by
order of the Khalíf, and new transcripts were made of the revised edition
which was now the only authorised copy. As it is a fundamental tenet of
Islám that the Qurán is incorruptible and absolutely free [9]from error, no
little difficulty has been felt in explaining the need of Osmán’s new and
revised edition and of the circumstances under which it took place; but
as usual a Tradition has been handed down which makes it lawful to read
the Qurán in seven dialects. The book in its present form may be accepted
as a genuine reproduction of Abu Bakr’s edition with authoritative
corrections. We may rest assured that we have in the Qurán now in use the
record of what Muhammad said. It thus becomes a fundamental basis of
Islám. It was a common practice of the early Muslims when speaking of the
Prophet to say:—”His character is the Qurán.” When people curious
to know details of the life of their beloved master asked ‘Áyesha, one of
his widows, about him, she used to reply:—”Thou hast the Qurán, art
thou not an Arab and readest the Arab tongue? Why dost thou ask me, for
the Prophet’s disposition is no other than the Qurán?”

Whether Muhammad would have arranged the Qurán as we now have it is a
subject on which it is impossible to form an opinion. There are
Traditions which seem to show that he had some doubts as to its
completeness. I give the following account on the authority of M. Caussin
de Percival. When Muhammad felt his end draw near he said:—”Bring
ink and paper: I wish to write to you a book to preserve you always from
error.” But it was too late. He could not write or dictate and so he
said:—”May the Qurán always be your guide. Perform what it commands
you: avoid what it prohibits.” The genuineness of the first part of this
Tradition is, I think, very doubtful, the latter is quite in accordance
with the Prophet’s claim for his teaching. The letter of the book became,
as Muhammad intended it should become, a despotic influence in the Muslim
world, a barrier to freethinking on the part of all the orthodox, an
obstacle to innovation in all spheres—political, social,
intellectual and moral. There are many topics connected with it which can
be better explained in the next chapter. All [10]that has now to be here
stated is that the Qurán is the first foundation of Islám. It is an error
to suppose it is the only one: an error which more than anything else has
led persons away from the only position in which they could obtain a true
idea of the great system of Islám.

The Shía’hs maintain, without good reason, that the following verses
favourable to the claims of ‘Alí and of the Shía’h faction were omitted
in Osmán’s recension.

“O Believers! believe in the two lights. (Muhammad and ‘Alí).

‘Alí is of the number of the pious, we shall give him his right in the
day of judgment; we shall not pass over those who wish to deceive him. We
have honoured him above all this family. He and his family are very
patient. Their enemy^[10] is
the chief of sinners.

We have announced to thee a race of just men, men^[11] who will not oppose our orders. My
mercy and peace are on them living^[12] or dead.

As to those who walk in their way, my mercy is on them; they will
certainly gain the mansions of Paradise.”

2. The Sunnat.—The second foundation of
Islám is based on the Hadís (plural Ahádís) or Tradition. Commands from
God given in the Qurán are called ‘farz’ and ‘wájib.’ A command given by
the Prophet or an example set by him is called ‘sunnat,’ a word meaning a
rule. It is then technically applied to the basis of religious faith and
practice, which is founded on traditional accounts of the sayings and
acts of Muhammad.^[13] It is
the belief common to all Musalmáns, that the Prophet in all that he
did, and in all that he said, was supernaturally guided,
and that his words and acts are to all time and to all his followers a
divine rule of faith and practice. “We should know that God Almighty has
given commands and prohibitions to his [11]servants, either by means
of the Qurán, or by the mouth of His Prophet.”^[14] Al-Ghazáli, a most distinguished
theologian, writes:—”Neither is the faith according to His will,
complete by the testimony to the Unity alone, that is, by simply saying,
‘There is but one God,’ without the addition of the further testimony to
the Apostle, that is, the statement, ‘Muhammad is the apostle of God.'”
This belief in the Prophet must extend to all that he has said concerning
the present and the future life, for, says the same author, “A man’s
faith is not accepted till he is fully persuaded of those things which
the Prophet hath affirmed shall be after death.”

It is often said that the Wahhábís reject Tradition. In the ordinary
sense of the word Tradition they may; but in Muslim Theology the term
Hadís, which we translate Tradition, has a special meaning. It is applied
only to the sayings of the Prophet, not to those of some uninspired
divine or teacher. The Wahhábís reject the Traditions handed down by men
who lived after the time of the Companions, but the Hadís, embodying the
sayings of the Prophet, they, in common with all Muslim sects,
hold to be an inspired revelation of God’s will to men. It would be as
reasonable to say that Protestants reject the four Gospels as to say that
the Wahhábís reject Tradition.^[15] An orthodox Muslim places the Gospels
in the same rank as the Hadís, that is, he looks upon them as a record of
what Jesus said and did handed down to us by His Companions. “In the same
way as other Prophets received their books under the form of ideas, so
our Prophet has in the same way received a great number of communications
which are found in the collections of the [12]Traditions (Ahádís).^[16] This shows that the
Sunnat must be placed on a level with the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures; whilst the Qurán is a revelation superior to them all. To no
sect of Musalmáns is the Qurán alone the rule of faith. The Shía’hs, it
is true, reject the Sunnat, but they have in their own collection of
Traditions an exact equivalent.

The nature of the inspiration of the Sunnat and its authoritative
value are questions of the first importance, whether Islám is viewed from
a theological or a political stand-point.

“Muhammad said that seventy-three sects would arise, of whom only one
would be worthy of Paradise. The Companions inquired which sect would be
so highly favoured. The Prophet replied:—’The one which remains
firm in my way and in that of my friends.’ It is certain that this must
refer to the Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jamá’at.” (Sunnís.)^[17]

It is laid down as a preliminary religious duty that obedience should
be rendered to the Sunnat of the Prophet. Thus in the fourth Súra of the
Qurán it is written: “O true believers! obey God and obey the apostle.”
“We have not sent any apostle but that he might be obeyed by the
permission of God.” From these and similar passages the following
doctrine is deduced: “It is plain that the Prophet (on whom and on whose
descendants be the mercy and peace of God!) is free from sin in what he
ordered to be done, and in what he prohibited, in all his words and acts;
for were it otherwise how could obedience rendered to him be accounted as
obedience paid to God?”^[18]
Believers are exhorted to render obedience to God by witnessing to His
divinity, and to the Prophet by bearing witness to his prophetship; this
is a sign of love, and love is the cause of nearness to God. The Prophet
himself is reported to have [13]said, “Obey me that God may regard you as
friends.” From this statement the conclusion is drawn that “the love of
God (to man) is conditional on obedience to the Prophet.” Belief in and
obedience to the Prophet are essential elements of the true faith, and he
who possesses not both of these is in error.^[19]

In order to show the necessity of this obedience, God is said to have
appointed Muhammad as the Mediator between Himself and man. In a lower
sense, believers are to follow the “Sunnat” of the four Khalífs, Abu
Bakr, Omar, Osmán, and ‘Alí, who are true guides to men.

To the Muslim all that the Prophet did was perfectly in accord with
the will of God. Moral laws have a different application when applied to
him. His jealousy, his cruelty to the Jewish tribes, his indulgence in
licentiousness, his bold assertion of equality with God as regards his
commands, his every act and word, are sinless, and a guide to men as long
as the world shall last. It is easy for an apologist for Muhammad to say
that this is an accretion, something which engrafted itself on to a
simpler system. It is no such thing. It is rather one of the essential
parts of the system. Let Muhammad be his own witness:—”He who loves
not my Sunnat is not my follower.” “He who revives my Sunnat revives me,
and will be with me in Paradise.” “He who in distress holds fast to the
Sunnat will receive the reward of a hundred martyrs.” As might be
expected, the setting up of his own acts and words as an infallible and
unvarying rule of faith accounts more than anything else for the
immobility of the Muhammadan world, for it must be always remembered that
in Islám Church and State are one. The Arab proverb, “Al mulk wa dín
tawáminí”—country and religion are twins—is the popular form
of expressing the unity of Church and State. [14]To the mind of the
Musalmán the rule of the one is the rule of the other,—a truth
sometimes forgotten by politicians who look hopefully on the reform of
Turkey or the regeneration of the House of Osmán. The Sunnat as much as
the Qurán covers all law, whether political, social, moral, or religious.
A modern writer who has an intimate acquaintance with Islám
says:—”If Islám is to be a power for good in the future, it is
imperatively necessary to cut off the social system from the religion.
The difficulty lies in the close connection between the religious and
social ordinances in the Kurán, the two are so intermingled that it is
hard to see how they can be disentangled without destroying both.” I
believe this to be impossible, and the case becomes still more hopeless
when we remember that the same remark would apply to the Sunnat. To
forget this is to go astray, for Ibn Khaldoun distinctly speaks of “the
Law derived from the Qurán and the Sunnat,” of the “maxims of Musalmán
Law based on the text of the Qurán and the teaching of the Traditions.”^[20]

The Prophet had a great dread of all innovation. The technical term
for anything new is “bida’t,” and of it, it is said: “Bida’t is the
changer of Sunnat.” In other words, if men seek after things new, if
fresh forms of thought arise, and the changing condition of society
demands new modes of expression for the Faith, or new laws to regulate
the community, if in internals or externals, any new thing (bida’t) is
introduced, it is to be shunned. The law as revealed in the Qurán and the
Sunnat is perfect. Everything not in accordance with the precepts therein
contained is innovation, and all innovation is heresy. Meanwhile some
[15]“bida’t” is allowable, such as the teaching
of etymology and syntax, the establishment of schools, guest-houses,
&c., which things did not exist in the time of the Prophet; but it is
distinctly and clearly laid down that compliance with the least Sunnat
(i.e. the obeying the least of the orders of the Prophet, however
trivial) is far better than doing some new thing, however advantageous
and desirable it may be.

There are many stories which illustrate the importance the Companions
of the Prophet attached to Sunnat. “The Khalíf Omar looked towards the
black stone at Mecca, and said, ‘By God, I know that thou art only a
stone, and canst grant no benefit, canst do no harm. If I had not known
that the Prophet kissed thee, I would not have done so, but on account of
that I do it.'” Abdullah-Ibn-‘Umr was seen riding his camel round and
round a certain place. In answer to an inquiry as to his reason for so
doing he said: “I know not, only I have seen the Prophet do so here.”
Ahmad-Ibn-Hanbal, one of the four great Imáms, and the founder of the
Hanbalí school of interpretation, is said to have been appointed on
account of the care with which he observed the Sunnat. One day when
sitting in an assembly he alone of all present observed some formal
custom authorised by the practice of the Prophet. Gabriel at once
appeared and informed him that now, and on account of his act, he was
appointed an Imám.^[21] In
short, it is distinctly laid down that the best of all works is the
following of the practice of Muhammad. The essence of religion has been
stated by a learned theologian to consist of three things: first, to
follow the Prophet in morals and in acts; secondly, to eat only lawful
food; thirdly, to be sincere in all actions.

[16]

The Sunnat is now known to Musalmáns through the collections of
Traditions gathered together by the men whose names they now bear. The
whole are called Sihah-Sittah, or “six correct books.” Not one of these
collectors flourished until the third century of the Hijra, and so, as
may be easily supposed, their work has not passed unchallenged. There is
by no means an absolute consensus of opinion among the Sunnís as to the
exact value of each Tradition, yet all admit that a ‘genuine Tradition’
must be obeyed. Whether the Prophet spoke what in the Traditions is
recorded as spoken by him under the influence of the highest kind of
inspiration is, as will be shown in the next chapter, a disputed point;
but it matters little. Whatever may have been the degree, it was
according to Muslim belief a real inspiration, and thus his every act and
word became a law as binding upon his followers as the example of Christ
is upon Christians.

The Shía’hs do not acknowledge the Sihah-Sittah, the six correct books
of the Sunnís, but it by no means follows that they reject Tradition.
They have five books of Traditions, the earliest of which was compiled by
Abu Ja’far Muhammad A.H. 329, or a century
later than the Sahíh-i-Bukhárí, the most trustworthy of the Sunní set.
Thus all Musalmán sects accept the first and second ground of the
faith—the Qurán and the Sunnat—as the inspired will of God;
the Shía’hs substituting in the place of the Traditions on which the
Sunnat is based, a collection of their own. What it is important to
maintain is this, that the Qurán alone is to no Musalmán an
all-sufficient guide.

3. Ijmá’.—The third foundation of the
Faith is called Ijmá’, a word signifying to be collected or assembled.
Technically it means the unanimous consent of the leading theologians, or
what in Christian theology would be called the “unanimous consent of the
Fathers.” Practically it is a collection of the opinions of the
Companions, the Tábi’ín and the Taba-i-Tábi’ín. “The Law,” says Ibn
Khaldoun [17]“is grounded on the general accord of the
Companions and their followers.” The election of Abu Bakr to the
Khalifate is called Ijmá’-i-Ummat, the unanimous consent of the whole
sect. The Companions of the Prophet had special knowledge of the various
circumstances under which special revelations had been made; they alone
knew which verses of the Qurán abrogated others, and which verses were
thus abrogated. The knowledge of these matters and many other details
they handed on to their successors, the Tábi’ín, who passed the
information on to their followers, the Taba-i-Tábi’ín. Some Muslims, the
Wahhábís for example, accept only the Ijmá’ of the Companions; and by all
sects that is placed in the first rank as regards authority; others
accept that of the ‘Fugitives’ who dwelt at Madína; and there are some
amongst the orthodox who allow, as a matter of theory, that Ijmá’ may be
collected at any time, but that practically it is not done because there
are now no Mujtahidín. The highest rank a Muslim Theologian could reach
was that of a Mujtahid, or one who could make an Ijtihád, a word which,
derived from the same root as Jihád (a Crescentade), means in its
technical sense a logical deduction. It is defined as the “attaining to a
certain degree of authority in searching into the principles of
jurisprudence.” The origin of Ijtihád was as follows:—Muhammad
wished to send a man named Mu’áz to Yaman to receive some money collected
for alms, which he was then to distribute to the poor. On appointing him
he said: “O Mu’áz, by what rule will you act?” He replied, “by the Law of
the Qurán.” “But if you find no direction therein?” “Then I will act
according to the Sunnat of the Prophet.” “But what if that fails?” “Then
I will make an Ijtihád and act on that.” The Prophet raised his hands and
said, “Praise be to God who guides the messenger of His Prophet in what
He pleases.”^[22] This is
considered a proof of the authority of Ijtihád for the Prophet clearly
sanctioned it.

[18]

When the Prophet was alive men could go to him with their doubts and
fears: an infallible authority was always present ready to give an
inspired direction. The Khalífs who succeeded the Prophet had only to
administer the Law according to the opinions which they knew Muhammad had
held. They were busily engaged in carrying on the work of conquest; they
neither attempted any new legislation, nor did they depart from the
practice of him whom they revered. “In the first days of Islám, the
knowledge of the Law was purely Traditional. In forming their judgments
they had no recourse either to speculation, to private opinion, or to
arguments founded upon analogy.”^[23] However, as the Empire grew, new
conditions of life arose, giving rise to questions, concerning which
Muhammad had given no explicit direction. This necessitated the use of
Ijtihád. During the Khalifates of Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán and
‘Alí—the Khulafa-i-Ráshidín, or the Khalífs who could guide men in
the right way, the custom was for the Faithful to consult them as to the
course of action to be pursued under some new development of
circumstances; for they knew as none other did the Prophet’s sayings and
deeds, they could recall to their memories a saying or an act from which
a decision could be deduced. In this way all Muslims could feel that in
following their judgments and guidance they were walking in the right
path. But after the death of ‘Alí, the fourth Khalíf, civil war and
hostile factions imperilled the continuance of the Faith in its purity.
At Madína, where Muhammad’s career as a recognised Prophet was best
known, devout men commenced to learn by heart the Qurán, the Sunnat, and
the analogical judgments (Ijtihád) of the four Khalífs. These men were
looked up to as authorities, and their decisions were afterwards known as
the ‘Customs of Madína.’

It is not difficult to see that a system, which sought to regulate all
departments of life, all developments of men’s ideas and energies by the
Sunnat and analogical deductions [19]therefrom, was one which not only gave every
temptation a system could give to the manufacture of Tradition, but one
which would soon become too cumbersome to be of practical use. Hence, it
was absolutely necessary to systematize all this incoherent mass of
Tradition, of judgments given by Khalífs and Mujtahidín. This gave rise
to the systems of jurisprudence, founded by the four orthodox Imáms, to
one or other of which all Muslims, except the Shía’hs, belong. These
Imáms, Abu Hanífa, Ibn Málik, As-Sháfi’i and Ibn Hanbal were all
Mujtahidín of the highest rank. After them it is the orthodox belief that
there has been no Mujtahid. Thus in a standard theological book much used
in India it is written: “Ijmá’ is this, that it is not lawful to follow
any other than the four Imáms.” “In these days the Qází must make no
order, the Muftí give no fatvá (i.e. a legal decision), contrary
to the opinion of the four Imáms.” “To follow any other is not lawful.”
So far then as orthodoxy is concerned, change and progress are
impossible.

Imám Abu Hanífa was born at Basra (A.H. 80),
but he spent the greater part of his life at Kúfa. He was the founder and
teacher of the body of legists known as ‘the jurists of Irák.’ His system
differs considerably from that of the Imám Málik who, living at Madína,
confined himself chiefly to Tradition as the basis of his judgments.
Madína was full of the memories of the sayings and acts of the Prophet;
Kúfa, the home of Hanífa, on the contrary, was not founded till after the
Prophet’s death and so possessed none of his memories. Islám there came
into contact with other races of men, but from them it had nothing to
learn. If these men became Muslims, well and good: if not, the one law
for them as for the Faithful was the teaching of Muhammad. Various texts
of the Qurán are adduced to prove the correctness of this position. “For
to thee have we sent down the book which cleareth up every thing.” (Súra
xvi. 91) “Nothing have we passed over in the book.” (Súra vi. [20]38.) “Neither
is there a grain in the darkness of the earth nor a thing green or sere,
but it is noted in a distinct writing.” (Súra vi. 59). These texts were
held to prove that all law was provided for by anticipation in the Qurán.
If a verse could not be found bearing on any given question, analogical
deduction was resorted to. Thus: “He it is who created for you all
that is on earth.” (Súra ii. 27). According to the Hanifite jurists, this
is a deed of gift which annuls all other rights of property. The ‘you’
refers to Muslims. The earth^[24] may be classified under three
heads:—(1) land which never had an owner; (2) land which had an
owner and has been abandoned; (3) the person and property of the
Infidels. From the last division the same legists deduce the lawfulness
of slavery, piracy and constant war against the unbelievers. To return to
Abu Hanífa. He admitted very few Traditions as authoritative in his
system, which claims to be a logical development from the Qurán. “The
merit of logical fearlessness cannot be denied to it. The wants and
wishes of men, the previous history of a country—all those
considerations, in fact, which are held in the West to be the governing
principles of legislation, are set aside by the legists of Irák as being
of no account whatever. Legislation is not a science inductive and
experimental, but logical and deductive.”^[25]

Imám Ibn Málik was born at Madína (A.H. 93)
and his system of jurisprudence is founded, as might be expected from his
connection with the sacred city, on the “Customs of Madína.” His business
was to arrange and systematize the Traditions current in Madína, and to
form out of them and the “Customs” a system of jurisprudence embracing
the whole sphere of life. The treatise composed by him was called the
“Muwatta” or “The Beaten Path.” The greater part of its contents are
legal maxims and opinions [21]delivered by the Companions. His system of
jurisprudence, therefore, has been described as historical and
traditional. In an elegy on his death by Abu Muhammad Ja’far it is said:
“His Traditions were of the greatest authority; his gravity was
impressive; and when he delivered them, all his auditors were plunged in
admiration.”^[26] The
Traditions were his great delight. “I delight,” said he, “in testifying
my profound respect for the sayings of the Prophet of God, and I never
repeat one unless I feel myself in a state of perfect purity,”^[27] (i.e., after
performing a legal ablution.) As death approached, his one fear was lest
he should have exercised his private judgment in delivering any legal
opinion. In his last illness a friend went to visit him, and enquiring
why he wept, received the following answer: “Why should I not weep, and
who has more right to weep than I? By Allah! I wish I had been flogged
and reflogged for every question of law on which I pronounced an opinion
founded on my own private judgment.”^[28]

Imám As-Sháfa’í, a member of the Quraish tribe, was born A.H. 150. He passed his youth at Mecca but finally
settled in Cairo where he died (A.H. 204). Ibn
Khallikan relates of him that he was unrivalled for his knowledge of the
Qurán, the Sunnat, and the sayings of the Companions. “Never,” said Imám
Ibn Hanbal, “have I passed a night without praying for God’s mercy and
blessing upon As-Sháfi’í.” “Whosoever pretends,” said Abu Thaur, “that he
saw the like of As-Sháfi’í for learning is a liar.” Having carefully
studied the systems of the two preceding Imáms he then proceeded on an
eclectic system to form his own. It was a reaction against the system of
Abu Hanífa. As-Sháfi’í follows rather the traditional plan of Ibn Málik.
The Hanifite will be satisfied if, in the absence of a clear and a direct
statement, he finds one [22]passage in the Qurán, or one Tradition from
which the required judgment may be deduced. The Sháfi’ite in the same
circumstances, if Tradition is the source of his deduction, will require
a considerable number of Traditions from which to make it.

Imám Ibn Hanbal was the last of the four Orthodox Imáms. He was born
at Baghdád (A.H. 164). His system is a distinct
return to Traditionalism. He lived at Baghdád during the reign of the
Khalíf Mamun, when Orthodox Islám seemed in danger of being lost amid the
rationalistic speculations, (that is, from an Orthodox Muslim
stand-point), and licentious practices of the Court. The jurists most in
favour at Court were followers of Abu Hanífa. They carried the principle
of analogical deduction to dangerous lengths in order to satisfy the
latitudinarianism of the Khalíf. Human speculation seemed to be weakening
all the essentials of the Faith. Ibn Hanbal met the difficulty by
discarding altogether the principle of analogical deduction. At the same
time he saw that the Máliki system, founded as it was on the “Customs of
Madína,” was ill-suited to meet the wants of a great and growing Empire.
It needed to be supplemented. What better, what surer ground could he go
upon than the Traditions. These at least were inspired, and thus formed a
safer foundation on which to build a system of jurisprudence than the
analogical deductions of Abu Hanífa did. The system of Ibn Hanbal has
almost ceased to exist. There is now no Muftí of this sect at Mecca,
though the other three are represented there. Still his influence is felt
to this day in the importance he attached to Tradition.

The distinction between the four Imáms has been put in this way. Abu
Hanífa exercised his own judgment. Málik and Hanbal preferred authority
and precedent. As-Sháfi’í entirely repudiated reason. They differ, too,
as regards the value of certain Traditions, but to each of them an
authentic Tradition is an incontestable authority. Their [23]opinion on
points of doctrine and practice forms the third basis of the Faith.

The Ijmá’ of the four Imáms is a binding law upon all Sunnís. It might
be supposed that as the growing needs of the Empire led to the formation
of these schools of interpretation; so now the requirements of modern,
social and political life might be met by fresh Imáms making new
analogical deductions. This is not the case. The orthodox belief is, that
since the time of the four Imáms there has been no Mujtahid who could do
as they did. If circumstances should arise which absolutely require some
decision to be arrived at, it must be given in full accordance with the
‘mazhab,’ or school of interpretation, to which the person framing the
decision belongs.^[29] This
effectually prevents all change, and by excluding innovation, whether
good or bad, keeps Islám stationary. Legislation is now purely deductive.
Nothing must be done contrary to the principles contained in the
jurisprudence of the four Imáms. “Thus, in any Muhammadan State
legislative reforms are simply impossible. There exists no initiative.
The Sultán, or Khalíf can claim the allegiance of his people only so long
as he remains the exact executor of the prescriptions of the Law.”

The question then as regards the politics of the “Eastern [24]Question” is not
whether Muhammad was a deceiver or self-deceived, an apostle or an
impostor; whether the Qurán is on the whole good or bad; whether Arabia
was the better or the worse for the change Muhammad wrought; but what
Islám as a religious and political system has become and is, how it now
works, what Orthodox Muslims believe and how they act in that belief. The
essence of that belief is, that the system as taught by Prophet, Khalífs
and Imáms is absolutely perfect.^[30] Innovation is worse than a mistake. It
is a crime, a sin. This completeness, this finality of his system of
religion and polity, is the very pride and glory of a true Muslim. To
look for an increase of light in the knowledge of his relation to God and
the unseen world, in the laws which regulate Islám on earth is to admit
that Muhammad’s revelation was incomplete, and that admission no Muslim
will make.

It has been stated on high authority that all that is required for the
reform of Turkey is that the Qánúns or orders of the Sultán should take
the place of the Sharí’at or law of Islám. Precisely so; if this could be
done, Turkey might be reformed; but Islám would cease to be the religion
of the State. That the law as formulated by the Imám Abu Hanífa ill suits
the conditions of modern life is more than probable; but it is the very
function of the Khalíf of Islám, [25]which the Sultán claims to be, to maintain
it. He is no Mujtahid, for such there are not now amongst the Sunnís, to
which sect the Turks belong. If through stress of circumstances some new
law must be made, orthodoxy demands that it should be strictly in
accordance with the opinions of the Imáms. The Shía’hs, in opposition to
the Sunnís, hold that there are still Mujtahidín, but this opinion arises
from their peculiar doctrine of the Imámat, a subject we shall discuss a
little later on. At first sight it would seem that if there can be
Mujtahidín who are now able to give authoritative opinions, there may be
some hope of enlightened progress amongst Shía’h people—the
Persians for example. There is doubtless amongst them more religious
unrest, more mysticism, more heresy, but they are no further on the road
of progress than their neighbours; and the apparent advantage of the
presence of a Mujtahid is quite nullified by the fact that all his
decisions must be strictly in accordance with the Qurán and the Sunnat,
or rather with what to the Shía’h stands in the place of the Sunnat. The
Shía’h, as well as the Sunní, must base all legislation on the fossilized
system of the past, not on the living needs of the present. Precedent
rules both with an iron sway. The Wahhábís reject all Ijmá’ except that
of the Companions, but that they accept; so when they are called the
Puritans of Islám, it must be remembered that they accept as a rule of
faith not only the Qurán, but the Sunnat, and some Ijmá’.

In order to make Ijmá’ binding, it is necessary that the Mujtahidín
should have been unanimous in their opinion or in their practice.

The whole subject of Ijtihád is one of the most important in
connection with the possibility of reforms in a Muslim state. A modern
Muhammadan writer^[31]
seeking to show that Islám does possess a capacity for progress and that
so far from being a hard and fast system, it is able to adapt itself to
new circumstances, because the Prophet ushered in [26]“an age of active
principles,” uses the story I have already related when describing the
origin of Ijtihád (Ante. p. 17) to prove the
accuracy of his statement. He makes Mu’áz to say:—”I will look
first to the Qurán, then to precedents of the Prophet, and lastly rely
upon my own judgment.” It is true that Ijtihád literally means
‘great effort,’ it is true that the Companions and Mujtahidín of the
first class had the power of exercising their judgment in doubtful cases,
and of deciding them according to their sense of the fitness of things,
provided always, that their decision contravened no law of the Qurán or
the Sunnat; but this in no way proves that Islám has any capacity for
progress, or that “an age of active principles” was ushered in by
Muhammad, or that his “words breathe energy and force, and infuse new
life into the dormant heart of humanity.” For, though the term Ijtihád
might, in reference to the men I have mentioned, be somewhat freely
translated as “one’s own judgment,” it can have no such meaning now. It
is a purely technical term, and its use and only use now is to express
the “referring of a difficult case to some analogy drawn from the Qurán
and the Sunnat.” But even were the meaning not thus restricted, even
though it meant now as it sometimes meant at first, “one’s own judgment;”
still Syed Amír ‘Alí’s position would remain to be proved for, since the
days of the four Imáms, the orthodox believe that there has been no
Mujtahid of the first class, and to none but men of this rank has such
power ever been accorded. Thus granting, for the sake of argument merely,
that the Syed’s translation is grammatically and technically correct, all
that results from it is that the “age of active principles” lasted only
for two centuries. I do not admit that there ever was such an age in
Islám, and certainly neither its theological development, nor its
political growth negative the opposite assertion, viz., that
Muhammad gave precepts rather than principles. The Turks are included in
“the dormant heart of humanity,” but it is difficult to see what “energy
and [27]force” is breathed, what “new life is
infused” into them by the “wonderful words” of the Prophet, or what
lasting good the “age of active principles” has produced.

4. Qíás is the fourth foundation of Islám. The
word literally means reasoning, comparing. It is in common use in
Hindustani and Persian in the sense of guessing, considering, &c.
Technically, it means the analogical reasoning of the learned with regard
to the teaching of the Qurán, the Sunnat and the Ijmá’. For example, the
Qurán says:—”Honour thy father and thy mother and be not a cause of
displeasure to them.” It is evident from this that disobedience to
parents is prohibited, and prohibition implies punishment if the order is
disobeyed. Again, if the Qurán and the Sunnat hold children responsible,
according to their means, for the debts of their father, does it not
follow that the elder ones ought to fulfil for their parents all those
obligations which for some reason or other the parents may not be able to
perform, such as the pilgrimage to Mecca, &c. A Tradition said to
come from the Companions runs thus:—”One day, a woman came to the
Prophet and said, ‘my father died without making the Pilgrimage.’ The
Prophet said, ‘If thy father had left a debt what wouldest thou do,’ ‘I
would pay the debt.’ ‘Good, then pay this debt also.'” The Qurán forbids
the use of Khamar, an intoxicating substance, and so it is argued that
wine and opium are unlawful, though not forbidden by name. The Wahhábís
would extend the prohibition to the use of tobacco.

From cases such as these, many jurisconsults hold that the Mujtahidín
of the earliest age established this fourth foundation of the faith which
they call Qíás. It is also called I’tibár-ul-Amsál, or “imitation of an
example.” The idea is taken from the verse: “Profit by this example, ye
who are men of insight” (Súra lix. 2). There are strict rules laid down
which regulate Qíás, of which the most important is, that in all cases it
must be based on the Qurán, the Sunnat, and the Ijmá’. In fact, the
fundamental idea of Islám [28]is that a perfect law has been given, even
unto details, of social and political life. The teaching of Muhammad
contains the solution of every difficulty that can arise. Every law not
provided by the Prophet must be deduced analogically. This produces
uniformity after a fashion, but only because intellectual activity in
higher pursuits ceases and moral stagnation follows. Thus all who come
within the range of this system are bound down to political servitude.
Whatever in feeling or conviction goes beyond the limits of an out-worn
set of laws is swept away. There is a wonderful family likeness in the
decay of all Musalmán States, which seems to point to a common cause. All
first principles are contained in the Qurán and the Sunnat; all that does
not coincide with them must be wrong. They are above all criticism.

Qíás, then, affords no hope of enlightened progress, removes no fetter
of the past, for in it there must be no divergence in principle from a
legislation imperfect in its relation to modern life and stationary in
its essence.^[32] In the
Niháyat-ul-Murád it is written:—”We are shut up to following the
four Imáms.” In the Tafsír-i-Ahmadí we read:—”To follow any other
than the four Imáms is unlawful.” An objector may say that such respect
is like the reverence the heathen pay to their ancestors. To this an
answer is given in the preface to the Tarjuma-i-Sharh-i-Waqáyah. The
writer there says that it is nothing of the kind. “The Mujtahidín are not
the source of the orders of the Law, but they are the medium by which we
obtain the Law. Thus Imám Abu Hanífa said: ‘We select first from the
Qurán, then from the Traditions, then from the decrees of the Companions;
we act on what the Companions agreed upon; where they doubt, we doubt.’
The Commentator Jelál-ud-dín Mahlí says, ‘The common people and others
who have [29]not reached the rank of a Mujtahid, must
follow one of the four Imáms.’ Then when he enters one Mazhab (sect) he
must not change. Again, it may be objected that God gave no order about
the appointment of four Imáms. Now, it is recorded in a Tradition that
the Prophet said, ‘Follow the way of the great company; whosoever departs
from it will enter hell.’ The Followers of the Imáms are a great
company.” It is moreover the unanimous opinion, the “Ijmá’-i-Ummat,” that the
Imáms rightly occupy the position accorded to them. It is a great
blessing, as we read in the Tafsír-i-Ahmadí: “It is of the grace of God,
that we are shut up to these four Imáms. God approves of this, and into
this matter proofs and explanations do not enter.” Should any one further
object that, in the days of the Prophet, there were no Mujtahidín, that
each man acted on a “saying” as he heard it, that he did not confine his
belief or conduct to the deductions made by some “appointed Companion,”
he may be answered thus:—”For a long time after the death of the
Prophet many Companions were alive, and consequently the Traditions then
current were trustworthy; but now it is not so, hence the need for the
Imáms and their systems.”

These four foundations,—the Qurán, the
Sunnat, Ijmá’ and Qíás—form in orthodox Muslim opinion and belief a
perfect basis of a perfect religion and polity. They secure the
permanence of the system, but they repress an intelligent growth. The
bearing of all this on modern politics is very plain. Take again the case
of Turkey. The constitution of the Government is theocratic. The germs of
freedom are wanting there as they have never been wanting in any other
country in Europe. The ruling power desires no change; originality of
thought, independence of judgment is repressed. Nothing good has the Turk
ever done for the world.^[33] This rule has been one continued
display of brute [30]force unrelieved by any of the reflected
glory which shone for a while in Cordova and in Baghdád. No nation can
possibly progress, the foundations of whose legal and theocratic system
are what has been described in this chapter. When brought into diplomatic
and commercial intercourse with States possessing the energy and vigour
of a national life and liberal constitution, Muslim kingdoms must, in the
long run, fail and pass away. It has been well said that “Spain is the
only instance of a country once thoroughly infused with Roman
civilisation which has been actually severed from the empire; and even
then the severance, though of long duration, was but partial and
temporary. After a struggle of nearly eight centuries, the higher form of
social organisation triumphed over the lower and the usurping power of
Islám was expelled.” So it ought to be, and so indeed it must ever be,
for despotism must give way to freedom; the life latent in the subject
Christian communities must sooner or later cast off the yoke of a
barbarian rule, which even at its best is petrified and so is incapable
of progress. However low a Christian community may have fallen, there is
always the possibility of its rising again. A lofty ideal is placed
before it. All its most cherished beliefs point forward and upward. In
Islám there is no regenerative power. Its golden age was in the past.
When the work of conquest is done, when a Muhammadan nation has to live
by industry, intelligence and thrift, it always miserably fails.

In this chapter which must now draw to a close, I have tried to prove
from authentic and authoritative sources that [31]the Qurán alone is to no
Muslim the sole guide of life. The fetters of a dogmatic system fasten
alike around the individual and the community. Islám is sterile, it gives
no new birth to the spirit of a man, leads him not in search of new forms
of truth, and so it can give no real life, no lasting vitality to a
nation.^[34]

[32]

NOTE TO CHAPTER I.

IJTIHÁD.

Questions connected with Ijtihád are so important in Islám, that I
think it well to give in the form of a note a fuller and more technical
account of it, than I could do in the Chapter just concluded. This
account which I shall now give is that of a learned Musalmán, and is,
therefore, of the highest value. It consists of extracts from an article
in the Journal Asiatique, Quatrième Série, tome, 15, on “Le Marche et les
Progres de la Jurisprudence parmi les Sectes orthodoxes Musalmanes” by
Mirza Kázim Beg, Professor in the University of St. Petersburg. It
entirely supports all that has been said of the rigid character of
Muhammadan Law, and of the immobility of systems founded thereon.

“Orthodox Musalmáns admit the following propositions as axioms.

1. God the only legislator has shown the way of felicity to the people
whom He has chosen, and in order to enable them to walk in that way He
has shown to them the precepts which are found, partly in the eternal
Qurán, and partly in the sayings of the Prophet transmitted to posterity
by the Companions and preserved in the Sunnat. That way is called the
“Sharí’at.” The rules thereof are called Ahkám.

2. The Qurán and the Sunnat, which since their manifestation are the
primitive sources of the orders of the Law, form two branches of study,
viz., Ilm-i-Tafsír, or the interpretation of the Qurán and
Ilm-i-Hadís, or the study of Tradition.

3. All the orders of the Law have regard either to the actions (Dín),
or to the belief (Imán) of the Mukallifs.^[35]

4. As the Qurán and the Sunnat are the principal sources from whence
the precepts of the Sharí’at have been drawn, so the rules recognized as
the principal elements of actual jurisprudence are the subject of
Ilm-í-Fiqh, or the science of Law.

Fiqh in its root signifies conception, comprehension. Thus Muhammad
prayed for Ibn Mas’úd: “May God make him [33]comprehend (Faqqihahu),
and make him know the interpretation of the Qurán.” Muhammad in his
quality of Judge and chief of the Believers decided, without appeal or
contradiction, all the affairs of the people. His sayings served as a
guide to the Companions. After the death of the Prophet the first Khalífs
acted on the authority of the Traditions. Meanwhile the Qurán and the
Sunnat, the principal elements of religion and legislation, became little
by little the subject of controversy. It was then that men applied
themselves vigorously to the task of learning by heart the Qurán and the
Traditions, and then that jurisprudence became a separate science. No
science had as yet been systematically taught, and the early Musalmáns
did not possess books which would serve for such teaching. A change soon,
however, took place. In the year in which the great jurisconsult of Syria
died (A.H. 80) N’imán bin Sabit, surnamed Abu
Hanífa was born. He is the most celebrated of the founders of the schools
of jurisprudence, a science which ranks first in all Muslim seats of
learning. Until that time and for thirty years later the Mufassirs,^[36] the Muhaddis,^[37] and the Fuqihá,^[38] had all their knowledge
by heart, and those who possessed good memories were highly esteemed.
Many of them knew by heart the whole Qurán with the comments made on it
by the Prophet and by the Companions; they also knew the Traditions and
their explanations, and all the commands (Ahkám) which proceed from the
Qurán, and the Sunnat. Such men enjoyed the right of Mujtahidín. They
transmitted their knowledge to their scholars orally. It was not till
towards the middle of the second century A.H.
that treatises on the different branches of the Law were written, after
which six schools (Mazhabs) of jurisprudence were formed. The founders,
all Imáms of the first class, were Abu Hanífa, the Imám-i-A’zam or great Imám (A.H.
150),^[39] Safian As-Sáurí
(A.H. 161), Málik (A.H. 179), As-Sháfa’í (A.H.
204), Hanbal (A.H. 241) and Imám Dáúd Az-Zaharí
(A.H. 270). The two sects founded by Sáurí and
Zaharí became extinct in the eighth century of the Hijra. The other four
still remain. These men venerated one another. The younger ones speak
with great respect of the elder. Thus Sháfa’í said:—”No one in the
world was so well versed in jurisprudence as Abu Hanífa was, and he who
has read neither his works, nor those of his disciples knows nothing of
jurisprudence.” Hanbal when sick wore a shirt which had belonged to
Sháfa’í, in order that he might be cured of his malady; but all this [34]did not
prevent them starting schools of their own, for the right of Ijtihád is
granted to those who are real Mujtahidín. There are three degrees of
Ijtihád.

1. Al-Ijtihád fi’l Shari’: absolute independence in legislation

2. Al-Ijtihád fi’l Mazhab: authority in the judicial systems founded
by the Mujtahidín of the first class.

3. Al-Ijtihád fi’l Masáil: authority in cases which have not been
decided by the authors of the four systems of jurisprudence.

The first is called a complete and absolute authority, the second
relative, the third special.

THE FIRST DEGREE OF IJTIHÁD.

Absolute independence in legislation is the gift of God. He to whom it
is given when seeking to discover the meaning of the Divine Law is not
bound to follow any other teacher. He can use his own judgment. This gift
was bestowed on the jurisconsults of the first, and to some in the second
and third centuries. The Companions, however, who were closely connected
with the Prophet, having transmitted immediately to their posterity the
treasures of legislation, are looked upon as Mujtahidín of much higher
authority than those of the second and third centuries. Thus Abu Hanífa
says:—”That which comes to us from the Companions is on our head
and eyes (i.e., to be received with respect): as to that which
comes from the Tábi’ín, they are men and we are men.”

Since the time of the Tábi’ín this degree of Ijtihád has only been
conferred on the six great Imáms. Theoretically any Muslim can attain to
this degree, but it is one of the principles of jurisprudence that the
confirmation of this rank is dependent on many conditions, and so no one
now gains the honour. These conditions are:—

1. The knowledge of the Qurán and all that is related to it; that is
to say, a complete knowledge of Arabic literature, a profound
acquaintance with the orders of the Qurán and all their sub-divisions,
their relationship to each other and their connection with the orders of
the Sunnat. The candidate should know when, and why each verse of the
Qurán was written, he should have a perfect acquaintance with the literal
meaning of the words, the speciality or generality of each clause, the
abrogating and abrogated sentences. He should be able to make clear the
meaning of the ‘obscure’ passages (Mutashábih), to discriminate between
the literal and the allegorical, the universal and the particular.

2. He must know the Qurán by heart with all the Traditions and
explanations. [35]

3. He must have a perfect knowledge of the Traditions, or at least of
three thousand of them.

He must know their source, history, object and their connection with
the laws of the Qurán. He should know by heart the most important
Traditions.

4. A pious and austere life.

5. A profound knowledge of all the sciences of the Law.

Should any one now aspire to such a degree another condition
would be added, viz:—

6. A complete knowledge of the four schools of jurisprudence.

The obstacles, then, are almost insurmountable. On the one hand, there
is the severity of the ‘Ulamá, which requires from the candidate things
almost impossible; on the other, there is the attachment of the ‘Ulamá to
their own Imáms, for should such a man arise no one is bound now to
listen to him. Imám Hanbal said:—”Draw your knowledge from whence
the Imáms drew theirs, and do not content yourself with following others
for that is certainly blindness of sight”. Thus the schools of the four
Imáms remain intact after a thousand years have passed, and so the ‘Ulamá
recognise since the time of these Imáms no Mujtahíd of the first degree.
Ibn Hanbal was the last.

The rights of the man who attained to this degree were very important.
He was not bound to be a disciple of another, he was a mediator between
the Law and his followers, for whom he established a system of
legislation, without any one having the right to make any objection. He
had the right to explain the Qurán, the Sunnat and the Ijmá’ according as
he understood them. He used the Prophet’s words, whilst his disciples
only used his. Should a disciple find some discrepancy between a decision
of his own Imám and the Qurán or Traditions, he must abide by the
decision of the Imám. The Law does not permit him to interpret after his
own fashion. When once the disciple has entered the sect of one Imám he
cannot leave it and join another. He loses the right of private judgment,
for only a Mujtahid of the first class can dispute the decision of one of
the Imáms. Theoretically such Mujtahidín may still arise; but, as we have
already shown, practically they do not.

THE SECOND DEGREE OF IJTIHÁD.

This degree has been granted to the immediate disciples of the great
Imáms who have elaborated the systems of their masters. They enjoyed the
special consideration of the contemporary ‘Ulamá, and of their respective
Imáms who in some cases have allowed them [36]to retain their own
opinion.’ The most famous of these men are the two disciples of Abu
Hanífa, Abu Yúsuf and Muhammad bin al Hasan. In a secondary matter their
opinion carries great weight. It is laid down as a rule that a Muftí may
follow the unanimous opinion of these two even when it goes against that
of Abu Hanífa.

THE THIRD DEGREE OF IJTIHÁD.

This is the degree of special independence. The candidates for it
should have a perfect knowledge of all the branches of jurisprudence
according to the four schools of the Arabic language and literature. They
can solve cases which come before them, giving reasons for their
judgment, or decide on cases which have not been settled by previous
Mujtahidín; but in either case their decisions must always be in absolute
accordance with the opinions of the Mujtahidín of the first and second
classes, and with the principles which guided them. Many of these men
attained great celebrity during their lifetime, but to most of them this
rank is not accorded till after their death. Since Imám Qází Khán died
(A.H. 592), no one has been recognised by the
Sunnís as a Mujtahid even of the third class.

There are three other inferior classes of jurists, called Muqallidín,
or followers of the Mujtahidín; but all that the highest in rank amongst
them can do is to explain obscure passages in the writings of the older
jurisconsults. By some of the ‘Ulamá they are considered to be equal to
the Mujtahidín of the third class. If there are several conflicting legal
opinions on any point, they can select one opinion on which to base their
decision. This a mere Qází cannot do. In such a case he would have to
refer to those men, or to their writings for guidance. They seem to have
written commentaries on the legal systems without originating anything
new. The author of the Hidáyah, who lived at the end of the sixth
century, was a Muqallid.

Such is Mirza Kázim Beg’s account. The whole article, of which I have
only given the main points, is worthy of the closest study. It shows how
“the system, as a whole, rejects experience as a guide to deeper insight
or wider knowledge; tramples upon the teaching of the past; pays no heed
to differences of climate, character, or history; but regards itself as a
body of absolute truth, one jot or tittle of which cannot be rejected
without incurring the everlasting wrath of God.”^[40]

[37]

CHAPTER II.

EXEGESIS OF THE QURÁN AND THE TRADITIONS.

The following account of this branch of Muslim theology, technically
called ‘Ilm-i-Usúl, may be introduced by a few remarks on the nature of
inspiration according to Islám, though that is not strictly speaking a
portion of this study.

There are two terms used to express different degrees of inspiration,
Wahí and Ilhám. Wahí is the term applied to the inspiration of the Qurán,
and implies that the very words are the words of God. It is divided into
Wahí Záhir (external inspiration), and Wahí Bátin (internal inspiration).
The whole book was prepared in heaven. Muhammad, instructed by Gabriel,
is simply the medium through which the revelation of Wahí Záhir reaches
man. The Wahí Qurán, i.e., the highest form of inspiration, always
came to the ear of the Prophet through the instrumentality of Gabriel. In
Muhammadan theology, this is the special work of Gabriel. Thus in the
Traditions it is related that he appeared to Adam twelve times, to Enoch
four, to Noah fifty, to Abraham forty-two, to Moses four hundred, to
Jesus ten times, to Muhammad twenty-four thousand times.

Ilhám means the inspiration given to a saint or to a prophet when he,
though rightly guided, delivers the subject matter out of his own mind,
and is not a mere machine to reproduce the messages of Gabriel. There is
a lower form of Wahí Záhir, which is called Ishárat-ul-Malak (literally,
“sign of the Angel.”) This expresses what Muhammad meant when he said:
“The Holy Ghost has entered into my heart.” In other words, he received
the inspiration through [38]Gabriel, but not by word of mouth. This form
of inspiration is higher than that possessed by saints, and is usually
applied to the inspiration of the Traditions. This is denied by some, who
say that except when delivering the Qurán Muhammad spoke by Ilhám and not
by Wahí. The practical belief is, however, that the Traditions were Wahí
inspiration, and thus they come to be as authoritative as the Qurán.
Sharastani speaks of “the signs (sayings) of the Prophet which have the
marks of Wahí.”^[41] This
opinion is said by some Muslim theologians to be supported by the first
verse of the fifty-third Súra, entitled the Star. “By the Star when it
setteth; your companion Muhammad erreth not, nor is he led
astray, neither doth he speak of his own will. It is none
other than a revelation which hath been revealed to him.” In any case the
inspiration of Muhammad is something quite different from the Christian
idea of inspiration, which is to Musalmáns a very imperfect mode of
transmitting a revelation of God’s will.

That there should be a human as well as a divine side to inspiration
is an idea not only foreign, but absolutely repugnant to Muhammadans. The
Qurán is not a book of principles. It is a book of directions. The Qurán
describes the revelation given to Moses thus:—”We wrote for him
upon the tables a monition concerning every matter and said: ‘Receive
them thyself with steadfastness, and command thy people to receive them
for the observance of its most goodly precepts.'” (Súra vii. 142). It is
such an inspiration as this the Qurán claims for itself. Muhammad’s idea
was that it should be a complete and final code of directions in every
matter for all mankind. It is not the word of a prophet enlightened by
God. It proceeds immediately from God, and the word ‘say’ or ‘speak’
precedes, or is understood to precede, every sentence. This to a Muslim
is the highest form of inspiration; this alone stamps a book as [39]divine. It is
acknowledged that the Injíl—the Gospel—was given by Jesus;
but as that, too, according to Muslim belief, was brought down from
heaven by the angel Gabriel during the month of Ramazán, it is now
asserted that it has been lost, and that the four Gospels of the New
Testament are simply Traditions collected by the writers whose names they
bear. Their value is, therefore, that of the second foundation of the
Islámic system.

The question next arises as to the exact way in which Gabriel made
known his message to Muhammad. The Mudárij-un-Nabuwat, a standard
theological work, gives some details on this point.^[42] Though the Qurán is all of God, both as
to matter and form, yet it was not all made known to the Prophet in one
and the same manner. The following are some of the modes:—

1. It is recorded on the authority of ‘Áyesha, one of Muhammad’s
wives, that a brightness like the brightness of the morning came upon the
Prophet. According to some commentators this brightness remained six
months. In some mysterious way Gabriel, through this brightness or
vision, made known the will of God.

2. Gabriel appeared in the form of Dahiah, one of the Companions of
the Prophet, renowned for his beauty and gracefulness. A learned dispute
has arisen with regard to the abode of the soul of Gabriel when he
assumed the bodily form of Dahiah. At times, the angelic nature of
Gabriel overcame Muhammad, who was then translated to the world of
angels. This always happened when the revelation was one of bad news,
such as denunciations or predictions of woe. At other times, when the
message brought by Gabriel was one of consolation and comfort, the human
nature of the Prophet overcame the angelic nature of the angel, who, in
such case, having assumed a human form, proceeded to deliver the message.
[40]

3. The Prophet heard at times the noise of the tinkling of a bell. To
him alone was known the meaning of the sound. He alone could distinguish
in, and through it, the words which Gabriel wished him to understand. The
effect of this mode of Wahí was more marvellous than that of any of the
other ways. When his ear caught the sound his whole frame became
agitated. On the coldest day, the perspiration, like beads of silver,
would roll down his face. The glorious brightness of his countenance gave
place to a ghastly hue, whilst the way in which he bent down his head
showed the intensity of the emotion through which he was passing. If
riding, the camel on which he sat would fall to the ground. The Prophet
one day, when reclining with his head in the lap of Zeid, heard the well
known sound: Zeid, too, knew that something unusual was happening, for so
heavy became the head of Muhammad that it was with the greatest
difficulty he could support the weight.

4. At the time of the Mi’ráj, or night ascent into heaven, God spoke
to the Prophet without the intervention of an angel. It is a disputed
point whether the face of the Lord was veiled or not.

5. God sometimes appeared in a dream, and placing his hands on the
Prophet’s shoulders made known his will.

6. Twice, angels having each six hundred wings, appeared and brought
the message from God.

7. Gabriel, though not appearing in bodily form, so inspired the heart
of the Prophet that the words he uttered under its influence were the
words of God. This is technically called Ilká, and is by some
supposed to be the degree of inspiration to which the Traditions
belong.

Above all, the Prophet was not allowed to remain in any error; if, by
any chance, he had made a wrong deduction from any previous revelation,
another was always sent to rectify it. This idea has been worked up to a
science of abrogation, according to which some verses of the Qurán
abrogate others. Muhammad found it necessary to shift [41]his stand-point
more than once, and thus it became necessary to annul earlier portions of
his revelation.

Thus in various ways was the revelation made known to Muhammad. At
first there seems to have been a season of doubt (Ante p. 3), the dread lest after all it might be a mockery. But
as years rolled on confidence in himself and in his mission came. At
times, too, there is a joyousness in his utterances as he swears by
heaven and earth, by God and man; but more often the visions were weird
and terrible. Tradition says:—”He roared like a camel, the sound as
of bells well-nigh rent his heart in pieces.” Some strange power moved
him, his fear was uncontrollable. For twenty years or more the
revelations came, a direction on things of heaven and of earth, to the
Prophet as the spiritual guide of all men,^[43] to the Warrior-Chief, as the founder of
political unity among the Arab tribes.

A Muhammadan student, after passing through a course of instruction in
grammar, rhetoric, logic, law, and dogmatics, at length reaches the stage
when he is permitted to enter upon the study of “‘Ilm-i-usúl,” or the
exegesis of the Qurán, and the inspired sayings of the Prophet. This
done, he can henceforth read the approved commentaries in order to learn
what the Fathers of Islám have to say. This science in one way fits him
to be a commentator, for the work of a Muslim divine now is, not to bring
things “new and old” out of the sacred book, but to hand down to others
the things old. There is no indwelling spirit in the Church of Islám
which can reveal to the devout mind new views of truth, or lead the pious
scholar on to deeper and more profound knowledge.

The greatest proficient in theology is the man who can repeat the
Qurán by heart, who knows also and can reproduce at will what the early
commentators have said, who can remember, and quote in the most apposite
manner, the [42]Prophet’s sayings preserved in the
Traditions handed down by the Companions, their followers, and their
followers’ followers, who can point out a flaw in the Isnád (i.e.
chain of narrators) of a Tradition quoted by an opponent, or maintain, by
repeating the long list of names, the authority of the Isnád of the
Tradition he quotes himself. A good memory, not critical acumen, is the
great desideratum in a Muslim theologian. The chief qualification of a
Háfiz, a man who can repeat the whole Qurán by heart, is not that he
shall understand its meaning, but that he shall be able to pronounce each
word correctly. By men who are not Arabs by birth, this is only to be
attained after years of practice from childhood. The Sunnís say that no
Shía’h can ever become a Háfiz, from which fact they draw the conclusion
that the Shía’hs are heretics. In the early days of Islám, the great
authorities on the question of the correct pronunciation of the Qurán
were the Khalífs Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán, and ‘Alí, and ten of the
Companions, who learned from the Prophet himself the exact way in which
Gabriel had spoken. The Arabic of heaven was the Arabic of Islám. The
effort, however, to preserve one uniform method of repeating the Qurán
failed. Men of other lands could not acquire the pure intonation of
Mecca, and so no less than seven different ways of reading the sacred
book became current. Here was a great difficulty, but it proved
surmountable. Abu Ibn Káb, one of the Companions, had become so famous as
a reader that the Prophet himself said: “read the Qurán under Abu Ibn
Káb.” These men remembered that Abu Ibn Káb had stated, that one day when
scandalized at man after man who entered the mosque repeating the Qurán
in different ways, he spoke to Muhammad about it. His Highness said: “O
Abu Ibn Káb! intelligence was sent to me to read the Qurán in one
dialect, and I was attentive to the Court of God, and said: ‘make easy
the reading of the Qurán to my sects.’ These instructions were sent to me
a second time saying: ‘read the [43]Qurán in two dialects.’ Then I turned myself
to the Court of God saying: ‘make easy the reading of the Qurán to my
sects.’ Then a voice was sent to me the third time saying: ‘read the
Qurán in seven dialects.'”

This removed all difficulty, and the foresight displayed by the
Prophet in thus obtaining a divine sanction for the various ways of
reading was looked upon as a proof of his inspiration. Thus arose the
“haft qirá,at,” or seven readings of the Qurán, now recognised.

In the Qurán compiled by the order of the Khalíf Osmán there were no
vowel-points, but when men of other countries embraced Islám they found
great difficulty in mastering Arabic. Khalid bin Ahmad, a great
grammarian, then invented the short vowels and other diacritical marks.
The seven famous “Readers” whose names have been given to the various
modes of reading, are Imám Nafi of Madína, Imám Ibn-i-Kasir of Mecca,
Imám Abu ‘Umr of Basra, Imám Hamza of Kufa, Imám Ibn ‘Amir of Syria, Imám
‘Ásim of Kufa, Imám Kisáe of Kufa.^[44] These learned men affixed different
vowel-points in many places in the Qurán, and thus slight differences of
meaning arose. In India the “qirá,at—reading,—of Imám ‘Ásim
is followed by both Sunnís and Shía’hs. There are three readings of
lesser note allowable when reading the Qurán privately, but not when
reading any part in a liturgical service. During the month of Ramazán the
Qurán is repeated every night in the mosque, it being so arranged that
one-thirtieth part shall be recited each night. The Imám of the mosque,
or public Reader, (Qárí) who commences according to one of the seven
recognised readings (qirá,at), must keep to the same all the month. As he
has to recite without a book this involves a great exercise of the
memory. A good Háfiz will know the whole seven varieties. The various
readings thus introduced, though [44]unimportant in their nature,^[45] amount to about five hundred in number.
The following are a few illustrations. In the second Súra Abu ‘Umr reads:
“Nor shall ye be questioned concerning that which they have done;”
but ‘Ásim reads: “That which ye have done.” This is caused by
putting two dots above the line instead of below it. Again ‘Ásim reads:
“Enter ye the gates of hell” (Súra xxxix. 73), but Nafi reads:
“Ye will be made to enter hell,”—that is, by a slight change
the passive is substituted for the active voice. These are fair samples
of the rest. No doctrine, so far as I know, is touched, but the way in
which Tradition records the Prophet’s anticipation of the difficulty is
instructive to the student of Islám. At times, too, fierce disputes have
arisen between the followers of the seven famous Readers whose names I
have given above. In the year 935 A.H., Ibn
Shanabud, a resident of Baghdád, ventured to introduce some different
readings in his recital of the Qurán. The people of Baghdád, not knowing
these, were furious, and the Khalíf was compelled to cast the offender
into prison. A Council of divines was called together, before whom the
unhappy Ibn Shanabud was produced. For a while he maintained the
correctness of his “readings,” but after being whipped seven times he
said: “I renounce my manner of reading, and in future I shall follow no
other than that of the manuscript drawn up by the Khalíf Osmán, and that
which is generally received.”^[46]

Closely connected with this subject is the history of the rise of the
science of grammar. As Islám spread, it became necessary to expound the
Qurán to persons unacquainted with Arabic. The science of grammar then
became an important branch of study, and the collection of Traditions a
necessary duty. The Faithful were for a long time in [45]doubt as to the
lawfulness of applying the laws of grammar to so sacred a book. There was
no command in the book itself to do so, nor had the Prophet given any
directions on this point. It was then neither “farz” nor “sunnat,” that
is, neither a command based on the Qurán nor one based on any saying or
act of the Prophet. The Traditions, however, solve the difficulty.

Al Mamun, the distinguished though heretical Khalíf of Baghdád, was a
patron of Al Farra, the chief of grammarians. A distinguished pupil of
his, Abu’l ‘Abbás Thalub, on his death-bed expressed his belief in the
fact that the Quránists, the Traditionists, and others, had gained their
heavenly reward, but he had been only a grammarian, and grammar after all
was, in connection with the Qurán, a science of doubtful legality. The
friend to whom he told his doubts and fears went home and saw a vision.
It is recorded that he had a vision in his sleep that very night, in
which he saw the blessed Prophet, who said to him: “Give my greeting to
Abu’l ‘Abbás Thalub, and say, ‘thou art master of the superior science.'”
The Prophet had now spoken, and henceforth grammar became a lawful study
in Islám. Muslims now quote the Qurán as a perfect model of style; it may
be well to remember that the rules have been made for it, and that,
therefore, it is but natural that it should be perfect according to the
present canons of Arabic grammar.^[47]

The question of the interpretation of the text speedily became a very
important branch of the “‘Ilm-i-usúl.” It is said that the Qurán was
brought from Paradise by Gabriel to Muhammad as occasion required. The
Prophet was reproached for not having a complete revelation, and [46]answered
the reproach by the following verse, sent for the purpose. “The infidels
say, ‘unless the Qurán be sent down to him all at once’—but in this
way we establish thy heart in it, in parcels have we parcelled it out
to thee” (Súra xxv. 34). The revelation thus given is entirely
objective; it came to the ear of the Prophet through the teaching of
Gabriel. “Yet it is a glorious Qurán, written on the preserved
Table.” (Súra lxxxv. 22). Gabriel addresses the Prophet thus: “When
we have recited it then follow thou the recital.” (Súra
lxxv. 18). The external mode in which it came is referred to in the
verse: “We have sent down to thee an Arabic Qurán.” (Súra xx.
112). The fragmentary way in which the Qurán was given^[48] was not without its difficulties. Some
passages contradicted others, some were difficult to understand. To the
Prophet alone was the solution known. The knowledge he communicated to
his immediate followers, the Companions, as they are called, thus: “To
thee have we sent down this book of monitions, that thou mayest make
clear to men what hath been sent down to them.” (Súra xvi. 46).

Ibn Khaldoun says: “The Prophet unfolded the meaning, distinguished
between abrogated and abrogating verses, [47]and communicated this
knowledge to his Companions. It was from his mouth that they knew the
meaning of the verses and the circumstances which led to each distinct
revelation being made.”^[49]
The Companions thus instructed became perfectly familiar with the whole
revelation. This knowledge they handed down by word of mouth to their
followers, the Tába’ín, who in their turn passed it on to their followers
the Taba-i-Tába’ín. The art of writing then became common, and the
business of the commentator henceforth was to collect together the
sayings of the Companions thus handed down. Criticism of a passage in the
Qurán was not his duty, criticism of a comment made on it by a Companion
was beyond his province: the first was too sacred to be touched, the
second must be accepted if only the chain of narrators of the statement
were perfect. Thus early in the history of Islám were the principles of
exegesis fixed and settled. Every word, every sentence, has now its place
and class. The commentator has now only to reproduce what was written
before,^[50] though he may
in elucidation of the point, bring forth some Tradition hitherto
unnoticed, which would, however, be a difficult thing to do. It will thus
be seen that anything like the work of a Christian commentator, with all
its fresh life and new ideas, is not to be had in Islám. The perfection
of its exegesis is its dogmatic and antique nature—

The technical terms which the student must know, and [48]the definitions
of which he must understand, are those which relate to the nature of the
words, the sentences, the use of the words of the Qurán, and the
deduction of arguments from passages in the book.

I. The words of the Qurán are divided into four classes.

1. Kháss, or special words. These are sub-divided into three
classes. First, words which relate to genus, e.g. mankind.
Secondly, words which relate to species, e.g. a man, which refers
to men as distinguished from women. Thirdly, words which relate to
special individuality, e.g. Zeid, which is the name of a special
individual.

2. ‘Amm, or common or collective names, such as “people.”

3. Mushtarik, or words which have several significations, as
the Arabic word “‘ain,” which may mean an eye, a fountain, or the sun.
Again, the word “Sulát,” if connected with God, may mean mercy, as “Sulát
Ulláh,” the mercy of God; if with man, it may mean either “namáz,” a
stated liturgical service, or “du’a,” prayer in its ordinary sense,
e.g. Sulát-ul-Istisqá (prayer in time of drought) is du’a, not
namáz.

4. Muawwal, words which have several significations, all of
which are possible, and so a special explanation is required. For
example, Súra cviii. 2, reads thus in Sale’s translation. “Wherefore pray
unto the Lord and slay (the victims).” The word translated “slay”
is in Arabic “nahr,” which has many meanings. The followers of the great
Legist Abu Hanífa render it, “sacrifice,” and add the words (the
“victims”). The followers of Ibn Sháfa’í say it means “placing the hands
on the breast in prayer.”

This illustrates the difference between Mushtarik and Muawwal. In the
former, only one meaning is allowable, and that meaning the context
settles; in the latter both meanings are allowable and both right.

These divisions of words having been well mastered and the power of
defining any word in the Qurán gained, the [49]student passes on to
consider the nature of the sentences. These are divided into two great
classes,—the “Obvious,” and the “Hidden.”

This division is referred to in the following passage of the Qurán.
“He it is who hath sent down to thee the book. Some of its signs are of
themselves perspicuous; these are the basis (literally “mother”)
of the book, and others are figurative. But they whose hearts are
given to err follow its figures, craving discord, craving an
interpretation; yet none know its interpretation, but God.^[51] And the stable in
knowledge say: ‘We believe in it, it is all from God.'” (Súra iii.
3).

This has given rise to the division of the whole book into literal and
allegorical statements. In order to explain these correctly the
commentator must know (1) the reason why, (2) the place where, (3) the
time when, the particular passage he is expounding was revealed; he must
know whether it abrogates or is abrogated, whether it is in its proper
order and place or not; whether it contains its meaning within itself or
needs the light which the context throws upon it; he must know all the
Traditions which bear upon it, and the authority for each such Tradition.
This effectually confines the order of commentators in the strict sense
of the word to the Companions, and supplies the reason why commentators
since then simply reproduce their opinions.^[52] But to return from this digression.
Sentences are Záhir—”Obvious,” or Khafí—”Hidden.” Obvious
sentences are divided into four classes.

I. (1). Záhir, or obvious, the meaning of which is so clear
that he who hears it at once understands its meaning [50]without seeking
for any explanation. This kind of sentence may be abrogated. Unless
abrogated, action in accordance with it is to be considered as the
express command of God. All penal laws and the rules regulating the
substitution of one religious act for another, e.g. almsgiving
instead of fasting, must be based on this, the clearest of the obvious
sentences.

(2). Nass, a word commonly used for a text of the Qurán, but in
its technical meaning here expressing what is meant by a sentence, the
meaning of which is made clear by some word which occurs in it. The
following sentence illustrates both Záhir and Nass: “Take in marriage of
such other women as please you, two, three, four.” This sentence is
Záhir, because marriage is here declared lawful; it is Nass, because the
words “one, two, three, four,” which occur in the sentence, show the
unlawfulness of having more than four wives.

(3). Mufassir, or explained. This is a sentence which needs
some word in it to explain it and make it clear. Thus: “And the angels
prostrated themselves, all of them with one accord, save Iblis (Satan).”
Here the words “save Iblis,” show that he did not prostrate himself. This
kind of sentence may be abrogated.

(4). Mukham, or perspicuous. This is a sentence as to the
meaning of which there can be no doubt, and which cannot be controverted,
thus: “God knoweth all things.” This kind of sentence cannot be
abrogated. To act on such sentences without departing from the literal
sense is the highest degree of obedience to God’s command.

The difference between these sentences is seen when there is a real or
apparent contradiction between them. If such should occur, the first must
give place to the second, and so on. Thus Mukham cannot be abrogated or
changed by any of the preceding, or Mufassir by Nass, &c.

The other great division of sentences is that of

II. (1). Khafí or hidden. Such are those sentences in [51]which other
persons or things are hidden beneath the plain meaning of a word or
expression contained therein, as: “as for a thief, whether male or
female, cut ye off their hands in recompense for their doings.” (Súra v.
42). The word for thief is “Sáriq,” and in this passage it is understood
to include highwaymen, pickpockets, plunderers of the dead, &c. These
meanings are Khafí or hidden under it.

(2). Muskhil, or ambiguous, The following is given as an
illustration: “And (their attendants) shall go round about them with
vessels of silver and goblets. The bottles shall be bottles of silver.”
The difficulty here is that bottles are not made of silver, but of glass.
The commentators say, however, that glass is dull in colour, though it
has some lustre, whilst silver is white, and not so bright as glass. Now
it may be, that the bottles of Paradise will be like glass bottles as
regards their lustre, and like silver as regards their colour. But
anyhow, it is very difficult to ascertain the meaning.

(3.) Mujmal. These are, first, sentences which may have a
variety of interpretations, owing to the words in them being capable of
several meanings; in that case the meaning which is given to the sentence
in the Traditions relating to it should be acted on and accepted.
Secondly, the sentence may contain some very rare word, and thus its
meaning may be doubtful, as: “Man truly is by creation hasty.” (Súra lxx.
19.) In this verse the word “halú'”—hasty—occurs. It is very
rarely used, and had it not been for the following words, “when evil
toucheth him, he is full of complaint; but when good befalleth him, he
becometh niggardly,” its meaning would not have been at all easy to
understand.

The following is an illustration of the first kind of Mujmal
sentences: “Stand for prayer (salát) and give alms,” (zakát.) Both salát
and zakát are ‘Mushtarik’ words. The people, therefore, did not
understand this verse, so they applied to Muhammad for an explanation. He
explained to them that “salát” might mean the ritual of public prayer,
[52]standing to say the words “God is great,” or
standing to repeat a few verses of the Qurán; or it might mean private
prayer. The primitive meaning of “zakát” is growing. The Prophet,
however, fixed the meaning here to that of “almsgiving,” and said, “Give
of your substance one-fortieth part.”

(4.) Mutashábih. These are sentences so difficult that men
cannot understand them, a fact referred to in Súra iii. 3. (Ante. p. 49), nor will they do so until the day of
resurrection. The Prophet, however, knew their meaning. Such portions are
the letters A, L, M; A, L, R; Y, A at the commencement of some of the
Súras.^[53] Such expressions
also as “God’s hand,” “The face of God,” “God sitteth,” &c., come
under this category.

The next point to be considered is the use of words in the
Qurán, and here again the same symmetrical division into four classes is
found, viz:—

(1.) Haqíqat, that is, words which are used in their literal
meaning, as “rukú’,” a prostration, and “salát” in the sense of
prayer.

(2.) Majáz, or words which are used in a figurative sense, as
“salát” in the sense of “námáz” a liturgical service.

(3.) Saríh, or words the meaning of which is quite evident, as,
“Thou art divorced,” “Thou art free.”

(4.) Kinayáh, or words which, being used in a metaphorical
sense, require the aid of the context to make their meaning clear, as:
“Thou art separated,” which may, as it [53]stands alone, mean “Thou
art divorced.” This class also includes all pronouns the meaning of which
is only to be known from the context, e.g. one day the Prophet not
knowing who knocked at his door said, “Who art thou?” The man replied,
“It is I.” Muhammad answered, “Why dost thou say I, I? Say thy name that
I may know who thou art.” The pronoun “I” is here ‘kinayáh.’

The most important and most difficult branch of exegesis is
“istidlál,” or the science of deducing arguments from the Qurán. This too
is divided into four sections, as follows:—

(1.) Ibárat, or the plain sentence. “Mothers, after they are
divorced, shall give suck unto their children two full years, and the
father shall be obliged to maintain them and clothe them according to
that which is reasonable.” (Súra ii. 233.) From this verse two deductions
are made. First, from the fact that the word “them” is in the feminine
plural, it must refer to the mothers and not to the children; secondly,
as the duty of supporting the mother is incumbent on the father, it shows
that the relationship of the child is closer with the father than with
the mother. Penal laws may be based on a deduction of this kind.

(2.) Ishárat, that is, a sign or hint which may be given from
the order in which the words are placed.

(3.) Dalálat, or the argument which may be deduced from the use
of some special word in the verse, as: “say not to your parents, “Fie”
(Arabic “uff”) (Súra xvii. 23). From the use of the word “uff,” it is
argued that children may not beat or abuse their parents. Penal laws may
be based on “dalálat,” thus: “Their aim will be to abet disorder on the
earth; but God loveth not the abettors of disorder.” (Súra v. 69.) The
word translated “aim” is in Arabic literally yasa’úna, “they run.” From
this the argument is deduced that as highwaymen wander about, they are
included amongst those whom “God loveth not,” and that, therefore, the
severest punishment may be given to [54]them, for any deduction
that comes under the head of “dalálat” is a sufficient basis for the
formation of the severest penal laws.

(4.) Iqtizá. This is a deduction which demands certain
conditions: “whosoever killeth a believer by mischance, shall be bound to
free a believer from slavery.” (Súra iv. 94). As a man has no authority
to free his neighbour’s slave, the condition here required, though not
expressed, is that the slave should be his own property.

The Qurán is divided into:—

(1). Harf (plural Hurúf), letters. The numbers given by
different authorities vary. In one standard book it is said that there
are 338,606 letters.

(2). Kalima (plural Kalimát), words, stated by some to
amount to 79,087; by others to 77,934.

(3). Áyat (plural Áyát), verses. Áyat really means a
sign, and was the name given by Muhammad to short sections or verses of
the Qurán. The end of a verse is determined by the position of a small
circle . The early Qurán Readers
did not agree as to the position of these circles, and so five different
ways of arranging them have arisen. This accounts for a variation in the
number of verses in various editions. The varieties are:—

(1). Kúfa verses. The Readers in the city of Kúfa say that they
followed the custom of ‘Alí. Their way of reckoning is generally adopted
in India. They reckon 6,239 verses.

(2). Basra verses. The Readers of Basra follow ‘Asim bin
Hajjáj, a Companion. They reckon 6,204.

(3). Shámi verses. The Readers in Syria (Shám) followed
Abd-ulláh bin ‘Umr, a Companion. They reckon 6,225 verses.

(4). Mecca verses. According to this arrangement there are
6,219 verses.

(5). Madína verses. This way of reading contains 6,211
verses.

[55]

In each of the above varieties the verse “Bismilláh” (in the name of
God) is not reckoned. It occurs 113 times in the Qurán.

This diversity of punctuation does not generally affect the meaning of
any important passage. The third verse of the third Súra is an important
exception. The position of the circle , the symbol denoting a full stop, in that verse is of the highest
importance in connection with the rise of scholasticism (‘Ilm-i-kalám) in
Islám.

Most of the cases, however, are like the following:—

In Súra xxvii. an account is given of the Queen of Sheba’s receiving a
letter from King Solomon. Addressing her nobles she said: “Verily, Kings,
when they enter a city (by force) waste the same, and abase the most
powerful of the inhabitants hereof: and so will (these) do (with us).”
Many Readers put the full stop after the word “hereof,” and say that God
is the speaker of the words “and so will they do.”

(4). Súra, or chapter. The word Súra means a row or series,
such as a line of bricks arranged in a wall, but it is now exclusively
used for chapters in the Qurán. These are one hundred and fourteen in
number. The Súras are not numbered in the original Arabic, but each one
has some approximate name, (as Baqr—the cow, Nisá—women,
&c.,) generally taken from some expression which occurs in it. They
are not arranged in chronological order, but according to their length.
As a general rule, the shorter Súras which contain the theology of Islám,
belong to the Meccan period of the Prophet’s career,^[54] and the longer ones relating chiefly to
social duties and relationships, to the organisation of Islám as a civil
polity, to the time when he was consolidating his power at Madína. The
best way, therefore, to [56]read the Qurán, is to begin at the end. The
attempt to arrange the Súras in due order, is a very difficult one, and,
after all, can only be approximately correct.^[55] Carlyle referring to the confused mass
of “endless iterations, long windedness, entanglement, most crude,
incondite” says: “nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European
through the Qurán.” When re-arranged the book becomes more intelligible.
The chief tests for such re-arrangement are the style and the matter.
There is a very distinct difference in both of these respects between the
earlier and later Súras. The references to historical events sometimes
give a clue. Individual Súras are often very composite in their
character, but, such as they are, they have been from the beginning. The
recension made by Zeid, in the reign of the Khalíf Osmán, has been handed
down unaltered in its form. The only variations (qirá’at) now to be found
in the text have been already noticed. They in no way affect the
arrangements of the Súras.

5. Sípára a thirtieth portion. This is a Persian word derived
from sí, thirty, and pára, a portion. The Arabs call each
of these divisions a Juz. Owing to this division, a pious man can
recite the whole Qurán in a month, taking one Sípára each day. Musalmáns
never quote the Qurán as we do by Súra and Áyat, but by the Sípára and
Rukú’, a term I now proceed to explain.

6. Rukú’ (plural Rukúát). This word literally means a
prostration made by a worshipper in the act of saying the prayers. The
collection of verses recited from the Qurán, ascriptions of praise
offered to God, and various ritual acts connected with these, constitute
one act of worship called a “rak’at.” After reciting some verses in this
form of prayer, the worshipper makes a Rukú’, or prostration, the
[57]portion then recited takes the name of
Rukú’. Tradition states that the Khalíf Osmán, when reciting the
Qurán during the month of Ramazán, used to make twenty rak’ats each
evening. In each rak’at he introduced different verses of the Qurán,
beginning with the first chapter and going steadily on. In this way he
recited about two hundred verses each evening; that is, about ten verses
in each rak’at. Since then, it has been the custom to recite the Qurán in
this way in Ramazán, and also to quote it by the rukú’, e.g.,
“such a passage is in such a Sípára and in such a rukú’.”

The following account of a rak’at will make the matter plain. When the
Faithful are assembled in the mosque, the Imám, or leader, being in front
facing the Qibla, the service commences thus:—Each worshipper
stands and says the Niyyat (literally “intention”), a form of words
declaring his intention to say his prayers. He then says: “God is great.”
After this, looking downwards, he says: “Holiness to Thee, O God! and
praise be to Thee, Great is Thy name, Great is Thy greatness, there is no
deity but Thee.” Then follows: “I seek from God refuge from cursed
Satan.” Then the Tasmiyah is repeated: “In the name of God, the
Compassionate and Merciful.” Then follows the Fátiha, that is, the short
chapter at the commencement of the Qurán. After this has been recited,
the Imám proceeds, on the first night of the month Ramazán, with the
first verse of the second chapter.^[56] After saying a few verses, he makes a
rukú’; that is, he bends his head and body down, and places his hands on
his knees. In this position he says: “God is great.” Then he repeats
three times the words: “I extol the holiness of my Lord, the Great.” He
then stands up and says: “God hears him who praises Him.” To this the
people respond: “O Lord, thou art praised.” Again, falling on his knees,
the worshipper says: “God is great.” Then he puts first his nose, and
then his forehead on the [58]ground and says three times: “I extol the
holiness of my Lord, the Most High.” Then sitting on his heels, he says:
“God is great;” and again repeats as before: “I extol, etc.” He then
rises and says: “God is great.” This is one rak’at. On each night in the
month of Ramazán this is gone through twenty times, the only variation
being that after the Fátiha and before the first prostration, fresh
verses of the Qurán are introduced. The whole is, of course, done in
Arabic, in whatever country the worshippers may be. The name of the
prostration (rukú’) has been transferred to the portion of the Qurán
recited just before it is made. There are altogether 557 Rukúát.

(7). The other divisions are not important. They are, a Sumn,
Ruba’, Nisf, Suls, that is one-eighth, one-fourth,
one-half, one-third of a Sípára respectively.

In reciting the Qurán the worshipper must be careful to say the
“Takbír,” i.e. “God is great,” after the several appointed places.
Such a place is after the recital of the 93rd Súra. The custom arose in
this way. The hypocrites came to the Prophet and asked him to relate the
story of the “Seven Sleepers.” He said: “I will tell you to-morrow;” but
he forgot to add the words “if God will.” By way of warning, God allowed
no inspiration to descend upon him for some days. Then the hypocrites
began to laugh and say: “God has left him.” As it was not God’s purpose
to put his messenger to ridicule, the Súra entitled “The brightness”
(xciii) was immediately brought by the ever-ready Gabriel. It begins: “By
the brightness of the morning, and by the night when it groweth dark,
thy Lord hath not forsaken thee, neither doth He hate thee.” In
remembrance of this signal interposition of Providence on his behalf, the
Prophet always concluded the recital of this Súra with the words: “God is
great.” The practice thus became a “Sunnat” obligation; that is, it
should be done because the Prophet did it.

The doctrine of abrogation is a very important one in [59]connection with
the study of the Qurán. It is referred to in the verses: “Whatever verses
we cancel or cause thee to forget, we give thee better in their stead, or
the like thereof.” (Súra ii. 100). This is a Madína Súra. “What He
pleaseth will God abrogate or confirm; for with Him is the source of
revelation.” (Súra xiii. 39). Some verses which were cancelled in the
Prophet’s life-time are not now extant. Abdullah Ibn Masúd states that
the Prophet one day recited a verse, which he immediately wrote down. The
next morning he found it had vanished from the material on which it had
been written. Astonished at this, he acquainted Muhammad with the fact,
and was informed that the verse in question had been revoked. There are,
however, many verses still in the Qurán, which have been abrogated. It
was an exceedingly convenient doctrine, and one needed to explain the
change of front which Muhammad made at different periods of his career.
Certain rules have been laid down to regulate the practice. The verse
which abrogates is called Núsikh, and the abrogated verse
Mansúkh. Mansúkh verses are of three kinds:—first,
where the words and the sense have both been abrogated; secondly, where
the letter only is abrogated and the sense remains; thirdly, where the
sense is abrogated though the letter remains. Imám Málik gives as an
instance of the first kind the verse: “If a son of Adam had two rivers of
gold, he would covet yet a third; and if he had three he would covet yet
a fourth. Neither shall the belly of a son of Adam be filled, but with
dust. God will turn unto him who shall repent.” The Imám states that
originally this verse was in the Súra (ix.) called Repentance. The verse,
called the “verse of stoning” is an illustration of the second kind. It
reads: “Abhor not your parents for this would be ingratitude in you. If a
man and woman of reputation commit adultery, ye shall stone them both; it
is a punishment ordained by God; for God is mighty and wise.” The Khalíf
Omar says this verse was extant in Muhammad’s life-time but that it [60]is now
lost. But it is the third class which practically comes into ‘Ilm-i-usúl.
Authorities differ as to the number of verses abrogated. Sale states that
they have been estimated at two hundred and twenty-five. The principal
ones are not many in number, and are very generally agreed upon. I give a
few examples. It is a fact worthy of notice that they occur chiefly, if
not almost entirely, in Súras delivered at Madína. There, where Muhammad
had to confront Jews and Christians, he was at first politic in his aim
to win them over to his side, and then, when he found them obstinate, the
doctrine of abrogation came in conveniently. This is seen plainly in the
following case. At Mecca Muhammad and his followers did not stand facing
any particular direction when at prayer, a fact to which the following
passage refers:—”To God belongeth the east and west; therefore,
whithersoever ye turn yourselves to pray there is the face of God.” (Súra
ii. 109). When Muhammad arrived at Madína, he entered into friendship
with the Jews and tried to win them to his side. The Qibla (sanctuary)
towards which the worshippers now invariably turned at prayer was
Jerusalem. This went on for a while, but when Muhammad claimed to be not
merely a Prophet for the Arabs, but the last and the greatest of all the
Prophets, when he asserted that Moses had foretold his advent, and that
his revelations were the same as those contained in their own Scriptures,
they utterly refused allegiance to him. In the first half of the second
year of the Hijra the breach between them was complete. It was now time
to reconcile the leaders of the Quraish tribe at Mecca. So the verse
quoted above was abrogated by: “We have seen thee turning thy face
towards heaven, but we will have thee turn to a Qibla, which shall please
thee. Turn then thy face toward the Holy Temple (of Mecca), and wherever
ye be, turn your faces toward that part.” (Súra ii. 139.) The Faithful
were consoled by the assurance that though they had not done so hitherto,
yet God would not let their [61]faith be fruitless, “for unto man is God
merciful, gracious.” (v. 138.) The doctrine of abrogation is brought in
for a more personal matter in the following case: “It is not permitted to
thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change thy present wives for
other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves, whom thy
right hand shall possess.” (Súra xxxiii. 52.) This is said by Beidawi,
and other eminent Muslim divines, to have been abrogated by a verse which
though placed before it in the arrangement of verses, was really
delivered after it. The verse is: “O Prophet, we allow thee thy wives
whom thou hast dowered, and the slaves which thy right hand possesseth
out of the booty which God hath granted thee; and the daughters of thy
uncle, and the daughters of thy aunts, both on thy father’s side, and on
thy mother’s side, who have fled with thee (to Madína), and any other
believing woman, who hath given herself up to the Prophet; if the Prophet
desireth to wed her, it is a peculiar privilege for thee, above the rest
of the Faithful.” (Súra xxxiii. 49.)

The Moghul Emperor Akbar, wishing to discredit the ‘Ulamá, in one of
the meetings so frequently held for discussion during his long reign,
propounded the question as to how many free born women a man might marry.
The lawyers answered that four was the number fixed by the Prophet. “Of
other women who seem good in your eyes marry two and two, and three and
three, and four and four.” (Súra iv. 3.) The Emperor said that he had not
restricted himself to that number, and that Shaikh ‘Abd-un-Nabi had told
him that a certain Mujtahid had had nine wives. The Mujtahid in question,
Ibn Abi Lailah reckoned the number allowed thus 2+3+4=9. Other learned
men counted in this way 2+2, 3+3, 4+4=18. The Emperor wished the meeting
to decide the point.

Again, the second verse of Súra lxxiii reads: “Stand up all night,
except a small portion of it, for prayer.” According to a Tradition
handed down by ‘Áyesha the last verse [62]of this Súra was revealed
a year later. It makes the matter much easier. “God measureth the night
and the day; he knoweth that ye cannot count its hours aright, and
therefore turneth to you mercifully. Recite then so much of the Qurán
as may be easy to you.” (v. 20.)

The following is an illustration of a verse abrogated, though there is
no verse to prove its abrogation. However, according to the Ijmá’ it has
been abrogated. “But alms are only to be given to the poor and the needy
and to those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won to
Islám.” (Súra ix. 60.) The clause—”to those whose hearts are won to
Islám”—is now cancelled.^[57] Muhammad, to gain the hearts of those,
who lately enemies, had now become friends, and to confirm them in the
faith, gave them large presents from the spoils he took in war; but when
Islám spread and became strong, the ‘Ulamá agreed that such a procedure
was not required and said that the order was “mansukh.”

The other verses abrogated relate to the Ramazán fast, to Jihád, the
law of retaliation, and other matters of social interest.

The doctrine of abrogation is now almost invariably applied by
Musalmán controversialists to the Old and New Testaments, which they say
are abrogated by the Qurán. “His (Muhammad’s) law is the abrogator of
every other law.”^[58] This
is not, however, a legitimate use of the doctrine. According to the best
and most ancient Muslim divines, abrogation refers entirely to the Qurán
and the Traditions, and even then is confined to commands and
prohibitions. “Those who imagine it to be part of the Muhammadan creed
that one law has totally repealed another, are utterly mistaken—we
hold no such doctrine.”^[59]
In the Tafsír-i-Itifáq it is written: “Abrogation affects those [63]matters which
God has confined to the followers of Muhammad, and one of the chief
advantages of it is that the way is made easy.” In the Tafsír-i-Mazhirí
we find: “Abrogation refers only to commands and prohibitions, not to
facts or historical statements.”^[60] Again, no verse of the Qurán, or a
Tradition can be abrogated unless the abrogating verse is distinctly
opposed to it in meaning. If it is a verse of the Qurán, we must have the
authority of Muhammad himself for the abrogation; if a Tradition, that of
a Companion. Thus “the word of a commentator or a Mujtahid is not
sufficient unless there is a ‘genuine Tradition’ (Hadís-i-Sahíh), to show
the matter clearly. The question of the abrogation of any previous
command depends on historical facts with regard to the abrogation, not on
the mere opinion of a commentator.” It cannot be shown that either
Muhammad or a Companion ever said that the Bible was abrogated. This
rule, whilst it shows that the assertion of modern controversialists on
this point is void of foundation, also illustrates another point to which
I have often called attention, viz.; that in Islám all
interpretation must be regulated by traditionalism.

Additions were occasionally made. Thus when it was revealed that those
who stay at home were not before God as those who go forth to war,
Abdullah and Ibn Um-Maktum said: ‘and what if they were blind.’ The
Prophet asked for the shoulder-blade on which the verse was written. He
then had a spasmodic convulsion. After his recovery he made Zeid add the
words, “free from trouble.” So now the whole verse reads thus: “Those
believers who sit at home free from trouble (i.e., bodily
infirmity), and those who do valiantly in the cause of God, with their
substance and their persons, shall not be treated alike.” (Súra iv. 97).
Years after, Zeid said: “I fancy I see the words now on the
shoulder-blade near a crack.”

[64]

The question of the eternal nature of the Qurán does not properly come
under the head of ‘Ilm-i-usúl, but it is a dogma fondly cherished by many
Muslims. In the days of the Khalíf Al-Mamun this question was fiercely
debated. The Freethinkers, whilst believing in the Mission of Muhammad,
asserted that the Qurán was created, by which statement they meant that
the revelation came to him in a subjective mode, and that the language
was his own. The book was thus brought within the reach of criticism. In
the year 212, A.H. the Khalíf issued a decree
to the effect that all who held the Qurán to be uncreated were to be
declared guilty of heresy. But the Khalíf himself was a notorious
rationalist, and so the orthodox, though they remained quiet, remained
unconvinced. The arguments used on the orthodox side are, that both the
words and their pronunciation are eternal, that the attempt to draw a
distinction between the word as it exists in the Divine Mind and as it
appears in the Qurán is highly dangerous. In vain do their opponents
argue that, if the Qurán is uncreated, two Eternal Beings are in
existence. To this it is answered: “This is the honourable Qurán, written
in the preserved Tablet.” (Súra lvi. 76). A Tradition is also adduced
which states: “God wrote the Thora (Law) with His own hand, and with His
own hand He created Adam; and also in the Qurán it is written, ‘and We
wrote for him upon the tables a monition concerning every matter,’ in
reference to the tables of the Law given to Moses.” If God did this for
former prophets and their works, how much more, it is argued, should he
not have done it for the last and greatest of the prophets, and the noble
Qurán? It is not easy to get a correct definition of the term “the
uncreated Qurán,” but it has been put thus: “The Word as it exists in the
mind of God is ‘Kalám-i-Nafsí’ (spiritual word), something unwritten and
eternal. It is acknowledged by the Ijmá’-i-Ummat (consent of the
Faithful), the Traditions, and by other prophets that God [65]speaks. The
Kalám-i-Nafsí then is eternal, but the actual words, style, and eloquence
are created by God; so also is the arrangement and the miraculous nature
of the book.” This seems to be a reasonable account of the doctrine,
though there are theologians who hold that the very words are eternal.
The doctrine of abrogation clashes with this idea, but they meet the
objection by their theory of absolute predestination. This accounts for
the circumstances which necessitated the abrogation, for the
circumstances, as well as the abrogated verses, were determined on from
all eternity.

This concludes the consideration of the exegesis of the Qurán, a book
difficult and uninteresting for a non-Muslim to read, but one which has
engaged and is still engaging the earnest thoughts of many millions of
the human race. Thousands of devout students in the great theological
schools of Cairo, Stamboul, Central Asia and India are now plodding
through this very subject of which I have here been treating; soon will
they go forth as teachers of the book they so much revere. How utterly
unfit that training is to make them wise men in any true sense of the
word, how calculated to render them proud, conceited, and scornful of
other creeds, its rigid and exclusive character shows. Still, it is a
marvellous book; for twelve hundred years and more it has helped to mould
the faith, animate the courage, cheer the despondency of multitudes,
whether dwellers in the wild uplands of Central Asia, in Hindustan, or on
the shores of the Mediterranean. The Turanian and the Aryan, the Arab and
the Negro, alike learn its sonorous sentences, day by day repeat its
opening clauses, and pray in its words as their fathers prayed before
them.

Next to the act of testifying to the unity of God, the Qurán is the
great bond of Islám. No matter from what race the convert may have come,
no matter what language he may speak, he must learn in Arabic, and repeat
by rote portions of the Qurán in every act of public worship.

The next subject for consideration is that of the [66]Traditions, or
the second branch of the science of ‘Ilm-i-usúl. The Traditions contain
the record of all that Muhammad did and said. It is the belief of every
Muslim, to whatever sect he belongs, that the Prophet not only spake but
also acted under a divine influence. The mode of the inspiration is
different from that of the Qurán. There the revelation was objective. In
the Prophet’s sayings recorded in the Traditions the inspiration is
subjective, but still a true inspiration. This belief places the
Traditions in a place second only to the Qurán; it makes them a true
supplement to that book, and thus they not only throw light on its
meaning, but themselves form the basis on which doctrines may be
established. Without going so far as to say that every Tradition by
itself is to be accepted as an authority in Islám, it may be distinctly
asserted that there can be no true conception formed of that system if
the Traditions are not studied and taken into account. So important a
branch of Muslim theology is it, that the study of the Traditions is
included in the ‘Ilm-i-usúl, or science of exegesis. Some account of
them, therefore, naturally forms part of this chapter.

The first four Khalífs were called the Khulafá-i-Ráshidín that is,
those who could guide others aright. They had been friends and Companions
of the Prophet, and the Faithful could always appeal to them in cases of
doubt. The Prophet had declared that Islám must be written in the hearts
of men. There was therefore an unwillingness to commit his sayings to
writing. They were handed down by word of mouth. As no argument was so
effectual in a dispute as “a saying” of the Prophet, the door was opened
by which spurious Traditions could be palmed off on the Faithful. To
prevent this, a number of strict rules were framed, at the head of which
stands the Prophet’s saying, itself a Tradition: “Convey to other persons
none of my words except those which ye know of a surety. Verily, he who
purposely represents my [67]words wrongly will find a place for himself
nowhere but in fire.” To enforce this rule, it was laid down that the
relator of a Tradition must also repeat its “Isnád,” or chain of
authorities, as: “I heard from such an one, who heard from such an one,”
and so on, until the chain reaches the Prophet himself. Each person, too,
in this “Isnád,” must have been well known for his good character and
retentive memory. This failed, however, to prevent a vast number of
manifestly false Traditions becoming current; so men set themselves to
the work of collecting and sifting the great mass of Tradition that in
the second century of Islám had begun to work untold evil. These men are
called “Muhadisín,” or “collectors of Tradition.” The Sunnís and the
Wahhábís recognise six such men, and their collections are known as the
“Sihah-Sittah,” or six correct books. They are the following:—

(1). The Sahíh-i-Bukhárí, called after Abu Abdullah Muhammad
Ibn-i-Ismá’íl, a native of Bukhárá. He was born A.H. 194. He was a man of middle height, spare in
frame, and as a boy totally blind. The grief of his father was on this
account intense; but one day in a dream he saw the Patriarch Abraham, who
said to him: “God on account of thy grief and sorrow has granted sight to
thy son.” The sight being thus restored, at the age of ten he went to
school, and began to learn the Traditions by heart. After his education
was finished, a famous Muhadis named Dákhlí came to Bukhárá. One day the
youthful Bukhárí ventured to correct the famous man. It was an astounding
piece of audacity, but the youth was proved to be in the right. This set
him on the work of collecting and sifting the Traditions. At the early
age of sixteen he was able to remember fifteen thousand. In course of
time he collected 600,000 Traditions. The result of his examination and
selection was that he approved of seven thousand two hundred and
seventy-five. These are now recorded in his great work, the
Sahíh-i-Bukhárí. It [68]is said that he never sat down to examine a
Tradition without first performing a legal ablution, and repeating two
rak’at prayers. He then said: “O Lord, let me not make a mistake.” For
sixteen years he lived in a mosque and died much respected at the age of
sixty-four.

(2). Sahíh-i-Muslim. Muslim Ibn-i-Hajjáj was born at Nishápúr,
a city of Khorásán. He collected about 300,000 Traditions, from which he
made his collection. He is said to have been a very just man, and willing
to oblige all who sought his advice. In fact, this willingness to oblige
was the indirect cause of his death. One day he was sitting as usual in
the mosque when some people came to ask him about a Tradition. As he
could not discover it in the books he had with him, he went to his house
to search there. The people brought him a basket of dates. He went on
eating and searching, but unfortunately he ate so many dates that he
died. (A.H. 261.)

(3). Sunan-i-Abu Dáúd. Abu Dáúd Sajistání, a native of Seistán,
was born A.H. 202. He was a great traveller,
and went to all the chief places of Musalmán learning. In knowledge of
the Traditions, in devotion, in piety, he was unrivalled. He collected
about 500,000 Traditions, of which he selected four thousand eight
hundred for his book.

(4). Jámí’-i-Tirmizí. Abu Isa’ Muhammad Tirmizí was born at
Tirmiz in the year A.H. 209. He was a disciple
of Bukhárí. Ibn Khallikan says this work is “the production of a
well-informed man: its exactness is proverbial.”^[61]

(5). Sunan-i-Nasáí. Abu Abd-ur-Rahman Nasáí was born at Nasá,
in Khorásán, in the year A.H. 214, and died
A.H. 303. It is recorded of him, with great
approbation, that he fasted every other day, and had four wives and many
slaves. This book is considered of great value. He met with his death in
rather a sad way. He had compiled a book on the virtues of ‘Alí, and as
the people of [69]Damascus were at that time inclined to the
heresy of the Khárigites, he wished to read his book in the mosque of
that place. After he had read a little way, a man arose and asked him
whether he knew aught of the praises of Muavia, ‘Alí’s deadly enemy. He
replied that he did not. This answer enraged the people, who beat him so
severely that he died soon after.

(6). Sunan-i-Ibn Májah. Ibn Májah^[62] was born at ‘Irak A.H. 209. This work contains 4,000 Traditions.

The Shía’hs reject these books and substitute five books^[63] of their own instead.
They are of a much later date, the last one, indeed, having been compiled
more than four hundred years after the Hijra.

The belief which underlies the question of the authority of the
Traditions is that before the Throne of God there stands a ‘preserved
Table,’ on which all that can happen, and all that has ever entered, or
will enter, the mind of man is ‘noted in a distinct writing.’ Through the
medium of Gabriel, the Prophet had access to this. It follows then that
the words of the Prophet are the words of God.

Of the four great “Canonical Legists” of Islám, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was
the greatest collector of Traditions. It is said that he knew by heart no
less than one million. Of these he incorporated thirty thousand into his
system of jurisprudence. That system is now almost obsolete. Abu Hanífa,
who is said to have accepted only eighteen Traditions as authentic,
founded a system which is to this day the most powerful in Islám. The
Hanifites, however, as well as other Muslims, acknowledge the six
standard collections of Traditions as direct revelations of the will of
[70]God. They range over a vast number of
subjects, and furnish a commentary on the Qurán. The Prophet’s personal
appearance, his mental and moral qualities, his actions, his opinions,
are all recorded over and over again. Many questions of religious belief
are largely founded on the Traditions, and it is to them we must go for
an explanation of much of the ritual of Islám. It is very difficult for
any one, who has not lived in long and friendly intercourse with Muslims,
to realize how much their religious life and opinions, their thought and
actions, are based on the Traditions.

Having thus shown the importance of the Traditions, I now proceed to
enter a little into detail on the question of the rules framed concerning
them. The classification adopted by different authors may vary in some
subordinate points; but the following account is adopted from a standard
Muhammadan work. A Tradition may be Hadís-i-Qualí, that is, an account of
something the Prophet said; or Hadís-i-Fa’lí, a record of something which
he did; or Hadís-i-Taqrírí, a statement of some act performed by other
persons in his presence, and which action he did not forbid.

The Traditions may be classed under two general heads:—

First.—Hadís-i-Mutawátír, that is, “an undoubted
Tradition,” the Isnád, or chain of narrators of which is perfect, and in
which chain each narrator possessed all the necessary qualifications for
his office.^[64] Some
authorities say there are only a few of these Traditions extant, but most
allow that the following is one: “There are no good works except with
intention,” for example, a man may fast, but, unless he has the intention
of fasting firmly in his mind, he gains no spiritual reward by so
doing.

Second.—Hadís-i-Ahád. The authority of this class is [71]theoretically somewhat less than that of the
first, but practically it is the same.

This class is again sub-divided into two:—

(1). Hadís-i-Sahíh, or a genuine Tradition. It is not necessary
to go into the sub-divisions of this sub-division. A Tradition is Sahíh
if the narrators have been men of pious lives, abstemious in their
habits, endowed with a good memory, free from blemish, and persons who
lived at peace with their neighbours. The following also are Sahíh,
though their importance as authorities varies. I arrange them in the
order of their value. Sahíh Traditions are those which are found in the
collections made by Bukhárí and Muslim, or in the collection of either of
the above, though not in both; or, if not mentioned by either of these
famous collectors, if it has been retained in accordance with their
canons for the rejection or retention of Traditions; or lastly, if
retained in accordance with the rules of any other approved collector.
For each of these classes there is a distinct name.

(2). Hadís-i-Hasan. The narrators of this class are not of such
good authority as those of the former with regard to one or two
qualities; but these Traditions should be received as of equal authority
as regards any practical use.^[65] It is merely as a matter of
classification that they rank second.

In addition to these names, there are a number of other technical
terms which have regard to the personal character of the narrators, the
Isnád, and other points. A few may be mentioned.

(1). Hadís-i-Z’aíf, or a weak Tradition. The narrators of it
have been persons whose characters were not above reproach, whose
memories were bad, or who, worse still, were addicted to “bid’at,”
innovation, a habit now, as then, a crime in the eyes of all true
Muslims. All agree that a [72]“weak Tradition” has little force; but few
rival theologians agree as to which are, and which are not, “weak
Traditions.”

(2). Hadís-i-Mua’llaq, or a Tradition in the Isnád of which
there is some break. If it begins with a Tábi’ (one in the generation
after that of the Companions), it is called “Mursal” the one link
in the chain, the Companion, being wanting. If the first link in the
chain of narrators begins in a generation still later, it has another
name, and so on.

(3). Traditions which have various names, according as the narrator
concealed the name of his Imám, or where different narrators disagree, or
where the narrator has mixed some of his own words with the Tradition, or
has been proved to be a liar, an evil liver, or mistaken; but into an
account of these it is not necessary to enter, for no Tradition of this
class would be considered as of itself sufficient ground on which to base
any important doctrine.^[66]

It is the universally accepted rule, that no authentic Tradition can
be contrary to the Qurán. The importance attached to Tradition has been
shown in the preceding chapter, an importance which has demanded the
formation of an elaborate system of exegesis. To an orthodox Muslim the
Book and the Sunnat, God’s word direct and God’s word through the mind of
the Prophet, are the foundation and sum of Islám, a fact not always taken
into account by modern panegyrists of the system.

[73]

CHAPTER III.

THE SECTS OF ISLÁM.

It is a commonly received but nevertheless an erroneous opinion, that
the Muhammadan religion is one remarkable for the absence of dogma and
the unanimity of its professors. In this chapter I propose to show how
the great sects differ in some very important principles of the faith,
and their consequent divergence in practice. There is much that is common
ground to all, and of that some account was given in the first chapter on
the “Foundations of Islám.”

It was there shown that all Muslim sects are not agreed as to the
essential foundations of the Faith. The Sunnís recognise four
foundations, the Wahhábís two; whilst the Shía’hs reject altogether the
Traditions held sacred by both Sunní and Wahhábí. The next chapter will
contain a full account of the doctrines held by the Sunnís, and so no
account of this, the orthodox sect, is given in this chapter.

The first breach in Islám arose out of a civil war. The story has been
so often told that it need not be reproduced here at any length. ‘Alí,
the son-in-law of Muhammad, was the fourth Khalíf of Islám. He is
described as “the last and worthiest of the primitive Musalmáns who
imbibed his religious enthusiasm from companionship with the Prophet
himself, and who followed to the last the simplicity of his character.”
He was a man calculated by his earnest devotion to the Prophet and his
own natural graces to win, as he has done, the admiration of succeeding
generations. A strong opposition, however, arose, and ‘Alí was
assassinated in a mosque at Kúfa. It is not easy, amid the conflicting
statements of historians of the rival sects, to arrive at the truth in
all the details of the events which happened then; [74]but the generally
received opinion is, that after the assassination of ‘Alí, Hasan, his
son, renounced his claim to the Khalifate in favour of his father’s
rival, Muavia. Hasan was ultimately poisoned by his wife, who, it is
said, was instigated by Muavia to do the deed, in order to leave the
coast clear for his son Yezíd. The most tragic event has yet to come.
Yezíd, who succeeded his father, was a very licentious and irreligious
man. The people of Kúfa, being disgusted at his conduct, sent messengers
to Husain, the remaining son of ‘Alí, with the request that he would
assume the Khalifate. In vain the friends of Husain tried to persuade him
to let the people of Kúfa first revolt, and thus show the reality of
their wishes by their deeds. In an evil hour Husain started with a small
band of forty horsemen and one hundred foot-soldiers. On the plain of
Karbalá he found his way barred by a force of three thousand men. “We are
few in number,” said Husain, “and the enemy is in force. I am resolved to
die. But you—I release you from your oath of allegiance; let all
those who wish to do so leave me.” “O Son of the Apostle of God!” was the
reply, “what excuse could we give to thy grandfather on the day of
resurrection did we abandon thee to the hands of thine enemies?” One by
one these brave men fell beneath the swords of the enemy, until Husain
and his infant son alone were left. Weary and thirsty, Husain sat upon
the ground. The enemy drew near, but no one dared to kill the grandson of
the Prophet. An arrow pierced the ear of the little boy and he died. “We
came from God, and we return to him,” were the pathetic words of Husain,
as with a sorrowful heart he laid the dead body of his son on the sand.
He then stooped down to drink some water from the river Euphrates. Seeing
him thus stooping, the enemy discharged a flight of arrows, one of which
wounded him in the mouth. He fought bravely for a while, but at last fell
covered with many wounds. The schism between the Sunní and the Shía’h was
now complete. [75]

The ceremonies celebrated during the annual fast of Muharram refer to
these historical facts, and help to keep alive a bitter feud; but to
suppose that the only difference between the Shía’h and the Sunní is a
mere dispute as to the proper order of the early Khalífs would be a
mistake. Starting off with a political quarrel, the Shía’hs have
travelled into a very distinct religious position of their own. The
fundamental tenet of the Shía’h sect is the “divine right” of ‘Alí the
Chosen and his descendants. From this it follows that the chief duty of
religion consists in devotion to the Imám (or Pontiff); from which
position some curious dogmas issue. The whole question of the Imámat is a
very important one. The word Imám comes from an Arabic word meaning to
aim at, to follow after. The term Imám then becomes equal to the word
leader or exemplar. It is applied in this sense to Muhammad as the leader
in all civil and religious questions, and to the Khalífs, his successors.
It is also, in its religious import only, applied to the founders of the
four orthodox schools of jurisprudence, and in a restricted sense to the
leader of a congregation at prayer in a mosque. It is with the first of
these meanings that we have now to deal. It is so used in the
Qurán—”When his Lord made trial of Abraham by commands which he
fulfilled, He said: ‘I am about to make of thee an Imám to mankind;’ he
said: ‘Of my offspring also?’ ‘My covenant,’ said God, ’embraceth not the
evil-doers.'” (Súra ii. 118.) From this verse two doctrines are deduced.
First, that the Imám must be appointed by God, for if this is not the
case, why did Abraham say “of my offspring also?” Secondly, the Imám is
free from sin, for God said: “My covenant embraceth not the
evil-doer.”

The first dispute about the Imámat originated with the twelve thousand
who revolted from ‘Alí after the battle of Siffin (657 A.D.), because he consented to submit to arbitration
the dispute between himself and Muavia. Some years after they were nearly
all destroyed by ‘Alí. A few [76]survivors, however, fled to various parts.
Two at last settled in Omán, and there preached their distinctive
doctrines. In course of time the people of Omán adopted the doctrine that
the Imámat was not hereditary but elective, and that in the event of
misconduct the Imám might be deposed. ‘Abdullah-ibn-Ibádh (744 A.D.) was a vigorous preacher of this doctrine, and
from him the sect known as the ‘Ibádhiyah takes its rise. The result of
this teaching was the establishment of the power and jurisdiction of the
Imám of Omán. The ‘Ibádhiyah seem to have always kept themselves
independent of the Sunní Khalífs of Baghdád, and, therefore, would
consider themselves free from any obligation to obey the Sultán of
Turkey. From the ordinary Shía’hs they differ as regards the “divine
right” of ‘Alí and his children. The curious in such matters will find
the whole subject well treated in Dr. Badger’s “Seyyids of Omán.”

The term Khárigite (Separatist) has since become the generic name for
a group of sects which agree as to the need of an Imám, though they
differ as to the details of the dogma. In opposition to this heresy of
the Khárigite stands what may be termed the orthodox doctrine of the
Shía’h. The Shía’hs hold that the Imámat must continue in the family of
‘Alí, and that religion consists mainly in devotion to the Imám. The
tragic end of ‘Alí and his sons invested them with peculiar interest.
When grieving for the sad end of their leaders, the Shí’ahs found
consolation in the doctrine which soon found development, viz.,
that it was God’s will that the Imámat should continue in the family of
‘Alí. Thus a tradition relates that the Prophet said: “He of whom I am
master has ‘Alí also for a master.” “The best judge among you is ‘Alí.”
Ibn Abbás, a Companion says: “I heard the Prophet say: ‘He who blasphemes
my name blasphemes the name of God; he who blasphemes the name of ‘Alí
blasphemes my name.'” A popular Persian hymn shows to what an extent this
feeling deepened. [77]

The general idea is, that long before the creation of the world, God
took a ray of light from the splendour of His own glory and united it to
the body of Muhammad, to which He said: “Thou art the elect, the chosen,
I will make the members of thy family the guides to salvation.” Muhammad
said: “The first thing which God created was my light, and my spirit.”^[67] The body of the Prophet
was then in some mysterious way hidden. In due time the world was
created, but not until the birth of Muhammad did this ray of glory
appear. It is well known to all Musalmáns as the
“Núr-i-Muhammadí”—light of Muhammad.

This “Núr” is said to be of four kinds. From the first kind God
created His Throne, from the second the Pen of Fate, from the third
Paradise, and from the fourth the state, or place of Spirits and all
created beings. According to a statement made by ‘Alí, Muhammad said that
he was created from the light of God, whilst all other created beings
were formed from the “light of Muhammad.”^[68]

This “light” descended to ‘Alí, and from him passed on to the true
Imáms, who alone are the lawful successors of the Prophet. Rebellion
against them is sin; devotion to them the very essence of religion.

The doctrine of the Imámat has given rise to endless discussion and
dissension, as the numerous sub-divisions of the Shía’h sect will show.
They are said to be thirty-two in number. The Shía’h proper is the
largest and most influential of them. The following are the Shí’ah tenets
regarding the Imám, based on one of their standard books of [78]divinity.^[69] The Imám is the successor
of the Prophet, adorned with all the qualities which he possessed. He is
wiser than the most learned men of the age, holier than the most pious.
He is the noblest of the sons of men and is free from all sin original or
actual: hence the Imám is called ma’sum (innocent.)^[70] God rules the world by wisdom, hence
the sending forth of prophets was a necessity; but it was equally
necessary to establish the Imámat. Thus the Imám is equal to a prophet.
‘Alí said: “In me is the glory of every prophet that has ever been.” The
authority of the Imám is the authority of God, for (I quote the
Hyát-un-Nafís) “his word is the word of God and of the Prophet, and
obedience to his order is incumbent.” The nature of the Imám is identical
with the nature of Muhammad, for did not ‘Alí say: “I am Muhammad, and
Muhammad is me.” This probably refers to the possession by the Imám of
the “light of Muhammad.” The bodies of the Imáms are so pure and delicate
that they cast no shadow.^[71] They [79]are the beginning and the
end of all things. To know the Imáms is the very essence of the knowledge
which men can gain of God. “The Holy God calls the Imáms His word, His
hands, His signs, His secret. Their commands and prohibitions, their
actions too, He recognises as His own.” As mediums between God and man
they hold a far higher position than the prophets, for “the grace of God,
without their intervention, reaches to no created being.” These
extravagant claims for the Imáms culminate in the assertion that “for
them a pillar of light has been fixed between the earth and heaven, by
which the actions of the Faithful are made known to them.” The Imám is
the supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of God on earth. The possession of an
infallible book is not sufficient. The infallible guide is needed. Such
wisdom and discernment as such a guide would require can only be found
amongst the descendants of the Prophet. It is no longer, then, a matter
of wonder, that in some cases, almost, if not entirely, divine honour is
paid to ‘Alí and his descendants.^[72]

The Usúl, or fundamental tenets of the Shía’h sect are five in number.
(1) To believe in the unity of God, (2) To admit that He is just, (3) To
believe in the divine mission of all the prophets, and that Muhammad is
the chief of all, (4) To consider ‘Alí the Khalíf next in order after
Muhammad, (5) To believe ‘Alí’s descendants from Hasan to Mahdí, the
twelfth Imám, to be his true successors, and to consider all of them in
character, position and dignity as raised far above all other Muslims.
This is the doctrine of the Imámat.

[80]

The first principal divisions of the Shía’h sect are the Ismá’ílians
and the Imámites. The latter believe in twelve Imáms, reckoning ‘Alí as
the first.^[73] The last of
the twelve Abu’l-Qásim, is supposed to be alive still, though hidden in
some secret place. He bears the name of Al-Mahdí, “the guided.” It is
expected that he will reappear at the second advent of Christ. They say
that he was born near Baghdád in the year 258 A.H. He afterwards mysteriously disappeared. When he
was born the words, “Say: ‘truth is come and falsehood is vanished:
Verily falsehood is a thing that vanisheth,'” (Súra xvii. 83) were found
written on his right arm. When he came into the world, he pointed with
his fingers to heaven, sneezed, and said: ‘Praise be to God, the Lord of
the world.’ A person one day visited Imám Hasan ‘Askarí (the eleventh
Imám) and said: ‘O son of the Prophet who will be Khalíf and Imám after
thee?’ He brought out a child and said: ‘if thou hadst not found favour
in the eyes of God, He would not have shown thee this child; his name is
that of the Prophet, and so is his patronymic,’ (Abu ‘l-Qásim). The sect
who believe Mahdí to be alive at present, say that he rules over cities
in the far west, and he is even said to have children. God alone knows
the truth.^[74]

The other large division, the Ismá’ílians, agree with the Imámites in
all particulars save one. They hold that after Sádiq, the sixth Imám,
commenced what is called the succession of the “concealed Imáms.” They
believe that there never can be a time when there shall be no Imám, but
that he is now in seclusion. This idea has given rise to all sorts of
secret societies, and has paved the way for a mystical religion, which
often lands its votaries in atheism.^[75] [81]

The Ghair-i-Mahdí (literally “without Mahdí”) are a small sect who
believe that Al-Mahdí will not reappear. They say that one Syed Muhammad
of Jeypore was the real Mahdí, the twelfth Imám, and that he has now gone
never more to return. They venerate him as highly as they do the Prophet,
and consider all other Musalmáns to be unbelievers. On the night called
Lailat-ul-Qadr, in the month of Ramazán, they meet and repeat two rak’at
prayers. After that act of devotion is over, they say: “God is Almighty,
Muhammad is our Prophet, the Qurán and Mahdí are just and true. Imám
Mahdí is come and gone. Whosoever disbelieves this is an infidel.” They
are a very fanatical sect.

There is another small community of Ghair-i-Mahdís called the Dá,irí,
settled in the province of Mysore, who hold peculiar views on this point.
About four hundred years ago, a man named Syed Ahmad collected some
followers in the dominions of the Nizám of Hyderabad. He called himself
the Imám Mahdí, and said that he was superior to any prophet. He and his
disciples, being bitterly persecuted by the orthodox Musalmáns, fled to a
village in the adjoining district of Mysore where their descendants,
fifteen hundred in number, now reside. It is said that they do not
intermarry with other Musalmáns. The usual Friday service in the mosque
is ended by the leader saying: “Imám Mahdí came and went away,” to which
the people respond: “He who does not believe this is a Káfir”
(infidel).

There are several Traditions which refer to the latter days. “When of
time one day shall be left, God shall raise up a man from among my
descendants, who shall fill the world with justice, just as before him
the world was full of oppression.” And again: “The world shall not come
to an end till the king of the earth shall appear, who is a man of my
family, and whose name is the same as mine.” When Islám entered upon the
tenth century of its existence, there was throughout Persia and India a
millenarian movement. Men [82]declared that the end was drawing near, and
various persons arose who claimed to be Al-Mahdí. I have already
mentioned two. Amongst others was Shaikh ‘Aláí of Agra. (956 A.H.) Shaikh Mubarak, the father of
Abu’l-Fazl—the Emperor Akbar’s famous vizier, was a disciple of
Shaikh ‘Aláí and from him imbibed Mahdaví ideas. This brought upon him
the wrath of the ‘Ulamá who, however, were finally overcome by the
free-thinking and heretical Emperor and his vizier. There never was a
better ruler in India than Akbar, and never a more heretical one as far
as orthodox Islám is concerned. The Emperor delighted in the
controversies of the age. The Súfís and Mahdavís were in favour at Court.
The orthodox ‘Ulamá were treated with contempt. Akbar fully believed that
the millennium had come. He started a new era, and a new religion called
the ‘Divine Faith.’ There was toleration for all except the bigoted
orthodox Muslims. Abu’l-Fazl and others like him, who professed to
reflect Akbar’s religious views, held that all religions contained truth.
Thus:—

In this reign one Mír Sharíf was promoted to the rank of a Commander
of a thousand, and to an appointment in Bengal. His chief merit in
Akbar’s eyes was that he taught the doctrine of the transmigration of
souls and the close advent of the millennium. He was a disciple of Mahmúd
of Busakhwán, the founder of the Nuqtawiah sect. As this is another
offshoot of the Shía’hs I give a brief account of them here. Mahmúd lived
in the reign of Timur and [83]professed to be Al-Mahdí. He also called
himself the Shakhs-i-Wáhíd—the Individual one. He used to quote the
verse, “It may be that thy Lord will raise thee up to a glorious (mahmúd)
station.” (Súra xvii. 81). From this he argued that the body of man had
been advancing in purity since the creation, and that on its reaching to
a certain degree, one Mahmúd (glorious) would arise, and that then the
dispensation of Muhammad would come to an end. He claimed to be the
Mahmúd. He also taught the doctrine of transmigration, and that the
beginning of everything was the Nuqtah-i-khák—earth atom. It is on
this account that they are called the Nuqtawiah sect. They are also known
by the names Mahmúdiah and Wáhídiah. Shah ‘Abbás king of Persia expelled
them from his dominions, but Akbar received the fugitives kindly and
promoted some amongst them to high offices of State.

This Mahdaví movement, arising as it did out of the Shía’h doctrine of
the Imámat, is a very striking fact. That imposters should arise and
claim the name and office of Al-Mahdí is not to be wondered at, but that
large bodies of men should follow them shows the unrest which dwelt in
men’s hearts, and how they longed for a personal leader and guide.

The whole of the Shía’h doctrine on this point seems to show that
there is in the human heart a natural desire for some Mediator—some
Word of the Father, who shall reveal Him to His children. At first sight
it would seem, as if the doctrine of the Imámat might to some extent
reconcile the thoughtful Shía’h to the Christian doctrine of the
Incarnation and Mediation of Jesus Christ, to His office as the perfect
revealer of God’s will; and as our Guide in life; but alas! it is not so.
The mystic lore connected with Shía’h doctrine has sapped the foundation
of moral life and vigour. A system of religious reservation, too, is a
fundamental part of the system in its mystical developments, whilst all
Shía’hs may lawfully practise “takía,” or religious [84]compromise in their daily
lives. It thus becomes impossible to place dependence on what a Shía’h
may profess, as pious frauds are legalised by his system of religion. If
he becomes a mystic, he looks upon the ceremonial and the moral law as
restrictions imposed by an Almighty Power. The omission of the one is a
sin almost, if not quite, as bad as a breach, of the other. The advent of
Mahdí is the good time when all such restrictions shall be removed, when
the utmost freedom shall be allowed. Thus the moral sense, in many cases,
becomes deadened to an extent such as those who are not in daily contact
with these people can hardly credit. The practice of “takía,” religious
compromise, and the legality of “muta’h” or temporary marriages, have
done much to demoralise the Shía’h community. The following words of a
recent author descriptive of the Shía’h system are in the main true,
though they do not apply to each individual in that system:—

“There can be no stronger testimony of the corrupting power and the
hard and hopeless bondage of the orthodox creed, than that men should
escape from it into a system which established falsehood as the supreme
law of conduct, and regarded the reduction of men to the level of swine
as the goal of human existence.”^[76]

The Mutazilites, or Seceders, were once an influential body. They do
not exist as a separate sect now. An account of them will be given in the
next chapter.

In the doctrine of the Imámat, common to all the offshoots of the
Shía’h sect, is to be found the chief point of difference between the
Sunní and the Shía’h, a difference so great that there is no danger of
even a political union between these two great branches of Islám. I have
already described, too, how the Shía’hs reject the Sunnat, though they do
not reject Tradition. A good deal of ill-blood is still kept up by the
recollection—a recollection kept alive by the annual recurrence of
the Muharram fast—of the sad [85]fate of ‘Alí and his
sons. The Sunnís are blamed for the work of their ancestors in the faith,
whilst the Khalífs Abu Bakr, Omar, and Osmán are looked upon as usurpers.
Not to them was committed the wonderful ray of light. In the possession
of that alone can any one make good a claim to be the Imám, the Guide of
the Believers. The terrible disorders of the early days of Islám can only
be understood when we realise to some extent the passionate longing which
men felt for a spiritual head—an Imám. It was thought to be
impossible that Muhammad, the last—the seal—of the prophets
should leave the Faithful without a guide, who would be the interpreter
of the will of Allah.

We here make a slight digression to show that this feeling extends
beyond the Shía’h sect, and is of some importance in its bearing upon the
Eastern Question. Apart from the superhuman claims for the Imám, what he
is as a ruler to the Shía’h, the Khalíf is to the Sunní—the supreme
head in Church and State, the successor of the Prophet, the Conservator
of Islám as made known in the Qurán, the Sunnat and the Ijmá’ of the
early Mujtahidín. To administer the laws, the administrator must have a
divine sanction. Thus when the Ottoman ruler, Selim the First, conquered
Egypt, (A.D. 1516) he sought and obtained, from
an old descendant of the Baghdád Khalífs, the transfer of the title to
himself, and in this way the Sultáns of Turkey became the Khalífs of
Islám. Whether Mutawakal Billál, the last titular Khalíf of the house of
‘Abbás, was right or wrong in thus transferring the title is not my
purpose now to discuss. I only adduce the fact to show how it illustrates
the feeling of the need of a Pontiff—a divinely appointed Ruler.
Strictly speaking, according to Muhammadan law, the Sultáns are not
Khalífs, for it is clearly laid down in the Traditions that the Khalíf
(or the Imám) must be of the tribe of the Quraish, to which the Prophet
himself belonged.

Ibn-i-Umr relates that the Prophet said:—”The Khalífs shall be
in the Quraish tribe as long as there are two [86]persons in it, one to
rule and another to serve.”^[77] “It is a necessary condition that the
Khalíf should be of the Quraish tribe.”^[78] Such quotations might be multiplied,
and they tend to show that it is not at all incumbent on orthodox Sunnís,
other than the Turks, to rush to the rescue of the Sultán, whilst to the
Shía’hs he is little better than a heretic. Certainly they would never
look upon him as an Imám, which personage is to them in the place of a
Khalíf. In countries not under Turkish rule, the Khutbah, or prayer for
the ruler, said on Fridays in the mosques, is said for the “ruler of the
age,” or for the Amír, or whatever happens to be the title of the head of
the State. Of late years it has become more common in India to say it for
the Sultán. This is not, strictly speaking, according to Muhammadan law,
which declares that the Khutbah can only be said with the permission of
the ruler, and as in India that ruler is the British Government, the
prayers should be said for the Queen. Evidently the law never
contemplated large bodies of Musalmáns residing anywhere but where the
influence of the Khalíf extended.

In thus casting doubt on the legality of the claim made by Turkish
Sultáns to the Khalifate of Islám, I do not deny that the Law of Islám
requires that there should be a Khalíf. Unfortunately for Islám, there is
nothing in its history parallel to the conflict of Pope and Emperor, of
Church and State. “The action and re-action of these powerful and
partially independent forces, their resistance to each other, and their
ministry to each other, have been of incalculable value to the higher
activity and life of Christendom.” In Islám the Khalíf is both Pope and
Emperor. Ibn Khaldoun states that the difference between the Khalíf and
any other ruler is that the former rules according to divine, the latter
according to human law. The Prophet in transmitting his sacred authority
to the Khalífs, his successors, conveyed to [87]them absolute powers.
Khalífs can be assassinated, murdered, banished, but so long as they
reign anything like constitutional liberty is impossible. It is a fatal
mistake in European politics and an evil for Turkey to recognize the
Sultán as the Khalíf of Islám, for, if he be such, Turkey can never take
any step forward to newness of political life.^[79]

This, however, is a digression from the subject of this chapter.

There has been from the earliest ages of Islám a movement which exists
to this day. It is a kind of mysticism, known as Súfíism. It has been
especially prevalent among the Persians. It is a re-action from the
burden of a rigid law, and a wearisome ritual. It has now existed for a
thousand years, and if it has the element of progress in it, if it is the
salt of Islám some fruit should now be seen. But what is Súfíism? The
term Súfí is most probably derived from the Arabic word Súf, “wool,” of
which material the garments worn by Eastern ascetics used to be generally
made. Some persons, however, derive it from the Persian, Súf, “pure,” or
the Greek σοφια, “wisdom.” Tasawwuf, or
Súfíism, is the abstract form of the word, and is, according to Sir W.
Jones, and other learned orientalists, a figurative mode, borrowed mainly
from the Indian philosophers of the Vedanta school, of expressing the
fervour of devotion. The chief idea is that the souls of men differ in
degree, but not [88]in kind, from the Divine Spirit, of which
they are emanations, and to which they will ultimately return. The Spirit
of God is in all He has made, and it in Him. He alone is perfect love,
beauty, etc.—hence love to him is the only real thing; all
else is illusion. Sa’dí says: “I swear by the truth of God, that when He
showed me His glory all else was illusion.” This present life is one of
separation from the beloved. The beauties of nature, music, and art
revive in men the divine idea, and recall their affections from wandering
from Him to other objects. These sublime affections men must cherish, and
by abstraction concentrate their thoughts on God, and so approximate to
His essence, and finally reach the highest stage of
bliss—absorption into the Eternal. The true end and object of human
life is to lose all consciousness of individual existence—to sink
“in the ocean of Divine Life, as a breaking bubble is merged into the
stream on the surface of which it has for a moment risen.”^[80]

Súfís, who all accept Islám as a divinely established religion,
suppose that long before the creation of the world a contract was made by
the Supreme Soul with the assembled world of spirits, who are parts of
it. Each spirit was addressed separately, thus: “Art thou not with thy
Lord?” that is, bound to him by a solemn contract. To this they all
answered with one voice, “Yes.”

Another account says that the seed of theosophy (m’arifat) was placed
in the ground in the time of Adam; that the plant [89]came forth in the days of
Noah, was in flower when Abraham was alive and produced fruit before
Moses passed away. The grapes of this noble plant were ripe in the time
of Jesus, but it was not till the age of Muhammad that pure wine was made
from them. Then those intoxicated with it, having attained to the highest
degree of the knowledge of God, could forget their own personality and
say:—”Praise to me, is there any greater than myself? I am the
Truth.”

The following verse of the Qurán is quoted by Súfís in support of
their favourite dogma—the attaining to the knowledge of God: “When
God said to the angels, ‘I am about to place a viceregent on the earth,’
they said: ‘Wilt Thou place therein one who shall commit abomination and
shed blood? Nay; we celebrate Thy praise and holiness.’ God answered
them, ‘Verily I know that ye wot not of.'” (Súra ii. 28.) It is said that
this verse proves that, though the great mass of mankind would commit
abomination, some would receive the divine light and attain to a
knowledge of God. A Tradition states that David said: “‘Oh Lord! why hast
Thou created mankind?’ God replied, ‘I am a hidden treasure, and I would
fain become known.'” The business of the mystic is to find this treasure,
to attain to the Divine light and the true knowledge of God.

The earlier Muhammadan mystics sought to impart life to a rigid and
formal ritual, and though the seeds of Pantheism were planted in their
system from the first, they maintained that they were orthodox. “Our
system of doctrine,” says Al-Junaid, “is firmly bound up with the dogmas
of the faith, the Qurán and the Traditions.” There was a moral
earnestness about many of these men which frequently restrained the arm
of unrighteous power, and their sayings, often full of beauty, show that
they had the power of appreciating the spiritual side of life. Some of
these sentences are worthy of any age. “As neither meat nor drink,” says
one, “profit the diseased body, so no warning avails [90]to touch the
heart full of the love of this world.” “The work of a holy man doth not
consist in this, that he eats grain, and clothes himself in wool, but in
the knowledge of God and submission to His will.” “Thou deservest not the
name of a learned man till thy heart is emptied of the love of this
world.” “Hide thy good deeds as closely as thou wouldst hide thy sins.” A
famous mystic was brought into the presence of the Khalíf Hárún-ur-Rashíd
who said to him: “How great is thy abnegation?” He replied, “Thine is
greater.” “How so?” said the Khalíf. “Because I make abnegation of this
world, and thou makest abnegation of the next.” The same man also said:
“The display of devotional works to please men is hypocrisy, and acts of
devotion done to please men are acts of polytheism.”

But towards the close of the second century of the Hijra, this earlier
mysticism developed into Súfíism. Then Al-Halláj taught in Baghdád thus:
“I am the Truth. There is nought in Paradise but God. I am He whom I
love, and He whom I love is I; we are two souls dwelling in one body.
When thou seest me, thou seest Him; and when thou seest Him thou seest
me.” This roused the opposition of the orthodox divines by whom Al-Halláj
was condemned to be worthy of death. He was then by order of the Khalíf
flogged, tortured and finally beheaded. Thus died one of the early
martyrs of Súfíism, but it grew in spite of bitter persecution.

In order to understand the esoteric teaching of Súfíistic poetry, it
is necessary to remember that the perceptive sense is the traveller, the
knowledge of God the goal, the doctrines of this ascent, or upward
progress is the Tarikat, or the road. The extinction of self is necessary
before any progress can be made on that road. A Súfí poet
writes:—

[91]

Sa’dí in the Bustán says: “Art thou a friend of God? Speak not of self, for to
speak of God and of self is infidelity.” Shaikh Abu’l-Faiz, a great poet
and a friend of the Emperor Akbar, from whom he received the honourable
title of Málik-ush-Shu’ará—Master of the Poets, says: “Those who
have not closed the door on existence and non-existence reap no advantage
from the calm of this world and of the world to come.” Khusrau, another
well-known poet says:—

The fact is, that Persian poetry is almost entirely Súfíistic. It is
difficult for the uninitiated to arrive at the esoteric meaning of these
writings. Kitmán, or the art of hiding from the profane religious
beliefs, often contrary to the revealed law, has always been a special
quality of the East. Pantheistic doctrines are largely inculcated.^[81] Thus:—

The poet then describes his fruitless search for rest and peace in
Christianity, Hinduism, and the religion of the Parsee. Even Islám gave
him no satisfaction, for—

These are the words of the greatest authority among the Súfís, the
famous Maulána Jelál-ud-dín Rúmí, founder of the order of the Mauláví
Darwíshes. He also relates the following story: “One knocked at the door
of the beloved, and a voice from within said: ‘Who is there?’ Then he
answered, ‘It is I.‘ The voice replied, ‘This house will not hold
me and thee!’ So the door remained shut. The lover retired
to a wilderness, and spent some time in solitude, fasting, and prayer.
One year elapsed, when he again returned, and knocked at the door. ‘Who
is there?’ said the voice. The lover answered, ‘It is thou.‘ Then
the door was opened.”

The great object of life, then, being to escape from the hindrances to
pure love and to a return to the divine essence, the Tálib, or seeker,
attaches himself to a Murshid, or teacher. If he prosecutes his studies
according to Súfíistic methods he now often enters one of the many orders
of Darwíshes. After due preparation under his Murshid, he is allowed to
enter on the road. He then becomes a Sálik, or traveller, whose business
henceforth is súlúk that is, devotion to one idea—the knowledge of
God. In this road there are eight stages. (1) Service. Here he must serve
God and obey the Law for he is still in bondage. (2) Love. It is supposed
that now the Divine influence has so attracted his soul that he really
loves God. (3) Seclusion. Love having expelled all worldly desires, he
arrives at this stage, and passes his time in meditation on the deeper
doctrines [93]of Súfíism regarding the Divine nature. (4)
Knowledge. The meditation in the preceding stage, and the investigation
of the metaphysical theories concerning God, His nature, His attributes
and the like make him an ‘Árif—one who knows. (5) Ecstasy. The
mental excitement caused by such continued meditation on abstruse
subjects produces a kind of frenzy, which is looked upon as a mark of
direct illumination of the heart from God. It is known as Hál—the
state; or Wajd—ecstasy. Arrival at this stage is highly valued, for
it is the certain entrance to the next. (6) Haqiqat—the Truth. Now
to the traveller is revealed the true nature of God, now he learns the
reality of that which he has been for so long seeking. This admits him to
the highest stage in his journey, as far as this life is concerned. (7)
That stage is Wasl—union with God.

He cannot, in this life, go beyond that, and very few reach that
exalted stage. Thus arose a “system of Pantheism, which represents joy
and sorrow, good and evil, pleasure and pain as manifestations of one
changeless essence.” Religion, as made known by an outward revelation,
is, to the few who reach this stage, a thing of the past. Even its
restraints are not needed. The soul that is united to God can do no evil.
The poet Khusrau says: “Love is the object of my worship, what need have
I of Islám?”

Death ensues and with it the last stage is reached. (8) It is Faná—extinction. The seeker after all his search, the
traveller after all his wearisome journey passes behind the veil and
finds—nothing! As the traveller proceeds from stage to stage, the
restraints of an objective revelation and of an outward system are less
and less heeded. “The [94]religion of the mystic consists in his
immediate communication with God, and when once this has been
established, the value of ecclesiastical forms, and of the historical
part of religion, becomes doubtful.” What law can bind the soul in union
with God, what outward system impose any trammels on one who, in the
“Ecstasy,” has received from Him, who is the Truth, the direct revelation
of His own glorious nature? Moral laws and ceremonial observances have
only an allegorical signification. Creeds are but fetters cunningly
devised to limit the flight of the soul; all that is objective in
religion is a restraint to the reason of the initiated.^[84]

Pantheistic in creed, and too often Antinomian in practice, Súfíism
possesses no regenerative power in Islám. “It is not a substantive
religion such as shapes the life of races or of nations, it is a state of
opinion.” No Muslim State makes a national profession of Súfíism.

In spite of all its dogmatic utterances, in spite of much that is
sublime in its idea of the search after light and truth, Súfíism ends in
utter negation of all separate existence. The pantheism of the Súfís,
this esoteric doctrine of Islám, as a moral doctrine leads to the same
conclusions as materialism, “the negation of human liberty, the
indifference to actions and the legitimacy of all temporal
enjoyments.”

The result of Súfíism has been the establishment of a large number of
religious orders known as Darwíshes.^[85] These men are looked upon with
disfavour by the [95]orthodox; but they flourish nevertheless,
and in Turkey at the present day have great influence. There are in
Constantinople two hundred Takiahs, or monasteries. The Darwíshes are not
organized with such regularity, nor subject to discipline so severe as
that of the Christian Monastic orders; but they surpass them in number.
Each order has its own special mysteries and practices by which its
members think they can obtain a knowledge of the secrets of the invisible
world. They are also called Faqírs—poor men, not, however, always
in the sense of being in temporal want, but as being poor in the sight of
God. As a matter of fact the Darwíshes of many of the orders do not beg,
and many of the Takiahs are richly endowed. They are divided into two
great classes, the Ba Shara’ (with the Law) Darwíshes; and the Be Shara’
(without the Law). The former prefer to rule their conduct according to
the law of Islám and are called the Sálik—travellers on the path
(taríqat) to heaven; the latter though they call themselves Muslims do
not conform to the law, and are called Azád (free), or Majzúb
(abstracted), a term which signifies their renunciation of all worldly
cares and pursuits.

The Sálik Darwíshes are those who perform the Zikrs.^[86] What little hope there is of these
professedly religious men working any reform in Islám will be seen from
the following account of their doctrines.^[87]

1. God only exists,—He is in all things, and all things are in
Him. “Verily we are from God, and to Him shall we return.”
(Súra ii. 151.)

[96]

2. All visible and invisible beings are an emanation from Him, and are
not really distinct from Him. Creation is only a pastime with God.

3. Paradise and Hell, and all the dogmas of positive religions, are
only so many allegories, the spirit of which is only known to the
Súfí.

4. Religions are matters of indifference; they, however, serve as a
means of reaching to realities. Some, for this purpose, are more
advantageous than others. Among which is the Musalmán religion, of which
the doctrine of the Súfís is the philosophy.

5. There is not any real difference between good and evil, for all is
reduced to unity, and God is the real author of the acts of mankind.

6. It is God who fixes the will of man. Man, therefore, is not free in
his actions.

7. The soul existed before the body, and is now confined within it as
in a cage. At death the soul returns to the Divinity from which it
emanated.

8. The principal occupation of the Súfí is to meditate on the unity,
and so to attain to spiritual perfection—unification with God.

9. Without the grace of God no one can attain to this unity; but God
does not refuse His aid to those who are in the right path.

The power of a Sheikh, a spiritual leader, is very great. The
following account of the admission of a Novice, called Tawakkul Beg, into
an Order, and of the severe tests applied, will be of some interest.^[88] Tawakkul Beg
says:—”Having been introduced by Akhúnd Moollá Muhammad to Sheikh
Moolla Sháh, my heart, through frequent intercourse with him, was filled
with such a burning desire to arrive at a true knowledge of the mystical
science that I found no sleep by night, nor rest by day. When the
initiation commenced, [97]I passed the whole night without sleep, and
repeated innumerable times the Súrat-ul-Ikhlás:—

Whosoever repeats this Súra one hundred times can accomplish all his
vows. I desired that the Sheikh should bestow on me his love. No sooner
had I finished my task than the heart of the Sheikh became full of
sympathy for me. On the following night I was conducted to his presence.
During the whole of that night he concentrated his thoughts on me, whilst
I gave myself up to inward meditation. Three nights passed in this way.
On the fourth night the Sheikh said:—’Let Moollá Senghim and Sálih
Beg, who are very susceptible to ecstatic emotions, apply their spiritual
energies to Tawakkul Beg.’

They did so, whilst I passed the whole night in meditation, with my
face turned toward Mecca. As the morning drew near, a little light came
into my mind, but I could not distinguish form or colour. After the
morning prayers, I was taken to the Sheikh who bade me inform him of my
mental state. I replied that I had seen a light with my inward eye. On
hearing this, the Sheikh became animated and said: ‘Thy heart is dark,
but the time is come when I will show myself clearly to thee.’ He then
ordered me to sit down in front of him, and to impress his features on my
mind. Then having blindfolded me, he ordered me to concentrate all my
thoughts upon him. I did so, and in an instant by the spiritual help of
the Sheikh my heart opened. He asked me what I saw. I said that I saw
another Tawakkul Beg and another Moollá Sháh. The bandage was then
removed, and I saw the Sheikh in front of me. Again they covered my face,
and again I saw him with my inward eye. Astonished, I cried; ‘O master!
whether I look with my bodily eye, or with my spiritual [98]sight, it is
always you I see.’ I then saw a dazzling figure approach me. The Sheikh
told me to say to the apparition, ‘What is your name?’ In my spirit I put
the question, and the figure answered to my heart: ‘I am ‘Abd-ul-Qádir
Jilání, I have already aided thee, thy heart is opened.’ Much affected, I
vowed that in honour of the saint, I would repeat the whole Qurán every
Friday night.

Moollá Sháh then said: ‘The spiritual world has been shown to thee in
all its beauty.’ I then rendered perfect obedience to the Sheikh. The
following day I saw the Prophet, the chief Companions, and legions of
saints and angels. After three months, I entered the cheerless region in
which the figures appeared no more. During the whole of this time, the
Sheikh continued to explain to me the mystery of the doctrine of the
Unity and of the knowledge of God; but as yet he did not show me the
absolute reality. It was not until a year had passed that I arrived at
the true conception of unity. Then in words such as these I told the
Sheikh of my inspiration. ‘I look upon the body as only dust and water, I
regard neither my heart nor my soul, alas! that in separation from Thee
(God) so much of my life has passed. Thou wert I and I knew it not.’ The
Sheikh was delighted, and said that the truth of the union with God was
now clearly revealed to me. Then addressing those who were present, he
said: ‘Tawakkul Beg learnt from me the doctrine of the Unity, his inward
eye has been opened, the spheres of colours and of images have been shown
to him. At length, he entered the colourless region. He has now attained
to the Unity, doubt and scepticism henceforth have no power over him. No
one sees the Unity with the outward eye, till the inward eye gains
strength and power.'”

I cannot pass from this branch of the subject without making a few
remarks on Omar Khayyám, the great Astronomer-Poet of Persia. He is
sometimes confounded with the Súfís, for there is much in his poetry
which is similar [99]in tone to that of the Súfí writers. But his
true position was that of a sceptic. He wrote little, but what he has
written will live. As an astronomer he was a man of note. He died in the
year 517 A.H. There are two things which may
have caused his scepticism. To a man of his intelligence the hard and
fast system of Islám was an intolerable burden. Then, his scientific
spirit had little sympathy with mysticism, the earnest enthusiasts of
which were too often followed by hollow impostors. It is true, that there
was much in the spirit of some of the better Súfís that seemed to show a
yearning for something higher than mere earthly good; above all, there
was the recognition of a Higher Power. But with all this came spiritual
pride, the world and its duties became a thing of evil, and the religious
and the secular life were completely divorced, to the ruin of both. The
Pantheism which soon pervaded the system left no room for man’s will to
act, for his conscience to guide. So the moral law become a dead letter.
Irreligious men, to free themselves from the bondage and restraints of
law, assumed the religious life. “Thus a movement, animated at first by a
high and lofty purpose, has degenerated into a fruitful source of ill.
The stream which ought to have expanded into a fertilising river has
become a vast swamp, exhaling vapours charged with disease and
death.”

Omar Khayyám saw through the unreality of all this. In vain does he
try, by an assumed air of gaiety, to hide from others the sadness which
fills his heart, as all that is bright is seen passing away into
oblivion.

[100]

Omar held to the earthly and the material. For him there was no
spiritual world. Chance seemed to rule all the affairs of men. A pitiless
destiny shaped out the course of each human being.

Neither from earth nor heaven could he find any answer to his cry.
With sages and saints he discussed, and heard, “great argument, but
evermore came out by the same door as in he went.” He left the wise to
talk, for one thing alone was certain, and all else was lies,—”the
flower that once has blown for ever dies.” Leaving men he turned to
nature, but it was all the same.

Omar has with justice been compared to Lucretius. Both were
materialists, both believed not in a future life. “Lucretius built a
system for himself in his poem … it has a professed practical
aim—to explain the world’s self-acting machine to the polytheist,
and to disabuse him of all spiritual ideas.” Omar builds up no system, he
only shows forth his own doubts and difficulties, “he loves to balance
antitheses of belief, and settle himself in the equipoise of the
sceptic.” [101]

The fact that there is no hereafter gives Lucretius no pain, but Omar
who, if only his reason could let him, would believe, records his utter
despair in words of passionate bitterness. He is not glad that there is
no help anywhere.^[89] And
though he calls for the wine-cup, and listens to the voice within the
tavern cry,

yet he also looks back to the time, when he consorted with those who
professed to know, and could say:

The founder of the Wahhábí sect was Muhammad-ibn-Abd-ul-Wahháb, who
was born at a village in Nejd in the year 1691 A.D. The Wahhábís speak of themselves as
Muwahhid—Unitarians; but their opponents have given to them the
name of the father of the founder of their sect and call them Wahhábís.
Muhammad was a bright intelligent youth, of a strong constitution and
generous spirit. After going through a course of Arabic literature he
studied jurisprudence under a teacher of the Hanífi school. He then set
out in company with his father to perform the Hajj. At Madína he received
further instruction in the Law. He spent sometime at Ispahán in the
society of learned men. Full of [102]knowledge, he returned to his native
village of Ayína where he assumed the position of a religious teacher. He
was shocked to see how the Arabs had departed from what seemed to him the
strict unchanging precepts of the Prophet. Luxury in the form of rich
dresses and silken garments, superstition in the use of omens, auguries,
and the like, in the pilgrimages to shrines and tombs seemed to be
altering the character of the religion as given by the Apostle of God. He
saw, or thought he saw, that in the veneration paid to saints and holy
men, the great doctrine of the “Unity” was being obscured. The reason was
very plain. The Qurán and the Traditions of the Companions had been
neglected, whilst the sayings of men of lesser note, and the
jurisprudence of the four great Imáms had been too readily followed. Here
was work to do. He would reform the Church of Islám, and restore men to
their allegiance to the Book and the Sunnat, as recorded by the
Companions. It is true, that the Sunnís would rise up in opposition, for
thus the authority of the four Imáms, the “Canonical Legists” of the
orthodox sect, would be set aside; but what of that? Had he not been a
follower of Abu Hanífa? Now he was prepared to let Aba Hanífa go, for
none but a Companion of the Prophet could give an authoritative statement
with regard to the Sunnat—the Prophet’s words and acts. He must
break a lance with the glorious Imám, and start a school of his own.

He said: “The Muslim pilgrims adore the tomb of the Prophet, and the
sepulchre of ‘Alí, and of other saints who have died in the odour of
sanctity. They run there to pay the tribute of their fervent prayers. By
this means they think that they can satisfy their spiritual and temporal
needs, From what do they seek this benefit? From walls made of mud and
stones, from corpses deposited in tombs. If you speak to them they will
reply, ‘We do not call these monuments God; we turn to them in prayer,
and we pray the saints to intercede for us on high.’ Now, the true [103]way
of salvation is to prostrate one’s self before Him who is ever present,
and to venerate Him—the one without associate or equal.” Such
outspoken language raised up opposition, and he had to seek the
protection of Muhammad-Ibn-Saud, a chief of some importance, who now
vigorously supported the Wahhábí movement. He was a stern and
uncompromising man. “As soon as you seize a place,” he said to his
soldiers, “put the males to the sword. Plunder and pillage at your
pleasure, but spare the women and do not strike a blow at their modesty.”
On the day of battle he used to give each soldier a paper, a safe conduct
to the other world. This letter was addressed to the Treasurer of
Paradise. It was enclosed in a bag which the warrior suspended to his
neck. The soldiers were persuaded that the souls of those who died in
battle would go straight to heaven, without being examined by the angels
Munkar and Nakír in the grave. The widows and orphans of all who fell
were supported by the survivors. Nothing could resist men who, fired with
a burning zeal for what they deemed the truth, received a share of the
booty, if conquerors; who went direct to Paradise if they were slain. In
course of time, Muhammad-Ibn-Saud married the daughter of
Ibn-Abd-ul-Wahháb and founded the Wahhábí dynasty which to this day rules
at Ryadh.^[90]

Such was the origin of this great movement, which spread, in course of
time, over Central and Eastern Arabia, and in the beginning of this
century found acceptance in India. In the year 1803 A.D. both Mecca and Madína fell into the hands of the
Wahhábís. A clean sweep was made of all things, the use of which was
opposed to Wahhábí principles. Not only rosaries and charms, but silk
robes and pipes were consigned to the flames, for smoking is a [104]deadly
sin. On this point there is a good story told by
Palgrave—”‘Abd-ul-Karím said: ‘The first of the great sins is the
giving divine honours to a creature.’ Of course I replied, ‘The enormity
of such a sin is beyond all doubt. But if this be the first, there must
be a second; what is it?’ ‘Drinking the shameful!’ (in English idiom,
‘smoking tobacco’) was the unhesitating answer. ‘And murder, and
adultery, and false witness?’ I suggested. ‘God is merciful and
forgiving,’ rejoined my friend; that is, these are merely little sins.”^[91]

After holding possession of the holy cities for nine years they were
driven out by the Turkish forces. ‘Abdullah, the fourth Wahhábí ruler,
was captured by Ibrahím Pasha, and afterwards executed in the square of
St. Sophia (1818 A.D.) The political power of
the Wahhábís has since been confined to parts of Arabia; but their
religious opinions have widely spread.

The leader of the Wahhábí movement in India was Sayyid Ahmad, a
reformed freebooter. He was now born at Ráí Bareili, in Oudh, 1786 A.D. When about thirty years of age he gave up his
wild way of living and settled down in Delhi as a student of the Law of
Islám. After a while, he went on pilgrimage to Mecca, but his opinions,
so similar to those of the noted Wahhábí, attracted the attention of the
orthodox theologians, through whose influence he was expelled from the
sacred city. Persecution deepened his religious convictions, and he
returned to India a pronounced Wahhábí. He soon gained a large number of
disciples, and in 1826 A.D. he preached a Jihád
against the Sikhs. This war was not a success. In the year 1831 the
Wahhábís were suddenly attacked by the Sikhs, under Sher Singh, and
Sayyid Ahmad was slain. This did not, however, prevent the spread of
Wahhábí principles, for he had the good fortune to leave behind him an
enthusiastic disciple. This man, [105]Muhammad Ismá’íl, was
born near Delhi in the year 1781 A.D. He was a
youth of good abilities and soon mastered the subjects which form the
curriculum of a liberal education amongst Musalmáns. His first preaching
was in a Mosque at Delhi on Tauhíd (Unity), and against Shirk
(Polytheism). He now met with Sayyid Ahmad who soon acquired great
influence over his new disciple. Ismá’íl told him one evening that he
could not offer up his prayers with Huzúr-i-Kalb, presence of heart. The
Sayyid took him to his room where he instructed him to repeat the first
of the prayers after him, and then to conclude them alone. He did so, and
was able to so abstract himself in the contemplation of God that he
remained engaged in prayer till the morning. Henceforward he was a
devoted adherent of his spiritual teacher. In the public discussions,
which now often took place, none were a match for Ismá’íl. This fervent
preacher of Wahhábíism is now chiefly remembered by his great work, the
Takwiat-ul-Imán, the book from which the account of Wahhábí doctrine
given in this chapter is taken. If I make no special reference to the
quotations given, it will be known that my authority for the statements
thus made is Muhammad Ismá’íl, the most famous of all Sayyid Ahmad’s
disciples. This book was followed by the Sirát-ul-Mustaqím, said to have
been written by one of Ismá’íl’s followers. Wahhábí doctrines are now
spread throughout India. In the South there is not much religious
excitement or inquiry, yet Wahhábís are to be found there.^[92] It was and is a
remarkable movement. In one sense it is a struggle against the
traditionalism of later ages, but in no sense can it be said that the
Wahhábís reject Tradition. They acknowledge as the foundation of the
faith—first, the Qurán; secondly, the Traditions which are recorded
on the authority of the Companions, and also the Ijmá’ of the Companions,
that is, all things on which they were unanimous in opinion [106]or in
practice. Thus to the Wahhábí as to the Sunní, Muhammad is in all his
acts and words a perfect guide.

So far from Wahhábíism being a move onward because it is a return to
first principles, it rather binds the fetters of Islám more tightly. It
does not originate anything new, it offers no relaxation from a system
which looks upon the Qurán and the Traditions as a perfect and complete
law, social and political, moral and religious.

The Wahhábí places the doctrine of the “Tauhíd,” or Unity, in a very
prominent position. It is true that all Musalmán sects put this dogma in
the first rank, but Wahhábís set their faces against practices common to
the other sects, because they consider that they obscure this fundamental
doctrine. It is this which brings them into collision with other
Musalmáns. The greatest of all sins is Shirk (i.e. the ascribing
of plurality to the Deity). A Mushrik (Polytheist) is one who so offends.
All Musalmáns consider Christians to be Polytheists, and all Wahhábís
consider all other Musalmáns also to be Polytheists, because they look to
the Prophet for intercession, pray to saints, visit shrines, and do other
unlawful acts.

The Takwiat-ul-Imán says that “two things are necessary in
religion—to know God as God, and the Prophet as the Prophet.” The
two fundamental bases of the faith are the “Doctrine of the Tauhíd
(Unity) and obedience to the Sunnat.” The two great errors to be avoided
are Shirk (Polytheism) and Bida’t (Innovation). As Bida’t is looked upon
as evil, it is somewhat difficult to see what hope of progress can be
placed upon this latest phase of Muhammadan revival.

Shirk is defined to be of four kinds: Shirk-ul-‘Ilm, ascribing
knowledge to others than God; Shirk-ut-tasarruf, ascribing power to
others than God; Shirk-ul-‘Ibádat, offering worship to created things;
Shirk-ul-‘ádat, the performance of ceremonies which imply reliance on
others than God. [107]

The first, Shirk-ul-‘Ilm, is illustrated by the statement that
prophets and holy men have no knowledge of secret things unless as
revealed to them by God. Thus some wicked persons made a charge against
‘Áyesha. The Prophet was troubled in mind, but knew not the truth of the
matter till God made it known to him. To ascribe, then, power to
soothsayers, astrologers, and saints is Polytheism. “All who pretend to
have a knowledge of hidden things, such as fortune-tellers, soothsayers
and interpreters of dreams, as well as those who profess to be inspired
are all liars.” Again, “should any one take the name of any saint, or
invoke his aid in the time of need, instead of calling on God, or use his
name in attacking an enemy, or read passages to propitiate him, or make
him the object of contemplation—it is Shirk-ul-‘Ilm.”

The second kind, Shirk-ut-tasarruf, is to suppose that any one has
power with God. He who looks up to any one as an intercessor with God
commits Shirk. Thus: “But they who take others beside Him as lords,
saying, ‘We only serve them that they may bring us near God,’—God
will judge between them (and the Faithful) concerning that wherein they
are at variance.” (Súra xxxix. 4.) Intercession may be of three kinds.
For example, a criminal is placed before the King. The Vizier intercedes.
The King, having regard to the rank of the Vizier, pardons the offender.
This is called Shafá’at-i-Wajahat, or ‘intercession from regard.’ But to
suppose that God so esteems the rank of any one as to pardon a sinner
merely on account of it is Shirk. Again, the Queen or the Princes
intercede for the criminal. The King, from love to them, pardons him.
This is called Shafá’at-i-muhabbat, or ‘intercession from affection.’ But
to consider that God so loves any one as to pardon a criminal on his
account is to give that loved one power, and this is Shirk, for such
power is not possible in the Court of God. “God may out of His bounty
confer on His favourite servants the epithets of Habíb—favourite,
or Khalíl—friend, [108]&c.; but a servant is but a servant,
no one can put his foot outside the limits of servitude, or rise beyond
the rank of a servant.” Again, the King may himself wish to pardon the
offender, but he fears lest the majesty of the law should be lowered. The
Vizier perceives the King’s wish, and intercedes. This intercession is
lawful. It is called Shafá’at-i-ba-izn—intercession by permission,
and such power Muhammad will have at the day of Judgment. Wahhábís hold
that he has not that power now, though all other Musalmáns consider that
he has, and in consequence (in Wahhábí opinion) commit the sin of
Shirk-ut-tasarruf. The Wahhábís quote the following passages in support
of their view. “Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own
permission.” (Súra ii. 256) “Say: Intercession is wholly with God!
His the kingdoms of the heavens and of the earth.” (Súra xxxix. 46). They
also say: “whenever an allusion is made in the Qurán, or the Traditions
to the intercession of certain prophets or apostles, it is this kind of
intercession and no other that is meant.”

The third Shirk is prostration before any created beings with the idea
of worshipping it. It also includes perambulating the shrines of departed
saints. Thus: “Prostration, bowing down, standing with folded arms,
spending money in the name of an individual, fasting out of respect to
his memory, proceeding to a distant shrine in a pilgrim’s garb and
calling out the name of the saint whilst so going is Shirk-ul-‘Ibádat.”
It is wrong “to cover the grave with a sheet (ghiláf), to say prayers at
the shrine, to kiss any particular stone, to rub the mouth and breast
against the walls of the shrine, &c.” This is a stern condemnation of
the very common practice of visiting the tombs of saints and of some of
the special practices of the pilgrimage to Mecca. All such practices as
are here condemned are called Ishrák fi’l ‘Ibádat—’association in
worship.’

The fourth Shirk is the keeping up of superstitious customs, such as
the Istikhára—seeking guidance from beads [109]&c., trusting to
omens, good or bad, believing in lucky and unlucky days, adopting such
names as ‘Abd-un-Nabi (slave of the Prophet), and so on. In fact, the
denouncing of such practices and calling them Shirk brings Wahhábíism
into daily contact with the other sects, for scarcely any people in the
world are such profound believers in the virtue of charms and the power
of astrologers as Musalmáns. The difference between the first and fourth
Shirk, the Shirk-ul-‘Ilm and the Shirk-ul-‘ádat, seems to be that the
first is the belief, say in the knowledge of a soothsayer, and the
second the habit of consulting him.

To swear by the name of the Prophet, of ‘Alí, of the Imáms, or of Pírs
(Leaders) is to give them the honour due to God alone. It is Ishrák fi’l
adab—’Shirk in association.’

Another common belief which Wahhábís oppose is that Musalmáns can
perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), say prayers, read the Qurán,
abide in meditation, give alms, and do other good works, the reward of
which shall be credited to a person already dead.^[93] Amongst other Musalmáns it is a common
practice to read the Qurán in the belief that, if done with such an
intention, the reward will pass to the deceased object of the desire.
Wahábís entirely object to this.

The above technical exposition of Wahhábí tenets shows how much stress
they lay on a rigid adherence to the doctrine of the “Unity.”
“Lá-il-láha, Il-lal-lá-hu” (there is no God but God) is an eternal truth.
Yet to the Musalmán God is a Being afar off. In rejecting the Fatherhood
of God he has accepted as the object of his worship, hardly of his
affections, a Being despotic in all He does, arbitrary in all His ways.
He has accepted the position of a slave instead of that of a son.
Wahhábíism emphasizes the ideas which flow from the first article of the
Muslim creed. But [110]on this subject we prefer to let Palgrave
speak. He of all men knew the Wahhábí best, and he, at least, can be
accused of no sectarian bias. The extract is rather long, but will repay
perusal; indeed, the whole passage from which this extract is taken
should be read.

“‘There is no God but God,’ are words simply tantamount in English to
the negation of any deity save one alone; and thus much they certainly
mean in Arabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is, not
only to deny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality whether of nature
or of person in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the unity of the
Unbegetting and the Unbegot, in all its simple and incommunicable
oneness, but besides this, the words, in Arabic and among Arabs, imply
that this one Supreme Being is the only Agent, the only Force, the only
Act existing throughout the universe, and leave to all beings else,
matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or moral, nothing
but pure unconditional passiveness, alike in movement or in quiescence,
in action or in capacity. Hence in this one sentence is summed up a
system which, for want of a better name, I may be permitted to call the
‘Pantheism of Force.’ ‘God is One in the totality of omnipotent and
omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule, standard, or limit, save
one sole and absolute will. He communicates nothing to His creatures, for
their seeming power and act ever remain His alone, and in return He
receives nothing from them.’ ‘It is His singular satisfaction to let
created beings continually feel that they are nothing else than His
slaves, that they may the better acknowledge His superiority.’ ‘He
Himself, sterile in His inaccessible height, neither loving nor enjoying
aught save His own and self-measured decree, without son, companion, or
councillor, is no less barren for Himself than for His creatures, and His
own barrenness and lone egoism in Himself is the cause and rule of His
indifferent and unregarding despotism around.’^[94]

Palgrave allows that such a notion of the Deity is monstrous, but
maintains that it is the “truest mirror of the mind and scope of the
writer of the Book” (Qurán), and that, as such, it is confirmed by
authentic Tradition and learned commentaries. At all events, Palgrave
possessed [111]the two essential qualifications for a
critic of Islam—a knowledge of the literature, and intercourse with
the people. So far as my experience goes I have never seen any reason to
differ from Palgrave’s statement. Men are often better than their creeds.
Even the Prophet was not always consistent. There are some redeeming
points in Islám. But the root idea of the whole is as described above,
and from it no system can be deduced which will grow in grace and beauty
as age after age rolls by.

The Arab proverb states that “The worshipper models himself on what he
worships.”^[95] Thus a
return to “first principles,” sometimes proclaimed as the hope of Turkey,
is but the “putting back the hour-hand of Islám” to the place where
indeed Muhammad always meant it to stay, for

“Islám is in its essence stationary, and was framed thus to remain.
Sterile, like its God, lifeless like its first Principle and supreme
Original in all that constitutes true life—for life is love,
participation, and progress, and of these the Quránic Deity has
none—it justly repudiates all change, all advance, all
development.”^[96]

Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd-ul Wahháb was a man of great intellectual power and
vigour. He could pierce through the mists of a thousand years, and see
with an eagle eye how one sect and another had laid accretions on the
Faith. He had the rare gift of intuition, and could see that change
(Bida’t) and progress were alien to the truth. This recognition of his
ability is due to him; but what a sad prostration of great gifts it was
to seek to arrest, by the worship of the letter, all hope of progress,
and to make “the starting-point of Islám its goal.” That he was a good
Musalmán in so doing no one can doubt, but that his work gives any hope
of the rise of an enlightened form of Islám no one who really has studied
Islám can believe.

Wahhábíism simply amounts to this, that while it denounces all other
Musalmáns as polytheists, it enforces the [112]Sunnat of the Prophet
with all its energy.^[97] It
breaks down shrines, but insists on the necessity of a pilgrimage to a
black stone at Mecca. It forbids the use of a rosary, but attaches great
merit to counting the ninety-nine names of God on the fingers. It would
make life unsocial. The study of the Fine Arts with the exception of
Architecture can find no place in it. Ismá’íl quotes with approval the
following Tradition. “‘Áyesha said: ‘I purchased a carpet on which were
some figures. The Prophet stood in the doorway and looked displeased.’ I
said: ‘O messenger of God, I repent to God and His Messenger; what fault
have I committed that you do not enter?’ His Highness then said: ‘What is
this carpet?’ I replied; ‘I have bought it for you to sit and rest upon.’
Then the messenger of God replied: ‘Verily, the maker of pictures will be
punished on the day of resurrection, when God will desire them to bring
them to life. A house which contains pictures is not visited by the
angels.'” In a Tradition quoted by Ibn ‘Abbás, the Prophet classes
artists with murderers and parricides. Wahhábíism approves of all this,
and thus by forbidding harmless enjoyments it would make society “an
organised hypocrisy.” It would spread abroad a spirit of contempt for all
mankind except its own followers, and, where it had the power, it would
force its convictions on others at the point of the sword.

Wahhábíism was reform after a fashion, in one direction; in the
history of Islám there have been attempts at reform in other directions;
there will yet be such attempts, but so long as the Qurán and the Sunnat
(or, in the case of the Shía’h, its equivalent) are to form, as they have
hitherto [113]done for every sect, the sole law to
regulate all conditions and states of life, enlightened and continued
progress is impossible. The deadening influence of Islám is the greatest
obstacle the Church of God has to overcome in her onward march; its
immobility is the bane of many lands; connection with it is the
association of the living with the dead; to speak of it, as some do, as
if it were a sort of sister religion to Christianity, is but to show
deplorable ignorance where ignorance is inexcusable. Thus it is plain
that Musalmáns are not all of one heart and soul.^[98] In the next chapter I hope to show that
Islám is a very dogmatic and complex system in spite of the simple form
of its creed.

[114]

NOTE TO CHAPTER III.

WAHHÁBÍISM.

In the Journal Asiatique, 4me Série, tome 11, a curious account is
given of the voyage of Mirzá Muhammad ‘Alí Khán, some time Persian
Ambassador in Paris. This gentleman states that in one of his voyages
from Persia to India he met with a Wahhábí, who had in his possession a
tract written by the founder of the sect. This small pamphlet he allowed
Mirzá Muhammad to copy. I give the substance of the pamphlet in this
note. The original Arabic will be found in the Journal Asiatique. It is
of considerable interest as a protest against idolatry. It is as
follows:—I know that God is merciful, that the sect of Abu Hanífa
is orthodox and identical with the religion of Abraham. After thou hast
known that God has created His servants for the purpose of being served
by them, know also that this service or devotion is to worship God, One
and alone; just as prayer (Salát) is not prayer (Salát), unless it is
accompanied with the legal purification. God Most High has said: “It is
not for the votaries of other gods with God, witnesses against themselves
of infidelity, to visit the temples of God. These! vain their works: and
in the fire shall they abide for ever!” (Súra ix. 17.)

Those who in their prayers, address any other than God, in the hope of
obtaining by them that which God alone can give—those bring unto
their prayers the leaven of idolatry and make them of none effect, “and
who erreth more than he who, beside God, calleth upon that which shall
not answer him until the day of resurrection.” (Súra xlvi. 4) On the
contrary, when the day of resurrection comes, they will become their
enemies and treat them as infidels for having served others than God.
“But the gods whom ye call on beside Him have no power over the husk of a
date-stone! If ye cry to them they will not hear your cry; and if they
heard they would not answer you, and in the day of resurrection they will
disown your joining them with God.” (Súra xxxv. 14,15.)

He who says: “O thou Prophet of God! O ‘Ibn ‘Abbás! O ‘Abd-ul-Qádir!”
&c. with the persuasion that the souls of these blessed ones can
obtain from God that of which the suppliant has need, or that they can
protect him, is an infidel whose blood any one may shed, and whose goods
any one may appropriate with impunity unless he repent. There are four
different classes of idolaters.

[115]

First, the infidels against whom the Prophet made war. These
acknowledge that God is the creator of the world, that He supports all
living creatures, that in wisdom He rules over all. “Say: who supplieth
you from the heavens and the earth? who hath power over hearing and
sight? and who bringeth forth the living from the dead, and bringeth
forth the dead from the living? who ruleth all things? they will surely
say: ‘God,’ then say: ‘What! will ye not therefore fear Him.'” (Súra x.
32.) It is difficult to distinguish idolatry of this kind; but under an
outwardly orthodox appearance they go astray; for they have recourse to
divinities of their own choosing and pray to them.

Secondly, there are idolaters who say that they only call upon these
intermediary powers to intercede in their favour with God, and that what
they desire they seek from God. The Qurán furnishes a proof against them.
“They worship beside God what cannot hurt or help them, and say, these
are our advocates with God! say: will ye inform God of aught in the
heavens and in the earth which He knoweth not?” (Súra x. 19.)

Thirdly, those are idolaters who choose one idol as their patron, or
rather those who, renouncing the worship of idols, become attached to one
saint, as Jesus or His Mother, and put themselves under the protection of
Guardian Angels. Against them we cite the verse: “Those whom ye call on,
themselves desire union with their Lord, striving which of them shall be
nearest to Him; they also hope for His mercy, and fear His chastisement.”
(Súra xvii. 59.) We see here that the Prophet drew no distinction between
the worship of an idol and the worship of such and such a saint; on the
contrary, he treated them all as infidels, and made war upon them in
order to consolidate the religion of God upon a firm basis.

Fourthly, those who worship God sincerely in the time of trouble, but
at other times call on other Gods are idolaters. Thus: “Lo! when they
embark on board a ship, they call upon God, vowing Him sincere worship,
but when He bringeth them safe to land, behold they join partners with
Him.” (Súra xxix. 65.)

In the age in which we live, I could cite still worse heresies. The
idolaters, our contemporaries, pray to and invoke the lower divinities
when they are in distress. The idolaters of the Prophet’s time were less
culpable than those of the present age are. They, at least, had recourse
to God in time of great evil; these in good and evil states, seek the aid
of their patrons, other than God, and pray to them.

[116]

CHAPTER IV.

THE CREED OF ISLÁM.^[99]

Faith is defined by Muslim theologians as: “Confession with the tongue
and belief with the heart.”^[100] It is said to “stand midway between
hope and fear.” It is sub-divided into Imán-í-mujmal and Imán-í-mufassal.
The former is an expression of the following faith: “I believe in God,
His names and attributes, and accept all His commands.”^[101] The latter is the acceptance of the
following dogmas: “I believe in God, Angels, Books, Prophets, the Last
Day, the Predestination by the Most High God of good and evil and the
Resurrection after death.”^[102] These form the articles of faith
which every Muslim must believe, to which belief, in order to render it
perfect, he must add the performance of the “acts of practice,”
viz.: (1) “The recital of the Kalima or creed:—’There is no
deity but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God.’ (2) Sulát. The five
daily prayers. (3) Roza. The thirty days fast of Ramazán. (4) Zakát. The
legal alms. (5) Hajj, or the pilgrimage to Mecca.” This chapter will
contain an account of the Imán—the dogmas of Islám. An account of
the Dín—the practical duties, will be given in the next chapter.
[117]

1. God.—This article of the faith
includes a belief in the existence of God, His unity and attributes, and
has given rise to a large number of sects. Some acquaintance with the
various controversies which have thus arisen is necessary to a correct
knowledge of Islám. I commence the consideration of this subject by
giving the substance of a Sunní, or orthodox treatise known as the
Risála-i-Berkevi. The learned orientalist M. Garcin de Tassy, considered
it to be of such authority that in his “L’Islamisme d’après le Coran” he
has inserted a translation of the Risála.^[103] Muhammad Al-Berkevi, speaking of the
Divine attributes, says:—

(1). Life. (Hyát). God Most High is alone to be adored. He has neither
associate nor equal. He is free from the imperfections of humanity. He is
neither begotten nor does He beget. He is invisible. He is without
figure, form, colour or parts. His existence has neither beginning nor
end. He is immutable. If He so wills, He can annihilate the world in a
moment of time and, if it seem good to Him, recreate it in an instant.
Nothing is difficult to Him, whether it be the creation of a fly or that
of the seven heavens. He receives neither profit nor loss from whatever
may happen. If all the Infidels became Believers and all the irreligious
pious, He would gain no advantage. On the other hand, if all Believers
became Infidels, He would suffer no loss.

(2). Knowledge. (‘Ilm). He has knowledge of all things hidden or
manifest, whether in heaven or on earth. He knows the number of the
leaves of the trees, of the grains of wheat and of sand. Events past and
future are known to Him. He knows what enters into the heart of man and
what he utters with his mouth. He alone, except those to whom He has
revealed them, knows the invisible things. He is free from forgetfulness,
negligence and error. His knowledge is eternal: it is not posterior to
His essence.

(3). Power. (Qudrat). He is Almighty. If He wills, He can raise the
dead, make stones talk, trees walk, annihilate the heavens and the earth
and recreate of gold or of silver thousands similar to those destroyed.
He can transport a man in a moment of time from the east to the west, or
from the west to the east, or to the seventh heaven. His power is eternal
à priori and à posteriori. It is not posterior to His essence.

[118]

(4). Will (Irádah). He can do what He wills, and whatever He wills
comes to pass. He is not obliged to act. Everything, good or evil, in
this world exists by His will. He wills the faith of the believer and the
piety of the religious. If He were to change His will there would be
neither a true believer nor a pious man. He willeth also the unbelief of
the unbeliever and the irreligion of the wicked and, without that will,
there would neither be unbelief nor irreligion. All we do we do by His
will: what He willeth not does not come to pass. If one should ask why
God does not will that all men should believe we answer: “We have no
right to enquire about what God wills and does. He is perfectly free to
will and to do what He pleases.” In creating unbelievers, in willing that
they should remain in that state; in making serpents, scorpions and pigs:
in willing, in short, all that is evil God has wise ends in view which it
is not necessary that we should know. We must acknowledge that the will
of God is eternal and that it is not posterior to His essence.

(5). Hearing. (Sama’). He hears all sounds whether low or loud. He
hears without an ear for His attributes are not like those of men.

(6). Seeing. (Basr). He sees all things, even the steps of a black ant
on a black stone in a dark night; yet He has no eye as men have.

(7). Speech. (Kalám). He speaks, but not with a tongue as men do. He
speaks to some of His servants without the intervention of another, even
as He spoke to Moses, and to Muhammad on the night of the ascension to
heaven. He speaks to others by the instrumentality of Gabriel, and this
is the usual way in which He communicates His will to the prophets. It
follows from this that the Qurán is the word of God, and is eternal and
uncreated.

These are the “haft sifát,” or seven attributes of God. There is
unanimity of opinion as to the number of attributes, but not as regards
their nature and the extent of the knowledge concerning them to which men
can attain. Thus some say that the knowledge of God is the first thing to
acquire; but Imám Sháfa’í and the Mutazilites say that a man must first
attain to the idea of the knowledge of God. The meaning of the
expression “Knowledge of God” is the ascertaining the truth of His
existence, and of His positive and privative attributes, as far as the
human understanding can enter into these matters. The unity is not a mere
numerical unity but absolute, for the number one is the first of a series
and implies a second, but God has not a [119]second. He is “singular
without anything like Him, separate having no equal;” for, “had there
been either in heaven or earth gods beside God, both surely had gone to
ruin.” (Súra xxi. 22). God is not a substance, for substance has
accidents, but God has none: otherwise His nature would be that of
“dependent existence.” God is without parts, for otherwise he would not
exist till all the parts were formed, and His existence would depend on
the parts, that is, on something beside Himself.

The orthodox strictly prohibit the discussion of minute particulars,
for say they, “just as the eye turning to the brightness of the sun finds
darkness intervene to prevent all observation, so the understanding finds
itself bewildered if it attempts to pry into the nature of God.” The
Prophet said: “We did not know the reality of the knowledge of Thee;” and
to his followers he gave this advice: “Think of God’s gifts, not of His
nature: certainly you have no power for that.” The Khalíf Akbar is
reported to have said: “to be helpless in the search of knowledge is
knowledge and to enquire into the nature of God is Shirk (infidelity).”^[104] A moderate
acquaintance with Muslim theology shows that neither the injunction of
the Prophet nor the warning of the Khalíf has been heeded.

According to the early Muslims, the Companions and their followers,
enquiries into the nature of God and His attributes were not lawful. The
Prophet knowing what was good for men, had plainly revealed the way of
salvation and had taught them:—

This was sufficient for them to know of the mystery of the Godhead.
God is far beyond the reach of the human [120]understanding. He alone
embraces all in His comprehension. Men should therefore mistrust their
own perceptive faculties and notions and should obey the inspired
legislator Muhammad, who loving them better than they love themselves,
and knowing better than they do what is truly useful, has revealed both
what they ought to believe and what they ought to do. It is true that men
must exercise their reason, but they must not do so with regard to the
divine attributes.^[105]

Dogma is divided into two portions, usúl and farú’—(i.e.,
roots and branches.) The former include the doctrine about God; the
latter, as the name implies, consist of truths which result from the
acceptance of the former. The orthodox belief is that reason has only to
do with the “farú’,” for the usúl being founded on the Qurán and Sunnat
have an objective basis.

Differences of opinion about various branches of the “farú’,” led to
discussions which did not stop there but went on to the “usúl,” and so
paved the way for the rise of scholastic theology (‘Ilm-i-kalám.) I have
already in the chapter on the exegesis of the Qurán explained the
difference in meaning between muhkam (obvious) verses and mutashábih
(intricate) ones. This difference lies at the very foundation of the
present subject. It is, therefore, necessary to enter a little into
detail.

The question turns very much on the interpretation of the 5th verse of
the 3rd Súra: “He it is who hath sent down to thee ‘the Book.’ Some of
its signs are of themselves perspicuous (muhkam): these are the basis of
the [121]Book—and others are figurative
(mutashábih.) But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures,
craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its
interpretation but God. And the stable in knowledge say, ‘We believe in
it: it is all from our Lord.’ But none will bear this in mind, save men
endued with understanding.” Here it is clearly stated (1) that no one
except God can know the interpretation of mutashábih verses, and (2) that
wise men though they know not their interpretation, yet believe them all.
Many learned men, however, say that the full stop should not be placed
after the word “God” but after “knowledge,” and so this portion of the
verse would read thus: “None knoweth its interpretation but God and the
stable in knowledge. They say: ‘we believe, &c.'” On this slight
change in punctuation, which shows that the ‘stable in knowledge’ can
interpret the mutashábih verses, opposite schools of theology have arisen
in Islám.

The latter reading opens the way to a fearless investigation of
subjects which all the early Muslims avoided as beyond their province. In
the early days of Islám it was held that all parts of the Qurán, except
the muhkam verses and the purely narrative portions, were mutashábih;
that is, all verses which related to the attributes of God, to the
existence of angels and genii, to the appearance of Antichrist, the
period and signs of the day of judgment, and generally all matters which
are beyond the daily experience of mankind. It was strongly felt that not
only must there be no discussion on them,^[106] but no attempt should be made to
understand or act on them. Ibn ‘Abbás, a Companion, says: “One must
believe the mutashábih verses, but not take them for a rule of conduct.”
Ibn Jubair was once [122]asked to put the meaning of the Qurán into
writing. He became angry and said: “I should rather be palsied in
one-half of my body than do so.”^[107] ‘Ayesha said: “Avoid those persons
who dispute about the meaning of the Qurán, for they are those whom God
has referred to in the words, ‘whose hearts are given to err.'”

The first reading is the one adopted by the Asháb, the Tábi’ín and the
Taba-i-Tábi’ín and the great majority of Commentators. The Sunnís
generally, and, according to the testimony of Fakr-ud-dín Rází (A.H. 544-606), the Sháfa’í sect are of the same
opinion.

Those who take the opposite view are the Commentators Mujáhid (died
A.H. 101), Rábí’ bin Ans and others. The
scholastic theologians^[108] (Mutakallimán) generally adopt the
latter reading.^[109] They
argued thus: how could men believe what they did not know; to which their
opponents answered, that the act of belief in the unknown is the very
thing here praised by God. The scholastics then enquired why, since the
Qurán was sent to be a guide and direction to men, were not all its
verses muhkam? The answer was, that the Arabs acknowledged two kinds of
eloquence. One kind was to arrange words and ideas in a plain and simple
style so that the meaning might be at once apparent, the other was to
speak in figurative language. Now, if the Qurán had not contained both
these styles of composition, it could not have claimed the position it
does as a book absolutely perfect in form as well as in matter.^[110]

Bearing in mind this fundamental difference of opinion, we can now
pass on to the consideration of the attributes.

[123]

The essential attributes are Life, Knowledge, Power, Will, for without
these the others could not exist. Then the attributes of Hearing, Seeing,
Speech give us a further idea of perfection. These are the
“Sifát-i-Sabútiah,” or affirmative attributes, the privation of which
would imply loss; there are also Sifát-i-Salbiah, or privative
attributes, such as—God has no form, is not limited by place, has
no equal, &c. The acts of sitting, rising, descending, the possession
of face, hands, eyes, &c., being connected with the idea of corporeal
existences imply imperfection and apparently contradict the doctrine of
“exemption” (tenzih) according to which God is, in virtue of His essence,
in no way like the creatures He has made. This was a difficulty, but the
four great Imáms all taught that it was impious to enquire into these
matters for all such allusions were mutashábih. “The Imám Hanbal and
other early divines followed in the path of the early Muslims and said:
‘We believe in the Book and the Sunnat, and do not desire explanations.
We know that the High God is not to be compared to any created object:
nor any creature with Him.'”^[111] Imám As-Sháfa’í said that a man who
enquired into such matters should be tied to a stake, and carried about,
and that the following proclamation should be made before him: “This is
the reward of him who left the Qurán and the Traditions for the study of
scholastic theology.” Imám Hanbal says: “Whosoever moves his hand when he
reads in the Qurán the words, ‘I have created with my hand,’ ought to
have his hand cut off; and whoever stretches forth his finger in
repeating the saying of Muhammad, ‘The heart of the believer is between
two fingers of the Merciful,’ deserves to have his finger cut off.”
At-Tirmízí when consulted about the statement of the Prophet that God had
descended to the lowest of the seven heavens, said: “The descent is
intelligible, the manner how is unknown; the belief therein [124]is obligatory;
and the asking about it is a blameable innovation.” But all such attempts
to restrain discussion and investigation failed.

The two main points in the discussion of this question are (1) whether
the attributes of God are internal or external, whether they are part of
His essence or not, and (2) whether they are eternal or not.

The two leading Sects were the Sifátians (or Attributists) and the
Mutazilites. The Sifátians whom the early orthodox Muslims follow, taught
that the attributes of God are eternally inherent in His essence without
separation or change. Every attribute is conjoined with Him as life with
knowledge, or knowledge with power. They also taught that the mutashábih
verses were not to be explained, and such were those which seemed to show
a resemblance between God and His creatures. So at first they did not
attempt to give the meaning of the terms, “hands, eyes, face, &c.,”
when applied to God. They simply accepted them as they stood. In course
of time, as will be seen, differences of opinion on this point led to
some sub-divisions of this sect.

The Mutazilites were the great opponents of the Sifátians. They
rejected the idea of eternal attributes, saying that eternity was the
formal attribute of the essence of God. “If,” said they, “we admit the
eternal existence of an attribute then we must recognize the multiplicity
of eternal existences.” They also rejected the attributes of hearing,
seeing and speech, as these were accidents proper to corporeal
existences. They looked upon the divine attributes as mental
abstractions, and not as having a real existence in the divine essence.
The Mutazilites were emphatically the Free thinkers of Islám. The origin
of the sect was as follows: Al Hasan, a famous divine, was one day seated
in the Mosque at Basra when a discussion arose on the question whether a
believer who committed a mortal sin became thereby an unbeliever. The
Khárigites (Ante p. 76) [125]affirmed that it was
so. The orthodox denied this, saying that, though guilty of sin, yet that
as he believed rightly he was not an infidel.^[112] One of the scholars Wásil Ibn Atá,
(who was born at Madína A.H. 80), then rose up
and said: “I maintain that a Muslim who has committed a mortal sin should
be regarded neither as a believer nor an unbeliever, but as occupying a
middle station between the two.” He then retired to another part of the
Mosque where he was joined by his friend ‘Umr Ibn Obaid and others. They
resumed the discussion. A learned man, named Katáda, entering the Mosque,
went up to them, but on finding that they were not the party in which Al
Hasan was, said ‘these are the Seceders (Al-Mutazila).’ Al Hasan soon
expelled them from his school. Wásil then founded a school of his own of
which, after the death of his master, ‘Umr Ibn Obaid became the head.

Wásil felt that a believer, though sinful, did not merit the same
degree of punishment as an infidel, and thus starting off on the question
of degrees of punishment, he soon opened up the whole subject of
man’s responsibility and the question of free-will. This soon brought him
into conflict with the orthodox on the subject of predestination and that
again to the subject of the inspiration, the interpretation and the
eternity of the Qurán, and of the divine attributes. His followers
rejected the doctrine of the “divine right” of the Imám, and held that
the entire body of the Faithful had the right to elect the most suitable
person, who need not necessarily be a man of the Quraish tribe, to fill
that office. The principles of logic and the teaching of philosophy were
brought to bear on the precepts of religion. According to Shahrastání the
Mutazilites hold:—

“That God is eternal; and that eternity is the peculiar property of
His essence; but they deny the existence of any eternal attributes (as
distinct from His nature). For they say, He is Omniscient as to [126]His
nature; Living as to His nature; Almighty as to His nature; but not
through any knowledge, power or life existing in Him as eternal
attributes; for knowledge, power and life are part of His essence,
otherwise, if they are to be looked upon as eternal attributes of the
Deity, it will give rise to a multiplicity of eternal entities.”

“They maintain that the knowledge of God is as much within the
province of reason as that of any other entity; that He cannot be beheld
with the corporeal sight; and with the exception of Himself everything
else is liable to change or to suffer extinction. They also maintain that
Justice is the animating principle of human actions: Justice according to
them being the dictates of Reason and the concordance of the ultimate
results of this conduct of man with such dictates.”

“Again, they hold that there is no eternal law as regards human
actions; that the divine ordinances which regulate the conduct of men are
the results of growth and development; that God has commanded and
forbidden, promised and threatened by a law which grew gradually. At the
same time, say they, he who works righteousness merits rewards and he who
works evil deserves punishment. They also say, that all knowledge is
attained through reason, and must necessarily be so obtained. They hold
that the cognition of good and evil is also within the province of
reason; that nothing is known to be right or wrong until reason has
enlightened us as to the distinction; and that thankfulness for the
blessings of the Benefactor is made obligatory by reason, even before the
promulgation of any law upon the subject. They also maintain that man has
perfect freedom; is the author of his actions both good and evil, and
deserves reward or punishment hereafter accordingly.”

During the reigns of the ‘Abbásside Khalífs Mámún, Mutasim and Wathik
(198-232 A.H.) at Baghdád, the Mutazilites were
in high favour at Court, Under the ‘Abbásside dynasty^[113] the ancient Arab Society was
revolutionized, Persians filled the most important offices of State;
Persian doctrines took the place of Arab ones. The orthodox suffered
bitter persecution. The story of that persecution will be told later on.
The Khalíf Wathik at length relented. [127]An old man, heavily
chained, was one day brought into his presence. The prisoner obtained
permission to put a few questions to Ahmad Ibn Abu Dá,úd, a Mutazilite
and the President of the Court of Inquisition. The following dialogue
took place. “Ahmad,” said the prisoner, “what is the dogma which you
desire to have established.” “That the Qurán is created,” replied Ahmad.
“This dogma, then, is without doubt an essential part of religion,
insomuch that the latter cannot without it be said to be complete?”
“Certainly.” “Has the Apostle of God taught this to men or has he left
them free?” “He has left them free.” “Was the Apostle of God acquainted
with this dogma or not?” “He was acquainted with it.” “Wherefore, then,
do you desire to impose a belief regarding which the Apostle of God has
left men free to think as they please?” Ahmad remaining silent, the old
man turned to Wathik and said, “O Prince of Believers, here is my first
position made good.” Then turning to Ahmad, he said, “God has said, ‘This
day have I perfected religion for you, and have filled up the measures of
my favours upon you; and it is my pleasure that Islám be your religion.’
(Súra v. 5). But according to you Islám is not perfected unless we adopt
this doctrine that the Qurán is created. Which now is most worthy of
credence—God, when He declares Islám to be complete and perfect, or
you when you announce the contrary?” Ahmad was still silent. “Prince of
Believers,” said the old man, “there is my second point made good.” He
continued, “Ahmad, how do you explain the following words of God in His
Holy Book?—’O Apostle! proclaim all that hath been sent down to
thee from thy Lord; for if thou dost not, thou hast not proclaimed His
message at all.’ Now this doctrine that you desire to spread among the
Faithful, has the Apostle taught it, or has he abstained from doing so?”
Ahmad remained silent. The old man resumed, “Prince of Believers, such is
my third argument.” Then turning to Ahmad he said: “If the Prophet was
acquainted with the doctrine [128]which you desire to impose upon us, had he
the right to pass by it in silence?” “He had the right.” “And did the
same right appertain to Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán and ‘Ali?” “It did,”
“Prince of Believers,” said the prisoner, “God will, in truth, be severe
on us, if He deprives us of a liberty which He accorded to the Prophet
and his Companions.” The Khalíf assented, and at once restored the old
man to liberty. So ended one of the fiercest persecutions the orthodox
have ever had to endure, but so also ended the attempt to break through
the barriers of traditionalism.^[114] The next Khalíf, Al Mutawakhil, a
ferocious and cruel man, restored the orthodox party to place and power.
He issued a fatva (decree) declaring that the dogma that the Qurán was
created was an utter falsehood. He instituted severe measures against
Christians, Jews, Shía’hs and Mutazilites. Ahmad Ibn Abu Dá,úd was one of
the first to be disgraced. Heresy and latitudinarianism were
banished.

The final blow to the Mutazilites, however, came not from the Khalíf
but a little later on from Abu Hasan-al-Ash’arí (270-340 A.H.)

The Mutazilites expelled from power in Baghdád, still flourished at
Basra where one day the following incident occurred. Abu ‘Alí Al-Jubbai,
a Mutazilite doctor, was lecturing to his students when Al-Ash’arí
propounded the following case to his master: “There were three brothers,
one of whom was a true believer, virtuous and pious; the second an
infidel, a debauchee and a reprobate; and the third an infant; they all
died. What became of them?” Al-Jubbai answered: “The virtuous brother
holds a high station in Paradise, the infidel is in the depths of hell,
and the child is among those who have obtained salvation.” [129]“Suppose now,”
said Al-Ash’arí, “that the child should wish to ascend to the place
occupied by his virtuous brother, would he be allowed to do so?” “No,”
replied Al-Jubbai, “it would be said to him: ‘thy brother arrived at this
place through His numerous works of obedience to God, and thou hast no
such works to set forward.'” “Suppose then,” said Al-Ash’arí, “that the
child should say: ‘this is not my fault, you did not let me live long
enough, neither did you give me the means of proving my obedience.'” “In
that case,” said Al-Jubbai, “the Almighty would say: ‘I knew that if I
allowed thee to live, thou wouldest have been disobedient and have
incurred the punishment of hell: I acted, therefore, for thy advantage.'”
“Well,” said Al-Ash’arí, “and suppose the infidel brother were here to
say: ‘O God of the Universe! since Thou knowest what awaited him, Thou
must have known what awaited me; why then didst Thou act for his
advantage and not for mine?'”^[115] Al-Jubbai was silent, though very
angry with his pupil, who was now convinced that the Mutazilite dogma of
man’s free-will was false, and that God elects some for mercy and some
for punishment without any motive whatever. Disagreeing with his teacher
on this point, he soon began to find other points of difference, and soon
announced his belief that the Qurán was not created. This occurred on a
Friday in the Great Mosque at Basra. Seated in his chair he cried out in
a loud voice: “They who know me know who I am; as for those who do not
know me I shall tell them; I am ‘Alí Ibn Ismá’íl Al-Ash’arí, and I used
to hold that the Qurán was created, that the eyes (of men) shall not see
God, and that we ourselves are the authors of our evil deeds; now, I have
returned to the truth: I renounce these opinions, and I take the
engagement to refute the Mutazilites and expose their infamy and
turpitude.”^[116]

He then, adopting scholastic methods, started a school of [130]thought of
his own, which was in the main a return to orthodoxy. The Ash’arían
doctrines differ slightly from the tenets of the Sifátians of which sect
Al-Ash’arí’s disciples form a branch. The Ash’aríans hold—

(i.) That the attributes of God are distinct from His essence, yet in
such a way as to forbid any comparison being made between God and His
creatures. They say they are not “‘ain nor ghair:” not of
His essence, nor distinct from it: i.e., they cannot be compared
with any other things.

(ii.) That God has one eternal will from which proceed all things, the
good and the evil, the useful and the hurtful. The destiny of man was
written on the eternal table before the world was created. So far they go
with the Sifátians, but in order to preserve the moral responsibility of
man they say that he has power to convert will into action. But this
power cannot create anything new for then God’s sovereignty would be
impaired; so they say that God in His providence so orders matters that
whenever “a man desires to do a certain thing, good or bad, the action
corresponding to the desire is, there and then, created by God, and, as
it were, fitted on to the desire.” Thus it seems as if it came naturally
from the will of the man, whereas it does not. This action is called Kasb
(acquisition) because it is acquired by a special creative act of God. It
is an act directed to the obtaining of profit, or the removing of injury:
the term is, therefore, inapplicable to the Deity. Abu Bakr-al-Bakillání,
a disciple of Al-Ash’arí, says: “The essence or substance of the action
is the effect of the power of God, but its being an action of obedience,
such as prayer, or an action of disobedience, such as fornication, are
qualities of the action, which proceed from the power of man.” The Imám
Al-Haramain (419-478 A.H.) held “that the
actions of men were effected by the power which God has created in man.”
Abu Isháq al Isfarayain says: “That which maketh impression, or hath
influence on action, is a compound of the power of God and the power of
man.” [131]

(iii.) They say that the word of God is eternal, though they
acknowledge that the vocal sounds used in the Qurán, which is the
manifestation of that word, are created. They say, in short, that the
Qurán contains (1) the eternal word which existed in the essence of God
before time was; and (2) the word which consists of sounds and
combinations of letters. This last they call the created word.

Thus Al-Ash’arí traversed the main positions of the Mutazilites,
denying that man can by the aid of his reason alone rise to the knowledge
of good and evil. He must exercise no judgment but accept all that is
revealed. He has no right to apply the moral laws which affect men to the
actions of God. It cannot be asserted by the human reason that the good
will be rewarded, or the bad punished in a future world. Man must always
approach God as a slave, in whom there is no light or knowledge to judge
of the actions of the Supreme. Whether God will accept the penitent
sinner or not cannot be asserted, for He is an absolute Sovereign, above
all law.^[117]

The opinions of the more irrational sub-divisions of the Sifátians
need not be entered into at any length.

The Mushábihites (or Assimilators), interpreting some of the
mutashábih verses literally, held that there is a resemblance between God
and His creatures; and that the Deity is capable of local motion, of
ascending, descending, &c. These they called “declarative
attributes.” The Mujassimians (or Corporealists) declared God to be
corporeal, by which some of them meant, a self-subsisting body, whilst
others declared the Deity to be finite. They are acknowledged to be
heretics.

[132]

The Jabríans gave great prominence to the denial of free agency in
man, and thus opposed the Mutazilites, who in this respect are Kadríans,
that is, they deny “Al-Kadr,” God’s absolute sovereignty, and recognize
free will in man.

These and various other sub-divisions are not now of much importance.
The Sunnís follow the teaching of Al-Ash’arí, whilst the Shí’ahs incline
to that of the Mutazilites.

Connected with the subject of the attributes of God is that of the
names to be used when speaking of Him. All sects agree in this, that the
names “The Living, the Wise, the Powerful, the Hearer, the Seer, the
Speaker,” &c., are to be applied to God; but the orthodox belief is
that all such names must be “tauqífi,” that is dependent on some
revelation. Thus it is not lawful to apply a name to God expressive of
one of His attributes, unless there is some statement made, or order
given by Muhammad to legalize it. God is rightly called Sháfí (Healer),
but He cannot be called Tabíb which means much the same thing, for the
simple reason that the word Tabíb is never applied in the Qurán or the
Traditions to God. In like manner the term ‘Álim (Knower) is lawful, but
not so the expression ‘Áqil (Wise). The Mutazilites say that if, in the
Qurán or Traditions, there is any praise of an attribute, then the
adjective formed from the name of that attribute can be applied to God
even though the actual word does not occur in any revelation. Al-Ghazzálí
(A.H. 450-505), who gave in the East the
death-blow to the Muslim philosophers, says: “The names of God not given
in the Law, if expressive of His glory, may be used of Him, but only as
expressive of His attributes, not of His nature.” On the ground that it
does not occur in the Law, the Persian word “Khuda” has been objected to,
an objection which also holds good with regard to the use of such terms
as God, Dieu, Gott, &c. To this it is answered, that as “Khuda” means
“one who comes by himself” it is equivalent to the term Wájib-ul-Wajúd,
[133]“one who has necessary existence,” and
therefore so long as it is not considered as the “Ism-i-Zát (name of His
nature) it may with propriety be used.”^[118]

The current belief now seems to be that the proper name equal to the
term Alláh, current in a language, can be used, provided always that such
a name is not taken from the language of the Infidels; so God, Dieu,
&c, still remain unlawful. The names of God authorised by the Qurán
and Traditions are, exclusive of the term Alláh, ninety-nine in number.
They are called the Asmá-i-Husná^[119] (noble names); but in addition to
these there are many synonyms used on the authority of Ijmá’. Such are
Hanán, equal to Rahím (Merciful) and Manán, “one who puts another under
an obligation.” In the Tafsír-i-Bahr it is stated that there are three
thousand names of God; one thousand of which are known to angels; one
thousand to prophets; whilst one thousand are thus distributed,
viz., in the Pentateuch there are three hundred, in the Psalms
three hundred, in the Gospels three hundred, in the Qurán ninety-nine,
and one still hidden.

The following texts of the Qurán are adduced to prove the nature of
the divine attributes:—

(1). Life. “There is no God but He, the Living, the Eternal.” (Súra
ii. 256). “Put thy trust in Him that liveth and dieth not.” (Súra xxv.
60).

(2). Knowledge. “Dost thou not see that God knoweth all that is in the
heavens, and all that is in the earth.” (Súra lviii. 8). “With Him are
the keys of the secret things; none knoweth them but He: He knoweth
whatever is on the land and in the sea; and no leaf falleth but He
knoweth it; neither is there a grain in the darknesses of the earth, nor
a thing green or sere, but it is noted in a distinct writing.” (Súra vi.
59).

[134]

(3). Power. “If God pleased, of their ears and of their eyes would He
surely deprive them. Verily God is Almighty.” (Súra ii. 19). “Is He not
powerful enough to quicken the dead.” (Súra lxxv. 40). “God hath power
over all things.” (Súra iii. 159.)

(4). Will. “God is worker of that He willeth.” (Súra lxxxv. 16). “But
if God pleased, He would surely bring them, one and all, to the
guidance.” (Súra vi. 35). “God misleadeth whom He will, and whom He will
He guideth—God doeth His pleasure.” (Súra xiv. 4, 32).

As this attribute is closely connected with the article of the Creed
which refers to Predestination, the different opinions regarding it will
be stated under that head.

There has never been any difference of opinion as to the existence of
these four attributes so clearly described in the Qurán: the difference
is with regard to the mode of their existence and their operation. There
is, first, the ancient Sifátian doctrine that the attributes are eternal
and of the essence of God: secondly, the Mutazilite theory that they are
not eternal; and, thirdly, the Ash’arían dogma that they are eternal, but
distinct from His essence.

There is also great difference of opinion with regard to the next
three attributes—hearing, sight, speech. For the existence of the
two first of these the following verses are quoted, “He truly heareth and
knoweth all things.” (Súra xliv. 5). “No vision taketh in Him, but He
taketh in all vision.” (Súra vi. 103).

The use of the terms sitting, rising, &c., hands, face, eyes, and
so on, gave rise as I have shown to several sub-divisions of the
Sifátians. Al-Ghazzálí says: “He sits upon His throne after that manner
which He has Himself described and in that sense which He Himself means,
which is a sitting far remote from any notion of contact or resting upon,
or local situation.” This is the Ash’arían idea, but between the
Ash’aríans and those who fell into the error of the [135]Mujassimians,^[120] there was another school. The
followers of Imám Ibn Hanbal say that such words represent the attributes
existing in God. The words “God sits on His throne” mean that He has the
power of sitting. Thus, they say, “We keep the literal meaning of the
words, we allow no figurative interpretation. To do so is to introduce a
dangerous principle of interpretation, for the negation of the apparent
sense of a passage may tend to weaken the authority of revelation. At the
same time we do not pretend to explain the act, for it is written: ‘There
is none like unto Him.’ (Súra cxii.) ‘Nought is there like Him.’ (Súra
xlii. 9.) ‘Unworthy the estimate they form of God.'” (Súra xxii. 73.) To
prove that God occupies a place they produce the following Tradition:
“Ibn-al-Hákim wished to give liberty to a female slave Saouda and
consulted the Prophet about it. Muhammad said to her, ‘Where is God?’ ‘In
heaven,’ she replied. ‘Set her at liberty, she is a true believer.'” Not,
say the Commentators, because she believed that God occupied a place but
because she took the words in their literal signification. The Shí’ahs
consider it wrong to attribute to God movement, quiescence, &c, for
these imply the possession of a body. They hold, too, in opposition to
the orthodox that God will never be seen, for that which is seen is
limited by space.

The seventh attribute—speech—has been fruitful of a very
long and important controversy connected with the nature of the Qurán,
for the word “Kalám” means not mere speech, but revelation and every
other mode of communicating intelligence. Al-Ghazzálí says:—

“He doth speak, command, forbid, promise, and threaten by an eternal
ancient word, subsisting in His essence. Neither is it like to the word
of the creatures, nor doth it consist in a voice arising from the
commotion of the air and the collision of bodies, nor letters [136]which are
separated by the joining together of the lips or the motion of the
tongue. The Qurán, the Law, the Gospel and the Psalter are books sent
down by Him to His Apostles, and the Qurán, indeed, is read with tongues
written in books, and is kept in hearts; yet, as subsisting in the
essence of God, it doth not become liable to separation and division
whilst it is transferred into the hearts and on to paper. Thus Moses also
heard the word of God without voice or letter, even as the saints behold
the essence of God without substance or accident.”

The orthodox believe that God is really a speaker: the Mutazilites
deny this, and say that He is only called a speaker because He is the
originator of words and sounds.

They also bring the following objections to bear against the doctrine
of the eternity of the Qurán. (1) It is written in Arabic, it descended,
is read, is heard, and is written. It was the subject of a miracle. It is
divided into parts and some verses are abrogated by others. (2) Events
are described in the past tense, but if the Qurán had been eternal the
future tense would have been used. (3) The Qurán contains commands and
prohibitions; if it is eternal who were commanded and who were
admonished? (4) If it has existed from eternity it must exist to
eternity, and so even in the last day, and in the next world, men will be
under the obligation of performing the same religious duties as they do
now, and of keeping all the outward precepts of the law. (5) If the Qurán
is eternal, then there are two eternals.

The position thus assailed was not at first a hard and fast dogma of
Islám. It was more a speculative opinion than anything else, but the
opposition of the Mutazilites soon led all who wished to be considered
orthodox to become not only stout assertors of the eternity of the Qurán,
but to give up their lives in defence of what they believed to be true.
The Mutazilites by asserting the subjective nature of the Quránic
inspiration brought the book itself within the reach of criticism. This
was too much for orthodox Islám to bear even though the Khalíf Mámún in
the [137]year 212 A.H.
issued a fatva declaring that all who asserted the eternity of the Qurán
were guilty of heresy. Some six years after this, the Imám Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal was severely beaten, and then imprisoned because he refused to
assent to the truth of the decree issued by the Khalíf. Al Buwaiti, a
famous disciple of As-Sháfa’í, used an ingenious argument to fortify his
own mind when being punished by the order of the Khalíf. He was taken all
the way from Cairo to Baghdád and told to confess that the Qurán was
created. On his refusal, he was imprisoned at Baghdád and there remained
in chains till the day of his death. As Ar-Rábí Ibn Sulaimán says: “I saw
Al Buwaiti mounted on a mule: round his neck was a wooden collar, on his
legs were fetters, from these to the collar extended an iron chain to
which was attached a clog weighing fifty pounds. Whilst they led him on
he continued repeating these words, ‘Almighty God created the world by
means of the word Be! Now, if that word was created, one created
thing would have created another.'”^[121] Al Buwaiti here refers to the verse,
“Verily our speech unto a thing when we will the same, is that we only
say to it, ‘Be,’ and it is,—Kun fayakúna.” (Súra xxxvi. 82). This,
in the way Al Buwaiti applied it, is a standing argument of the orthodox
to prove the eternity of the Qurán.

When times changed men were put to death for holding the opposite
opinion. The Imám As-Sháfa’í held a public disputation in Baghdád with
Hafs, a Mutazilite preacher, on this very point. Sháfa’í quoted the
verse, “God said be, and it was,” and asked, “Did not God create
all things by the word be?” Hafs assented. “If then the Qurán was
created, must not the word be have been created with it?” Hafs
could not deny so plain a proposition. “Then,” said Sháfa’í, “All things,
according to you, were created by a created being, which is a gross
inconsistency and manifest [138]impiety.” Hafs was reduced to silence, and
such an effect had Sháfa’í’s logic on the audience that they put Hafs to
death as a pestilent heretic. Thus did the Ash’arían opinions on the
subject of the Divine attributes again gain the mastery.^[122]

The Mutazilites failed, and the reason why is plain. They were, as a
rule, influenced by no high spiritual motives; often they were mere
quibblers. They sought no light in an external revelation. Driven to a
reaction by the rigid system they combated, they would have made reason
alone their chief guide. The nobler spirits among them were impotent to
regenerate the faith they professed to follow. It was, however, a great
movement, and at one time, it threatened to change the whole nature of
Islám. This period of Muslim history, famed as that in which the effort
was made to cast off the fetters of the rigid system which Islám was
gradually tightening by the increased authority given to traditionalism,
and to the refinements of the four Imáms, was undoubtedly a period of,
comparatively speaking, high civilization. Baghdád, the capital of the
Khalífate, was a busy, populous, well-governed city. This it mainly owed
to the influence of the Persian family of the Barmecides, one of whom was
Vizier to the Khalíf Hárún-ur-Rashíd. Hárún’s fame as a good man is quite
undeserved. It is true that he was a patron of learning, that his Empire
was extensive, that he gained many victories, that his reign was the
culminating point of Arab grandeur. But for all that, he was a morose
despot, a cruel man, thoroughly given up to pleasures of a very
questionable nature. Drunkenness and debauchery were common at court.
Plots and intrigues were ever at work. Such was the state of one of the
greatest, if not the greatest, periods [139]of Muslim rule. This,
too, was at a time most favourable for the development of any good which
Islám might have possessed. It should be remembered that whatever glory
is rightly attached to this period is connected with an epoch when heresy
was specially prevalent, when orthodoxy was weak in Baghdád. The culture
of the time was in spite of, not on account of, the influence of orthodox
Islám.

2. Angels.—Of this article of the creed
Muhammad Al-Berkevi says:—

“We must confess that God has angels who act according to His order
and who do not rebel against Him. They neither eat nor drink, nor is
there amongst them any difference of sex. Some are near the throne of
God; those are His messengers. Each one has his particular work. Some are
on earth, some in heaven, some are always standing, some always prostrate
themselves and some laud and praise God. Others have charge of men and
record all their actions. Some angels are high in stature and are
possessed of great power. Such an one is Gabriel (Jibrá,íl) who in the
space of one hour can descend from heaven to earth, and who with one wing
can lift up a mountain.

We must believe in ‘Izrá,íl who receives the souls of men when they
die, and in Isráfíl into whose charge is committed the trumpet. This
trumpet he has actually in his hand, and placed to his mouth ready to
blow when God gives the order. When he receives that order he will blow
such a terrible blast that all living things will die.^[123] This is the commencement of the last
day. The world will remain in this state of death forty years. Then God
Most High will revive Isráfíl who will blow a second blast, at the sound
of which all the dead will rise to life.”^[124]

This confession of faith makes no mention of Míká,íl (Michael), the
fourth of the archangels. His special duty is to see that all created
beings have what is needful for them. He has charge of the rain-fall,
plants, grain and all that is required for the sustenance of men, beasts,
fishes, &c. Gabriel’s special charge is the communication of God’s
will to prophets. The words “one terrible in power” (Súra liii. 5) [140]are
generally applied to him. He is honoured with the privilege of nearness
to God. Tradition says that on the night of the Mi’ráj, the Prophet saw
that Gabriel had six hundred wings, and that his body was so large that
from one shoulder to the other the distance was so great that a swift
flying bird would require five hundred years to pass over it.

Nine-tenths of all created beings are said to be angels who are formed
of light. Their rank is stationary, and each is content with the position
he occupies. Their one desire is to love and to know God. Whatever he
commands they do. “All beings in the heaven and on the earth are His: and
they who are in His presence disdain not His service, neither are they
wearied: they praise Him day and night.” (Súra xxi. 19, 20.) They are
free from all sin.^[125]
It is true that they did not wish for the creation of Adam, and this may
seem like a want of confidence in God. It is said, however, that their
object was not to oppose God, but to relieve their minds of the doubts
they had in the matter. Thus “when the Lord said to the angels, ‘Verily,
I am about to place one in my stead on earth,’ they said: ‘Wilt Thou
place there one who will do ill therein, and shed blood when we celebrate
thy praise and extol thy holiness.’ God said: ‘Verily I know what ye know
not.'” It is true that Iblís was disobedient, but then he belonged not to
the angelic order but to that of the jinn. “When we said to the angels,
‘prostrate yourselves before Adam,’ they all prostrated themselves save
Iblís, who was of the jinn, and revolted from his Lord’s behest.” (Súra
xviii. 48.) (See also Súra ii. 33.)

Angels appear in human form on special occasions, but usually they are
invisible. It is a common belief that animals can see angels and devils.
This accounts for the saying, “If you hear a cock crow, pray for mercy,
for it has seen an angel; but if you hear an ass bray, take refuge with
God, for it has seen a devil.”

[141]

The angels intercede for man: “The angels celebrate the praise of
their Lord and ask forgiveness for the dwellers on earth.” (Súra xlii.
3.) They also act as guardian angels: “Each hath a succession of angels
before him and behind him who watch over him by God’s behest.” (Súra
xiii. 12.) “Is it not enough for you that your Lord aideth you with three
thousand angels sent down from on high?” (Súra iii. 120.) “Supreme over
His servants He sendeth forth guardians who watch over you, until when
death overtaketh any one of you our messengers take his soul and fail
not.” (Súra vi. 61.)

In the Traditions it is said that God has appointed for every man two
angels to watch over him by day, and two by night. The one stands on the
right hand side of the man, the other on his left. Some, however, say
that they reside in the teeth, and that the tongue of the man is the pen
and the saliva of the mouth the ink.^[126] They protect the actions of men and
record them all whether good or bad. They are called the Mua’qqibát,
i.e., those who succeed one another. They also bear the name of
Kirám-ul-Kátibín, “the exalted writers.” They are referred to in the
Qurán. “Think they that we hear not their secrets and their private talk?
Yes, and our angels who are at their sides write them down.” (Súra xliii.
80).

There are eight angels who support the throne of God. “And the angels
shall be on its sides, and over them on that day eight shall bear up the
throne of thy Lord.” (Súra lxix. 17). Nineteen have charge of hell. “Over
it are nineteen. None but angels have we made guardians of the fire.”
(Súra lxxiv. 30).

There is a special arrangement made by Providence to mitigate the
evils of Satanic interference. “Iblís,” says Jábir Maghrabí, “though able
to assume all other forms is not permitted to appear in the semblance of
the Deity, or [142]any of His angels, or prophets. There
would otherwise be much danger to human salvation, as he might, under the
appearance of one of the prophets, or of some superior being, make use of
this power to seduce men to sin. To prevent this, whenever he attempts to
assume such forms, fire comes down from heaven and repulses him.”

The story of Hárút and Márút is of some interest from its connection
with the question of the impeccability of the angels. Speaking of those
who reject God’s Apostle the Qurán says: “And they followed what the
Satans read in the reign of Solomon; not that Solomon was unbelieving,
but the Satans were unbelieving. Sorcery did they teach to men, and what
had been revealed to the two angels Hárút and Márút at Bábel. Yet no man
did these two teach until they had said, ‘We are only a temptation. Be
not thou an unbeliever.'” (Súra ii. 96). Here it is quite clear that two
angels teach sorcery, which is generally allowed to be an evil. Some
explanation has to be given. Commentators are by no means reticent on
this subject. The story goes that in the time of the prophet Enoch when
the angels saw the bad actions of men they said: “O Lord! Adam and his
descendants whom Thou has appointed as Thy vice-regents on earth act
disobediently.” To which the Lord replied: “If I were to send you on
earth, and to give you lustful and angry dispositions, you too would
sin.” The angels thought otherwise; so God told them to select two of
their number who should undergo this ordeal. They selected two, renowned
for devotion and piety. God having implanted in them the passions of lust
and anger said: “All day go to and fro on the earth, put an end to the
quarrels of men, ascribe no equal to Me, do not commit adultery, drink no
wine, and every night repeat the Ism-ul-A’zam, the exalted name (of God)
and return to heaven.” This they did for some time, but at length a
beautiful woman named Zuhra (Venus) led them astray. One day she brought
them a cup of wine. One said: [143]“God has forbidden it;” the other, “God is
merciful and forgiving.” So they drank the wine, killed the husband of
Zuhra, to whom they revealed the “exalted name,” and fell into grievous
sin. Immediately after, they found that the “name” had gone from their
memories and so they could not return to heaven as usual. They were very
much concerned at this and begged Enoch to intercede for them. The
prophet did so, and with such success that the angels were allowed to
choose between a present or a future punishment. They elected to be
punished here on earth. They were then suspended with their heads
downwards in a well at Bábel. Some say that angels came and whipped them
with rods of fire, and that a fresh spring ever flowed just beyond the
reach of their parched lips. The woman was changed to a star. Some assert
that it was a shooting star which has now passed out of existence. Others
say that she is the star Venus.

It is only right to state that the Qází ‘Ayáz, Imám Fakhr-ud-dín Rází
(544-606 A.H.), Qází Násir-ud-dín Baidaví
(620-691 A.H.) and most scholastic divines deny
the truth of this story. They say that angels are immaculate, but it is
plain that this does not meet the difficulty which the Qurán itself
raises in connection with Hárút and Márút. They want to know how beings
in such a state can teach, and whether it is likely that men would have
the courage to go near such a horrible scene. As to the woman, they think
the whole story absurd, not only because the star Venus was created
before the time of Adam, but also because it is inconceivable that one
who was so wicked should have the honour of shining in heaven for ever. A
solution, however, they are bound to give, and it is this. Magic is a
great art which God must allow mankind to know. The dignity of the order
of prophets is so great that they cannot teach men what is confessedly
hurtful. Two angels were therefore sent, and so men can now distinguish
between the miracles of prophets, the signs of [144]saints, the wonders of
magicians and others. Then Hárút and Márút always discouraged men from
learning magic. They said to those who came to them: “We are only a
temptation. Be not thou an unbeliever.” Others assert that it is a Jewish
allegory in which the two angels represent reason and benevolence, the
woman the evil appetites. The woman’s ascent to heaven represents
death.

To this solution of the difficulty, however, the great body of the
Traditionists do not agree. They declare that the story is a
Hadís-i-Sahíh, and that the Isnád is sound and good. I name only a few of
the great divines who hold this view. They are Imám Ibn Hanbal, Ibn
Ma’súd, Ibn ‘Umr, Ibn ‘Abbás, Háfiz ‘Asqallání^[127] and others. Jelál-ud-din Syútí in his
commentary the Dúrr-i-Mashúr, has given all the Traditions in order and,
though there is some variety in the details, the general purport accords
with the narrative as I have related it. The Traditionists answer the
objections of the Scholastics thus. They say that angels are immaculate
only so long as they remain in the angelic state; that, though confined,
Hárút and Márút can teach magic, for a word or two is quite sufficient
for that purpose; that some men have no fear and, if they have, it is
quite conceivable that the two angels may teach through the
instrumentality of devils or jinn. With regard to the woman Zuhra they
grant that to be changed into a bright star is of the nature of a reward;
but they say the desire to learn the “exalted name” was so meritorious an
act that the good she desired outweighs the evil she did. With regard to
the date of the creation of the star Venus, it is said that all our
astronomical knowledge is based on observations made since the Flood,
whereas this story relates to the times of Enoch who lived before the
days of Noah. So the dispute goes on and men of great repute for learning
and knowledge believe in the story.

[145]

Munkir and Nakír are two fierce-looking black angels with blue eyes
who visit every man in his grave, and examine him with regard to his
faith in God and in Muhammad. The dead are supposed to dwell in
‘Álam-i-barzakh, a state of existence intervening between the present
life and the life of mankind after the resurrection.^[128] This is the meaning of the word
“grave” when used in this connection. Unbelievers and wicked Muslims
suffer trouble in that state; true believers who can give a good answer
to the angels are happy. Some suppose that a body of angels are appointed
for this purpose and that some of them bear the name of Munkir, and some
that of Nakír and that, just as each man has two recording angels during
his lifetime, two from this class are appointed to examine him after
death. There is a difference of opinion with regard to children. The
general belief is that the children of believers will be questioned, but
that the angels will teach them to say: “Alláh is my Lord, Islám my
religion, and Muhammad my Prophet.” With regard to the children of
unbelievers being questioned, Imám Abu Hanífa hesitated to give an
opinion. He also doubted about their punishment. Some think they will be
in A’ráf, a place between heaven and hell; others suppose that they will
be servants to the true believers in Paradise.

Distinct from the angels there is another order of beings made of fire
called jinn (genii.) It is said that they were created thousands of years
before Adam came into existence. “We created man of dried clay, of dark
loam moulded, and the jinn had been before created of subtle fire.” (Súra
xv. 26, 27.) They eat, drink, propagate their species and are subject to
death, though they generally live many centuries. They dwell chiefly in
the Koh-i-Káf, a chain of mountains supposed to encompass the world:^[129] [146]some are believers in
Islám; some are infidels, and will be punished. “I will wholly fill hell
with jinn and men.” (Súra xi. 120.) The Súra called Súrat-ul-Jinn
(lxxii.) refers to their belief in Islám. The passage is too long to
quote. They try to hear^[130] what is going on in heaven. “We guard
them (i.e., men) from every stoned Satan, save such as steal a
hearing.” (Súra xv. 18.) They were under the power of Solomon and served
him. (Súra xxxviii. 36.) An ‘Ifrít of the jinn said, “I will bring it
thee (Solomon) ere thou risest from thy place: I have power for this and
am trusty.” (Súra xxvii. 39.) At the last day the jinn also will be
questioned. Imám Hanífa doubted whether the jinn who are Muslims will be
rewarded. The unbelieving jinn will assuredly be punished. Tradition
classifies them in the following order: (1) Jánn, (2) Jinn, (3) Shaitán,
(4) ‘Ifrít, (5) Márid. Many fables have been invented concerning these
beings, and though intelligent Muslims may doubt these wonderful
accounts, yet a belief in the order of jinn is imperative, at least, as
long as there is belief in the Qurán. Those who wish to know more of this
subject will find a very interesting chapter on it in Lane’s Modern
Egyptians.

3. The Books.—Al Berkevi
says:—

“It is necessary to believe that the books of God have been sent
through the instrumentality of Gabriel, to prophets upon the earth. The
books are never sent except to prophets. The Qurán was sent to Muhammad
portion by portion during a space of 23 years. The Pentateuch came to
Moses, the Injíl to Jesus, the Zabúr to David, and the other books to
other prophets. The whole number of the Divine books is 104. The Qurán,
the last of all, is to be followed till the day of judgment. It can
neither be abrogated nor changed. Some laws of the previous books have
been abrogated by the Qurán and ought not to be followed.”

The one hundred and four books were sent from heaven in the following
order:—To Adam, ten; to Seth, fifty; to Enoch (Idris), thirty; to
Abraham, ten; to Moses, the [147]Taurát (Pentateuch); to David, the Zabúr
(Psalms); to Jesus, the Injíl; to Muhammad, the Qurán. The one hundred to
which no distinctive name is given are known as the
“Suhúf-ul-Anbiya,”—Books of the Prophets. The Qurán is also known
as the Furqán, the distinguisher; the Qurán-i-Sharíf, noble Qurán; the
Quran-i-Majíd, glorious Qurán; the Mushaf, the Book. It is said to be the
compendium of the Taurát, Zabúr and Injíl^[131]; so Muslims do not require to study
these books.^[132] The
orthodox belief is that they are entirely abrogated by the Qurán,^[133] though Syed Ahmad
denounces as ignorant and foolish those Musalmáns who say so.^[134] Be that as it may,
their inspiration is considered to be of a lower order than that of the
Qurán. A large [148]portion of the Injíl is considered to be
mere narrative. The actual words of Christ only are looked upon as the
revelation which descended from heaven. It is so in the case of the Old
Testament Prophets. “However, it was the rule to call a book by the name
of the prophet, whether the subject-matter was pure doctrine only, or
whether it was mixed up with narrative also.” “It is to be observed that,
in the case of our own Prophet, the revelations made to him were intended
to impart a special miracle of eloquence and they were written down,
literally and exactly, in the form in which they were communicated
without any narrative being inserted in them.”^[135] The writings of the Apostles are not
considered to be inspired books. “We do not consider that the Acts of the
Apostles, or the various Epistles, although unquestionably very good
books, are to be taken as part and parcel of the New Testament itself;
nevertheless we look upon the writings of the Apostles in the same light
as we do the writings of the Companions of our own Prophet; that is to
say, as entitled to veneration and respect.”^[136] There are many verses in the Qurán
which speak of previous revelations, thus: “We also caused Jesus, the son
of Mary, to follow the footsteps of the prophets, confirming the law
(Taurát) which was sent before him, and we gave him the Injíl with its
guidance and light, confirmatory of the preceding law; a guidance and a
warning to those that fear God.” (Súra v. 50). “We believe in God, and
that which hath been sent down to us, and that which hath been sent down
to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which hath been
given to Moses and to Jesus, and that which was given to the prophets
from their Lord. No difference do we make between any of them: and to God
are we resigned.” (Súra ii. 130). “In truth hath He sent down to thee the
Book, which confirmeth those that precede it, for He had sent down the
[149]Law and the Injíl aforetime, as man’s
guidance; and now hath He sent down the Furqán.” (Súra iii. 2).^[137]

Practically, Musalmáns reject the Old and New Testaments. To do so is
manifestly against the letter of the Qurán, and, as some reason for this
neglect of previous Scriptures must be given, Muslim divines say that the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted. The technical
expression is “tahríf,” a word signifying, to change, to turn aside
anything from the truth. Then tahríf may be of two kinds,
tahríf-i-m’anaví, a change in the meaning of words; tahríf-i-lafzí, an
actual change of the written words. Most Musalmáns maintain that the
latter kind of corruption has taken place, and so they do not feel bound
to read or study the previous revelations so frequently referred to in
the Qurán. The charge brought against the Jews of corrupting their
Scriptures is based on the following verse of the Qurán: “Some truly are
there among you who torture the Scriptures with their tongues, in order
that ye may suppose it to be from the Scripture, yet it is not from the
Scripture. And they say: ‘this is from God,’ yet it is not from God; and
they utter a lie against God, and they know they do so.” (Súra iii. 72.)
All the ancient commentators assert that this only proved
tahríf-i-m’anaví; that is, that the Jews referred to either
misinterpreted what they read, or, whilst professing to read from the
Scripture, used expressions not found therein. It does not mean that they
altered the text of their Scriptures. This, however, does not excuse
Musalmáns for their neglect of the previous Scriptures, and so the
orthodox divines of modern times maintain that the greater
corruption—the tahríf-i-lafzí, has taken place. The question is
fully discussed, and the opinion of the earlier commentators endorsed by
Syed Ahmad in his Commentary on the Bible.^[138]

[150]

4. Prophets.—Muhammad Al Berkevi
says:—

“It is necessary to confess that God has sent prophets; that Adam is
the first of the prophets and the father of all men; that Muhammad is the
last of the prophets; that between Adam and Muhammad there were a great
number of prophets; that Muhammad is the most excellent of all and that
his people are the best of all peoples; that each of the preceding
prophets was sent to a special people, some with books, some without, but
that Muhammad was sent to all men and also to the genii; that his law
will remain until the end of the world, that his miracles are many in
number, that by his blessed finger he made waters flow, that he divided
the moon into two parts, that animals, trees, and stones said to him:
‘Thou art a true prophet.’

We must also believe that one night he was transported from Mecca to
Jerusalem, and from thence to heaven, where he saw both paradise and
hell, conversed with the Most High and returned to Mecca before morning.
After him no other prophet will come, for he is the seal of the
prophets.”

The number of prophets sent by God to make known His will varies
according to the Tradition which records it. About two hundred thousand
is the usual number stated. Twenty-five are mentioned by name in the
Qurán, of whom six are distinguished by special titles. Adam, Sufi Ulláh,
the chosen of God; Noah, Nabí Ulláh, the prophet of God; Abraham, Khalíl
Ulláh, the friend of God; Moses, Kalím Ulláh, the speaker with God;
Jesus, Rúh Ulláh, the spirit of God; Muhammad, Rasúl Ulláh, the messenger
of God. These are called the Anbiya-ulul-‘Azm (possessors of purpose)
because they were the heads of their respective dispensations, and
because they will be permitted by God to intercede in the day of judgment
for their followers. They are the greatest and most exalted of the
prophets.^[139]

There are degrees of rank amongst the prophets, for “Some of the
Apostles have We endowed more highly than others. Those to whom God hath
spoken, He hath raised to the loftiest grade, and to Jesus, the Son of
Mary We gave [151]manifest signs, and We strengthened him
with the Holy Spirit.” (Súra ii. 254). The Anbiya-ulul-‘Azm are ranked in
the following order: Noah, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and as the chief of all,
Muhammad, of whom it is said: “He is the Apostle of God and the seal of
the prophets.” (Súra xxxiii. 40).

A Tradition, as usual, supports his position. “I am the chief of the
sons of men.” “Adam and all beside him will be ranged under my flag in
the judgment day.”^[140]
It is said that the law given by Moses was harsh and severe; that by
Christ was mild and gracious; but that the law given by Muhammad is
perfect, for it combines both the quality of strictness and that of
graciousness; according to the Tradition: “I always laugh and by laughing
kill.”^[141] Each prophet
is said to have been sent to his own tribe, but Muhammad was sent for all
men. A Tradition is adduced to support this statement: “I was raised up
for all men whether white or black, other prophets were not except for
their own tribe.” The Qurán also states: “We have sent thee (Muhammad)
for all men.”

There is some difference of opinion as to whether the prophets are
superior to the angels. The Hanífites hold that the prophets amongst men
are superior to the prophets amongst angels, who in their turn are
superior to the ordinary run of men, to whom again the angels, other than
prophets, are inferior. The Mutazilites say that the angels are superior
to the prophets. The Shía’hs assert that the twelve Imáms are superior to
prophets.

The way in which Muhammad received inspiration has been shown in a
previous chapter; but Ibn Khaldoun gives such an interesting account of
prophetic inspiration that I give the substance of his remarks here. He
speaks somewhat as follows.^[142] If we contemplate the world and the
creatures it contains we shall recognize a perfect order, a regular [152]system, a sequence of cause and effect, a
connexion between different categories of existence, and a transformation
of beings from one category of existence to another. Then the phenomena
of the visible world indicate to us the existence of an agent whose
nature is different from that of the body, who is in fact a spiritual
existence. This agent, which is the soul, must on the one hand be in
contact with the existences of this world and, on the other, with the
existences in the next category of superiority, and one whose essential
qualities are pure perception and clear intelligence. Such are the
angels. It follows, then, that the human soul has a tendency towards the
angelic world. All this is quite in accordance with the idea that,
according to a regular order, all the categories of existences in the
universe are in mutual contact by means of their faculties and on account
of their nature.

The souls of men may be divided into three classes. The first kind of
soul is too feeble by nature to attain to a perception of the spiritual:
it has to content itself with moving in the region of sense and
imagination. Thus it can understand concepts and affirmations. It can
raise itself high in its own category but cannot pass its limit.

The souls of the second class are carried by a reflective movement and
a natural disposition towards a spiritual intelligence. They can enter
into a state of contemplation which results in ecstasy. This is the
intuition of the Saints (Auliya)^[143] to whom God has given this divine
knowledge.

The souls of the third class are created with the power of disengaging
themselves altogether from their human bodies in order that they may rise
to the angelic state where they become like angels. In a moment of time
such [153]a soul perceives the sublime company (of
angels) in the sphere which contains them. It, there and then, hears the
speech of the soul and the divine voice. Such are the souls of the
prophets. God has given to these souls the power of leaving the human
body. Whilst thus separate from it God gives to them His revelation. The
prophets are endowed by God with such a purity of disposition, such an
instinct of uprightness, that they are naturally inclined to the
spiritual world. They are animated by an ardour quite peculiar to their
order. When they return from the angelic state they deliver to men the
revelations they have received. Sometimes the revelation comes to the
prophet as the humming of confused discourse. He grasps the ideas and, as
soon as the humming ceases, he comprehends the message; sometimes an
angel in human form communicates the revelation, and what he says the
prophet learns by heart. The journey to, the return from the angelic
state, and the comprehension of the revelation received there occupy less
time than the twinkling of an eye. So rapidly do the souls of prophets
move. So instantaneously do they receive and understand God’s
revelations. This is why inspiration is called Wahí, a word which,
according to Ibn Khaldoun, means to make haste.

The first way of delivering a message is adopted when he who receives
it is only a Nabí (prophet), and not a Rasúl (apostle or messenger.) The
second mode is employed towards a Rasúl who, on the principle that the
greater contains the less, is also a Nabí. A Hadís records that Muhammad
said: “Revelation came to me sometimes like the ticking of a clock and
fatigued me much. When it stopped I learnt the meaning of what had been
delivered to me. Sometimes an angel in human form spoke to me and, whilst
he was speaking, I learnt what was said.” That a prophet should feel
oppressed on such occasions is hinted at in “With measured tone intone
the Qurán, for we shall devolve on thee mighty words.” (Súra lxxiii.
5.)

[154]

A Nabí, (who must be a wise and a free man, that is, one who is not a
slave of another, and one also who is free from imperfection either of
body or mind), receives Wahí but has not necessarily to deliver to men
the orders of God. A Rasúl who must possess the same qualifications as a
Nabí, is one who is commanded to deliver God’s message to men, though he
does not necessarily abrogate what preceding Rasúls have delivered.
Neither is it necessary that he should bring a book or even a new law.
Some Rasúls do so, but the distinguishing mark of the Rasúl is that he
delivers to men commands direct from God, and is specially commissioned
so to do. Thus every Rasúl is a Nabí, whilst every Nabí is not a
Rasúl.

The question of the sinlessness of the prophets is one to which
considerable attention has been paid by Muslim theologians. The orthodox
belief is that they are free from sin. Some think that their freedom from
sin is because the grace of God being ever in them in the richest fulness
they are kept in the right path. The Ash’aríans believe that the power of
sinning is not created in them.^[144] The Mutazilites deny this, but admit
the existence of some quality which keeps them from evil. These theories
do not agree with actual facts. Prophets like other men commit faults,
but here comes in the Muslim distinction of sins into gunáh-i-kabíra
“great sins,” and gunáh-i-saghíra “little sins.” The gunáh-i-kabíra are,
murder, adultery, disobedience to God and to parents, robbing of orphans,
to accuse of adultery, to avoid fighting against infidels, drunkenness,
to give or to take usury, to neglect the Friday prayers and the Ramazán
fast, tyranny, backbiting, untrustworthiness, forgetting the Qurán after
reading it, to avoid giving true or to give false witness, lying without
sufficient reason,^[145]
to swear falsely or to swear by any other than God, flattery of tyrants,
false judgments, giving short weight or measure, [155]magic, gambling,
approval of the ceremonies of infidels, boasting of one’s piety, calling
on the names of deceased persons and beating the breast at such times,^[146] dancing, music,
neglect when opportunity offers of warning other persons with regard to
the “commands and prohibitions” of God, disrespect to a Háfiz, to shave
the beard, to omit saying the “darúd” (i.e. on whom and on whose
family be the peace and mercy of God) whenever the name of Muhammad is
mentioned.^[147] These are
all “great sins” and can only be forgiven after due repentance: the
“little sins” are forgiven if some good actions are done. “Observe prayer
at early morning, at the close of day, and at the approach of night; for
the good deeds drive away the evil deeds.” (Súra xi. 116).

Men may commit sin wittingly or unwittingly. It is the universal
belief that a prophet never commits the greater sins in either way; but
there is a difference of opinion with regard to the lesser sins. Some
hold that they can do them unwittingly, though even then it is not in any
thing connected with their office. Others again limit even this frailty
to the period before “wahí” (inspiration) comes upon them. The general
opinion, however, is that they are free from all sin, whether great or
small. The frailties which they show are merely reckoned as faults and
slight imperfections not amounting to sin.

This, to the Muslim mind at once disposes of a difficulty the Qurán
itself raises on this point. With the exception of Jesus Christ, the
Anbiya-ulul-‘Azm are spoken of as doing what every one except an orthodox
Muslim would call sin. Adam’s transgression^[148] is referred to in Súra ii. 29-37 and
[156]in Súra vii. 10-24. I quote only one
verse: “They said, ‘O our Lord! with ourselves have we dealt unjustly; if
Thou forgive us not and have not pity on us, we shall surely be of those
that perish.'” The sin of Noah is not specified in the Qurán, yet it is
plainly hinted at. “To Thee verily, O my Lord, do I repair lest I ask
that of Thee wherein I have no knowledge: unless Thou forgive me and be
merciful to me I shall be one of the lost.” (Súra xi. 49). There is also
a similar request in Súra lxxi. 29. Abraham is represented as saying to
his people: “They whom ye worship, ye and your fathers of early days, are
my foes; but not so the Lord of the worlds, who hath created me, and
guideth me, who giveth me food and drink; and when I am sick, he healeth
me, and who will cause me to die and again quicken me, and who, I hope,
will forgive me my sins in the day of reckoning.” (Súra xxvi. 75-82).
Moses is described as having done “a work of Satan” in killing a man, and
as saying: “‘O my Lord, I have sinned to my own hurt; forgive me.’ So God
forgave him; for He is the forgiving, the merciful. He said: ‘Lord,
because thou hast showed me this grace, I will never again be the helper
of the wicked.'” (Súra xxviii. 15, 16).

The following passages refer to Muhammad. “Be thou steadfast and
patient; for true is the promise of God; and seek pardon for thy
fault.”^[149] (Súra xl.
57). “Ask pardon for thy sin, and for believers, both men and women.”
(Súra xlvii. 21). The scandal caused by the Prophet’s conduct with the
wife of Zeid, and with the Egyptian slave Mary, necessitated a pretended
revelation of God’s will in reference to these events. The circumstances
will be found fully detailed in Súra xxxiii. 36-38 and in Súra lxvi.
1-5.

One of the most important verses is: “Verily, we have won for thee an
undoubted victory, in token that God forgiveth thy earlier and later
fault.” (Súra xlviii. 1-2). [157]It is not quite clear what victory is here
referred to. According to the Tafsír-i-Husainí, some commentators say
that it is the taking of Mecca, the past tense being prophetically used
for the future. The following explanations are given of the expression
“earlier and later fault.” (1) God has forgiven thy sin committed before
and after the descent of wahí, (2) before and after the taking of Mecca,
or (3) before the descent of this Súra. (4) The commentator Salmí says:
“The earlier sin refers to the sin of Adam committed when Muhammad was in
the loins of his great ancestor and thus connected with him; the later
sin refers to the followers of the Prophet, and in that way is connected
with him, just as the sin of Adam was the predecessor and the cause of
their sin.” (5) Imám Abu’l-Lais says: “The words refer to the sin of
Adam, and to those of the followers of the Prophet. Both are connected
with Muhammad, because the former is forgiven by the blessing, and the
latter by the intercession of Muhammad.”^[150]

From these extracts from the Qurán it appears that sin is imputed to
prophets, though Muslims evade the charge by the casuistry I have already
referred to. Be that as it may, it is a striking fact that the one
sinless member of the Anbiya-ulul-‘Azm, the one sinless prophet of Islám,
is none other than Jesus Christ. There is no passage in the Qurán which
hints at sin, even in the modified form in which Muslims attribute it to
other prophets, being committed by him: no passage which speaks of His
seeking for pardon.

It is the universal belief that prophets work miracles, (mu’jizát). A
miracle is defined to be “Kharq-i-‘ádat,” that is, something contrary to
the usual course of nature.

The object for which a miracle is performed must be a moral one, and
chiefly to attest the truth of the statements made by the prophet.
Although Muhammad makes, in the [158]Qurán, no distinct claim to the power of
working miracles,^[151]
his followers maintain that in this, as in all other respects he was
equal to all and superior to some prophets, and produce various passages
of the Qurán in support of their view. Thus, according to Shaikh
Jelál-ud-dín Syutí, if to Adam was given the power of naming every thing,
Muhammad also possessed the same power. Enoch was exalted on high, but
Muhammad was taken to the ‘Baqáb-i-qausain,’ the ‘two bows’ length,’
where Gabriel, “one mighty in power,” appeared to him. (Súra liii. 5-9).
Ishmael was ready to be sacrificed, but Muhammad endured the splitting of
his chest;^[152] Joseph
was to some extent handsome, but Muhammad was the very perfection of
beauty; Moses brought water from the rock, but Muhammad produced it from
his fingers. The sun was stayed on its course by Joshua and so it was by
Muhammad. Solomon had a great kingdom, Muhammad a greater, for he
possessed the keys of the treasuries of the earth. Wisdom was given to
John the Baptist whilst yet a child, so also were wisdom and
understanding granted to Muhammad at an early period of his life. Jesus
could raise the dead, so also could Muhammad. In addition to all these,
the special miracles of the Prophet are the splitting of the moon
asunder, the Mi’ráj, the coming of a tree into his presence, and above
all the wonderful miracle of the Qurán.^[153]

The splitting of the moon in sunder is referred to in, [159]“The hour of
judgment approacheth; and the moon hath been split in sunder.” (Súra liv.
1). Imám Záhid says that Abu Jahl and a Jew visited the Prophet, and
demanded a sign from him on pain of death. The Prophet made a sign with
his little finger, and at once the moon separated into two parts: one of
which remained in the sky, the other went off to a long distance. The Jew
believed in Islám forthwith. Abu Jahl ascribed the affair to magic, but
on making enquiry from various travellers ascertained that they, on this
very night, distinctly saw the moon in two parts.^[154] Some, however, refer the passage to
the future, as they consider the splitting of the moon to be one of the
signs of the last day.

The Mi’ráj, or night ascent, is mentioned in, “Glory be to Him who
carried His servant by night from the sacred temple (of Mecca) to the
temple that is more remote, whose precinct We have blessed, that We might
show him of our signs.” (Súra xvii. 1). Muslim writers, who are fond of
the marvellous, narrate at length the wonderful things the Prophet saw
and did on this eventful night;^[155] but some maintain that it was only a
vision, and quote the words: “We ordained the vision which we showed
thee,” in proof of this assertion.^[156] Be that as it may, all orthodox
Muslims maintain the superiority of Muhammad, as a worker of miracles,
over all other prophets.

5. The Resurrection and the last
day.—These two articles of the faith may be considered
together. The [160]following is a summary of the remarks of
Muhammad Al Berkevi on this point. It is necessary to
acknowledge:—

1. That the torments of the tomb are real and certain and that Munkir
and Nakír (Ante p. 145) will come and interrogate
the dead person concerning his God, his Prophet, his faith and his Qibla.
The faithful will reply: “our God is God; our Prophet is Muhammad; our
religion, Islám; our Qibla, the Ki-‘ádataba.

2. That all the signs of the last day mentioned by the Prophet will
come to pass; such as, the appearance of Dajjál, or Antichrist; the
descent of Jesus from heaven; the appearance of Imám Mahdí and of Gog and
Magog; the rising of the sun from the west, &c.

3. That all living things will die; that the mountains will fly in the
air like birds; that the heavens will melt away; that after some time has
thus passed God most High will set the earth in order and raise the dead;
that prophets, saints, doctors of the law, and the faithful will find
near them the robes and the horses of Paradise. They will put on the
robes, and mount the horses and go into the shade of the throne of God.
Other men, hungry, thirsty, and naked will go on foot. The Faithful will
go to the right, the Infidels to the left.

4. That there will be a balance, in which the good and bad actions of
men will be weighed. Those whose good deeds outweigh the bad will go to
Paradise; if the bad predominate, they will go into the fire, unless God
has mercy on them, or the prophets or saints intercede for them. If,
however, they were not Muslims there will be no intercession for them,
nor will they come out from the fire. The Muslims who enter the fire
will, after having purged their crimes, enter Paradise.

5. That the bridge Sirát, which is sharper than a sword, is raised
above the fire; that all men must pass over this. Some will pass over
with the speed of lightning, some like a horse that runs, some, their
backs laden with their sins, will go very slowly over; others will fall
and certainly enter into the fire.

6. That each prophet has a pool where he, with his people, will quench
their thirst before entering Paradise; that the pool of Muhammad is the
largest of all, for it is a month’s march from one side thereof to the
other. Its water is sweeter than honey, whiter than milk.

7. That Paradise and Hell actually exist; that the chosen remain for
ever in the former; they neither die, nor grow aged. They experience no
kind of change. The Houris and the females are exempted [161]from the
infirmities of their sex. They will no longer bear children. The elect
will find there the meat and the drink they require, without taking upon
themselves any trouble. The ground of Paradise is of musk; the bricks of
its edifices are of gold and of silver.

The unbelievers and the demons will remain for ever in hell, tormented
by serpents as thick as the neck of a camel, by scorpions as large as
mules, by fire and by scalding water. Their bodies will burn, till they
become reduced to a coal, when God will revive them so that they may
endure fresh torments. This will last for ever.”

The following additional remarks are based on the
Sharh-i-‘Aqáíd-i-Jámí. They fall under four heads.

(1). The sounding of the trumpets. (Nafkhatain-i-Súr). This will not
take place until wickedness spreads over all the earth. The Prophet said:
“The resurrection will not come to pass, till some of the sects among my
followers mix up with the Mushriks (those who associate others with God)
and till others commence to worship monuments.” Again, “The last hour
will not be till no one is found who calls on God.” Then “There shall be
a blast on the trumpet, and all who are in the heavens and all who are in
the earth shall expire, save those whom God shall vouchsafe to live.
There shall be another blast on it, and lo! arising they shall gaze
around them.” (Súra xxxix. 68). Abu Huraira, a Companion, relates that
the Prophet speaking of the trumpet stated as follows: “After the
creation of the heavens and the earth God created the trumpet and gave it
to Isráfíl who, with his mouth placed to it, is ever looking up and
waiting for the order to blow it. He will blow three times.^[157] The first time, the
blast of consternation, to terrify; the second, the blast of examination,
to slay; the third, the blast of resurrection, to quicken the dead.” Most
persons believe that everything, save God and His attributes, will
perish. The Karamians and some other sects deny this.

[162]

The resurrection of the body is clearly proved by the Qurán. Thus,
“They say, ‘Who will bring us back?’ Say: ‘He who created you at first.'”
(Súra xvii. 53). “‘Who shall give life to bones when they are rotten?’
Say: ‘He shall give life to them who gave them being at first, for in all
creation is He skilled.'” (Súra xxxvi. 79). “Man saith: ‘What! after I am
dead, shall I in the end be brought forth alive?’ Doth not man bear in
mind that we made him at first, when he was nought?” (Súra xix. 68). “The
infidels will say, ‘shall we indeed be restored as at first? What! When
we have become rotten bones?’ ‘This then,’ say they, ‘will be a return to
loss.’ Verily, it will be but a single blast, and lo! they are on the
surface of the earth.” (Súra lxxix. 10-14). “Is He not powerful enough to
quicken the dead?” (Súra lxxv. 40). This resurrection will be to
judgment. “‘Never,’ say the unbelievers, ‘will the hour come upon us.’
Say: ‘Yea, by my Lord who knoweth the unseen, it will surely come upon
you, … to the intent that God may reward those who have believed, …
but as for those who aim to invalidate our signs, a chastisement of
painful torment awaiteth them.'” (Súra xxxiv. 3, 4). “A terrible
chastisement doth await them on the Day when faces shall turn
white, and faces shall turn black. ‘What! after your belief have ye
become infidels? Taste, then, the chastisement for that ye have been
unbelievers.’ And as to those whose faces shall have become white, they
shall be within the mercy of God.” (Súra iii, 102). The Prophet knew not
the time when all this would take place. “They will ask thee of the
‘Hour,’ when will be its fixed time? But what knowledge hast thou of it?
Its period is known only to thy Lord; and thou art charged with the
warning of those who fear it.” (Súra lxxix. 41-45.) These and similar
texts show the certainty of the resurrection. According to the Ijmá’ of
the Faithful, he who has any doubts on this article of the faith is an
infidel. The [163]Mutazilites show from reason that a
resurrection of the body is necessary in order that rewards and
punishment may be bestowed. The orthodox agree with the conclusion, but
hesitate to base it on reason.^[158]

The Karamians hold that the different parts of the body will not cease
to be, but that at the last God will gather them together. “Thinketh man
that we shall not re-unite his bones? Aye! his very finger tips we are
able evenly to replace.” (Súra lxxv. 3, 4.) The orthodox, however, hold
that this verse does not disprove the fact of previous annihilation, a
belief supported by the Prophet’s saying, “All the sons of men will be
annihilated.” It will be a re-creation though the body will return to its
former state.

The learned are not agreed as to the state of the soul during this
period of the death of the body, and therefore disagree with regard to
its revival. Some assert that it is wrong to speak of a resurrection of
the soul, for it exists in the body as “fire in coal,” hence its revival
is included in the resurrection of the body; others maintain that as it
is a distinct entity, it is not annihilated with the body. The
scholastics favour the first idea. Practically the result seems the same
in both cases. The resurrection body has a soul. Wise and foolish, devils
and beasts, insects and birds—all will rise at the last day.
Muhammad will come first in order and be the first to enter Paradise.

(2). The descent of the Books (Tatáír-i-sahá,íf). After the
resurrection, men will wander about for forty years, during which time
the “Books of Actions” will be given to them. These books contain the
record kept by the Kirám-ul-Kátibín, (Ante p. 141). Traditions recorded by Abu Huraira state: “Men
will rise up naked, and confused; some will walk about, some stand for
forty years. All will be constantly looking up toward the heavens
(i.e. expecting the books.) They will perspire profusely through
[164]excess of sorrow.^[159] Then God will say to Abraham, ‘put on
clothes.’ He will put on a robe of Paradise. Then He will call Muhammad
for whose benefit a fountain will flow forth not far from Mecca. The
people, too, shall thirst no more.” The Prophet said: “I will also put on
a dress and will stand near the throne, where no one else will be allowed
to stand and God will say: ‘Ask and it shall be granted to thee;
intercede, thy intercession shall be accepted.'” Each book flies from the
treasury under the Throne of God and is given to its proper owner. “Every
man’s fate have We fastened about his neck; and on the day of
resurrection will We bring forth to him (every man) a book which shall be
proffered to him wide open: ‘Read thy book, there needeth none but
thyself to make out an account against thee this day.'” (Súra xvii. 15).
“He into whose right hand his book shall be given, shall be
reckoned, with an easy reckoning, and shall turn, rejoicing, to his
kindred. But he whose book shall be given behind his back (i.e.
into his left hand) shall invoke destruction.” (Súra lxxxiv.
8-11.) “He, who shall have his book given into his left hand will
say: ‘O that my book had never been given me! and that I had not known my
reckoning.'” (Súra lxix. 25). It is always said that wicked Musalmáns
will be seized by the right hand before they are cast into the
fire, which is a proof that they are not always to remain there. Some
hold that the expression “Read thy book” implies a literal reading;
others that it is a metaphorical expression which simply means that all
the past actions will be known. Those who believe in a literal reading
say that each believer will read the account of his faults only, and that
other persons will read that of his good deeds. The face of the believer
as he reads will shine resplendently, but black will be the face of the
infidel.

[165]

(3). The Balances (Mízán). This belief is based on the authority of
the Qurán, Sunnat and the Ijmá’; no Muslim, therefore, can have any doubt
about it. Thus: “They whose balances shall be heavy, shall be the blest;
but they whose balances shall be light,—these are they who shall
lose their souls, abiding in hell for ever.” (Súra xxiii. 104). “As to
him whose balances are heavy, his shall be a life that shall please him
well: and as to him whose balances are light, his dwelling-place shall be
the pit. And who shall teach thee what the pit (Al-Háwía) is? A raging
fire!” (Súra ci. 5-8). The Traditions on this point are very numerous.
The Ijmá’ is also strong on the reality, the objective existence, of a
balance with scales, &c., complete. They also state that the “Books
of Actions” (Sahá,íf-i-A’mál) will be weighed. In the Sahíh-i-Bukhárí it
is said that the Believers will not be weighed in the balances, for “God
will say, ‘O Muhammad make those of thy people, from whom no account is
taken, enter into Paradise.'” Prophets and angels will also be exempt.
Such a test also is not required for the unbelievers, for their state is
very evident; “By their tokens shall the sinners be known, and they shall
be seized by their forelocks and their feet.” (Súra lv. 41). Thus it is
evident that, with regard to true believers and unbelievers, the works of
such only as God may choose need be weighed. Some, however, maintain that
no unbeliever will have this test applied to his case and quote: “Vain
therefore, are their works; and no weight will we allow them on the day
of resurrection.” (Súra xviii. 105). To this it is answered, that all
that is here denied is the fact of “a weighing in their favour.”
The place where the weighing will take place is situated midway between
heaven and hell. Gabriel standing by watches the movement of the scales
and Michael guards the balance. The orthodox are not agreed as to whether
there will be a separate balance for each tribe of men, and also for each
of the ‘good works’ [166]of the believers. Those who hold that
there will be a balance for prayer, another for fasting and so on, adduce
the use of the plural form, balances (muwázín) in proof of their
statement. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the
“works” themselves, or the books (sahá,íf) will be weighed. The latter
opinion is supported by a Tradition recorded by Tirmízí. “The Prophet
said: ‘Ninety-nine registers will be distributed. Each register will
extend as far as the eye can reach. God will say: ‘What! dost thou deny
this, or have the recording angels treated thee unjustly?’ Each will say:
‘No! O Lord.’ ‘Hast thou then any excuse?’ ‘No! O Lord.’ Then God will
display a cloth on which the Kalima is written. This will be put into one
scale, and God will say: ‘To thee will be no evil if thou hast a register
in this scale, and this cloth in the other, for the first scale will be
light.'” This is considered conclusive testimony with regard to the
weighing of the Sahá,íf. The Mutazilites objected to statements such as
these, for said they: “actions are accidents, and the qualities of
lightness and heaviness cannot be attributed to accidents.” They
explained the verses of the Qurán and the statements of the Traditions on
this point, as being a figurative way of saying that perfect justice will
be done to all in the Day of Judgment.

(4). The Bridge (Sirát). The meaning of the word Sirát is a road, a
way. It is so used in the Qurán. In connection with the Day of Judgment
it is said: “If we pleased we would surely put out their eyes: yet even
then would they speed on with rivalry in their path (Sirát).” (Súra
xxxvi. 66). “Gather together those who have acted unjustly, and their
consorts (demons), and the gods whom they have adored beside God; and
guide them to the road (Sirát) for hell.” (Súra xxxvii. 23). It is
nowhere in the Qurán called a bridge, but Tradition is very clear on this
point. The Prophet said: “There will be a bridge sharper than the edge of
a sword, finer than a hair, suspended over [167]hell. Iron spikes on it
will pierce those whom God wills. Some will pass over it in the twinkling
of an eye, some like a flash of lightning, others with the speed of a
swift horse. The angels will call out, ‘O Lord! save and protect.’ Some
Muslims will be saved, some will fall headlong into hell.” Bukhárí
relates a similar Tradition. The infidels will all fall into hell and
there remain for ever. Muslims will be released after a while.

The Mutazilites deny the existence of such a bridge. “If we admit it,”
say they, “it would be a trouble for the believers, and such there is not
for them in the Day of Judgment.” To this the orthodox reply that the
believers pass over it to show how they are saved from fire, and that
thus they may be delighted with Paradise, and also that the infidels may
feel chagrin at those who were with them on the bridge being now safe for
ever.

Al A’ráf is situated between heaven and hell. It is described thus:
“On (the wall) Al A’ráf shall be men who know all, by their tokens,^[160] and they shall cry to
the inhabitants of Paradise, ‘Peace be on you!’ but they shall not yet
enter it, although they long to do so. And when their eyes are turned
towards the inmates of the fire, they shall say, ‘O our Lord! place us
not with offending people &c.'” (Súra vii. 44, 45). Sale’s summary of
the opinions regarding Al A’ráf in his Preliminary Discourse is
exceedingly good. It is as follows:—

“They call it Al Orf, and more frequently in the plural, Al Aráf, a
word derived from the verb Arafa, which signifies to distinguish
between things, or to part them; though some commentators give another
reason for the imposition of this name, because, say they, those who
stand on this partition will know and distinguish the
blessed from the damned, by their respective marks or characteristics:
and others way the word properly intends anything that is high
raised or elevated, as such a wall of separation must be
supposed to [168]be. Some imagine it to be a sort of
limbo for the patriarchs and prophets, or for the martyrs and
those who have been most eminent for sanctity. Others place here such
whose good and evil works are so equal that they exactly counterpoise
each other, and therefore deserve neither reward nor punishment; and
these, say they, will on the last day be admitted into Paradise, after
they shall have performed an act of adoration, which will be imputed to
them as a merit, and will make the scale of their good works to
overbalance. Others suppose this intermediate space will be a receptacle
for those who have gone to war, without their parents’ leave, and therein
suffered martyrdom; being excluded from Paradise for their disobedience,
and escaping hell because they are martyrs.”

There is also an interval, between the death of the body in this world
and the Last Day, called Al-Barzakh. “Behind them shall be a barrier
(barzakh), until the day when they shall be raised again.” (Súra xxiii.
102). When death takes place, the soul is separated from the body by the
Angel of death; in the case of the good with ease, in that of the wicked
with violence. It then enters into Al-Barzakh.^[161]

It is a doctrine founded on Ijmá’, that God will not pardon Shirk,
that is, the ascribing plurality to the Divine Being. The Mushrik, one
who does so, will remain in hell for ever, for as Kufr, infidelity, is an
eternal crime, its punishment must also be eternal. “The unbelievers
among the people of the Book, and among the Polytheists shall go into the
fire of Gehenna to abide therein for aye. Of all creatures are they the
worst?” (Súra xcviii. 5). “Cast into Hell every infidel, every hardened
one, the hinderer of the good, the transgressor, the doubter who set up
other Gods with God. Cast ye him into the fierce torment.” (Súra 1.
23-25.)

Muslims who commit great (Kabíra) sins, though they die unrepentant,
will not remain in hell for ever, for, “whosoever shall have wrought an
atom’s weight of good shall [169]behold it.” (Súra xcix. 7). It is asserted
that the fact of believing in Islám is a good work and merits a reward:
this cannot be given before the man enters hell to be punished for his
sins, and therefore he must be, after a while, released from punishment.
“Perfect faith (Imán-i-Kámil) consists in believing with sincerity of
heart and acting in accordance thereto, but the actions are not the faith
itself. Great sins, therefore, prevent a man from having “perfect faith,”
but do not destroy faith (Imán), nor make the Muslim an infidel, but only
a sinner.”^[162] The
Mutazilites teach that the Muslim who enters hell will remain there for
ever. They maintain that the person who, having committed great sins,
dies unrepentant, though not an infidel, ceases to be a believer and
hence suffers as the infidels do.

The orthodox belief is that Muhammad is now an Intercessor and will be
so at the Last Day. The intercession then is of several kinds. There is
the ‘great intercession’ to which the words, “it may be that thy Lord
will raise thee to a glorious station,” (Súra xvii. 81) are
supposed to refer. The Maqám-i-mahmúd, (glorious station), is said to be
the place of intercession in which all persons will praise the Prophet.^[163] In the Zád-ul-Masír it
is said that the Maqám-i-mahmúd refers to the fact that God will place
the Prophet on His Throne. Others say that it is a place in which a
standard will be given to the Prophet, around whom all the other prophets
will then gather to do him honour. The first interpretation is, however,
the ordinary one. The people will be in great fear. Muhammad will say: “O
my people! I am appointed for intercession.” Their fear will then pass
away. The second intercession is made so that they may enter into
Paradise without rendering an account. The authorities differ with regard
to this. The third intercession is on behalf of those Muslims who [170]ought
to go to hell. The fourth for those who are already there. No one but the
Prophet can make these intercessions. The fifth intercession is for an
increase of rank to those who are in Paradise. The Mutazilites maintained
that there would be no intercession for Muslims guilty of great sins, and
adduced in favour of their opinion the verse: “Fear ye the day when soul
shall not satisfy for soul at all, nor shall any intercession be accepted
from them, nor shall any ransom be taken, neither shall they be helped.”
(Súra ii. 45). The orthodox bring in reply this Hadís-i-Sahíh: “The
Prophet said: ‘my intercession is for the men of my following who have
committed great sins.'” If this Tradition is disputed, they then say that
the verse in the Qurán just quoted does not refer to Muslims at all, but
to the Infidels.^[164]

According to a Tradition related by Anas the Prophet said: “In the day
of resurrection Musalmáns will not be able to move, and they will be
greatly distressed and say: ‘would to God that we had asked Him to create
some one to intercede for us, that we might be taken from this place, and
be delivered from tribulation and sorrow.'” The Tradition goes on to
state how they sought help from Adam and the prophets of the old
dispensation, who, one and all, excused themselves on account of their
own sinfulness. At length Moses told them to go to Jesus, the Apostle of
God, the Spirit of God and the Word of God. They did so and Jesus said:
“Go to Muhammad who is a servant, whose sins God has forgiven both first
and last.” The Prophet continued, according to the Tradition, “then the
Musalmáns will come to me, and I will ask permission to go into God’s
presence and intercede for them.”^[165]

The second advent of Christ is a sign of the last day. “Jesus is no
more than a servant whom We favoured … [171]and he shall be a sign
of the last hour.” (Súra xliii. 61). He will not, according to the Qurán,
come as a judge, but like other prophets to be judged. “We formed with
them (i.e. prophets) a strict covenant, that God may question the
men of truth as to their truth, (i.e. how they have discharged
their prophetic functions).” (Súra xxxiii. 7, 8). He will come to bear
witness against the Jews who reject him: “In the day of resurrection, He
will be a witness against them.” (Súra iv. 158).

It is necessary to believe in the pond of the Prophet called Kausar.
This faith is founded on the verse “Truly we have given thee an
abundance.” (Súra cviii. 1). Bukhárí says: “The meaning of Kausar
is the ‘abundance of good’ which God gives to the Prophet. Abu Básh said
to one Sa’íd, ‘the people think that Kausar is a river of Paradise.’
Sa’íd replied, ‘Kausar is a river in which there is abundance of good.'”
According to the same authority Muhammad said: “My pond is square, its
water is whiter than milk, its perfume better than that of musk,
whosoever drinks thereof will thirst no more.”

There are many degrees of felicity in heaven to which the believers
are admitted. The Prophet, according to Tirmízí, said there were one
hundred. Some of these may possibly be meant by the eight names they give
to Paradise. (1.) Jannat-ul-Khuld. “Say: Is this, or the Garden of
Eternity which was promised to the God-fearing, best?” (Súra xxv.
16.) (2.) Jannat-us-Salám. “For them is a Dwelling of Peace with
their Lord.” (Súra vi. 127.) (3.) Dár-ul-Qarár. “The life to come is the
Mansion which abideth.” (Súra xl. 42.) (4.) Jannat-ul-‘Adan. “To
the Faithful, both men and women, God promiseth gardens and goodly
mansions in the Garden of Eden.” (Súra ix. 73.) (5.)
Jannat-ul-Mawá. “Near which is the Garden of Repose.” (Súra liii.
15.) (6) Jannat-un-Na’ím. “Amid delights shall the righteous
dwell.” (Súra lxxxii. 13.) (7) Jannat-ul-Illiyún. “The register of the
righteous is [172]in Illiyún.” (Súra lxxxiii. 18,)
(8.) Jannat-ul-Firdaus. “Those who believe and do the things that are
right, they shall have the Gardens of Paradise for their abode.”
(Súra xviii. 107.)

Hell is said to have seven divisions. The Qurán, though it mentions
the names of these divisions, does not state what classes of persons will
be sent to each; but Muslim Commentators have supplied the needed
information. They classify them thus:—(1.) Jahannam, for sinners
who die without repentance. (2.) Lazwá, for the infidels (i.e.,
Christians.) (3.) Hutama, a fire for Jews, and according to some for
Christians. (4.) Sa’ir, for devils, the descendants of Iblís. (5.) Saqar,
for the magians: also for those who neglect prayer. (6.) Jahím, a boiling
caldron for idolaters: also for Gog and Magog. (7.) Háwía, a bottomless
pit for hypocrites. It is said that heaven has one division more than
hell to show that God’s mercy exceeds His justice.

The Muhammadan writers give very full and minute accounts of the
events connected with the resurrection, judgment and future state of
those who are lost, and of those who are saved. Sale gives such an
excellent summary of these opinions, that it is not necessary to enter
into details here. The orthodox belief is that the statements in the
Qurán and the Traditions regarding the pleasures of Paradise are to be
taken literally.^[166]

6. The Predestination of good and
evil.—I have already in the section in which the attribute
“will” is described (p. 118) given some account of the dogmatic
statements concerning the doctrine of predestination; but as it always
forms a distinct chapter in Musalmán books, I treat it separately here.
Having, however, in the passage referred [173]to, given Al Berkevi’s
words on the attribute “will,” it is only necessary to make a short
extract from his dogmatic statement concerning Predestination. He
says:—

“It is necessary to confess that good and evil take place by the
predestination and predetermination of God, that all that has been and
all that will be was decreed in eternity, and written on the preserved
table;^[167] that the
faith of the believer, the piety of the pious and good actions are
foreseen, willed, predestinated, decreed by the writing on the
preserved table, produced and approved by God; that the unbelief
of the unbeliever, the impiety of the impious and bad actions come to
pass with the fore-knowledge, will, predestination and decree of God, but
not with His satisfaction and approval. Should any ask why God willeth
and produceth evil, we can only reply that He may have wise ends in view
which we cannot comprehend.”

Another confession of faith has:—

“Whoever shall say, that God is not delighted with virtue and faith,
and is not wroth with vice and infidelity, or that God has decreed good
and evil with equal complacency is an infidel.”

There are three well-defined schools of thought on the
subject:—

First.—The Jabríans, so called from the word “jabr”
compulsion, deny all free agency in man and say that man is necessarily
constrained by the force of God’s eternal and immutable decree to act as
he does.^[168] They hold
that as [174]God is the absolute Lord, He can, if He so
wills, admit all men into Paradise, or cast all into hell. This sect is
one of the branches of the Ash’aríans with whom on most points they
agree.

Secondly.—The Qadríans, who deny Al-Qadr, or God’s
absolute decree, say that evil and injustice ought not to be attributed
to God but to man, who is altogether a free agent. God has given him the
power to do or not to do an act. This sect is generally considered to be
a branch of the Mutazilite body, though in reality it existed before
Wásil quitted the school of his master Hasan (Ante. p. 125). As Wásil, however, followed the opinions of
Mábad-al-Johní, the leading Kadrían divine, the Mutazilites and Qadríans
are practically one and the same.

Thirdly.—The Ash’aríans, of whom I have already given some
account, maintain that God has one eternal will which is applied to
whatsoever He willeth, both of His own actions and those of men; that He
willeth that which He knoweth and what is written on the preserved
table; that He willeth both good and evil. So far they agree with the
Jabríans; but then they seem to allow some power to man, a tenet I have
already explained when describing their idea of “Kasb” (Ante. p. 130). The orthodox, or Sunní belief is theoretically
Ash’arían, but practically the Sunnís are confirmed Jabríans. The
Mutazilite doctrines are looked upon as quite heretical.

No subject has been more warmly discussed in Islám than that of
predestination. The following abstract of some lengthy discussions will
present the points of difference.

The Ash’aríans, who in this matter represent in the main orthodox
views, formulate their objections to the Mutazilite system
thus:—

(i). If man is the causer of an action by the force of his own will,
then he should also have the power of controlling the result of that
action.

(ii). If it be granted that man has the power to originate [175]an
act it is necessary that he should know all acts, because a creator
should be independent in act and choice. Intention must be conditioned by
knowledge. To this the Mutazilites well reply that a man need not know
the length of a road before he walks, or the structure of the throat
before he talks.

(iii). Suppose a man wills to move his body and God at the same time
wills it to be steady, then if both intentions come to pass there will be
a collection of opposites; if neither, a removal of opposites; if the
exaltation of the first, an unreasonable preference.

(iv). If man can create an act, some of his works will be better than
some of the works of God, e.g. a man determines to have faith: now
faith is a better thing than reptiles, which are created by God.

(v). If man is free to act, why can he not make at once a human body;
why does he need to thank God for grace and faith?

(vi). But better far than all argument, the orthodox say, is the
testimony of the Book. “All things have we created under a fixed decree.”
(Súra liv. 49). “When God created you and that ye make.” (Súra
xxxvii. 94). “Some of them there were whom God guided and there were
others decreed to err.” (Súra xvi. 38). As God decrees faith and
obedience He must be the causer of it, for “on the hearts of these hath
God graven the Faith.” (Súra lviii. 22). “It is he who causeth you to
laugh and weep, to die and make alive.” (Súra liii. 44). “If God pleased
He would surely bring them, one and all, to the guidance.” (Súra vi. 36).
“Had God pleased, He had guided you all aright.” (Súra vi. 150). “Had the
Lord pleased, He would have made mankind of one religion.” (Súra xi.
120). “God will mislead whom he pleaseth, and whom He pleaseth He will
place upon the straight path.” (Súra vi. 39.) Tradition records that the
Prophet said: “God is the maker of all makers and of their actions.”^[169]

[176]

The Mutazilites took up the opposite side of this great question and
said:—

(i). If man has no power to will or to do, then what is the difference
between praising God and sinning against Him; between faith and
infidelity; good and evil; what is the use of commands and prohibitions;
rewards and punishments; promises and threats; what is the use of
prophets, books, &c.

(ii). Some acts of men are bad, such as tyranny and polytheism. If
these are created by God, it follows that to tyrannise and to ascribe
plurality to the Deity is to render obedience. To this the Ash’aríans
reply that orders are of two kinds, immediate and mediate. The former
which they call “Amr-i-takwíti,” is the order, “Be and it was.” This
comprehends all existences, and according to it whatever is ordered must
come to pass. The latter they call “Amr-i-tashri’í,” an order given in
the Law. This comes to men through prophets and thus is to be obeyed.
True obedience is to act according to that which is revealed, not
according to the secret intentions of God, for that we know not.

(iii). If God decrees the acts of men, He should bear the name of that
which he decrees. Thus the causer of infidelity is an infidel; of tyranny
a tyrant, and so on; but to speak thus of God is blasphemy.

(iv). If infidelity is decreed by God He must wish it; but a prophet
desires faith and obedience and so is opposed to God. To this the
orthodox reply, that God knows by His eternal knowledge that such a man
will die an infidel. [177]If a prophet intends by bringing the
message of salvation to such an one to make God’s knowledge become
ignorance, he would be doing wrong; but as he does not know the secret
decrees of God, his duty is to deliver his message according to the
Hadís: “A prophet has only to deliver the clear message.”

(v). The Mutazilites claimed as on their side all verses of the Qurán,
in which the words to do, to construct, to renew, to create, &c., are
applied to men. Such are the verses: “Whatever is in the heavens and in
the earth is God’s that He may reward those who do evil according
to their deeds: and those who do good will He reward with good
things.” (Súra liii. 32). “Whoso shall have wrought evil shall not
be recompensed but with its like: but whoso shall have done the
things that are right, whether male or female and is a believer, these
shall enter Paradise.” (Súra xl. 43). Say: “the truth is from the Lord;
let him then who will believe; and let him who will, be an infidel.”
(Súra xviii. 28).^[170]
“Those who add Gods to God will say: ‘If God had pleased neither we nor
our fathers had given Him companions.’ Say: ‘Verily ye follow only a
conceit, ye utter lies.'” (Súra vi. 149). The Hadís is also very plain.
“All good is in Thy hands and evil is not to Thee.” (Al-khair kuluhu fí
yadaika wash-sharru laisa ‘alaika.)

The Ash’aríans have one famous text which they bring to bear against
all this reasoning and evidence. It is: “This truly is a warning; and
whoso willeth, taketh the way of his Lord; but will it ye shall
not, unless God will it, for God is knowing, wise.” (Súra lxxvi. 29,
30). To the Hadís they reply (1) that there is a difference between
acquiescence in evil and decreeing it. Thus the expression “God willeth
not tyranny for His servants,” does not mean [178]that God hath not
decreed it, but that tyranny is not one of His attributes: so “evil is
not to Thee” means it is not an attribute of God; and (2) the Hadís must
be explained in accordance with the teaching of the Qurán.

The Muslim philosophers tried to find a way out of the difficulty.
Averhoes says: “We are free to act in this way or that, but our will is
always determined by some exterior cause. For example, we see something
which pleases us, we are drawn to it in spite of ourselves. Our will is
thus bound by exterior causes. These causes exist according to a certain
order of things which is founded on the general laws of nature. God alone
knows before hand the necessary connection which to us is a mystery. The
connection of our will with exterior causes is determined by the laws of
nature. It is this which in theology we call, ‘decrees and
predestination.'”^[171]

I have already shown how, as Islám grew into a system, the Muslims
fell into a Cabbalism, and a superstitious reverence for the mere letters
and words of the Qurán. With this declension came a still more distorted
view of the character of God. The quotations made from the Qurán in the
last few pages will have shown that whilst some passages seem to
attribute freedom to man and speak of his consequent responsibility,
others teach a clear and distinct fatalism. The great strength of Islám
lay in the energy with which Muhammad preached the doctrine that God was
a divine Ruler, one who would deal righteous judgment, who “taught man
that which he knew not.” As the system became more complex and
dogmatic—a very necessary result of its first principles—men
lost the sense of the nearness of God. He became an unapproachable being.
A harsh unfeeling Fate took the place of the Omnipotent Ruler. It is this
dark fatalism which, whatever the Qurán may teach on the subject, is the
ruling principle in all Muslim [179]communities. It is this which makes all
Muhammadan nations decay. Careless of self-improvement,^[172] heedless of the need of progress, the
Muslim nations, still independent, are in all that relates to the higher
aspects of intellectual and civilized life far behind the nations of the
west.

The subject of ‘Ilm-i-Aqáíd, or the science of dogma properly
ends here, but most Muslim treatises include in this branch of the
subject a few practical remarks. I therefore add a summary of them here.
The believer who commits murder, fornication, &c., does not cease to
be a Muslim provided that he does not say that these are allowed: should
he die unrepentant, God can punish him for a while in hell, or forgive
him without punishment. The Hadd, a punishment based on a Záhir, or
obvious sentence of the Qurán requires that a Muslim who apostatizes
shall be put to death.^[173] In the case of an apostate woman,
Imám Abu Hanífa ruled that she should be imprisoned and beaten every day.
The other three Imáms, Málik, Sháfa’í and Hanbal said that she should be
put to death in accordance with the Tradition which says: “He who changes
his religion, kill.” The Arabic word “man,” usually translated “He who”
is of common gender, and so these Imáms include women in the list of
those who, after apostasy, are to be killed.^[174] God does not pardon polytheism and
infidelity; but He can, if He willeth, pardon all other crimes. If any
one is asked, “dost thou believe?” he should reply, “I am truly a
believer,” and not say: “If God [180]willeth.”^[175] If any one says to him: “Wilt thou
die in the faith?” he should reply: “I do not know, God knows.” Except
when speaking of prophets, or of those of whom the Prophets have spoken,
such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán and ‘Alí, it must not be said of any one,
“he is gone to Paradise,” for God only knows his state. Prayer should be
made for a deceased Muslim whether he was a good or bad man. To give
alms, to read the Qurán, to perform other good works, and to apply the
merit thus gained to the souls of the dead is a pious and beneficial
act.

[181]

NOTE TO CHAPTER IV.

MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY.

I have shown in the preceding chapter how the earlier scholastics, or
the Mutazilites, as they are called, were finally crushed by the orthodox
party. The later scholastics, or the philosophers, form the subject of
this note. The Khalíf Mámún (813-833 A.D.), a
notorious free-thinker, was the first to give an impulse to philosophic
researches. It was then that Greek philosophical works were translated
into Arabic. The Greek author most patronized was Aristotle, partly,
because his empirical method accorded with the positive tendencies of the
Arab mind better than the pure idealism of Plato; and, partly, because
his system of logic was considered an useful auxiliary in the daily
quarrels between the rival theological schools. It was quite natural that
Aristotle should be thus followed. “The Musalmán mind was trained in
habits of absolute obedience to the authority of fixed dogmas. The
Muslims did not so much wish to discover truth as to cultivate their own
intellect. For that purpose, a sharp and subtle systematist like
Aristotle was the very man they required.”^[176] Some idea of the range of subjects
then discussed may be gained from an account given by the Arab historian,
Masoudi, of a meeting held under the Presidentship of Yahya, one of the
famous Barmecide family.^[177] Yahya thus addressed the meeting:
“You have discussed at length the theory of concealment (Al-Kumún) and
manifestation (Al-Zahúr), of pre-existence and creation, of duration and
stability, of movement and quiescence, of the union and separation (of
the Divine substance), of existence and non-existence, of bodies and
accidents, of the approval and the refutation (of the Isnáds of the
Traditions), of the absence or the existence of attributes in God, of
potential and active force, of substance, quantity, modality and
relation, of life and annihilation. You have examined the question as to
whether the Imám rules by divine right, or by popular election; you have
had an exhaustive discussion on metaphysical subjects, in their
principles and corollaries. Occupy yourselves to-day with the subject of
love,” &c.

The translation of the works of Aristotle, as indeed of all the Greek
authors, was made by Syrian and Chaldean Christians, and [182]especially by
the Nestorians who, as physicians, were in high favour with the liberal
Khalífs of the ‘Abbásside dynasty. In some cases the translation into
Arabic was made from Syriac versions, for in the time of the Emperor
Justinian many Greek works had been translated into the latter language.
The most celebrated translator was the historian physician
Honein-Ibn-Ishak (died 876 A.D.), a man
profoundly acquainted with the Syriac, Greek and Arabic languages. He was
at the head of a school of interpreters in Baghdád, to which his son
Ishak-ben-Honein and his nephew Hobeisch-Al-Asam also belonged. In the
tenth century (A.D.) Yahya-ben-Adi and
Isa-ben-Zara’a translated some works and corrected earlier translations
of others. It is to these men that the Arabs owe their chief acquaintance
with Plato.

The study of Aristotle spread rapidly amongst the Muslim people,
especially amongst the heretical sects. The orthodox looked with grave
suspicion on the movement, but could not for a while stay the impulse.
The historian Makrizi says: “The doctrine of the Philosophers has worked
amongst the Muslims evils most fatal. It serves only to augment the
errors of the heretics and to increase their impiety.”^[178] It came into contact with Muslim
dogmas in such subjects as the creation of the world, the special
providence of God and the nature of the divine attributes. To a certain
extent the Mutazilites were supported by the philosophical theories they
embraced, but this did not diminish the disfavour with which the orthodox
looked upon the study of philosophy. Still it grew, and men in self
defence had to adopt philosophic methods. Thus arose a later system of
scholasticism. The earlier system was confined mainly to matters of
religion; the later school occupied itself with the whole range of
philosophic investigation, and thus went farther and farther away from
orthodox Islám.

The Muslims themselves did not write books on philosophy in the
earlier period. Men of liberal tendencies imbibed its teaching, but
orthodoxy finally gained the day over the earlier scholastics, and in the
form known as that of the Ash’arían School became again supreme.^[179] The great intellectual
movement of the Philosophers proper, the later scholastics
(Mutakallimán), lasted longer, but by the end of the twelfth century
(A.D.) the whole Muhammadan world had again
become orthodox. Saláh-ud-dín (Saladin) and his successors in Egypt were
strong supporters of the Ash’aríans.

[183]

The period now under review was one prolific of authors on grammar,
rhetoric, logic, exegesis, traditions and the various branches of
philosophy; but the men who stand out most prominently as philosophers
were then, and are now, considered heretics.^[180]

Al-Kendi, was born at Basra, on the Persian Gulf. He died about 870
A.D. He was a very scientific man, but a
thorough rationalist in theology. He composed commentaries on the logic
of Aristotle. In his great work on the unity of God he has strayed far
away from Muslim dogmas.

Al Farabi, another philosopher patronized by the ‘Abbássides, seems to
have denied not only the rigid and formal Islámic view of inspiration,
but any objective revelation at all. He held that intuition was a true
inspiration, and that all who had acquired intuitive knowledge were real
prophets. This is the only revelation he admits. He received his
philosophical training at Baghdád, where for a while he taught; but
finally he went to Damascus, where he died 950 A.D.

Ibn Sina, better known as Avicenna, a man of Persian origin, was a
Philosopher of great note, but of him it is said that in spite of the
concessions he made to the religious ideas of his age, he could not find
favour for his opinions, which ill accord with the principles of Islám.
He was born near Bukhárá, in the year 980 A.D.
For a while he taught medicine and philosophy in Ispahán.

Ibn Badja, (Avempace) was one of the most celebrated Muslim
Philosophers of Spain. He was born at Saragossa towards the end of the
eleventh century. He is distinguished for having opposed the mystical
tendencies of the teaching of Al-Ghazzálí, and for maintaining that
speculative science alone was capable of leading man to a true conception
of his own proper nature. He was violently attacked by the orthodox
divines who declared that all philosophical teaching was “a calamity for
religion and an affliction to those who were in the good way.”

Al-Ghazzálí was born A.D. 1059 in Khorásán.
He was a famous Muslim divine. He adopted scholastic methods. For a while
he was President of the Nizámiah College at Baghdád. He travelled much,
and wrote many books to prove the superiority of Islám over all other
religions and over philosophy. The first result of his wide and extensive
study of the writings of the philosophers, and of the heretics was that
he fell into a state of scepticism with regard to religion and
philosophy. From this he emerged into Súfíism, in [184]which his restless
spirit found satisfaction. On Súfíism, however, he exercised no very
notable influence; but the scepticism which he still retained as regards
philosophy rendered him a very formidable opponent to those who were
trying to bring Islám into accord with philosophic theories. His works,
“Tendency of Philosophers,” and “Destruction of the Philosophers” had an
immense influence. In the preface to the latter book, he speaks of “those
who arrogate to themselves a superior intelligence, and who, in their
pride, mistaking the precepts of religion, take as a guide the authority
of certain great men, instead of revealed religion.” It is, however, and
with some show of reason supposed that Al-Ghazzálí did not really object
to all that he condemned, but that to gain the orthodox he wrote what he
did. Indeed, Moses of Narbonne states that Ghazzálí later on in life
wrote a book, circulated only amongst a few select friends, in which he
withdrew many of the objections he had raised in the “Destruction of
Philosophers.” Be that as it may, it is acknowledged that he dealt a blow
to philosophy from which in the East it has never recovered; that is, as
far as the Muslim world is concerned. His course marks a reaction of the
exclusively religious principle of Islám against philosophical
speculation, which in spite of all accommodation never made itself
orthodox.

In Spain philosophy still found an ardent defender in Ibn Rashíd,
better known as Averhoes. This celebrated man was born at Cordova in the
year 1126 A.D., or about 520 of the Muhammadan
era. He came of a noble and learned family, whilst he himself must ever
occupy a distinguished place amongst the Muslim Philosophers. “Without
dispute he was one of the most learned men of the Muslim world, and one
of the profoundest commentators of Aristotle. He knew all the sciences
then accessible to the Muslims and was a most prolific writer.”^[181] One of his most famous
works was the “Refutation of the destruction of Philosophers.”
Notwithstanding his philosophical opinions Averhoes claimed to pass for a
good Muslim. He held that the philosophic truths are the highest object
of research; but that only a few men could by speculation arrive at them,
and that, therefore, a divine revelation through the medium of prophets
was necessary for spreading amongst men the eternal verities which are
proclaimed alike by philosophy and religion. He held, it is true, that
the orthodox had paid too much attention to the letter, and too little to
the spirit, and that false interpretations had educed principles not
really to be found in religion. This [185]profession and a rigid
adherence to outward forms of worship, however, did not save him from
suspicion. He was accused of preaching philosophy and the ancient
sciences to the detriment of religion. He was deprived of his honours and
banished by the Khalíf Al-Mansúr to Lucena, near Cordova. In his disgrace
he had to suffer many insults from the orthodox. One day on entering the
mosque with his son he was forcibly expelled by the people. He died at
Morocco in 1198 A.D. Thus passed away in
disgrace the last of the Muslim Philosophers worthy of the name.^[182] In Spain a strict
prohibition was issued against the study of Greek philosophy, and many
valuable works were committed to the flames. Soon after the rule of the
Moors in Spain began to decline. The study of philosophy came to an end,
and liberal culture sank under the pressure of the hard and fast dogmatic
system of Islám. In Spain,^[183] as in Baghdád, orthodoxy gained the
day. There was much of doubtful value in the speculations of the Muslim
Philosophers, but they were Muslims, and if they went too far in their
efforts to rationalize Islám, they also tried to cast off what to them
seemed accretions, added on by the Traditionalists and the Canonical
Legists. They failed because like the earlier scholastics they had no
gospel to proclaim to men, no tidings to give of a new life which could
enable wearied humanity to bear the ills to which it was subject. Another
strong reason was that the orthodoxy against which they strove was a
logical development of the foundations of Islám, and these foundations
are too strongly laid for any power other than a spiritual one to uproot.
They were men of good position in life, voluminous writers, profound
admirers of Aristotle, and “more or less devoted to science, especially
to medicine.” Yet they did not advance philosophy, and science they left
much as they found it. They preserved something of what Grecian thought
had achieved, and so far their labour is not lost.

Thus Islám has, as a religion, no right to claim any of the glory
which Muslim philosophers are supposed to have shed around it. [186]The
founders of Islám, the Arabs, produced but one philosopher of note.^[184] The first impetus to
the study was given by heretical Khalífs employing Christians at Baghdád
to translate Greek books; whilst in Spain, where philosophy most
flourished, it was due largely to the contact of intelligent Muslims with
learned Jews. Even there, the philosophers were, as a rule, the objects
of bitter persecution. Now and again, a liberal minded Khalíf arose, but
a system such as Islám survives the liberal tendencies of a generation.
From the close of the twelfth century (A.D.)
downwards it would be difficult to point to any Muslim Philosopher, much
more to an Arab one, whose work is of any real value to the human race.
For four hundred years the contest raged, a contest such as Islám has
never since seen. This great effort to bring it into accordance with the
main stream of human thought, to introduce into it some element of
progress utterly failed. The lesson is plain. Any project of reform in
Islám which admits in any degree its fundamental principles must fail.
Revolution, not reform, is the only hope for the permanence of an
independent Muslim state when it enters into the circle of civilized
nations.

[187]

CHAPTER V.

THE PRACTICAL DUTIES OF ISLÁM.

The portion of the creed considered in the last chapter was connected
with Imán (faith); the remaining portion is connected with Dín (practical
religion). The five principal acts are called Irkán-i-Dín, pillars of
religion. They are: (1) The recital of the Kalima, or short confession of
faith; (2) Sulát, the five stated periods of prayer; (3) Roza, the thirty
days’ fast of Ramazán; (4) Zakát, legal alms; (5) Hajj, the pilgrimage to
Mecca. These are all farz duties, being based on a Nass-i-Záhir,
or “obvious,” sentence of the Qurán, a proof derived from which is called
dalíl-i-qata’í. This is the strongest of all kinds of proofs.

The authorities, however, specify other religious duties which good
Muslims should perform. Such are the seven duties which are wájib,
or duties based on the more obscure texts of the Qurán, called Khafi, or
“hidden” sentences, a proof derived from which is called dalíl-i-zaní.
These duties are: (1) To make the ‘Umra, or Pilgrimage to Mecca in
addition to the Hajj; (2) obedience to parents; (3) the obedience of a
wife to her husband; (4) the giving of alms after a fast; (5) the
offering of sacrifice; (6) the saying of Namáz-i-witr, a term which will
be explained later on; (7) the support of relatives. The duties numbered
as (4) and (5) are wájib orders to the rich; but only
mustahab to the poor: that is, it is meritorious if they perform
them, but not sinful if they leave them undone.

The duties next in order as regards authority are the sunnat
ones. They are three in number and are based either on the practice of
the Prophet, or are fitrat, that is practices of previous
prophets, the continuance of which [188]Muhammad did not
forbid. They are (1) circumcision; (2) shaving off the hair from the head
and the body; (3) the paring of the nails. In addition to these there are
actions which are mustahab. They are those which Muhammad
sometimes did and sometimes omitted. There is a still lower class of
action which are mubáh. These are works of supererogation. If omitted there is
no fear of punishment.

It may be mentioned in passing that unlawful actions and things are
(1) Harám, actions and food forbidden either in the Qurán or the
Traditions; (2) Mahrúh, actions the unlawfulness of which is not
absolutely certain, but which are generally considered wrong; (3)
Mufsid, actions corrupting or pernicious. It is necessary to bear
these terms in mind as they will now frequently occur.

1. Tashahhud.—This is the recital of a
confession of faith. There are several forms of this. A common one is: “I
testify that there is no deity but God, I testify to His unity and that
He has no partner; I testify that Muhammad is His servant and His
messenger.” The shorter form is: “There is no deity but God and Muhammad
is the apostle of God.” The power contained in this latter confession is
extraordinary. It embodies the very spirit of Islám. “It has led
everywhere the march of its armies, it has rung for twelve centuries in
the morning air from its minarets, it has been passed from lip to lip, as
no other word has ever been passed, by thousands of millions of the human
race.” The power of Islám, its proclamation of the Unity, is here seen in
the closest contact with what is to Muslim theologians the equally
fundamental truth—the apostleship of Muhammad, a dogma which
retards the healthy development, explains the narrowness, and causes the
prostration of Islám, as the world around grows luminant with the light
of science and truth, of faith and reason.

2. Sulát.^[185]—All the books on Fiqh (Law)
which treat of [189]these Irkán-i-dín, give in connection with
Sulát the rules regarding the necessary purifications. It will be
convenient to follow the same order.

Tahárat or legal purification is of three kinds: (1) Wazú, the lesser
lustration; (2) Ghusl, the greater lustration; (3) Tayammum, or
purification by sand.

(1). Wazú is an ablution made before saying the appointed prayers.
Those which are ‘farz’ are four in number, viz:—to wash (1) the
face from the top of the forehead to the chin, and as far as each ear;
and (2) the hands and arms up to the elbow; (3) to rub (masah) with the
wet hand a fourth part of the head; also (4) the feet to the ankles. The
authority for these actions is the text: “O Believers! when ye address
yourselves to prayer, wash your hands up to the elbow, and wipe your
heads, and your feet to the ankles” (Súra v. 8). The Sunnís wash the
feet: the Shía’hs are apparently more correct, for they only wipe, or
rather rub, (masah) them. In these ablutions, if the least portion of the
specified part is left untouched, the whole act becomes useless and the
prayer which follows is vain.

The act of making wazú, however, has not been allowed to remain in
this simple form. The Sunnat regulations regarding it are fourteen in
number. They are, (1) to make the intention of wazú, thus: I make this
wazú for the purpose of putting away impurity; (2) to wash the hand up to
the wrist, but care must be taken not to put the hands entirely into the
water, until each has been rubbed three times with water poured on it;
(3) to say one of the names of God at the commencement of the wazú^[186] thus: “In the name of
the Great God,” or “Thanks be to God for the religion of Islám;” (4) to
clean the teeth; (5) to rinse the mouth three times; (6) to put water
into the [190]nostrils three times; (7) to do all the
above in proper order; (8) to do all without any delay between the
various acts; (9) each part is to be purified three times; (10) the space
between the fingers of one hand must be rubbed with the wet fingers of
the other; (11) the beard must be combed with the fingers; (12) the whole head
must be rubbed once; (13) the ears must be washed with the water
remaining on the fingers after the last operation; (14) to rub under and
between the toes with the little finger of the left hand, drawing it from
the little toe of the right foot and between each toe in succession. Imám
Sháfa’í holds that (1) and (7) are farz duties and that (12) should be
done three times. Imám Málik considers (8) to be farz.

The actions may be done in silence, or prayer may be repeated. Such a
recital is a mustahab, not a sunnat or farz order. It is not obligatory.
A specimen of these prayers is given in a note.^[187]

(2). Ghusl is an ablution of the whole body after certain legal
defilements, and should be made as follows. The person should put on
clean clothes and perform the wazú, then he should say: “I make ghusl to
put away impurity.” All being ready he should wash himself in the
following order. He must pour water over the right shoulder three times,
then over the left three times and, lastly, on his head [191]also the same
number of times. The three farz conditions are that (1) the mouth must be
rinsed, (2) water be put into the nostrils, and (3) the whole body be
washed. If one hair even is left dry the whole act is rendered vain and
useless. All other particulars are sunnat or mustahab.

There are obvious reasons why an explanation of the causes which
vitiate a purification, or of the cases in which ghusl is required,
cannot be given here. Every standard Muslim work on Fikh, or law, deals
fully with the subject. Nothing is more calculated to show the student of
Islám how much the Sunnat rules in the practical life of Muslims. The
Traditions have raised the most trivial ceremonial observances into
duties of the greatest importance. That there may be spiritually minded
men in Islám is not to be denied; but a system of religion which declares
that the virtue of prayer depends practically on an ablution, and that
that ablution is useless unless done in the order prescribed, is one well
calculated to make men formalists and nothing more. It comes to this,
that, if a man when making wazú washes his left hand before his right, or
his nose before his teeth, he cannot lawfully say the daily Namáz
enjoined on all Muslims. None but those who have studied Muslim treatises
on the subject can conceive of the puerile discussions which have taken
place on points apparently trivial, but which from their connection with
the Sunnat are deemed by learned Muslims of great importance.

(3). Tayammum, or purification by sand, is allowable under the
following circumstances. (1) When water cannot be procured except at a
distance of one kos (about 2 miles); (2) in case of sickness when the use
of water might be injurious; (3) when water cannot be obtained without
incurring danger from an enemy, a beast or a reptile; and (4) when on the
occasion of the Namáz of a Feast day or the Namáz at a funeral, the
worshipper is late and has no time to perform the wazú. On ordinary days
this substitution of tayammum for wazú is not allowable.

[192]

The ceremony is performed as follows. The person says: “I make
tayammum to put away impurity;” then, “I seek refuge near God from cursed
Satan. I commence in the name of God, most Merciful and most High, whose
praises are in the religion of Islám.” He then strikes the sand with open
hands, rubs his mouth and, at last, the arms to the elbows. Not one hair
must be left untouched or the whole ceremony is useless. The farz acts
are to make the intention of tayammum, to rub the mouth and the hands.
“If ye are sick, or on a journey, or if one of you come from the place of
retirement, or if ye have touched women, and ye find no water, then take
clean sand and rub your faces and your hands with it.” (Súra v. 9.)

Minute regulations are laid down with regard to the water which may be
used for purification. The following kinds of water are
lawful:—rain, sea, river, fountain, well, snow and ice-water. Ice
is not lawful. The first kind is authorized by the Qurán. “He sent you
down water from heaven that He might thereby cleanse you, and cause the
pollution of Satan to pass from you.” (Súra viii. 11.) The use of the
others is sanctioned by the Traditions. I give one illustration. A man
one day came
to the Prophet and said: “I am going on a voyage and shall only have a
small supply of fresh water; if I use it for ablutions I shall have none
wherewith to quench my thirst, may I use sea water?” The Prophet replied:
“The water of the sea is pure.” Tirmízí states that this is a
Hadís-i-Sahíh. Great difference of opinion exists with regard to what
constitutes impurity in water, and so renders it unfit for ablutions. It
would be wearisome to the reader to enter into all details, but I may
briefly say that, amongst the orthodox, it is generally held that if a
dead body or any unclean thing falls into flowing water, or into a
reservoir more than 15 feet square it can be used, provided always that
the colour, smell and taste are not changed. It is for this reason that
the pool near a mosque is never less than ten cubits square. If of [193]that
size, it is called a dah dar dah, (literally 10 x 10). It may be,
and commonly is, larger than this. It should be about one foot deep.

The necessary ablutions having been made, the worshipper can commence
the Namáz.

(4). Salát or Namáz. The Namáz can be said either in private or in
public. All that is required is that the clothes and person of the
worshipper should be clean, the place free from all impurity, and that
the face be turned towards Mecca. Whether the Namáz is said in public or
in private, it must be preceded by wazú, except when tayammum is allowed.
If the Namáz^[188] is said
in a mosque which is considered to be more meritorious than repeating it
in private, it must be preceded by the Azán, or call to prayers, and the
Iqámat. Minute particulars regarding the exact attitude in which the
Musallí, one who says the Salát, must stand and the words he is to say
are given in Muslim books. The following account will give some idea of a
Namáz, or Service.^[189]

The Mu,azzin^[190]
calls out loudly in Arabic:—

“Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar^[191]!”

All who hear it respond:—

“Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar! Alláhu Akbar!”

The Mu,azzin says:—

“I confess there is no God but God, I confess there is no God but
God.”

Each of his auditors replies:—

“I confess there is no God but God, I confess there is no God but
God.”

[194]

Mu,azzin:—”I confess Muhammad is the apostle of God.”

Auditor:—”I confess Muhammad is the apostle of God.”

Mu,azzin:—”Come to prayer.”

Auditor:—”I have no power or strength but from God most High and
Great.”

Mu,azzin:—”Come to do good.”

Auditor:—”What God wills will be; what He wills not will not
be.”

If it is the time of morning prayer, the Mu,azzin adds the words:
“Prayer is better than sleep,” to which the response is given: “Thou hast
spoken well.” “Alláhu Akbar,” and “There is no God but God” are then
repeated twice and so the Azán ends.

The Iqámat (literally, “causing to stand”) is a repetition of the
Azán, but after the words, “come to do good,” the statement “prayer has
commenced” is made.

These preliminaries being now over, the Namáz can commence. It is as
follows:

The Musallí, or worshipper, stands with his hands close to his side
and says in a low voice the Niyyat (intention):—

“I have purposed to offer up to God only, with a sincere heart this
morning (or as the case may be), with my face Qibla-wards, two (or as the
case may be) rak’at prayers, farz (or sunnat or nafl, as the case may
be).”

Then follows the Takbír-i-Tahrímah, said with the thumbs touching the
lobes of the ears. The palms of the hands are placed towards the Qibla.
The fingers are slightly separated from each other. In this position the
Musallí says:—”Alláhu Akbar!”

The Qíám, or standing position. The palm of the right hand being
placed on the back of the left, the thumb and little finger of the former
seize the wrist of the latter. Both hands are then placed below the
navel,^[192] the eyes are
[195]directed towards the spot where the head
of the worshipper will touch the ground in prostration, and the Saná is
said. It is:—

The Ta’awwuz is then said:—

Then follows the Tasmíyah:—

Then follows the Fátiha,^[193] or first chapter of the
Qurán:—

“Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds! the Compassionate, the
Merciful! King on the day of reckoning! Thee only do we worship, and to
Thee do we cry for help. Guide Thou us on the straight path: the path of
those to whom Thou hast been gracious: with whom Thou art not angry, and
who go not astray.”

After this the worshipper can repeat as many chapters of the Qurán as
he likes.^[194] Some
verses he must repeat.

The Súrat-ul-Ikhlás (Súra 112) is generally said:—

“Say: He is God alone: God the Eternal, He begetteth not, and is not
begotten; and there is none like unto Him.”

The Takbír-i-rukú’—Alláhu Akbar!—is said whilst the
Musallí makes an inclination of the head and body, and separating the
fingers a little, places his hands upon his knees.

The Tasbíh-i-rukú’ is said in the same position. It is:—

The Tasmía’ is then said with the body erect, but with the hands
placed on either side. Thus:—

[196]

“God hears him who praises Him: O Lord, Thou art praised^[195].”

The Takbír-i-Sijdar—Alláhu Akbar!—is said as the
worshipper drops on his knees.

The Musallí then kneeling down, places his hands, with the fingers
close to each other, upon the ground. He must rest upon his toes, not on
the side of the feet which must be kept straight behind him. The elbow
must not touch the side, nor the stomach the thigh, nor the thigh the
calf of the leg. The eyes must be kept bent downwards. Then he touches
the ground first with his nose, and then with his forehead, taking care
that the thumbs just touch the lobe of the ears.^[196] All this being carefully attended to,
the Musallí can say the Tasbíh-i-Sijda thus:—

He then raises his head and body, sinks backwards upon his heels,
places his hands a little above his knees, and whilst doing so says the
Takbír-i-Jalsa^[197]—”Alláhu Akbar!”

After a slight pause, a second prostration, or Sijda is made and the
Takbír-i-Sijda and the Tasbíh-i-Sijda are repeated as before. Then when
in the act of rising up the Musallí says the Takbír-i-Qíám—”Alláhu
Akbar!”

This concludes one rak’at. The second rak’at begins with the Fátiha,
so that after saying the Takbír-i-Qíám a Musallí would have to begin
again at that place (p. 195) and repeat all that
he had just finished; the only change being that after the Fátiha, he
recites different verses of the Qurán to those he said in the first
rak’at. After two rak’ats have been said, and after the last, though it
be an odd number, the [197]Musallí, unless he is a Shía’h, places his
left foot under him and sits upon it. He then places his hands above his
knees, as for the Takbír-i-Jalsa, and with his eyes directed towards his
lap says the Attahíyát:—

“The adorations of the tongue are for God, and also the adorations of
the body, and almsgiving! Peace be on thee O Prophet! with the mercy of
God and His blessing. Peace be on us and upon God’s righteous
servants!”

Then raising the first finger of the right hand he says the
Tashahhud^[198]:—

“I testify that there is no deity but God; and I testify that Muhammad
is the servant of God and the messenger of God.”

Then at the end of all the rak’ats the Musallí, whilst in the same
posture, says the Darúd:—

“O God! have mercy on Muhammad and his descendants^[199]; as Thou didst have mercy on Abraham
and his descendants, Thou art to be praised and Thou art great. O God!
bless Muhammad and his descendants, as Thou didst bless Abraham and his
descendants. Thou art to be praised and Thou art great.”

Then comes the Du’á, which may be in the worshipper’s own words though
he usually says^[200]:—

“O God our Lord, give us the blessings of this life, and also the
blessings of life everlasting. Save us from the torments of hell.”

Then turning the head to the right the Musallí repeats the
Salám:—

“The peace and mercy of God be with you.”

Then turning the head to the left he says:—

“The peace and mercy of God be with you.”

At the close of the whole ceremony, the worshipper raises [198]his hands
as high as his shoulders, with the palm towards heaven, or towards his
own face, and offers up a Munáját, or supplication, either in Arabic or
in the vernacular. The hands are then drawn over the face, as if to
convey the blessing received from above to every part of the body.

The appointed periods of prayer are five in number, in proof of which
the following text is quoted: “Glorify God when ye reach the evening
(masá), and when ye rise at morn (subh); and to Him be praise in the
heavens and in the earth,—and at twilight (‘ashí) and when ye rest
at noon (zuhr).” (Súra xxx. 17). The Commentators say that masá includes
both sunset and the period after sunset; that is both the
Salát-ul-Maghrib and the Salát-ul-‘Ishá. There is also a reference to a
stated period of prayer in the following verse: “Observe prayer at early
morning, at the close of the day, and at the approach of night.” (Súra
xi. 116).

These daily Namáz are farz, sunnat, witr and nafl prayers. Farz are
those distinctly ordained by God, such as the five stated periods of
prayer.

Sunnat, a certain number of rak’ats which are added, because it is
said the Prophet repeated them.

Witr rak’ats are an odd number of rak’ats, 3, 5 or 7, which may be
said after the last prayer at night, and before the dawn of day. Usually
they are added to the Salát-ul-‘Ishá. Imám Abu Hanífa says they are
wájib, that is ordered by God. They are not authorised by any text in the
Qurán, but by Traditions each of which is generally received as a
Hadís-i-Sahíh, and so witr rak’ats are regarded as being of divine
authority. Imám Sháfa’í, however, considers them to be sunnat only, a
term already explained.

The Traditions referred to are: “God has added to your Namáz one Namáz
more: know that it is witr, say it between the Salát-ul-‘Ishá and dawn.”
On the authority of Buzár, a Traditionist, it is recorded that the
Prophet [199]said: “Witr is wájib upon Muslims,” and in
order to enforce the practice he added: “Witr is right, he who does not
observe it is not my follower.” The Prophet, the Companions, the Tába’ín
and the Taba-i-Tába’ín all observed it. The word witr literally means
“odd number.” A Tradition says: “God is odd, He loves the odd.” (Alláhu
witrun yuhibbu’l-witra). Musalmáns pay the greatest respect to an odd
number. It is considered unlucky to begin any work, or to commence a
journey on a day, the date of which is an even number. The number of
lines in a page of a book is nearly always an odd number.

Nafl are voluntary prayers the performance of which is considered
mustahab, or meritorious, but they are not of divine obligation. It must
be understood that all these prayers are precisely the same in form. They
simply consist in the repetition of a number of rak’ats, of which I have
already given a single illustration in full. A Muslim who says the five
daily prayers with the full number of rak’ats will repeat the Service I
have described fifty times in one day. If in addition to these he
observes the three voluntary periods of prayers, he must add twenty-five
more rak’ats, making a grand total of seventy-five. It is, however, usual
to omit some of the Sunnat rak’ats; still there is a vast amount of
repetition, and as the whole must be said in Arabic it becomes very
mechanical.

A Muslim who ventured to say that a Namáz might be recited in
Hindustani was publicly excommunicated in the principal Mosque at Madras
on Friday, February 13th, 1880.^[201]

The table on the next page will make the matter clear.^[202] The optional Sunnat
rak’ats are called [200]‘Sunnat-i-ghair-i-maukadda’; the Sunnat
rak’ats before the farz are ‘Sun-nat-i-maukadda’ and should be said.

In addition to these there are several kinds of Namáz which have to be
said at different times, or under special circumstances.

(i). Salát-ul-Juma’—The Friday Namáz. This is a farz duty. It
has the threefold authority of the Qurán, the Sunnat, and the Ijmá’.
Thus: “O ye who believe! When ye are summoned to prayer on the day of
the assembly (Friday), haste ye to the commemoration of God, and quit
your traffic.” (Súra lxii. 9.) The Prophet also said: “Juma’ is farz,”
and, “God will make a mark on the heart of him who misses the
Salát-ul-Juma’^[204].”
There are, however, eight kind of persons on whom it is not incumbent,
viz: a traveller, a sick person, a slave, a woman, a young child,
a mad [201]person, a blind or a lame person. The
conditions which make this Namáz obligatory are:—

(1). That the place in which it is said be a town in which a Qází
(judge) dwells.

(2). There must be in the town a ruler or his deputy.

(3). It must take the place of the Salát-uz-Zuhr, with which it
agrees, except that two farz rak’ats instead of four are recited. The
nafl rak’ats are omitted. The four sunnat rak’ats which precede, and the
two which follow the farz ones are said.

(4). One, or according to the followers of Imám Sháfa’í two Khutbas,
or sermons are preached. These are delivered by the Imám after the four
sunnat rak’ats are recited, and before the two farz ones. The Khutba
should consist of the praise of God, prayer and injunctions to piety.

(5). There must be a congregation of three persons besides the Imám.
The Sháfa’ítes say there should be at least forty worshippers.

(6). The Azán, or call to prayers, must be made to all without
distinction of rank.

Any person who is qualified to act as Imám at the other prayers can
conduct this Namáz. The Imám and Khatíb (preacher) is usually, but not
necessarily, one and the same person. The Khutbas should not be long, for
Muhammad said that long sermons and short prayers would be a sign of the
degeneracy of the latter days. When two Khutbas are said, the Imám sits
down to rest before the delivery of the second. The worshippers may then
offer up a Du’á, or private prayer. Some, however, say that this practice
is bid’at, (innovation) and consider it a very bad act. According to the
Traditionists, Bukhárí, Abu Dáúd and Tirmízí, it is a mustahab act to
wear clean clothes on Friday.

The preacher standing on the second step of the Mimbar, or pulpit,
with a large club or staff in his hand, delivers his sermon.^[205]

[202]

The following is a specimen of the Khutbas.

SERMON ON THE EXCELLENCE OF FRIDAY.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Praise be to God, the King, the Holy, the Great, the Knower. He has
opened our hearts through the blessing of Islám. He has made Friday the
best of days. We testify that there is no God but God, the One, without
partner. This confession saves those who make it from danger and from
darkness. We testify that our Lord Muhammad is His servant and His
Apostle sent to all mankind. May the mercy and peace of God be on him,
his descendants and on his Companions. O men! O believers of God! I
advise you and my own soul thus: “Obey God!” Know, O servants of God!
that when Friday commences the angels assemble in the fourth heaven, and
Gabriel, (on whom be peace) is the Mu,azzin, Míká,íl the Khatíb, Isráfíl
the Imám and ‘Izrá,íl the Mukabbir^[206] and all the angels join in the Namáz.
When it is over Gabriel says: “I give the reward due to me as Mu,azzin to
the Mu,azzins of the sect of Islám;” Míká,íl: “I give mine to the
Khatíbs;” Isráfíl: “I give mine to the Imáms;” ‘Izrá,íl: “I give mine to
the Mukabbirs.” The angels say: “We give ours to the company of the
Muslims.” The Prophet said: “The night and day of Friday last twenty-four
hours, and each hour God releases a thousand souls from hell. Whosoever
makes ‘ghusl’ on Friday, God will give him for every hair on his body the
reward of ten good deeds. Whosoever dies on a Friday meets with the
reward of a martyr.”

Certainly the best and most eloquent speech is the Holy Qurán, the
Word of God,—the King, the Great, the Knower. His word is true and
righteous. When thou readest the Qurán say: “O God! protect me from
cursed Satan.”

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

“When ye are summoned to prayer on the day of the assembly, haste to
the commemoration of God and quit your traffic. This, if ye knew it, will
be best for you. And when the prayer is ended, then disperse yourselves
abroad and go in quest of the bounties of God; and that it may be well
with you, oft remember God. But when they get a sight of merchandize or
sport, they disperse after, and leave thee standing alone. Say: ‘God hath
in reserve what is better than sport or wares. God is the best
provider.'” (Súra lxii. 9-11.) God [203]by means of the Holy
Qurán will bless us and you. And by its verses and teaching will reward
us and you. God is Almighty, Generous, Merciful, Eternal, Holy,
Clement.

Here ends the first sermon; after a short pause the preacher commences
the second.

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Praise be to God, the Creator of the earth and heavens, the Maker of
light and darkness. I testify that there is no God but God. He is one. He
has no partner. Know, O believers! that this confession will save you
from trouble and calamity. I testify that Muhammad, who wipes out error
and infidelity, is the servant and Apostle of God. The mercy of God be on
our Lord Muhammad, the Lord of Creation; and on his descendants; and on
his Companions be grace and honour. O servants of God! I advise you and
my own soul thus: Obey God! Fear God, who created life and death and who
scrutinizes our good actions. O God! be pleased with Abu Bakr, the
righteous, the Sáhib-ul-Ghár,^[207] and with Omar Ibn-ul-Khattáb, the
chief of the holy men; and with Osmán the possessor of two lights, who
was martyred when reading the Holy Qurán, and upon ‘Alí Murtuzá, the
destroyer of infidels and sinners. O God! be pleased with the great Imáms
Hasan and Husain. Be pleased with their mother Fatimat-uz-Zuhra, the
chief of women, and with Hamza and ‘Abbás, the uncles of the Prophet.
Also be pleased with all the Asháb (Companions). O God! help those who
help the religion of Muhammad, and make us of their number. Make those
wretched who corrupt it, and keep us aloof from all such. O believers!
truly God orders you to do justice and to show kindness to your kindred.
He orders you to abstain from infidelity and from the greater and the
lesser sins. God warns you. God is the Most High, the Most Glorious. God
is Great!”

The collection of Khutbas from which the above have been translated
contains a considerable number on a variety of subjects, such as prayer,
the resurrection, worldliness, the various feast and fast days, &c.
The form in all is very similar. The exordium and the conclusion are
practically the same. A few sentences in the middle refer to the special
subject of the sermon. The second of the two [204]sermons is always the
same; it is practically an invocation of blessings on certain persons.
Both are said in Arabic. What would answer to our idea of a sermon, such
as an explanation of some doctrine, or an exposition of some passages in
the Qurán, is not part of the public worship in the mosque, but would be
done in an ordinary assembly, in any convenient place, by a Moollá, or
any learned man who could collect an audience.

(ii). Salát-ul-Musáfir.—Prayers said by a traveller. A person
who makes a journey which lasts three days or three nights is, for this
purpose, considered a traveller.^[208] The length of a day’s journey is
estimated at the distance a camel can march in that period of time. If a
traveller intends to stay in a certain place fifteen days, he must repeat
the usual Namáz; if less than fifteen days, or when actually on the
journey, he can shorten it. He is then permitted to say only two farz
rak’ats. He may omit the sunnat and nafl rak’ats if he chooses; but the
three witr rak’ats he must recite at the Salát-ul-‘Ishá. If a traveller
passing through a place is, for the time being, the most suitable person
to act as Imám, he being a traveller will only recite two rak’ats. The
rest of the worshippers then complete the Namáz. In the case where a
permanent resident of the place is the Imám and the traveller only a
worshipper, the Imám is bound to recite the whole number of rak’ats and
the traveller must also repeat the whole after him. The principle on
which this is based is that the worshippers must not recite less than the
Imám.^[209]

(iii). Salát-ul-Khauf.—Prayers of fear. This is a Namáz said
during the time of war. When there is imminent danger from the approach
of an enemy the Imám should divide the army into two bodies; one of which
should be placed in a position towards the enemy, the other should
recite, if they are on the march, one rak’at; if stationary [205]in a place,
two rak’ats. This division will then march towards the enemy and the
first division will recite as many rak’ats as may be required to complete
the Namáz. The Salám (Ante. p. 197) will be
recited by the Imám alone. The first division of troops will not say the
qir,at, i.e. the Fátiha and the other verses of the Qurán recited
after it (Ante. p. 195); but the second division
will supply the omission. If the enemy are so near that the cavalry dare
not dismount, then each man will recite a rak’at or rak’ats for himself,
and make the rukú’ and sijda by means of signs. If he cannot turn towards
the Qibla, he is, under the circumstances, allowed to face any direction
most convenient. During the recital of the Namáz he must not fight, or
allow his horse to move, lest the prayer should be rendered void. “When
ye go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short
your prayers, if ye fear lest the infidels come upon you. Verily, the
infidels are your undoubted enemies! And when thou, O Apostle! shalt be
among them, and shalt pray with them, then let a party of them rise up
with thee, but let them take their arms; and when they shall have made
their prostrations, let them retire to your rear: then let another party
that hath not prayed come forward, and let them pray with you.” (Súra iv.
102, 103).

(iv). Salát-ut-Taráwíh.—This is a special set of twenty rak’ats
recited every night during the month of Ramazán. They must be said after
the farz and sunnat, and before the witr rak’ats at the time of the
Salát-ul-‘Ishá. The Salát-ut-Taráwíh is considered of sunnat obligation.
The practice dates from the time of the Khalíf Omar. Abd-ur-Rahmán, a
Traditionist, states that one night in Ramazán he went with Omar to the
Mosque. They saw some persons saying the Namáz alone and some reciting it
in groups. Omar said: “If I gather them all together, so that they may
recite it after one Imám it will be good.” He did so, and the next night
the people of their own accord came in great numbers and united together.
Then said Omar: “this [206]bid’at is good.” This is good authority
for the institution, for the Prophet said: “Follow my Sunnat and that of
the Khulafá-i-Rashídín.” There is also a Hadís-i-Sahíh to the effect that
“God has made the fast of Ramazán farz, and its qíám^[210] sunnat.” (Kutiba ‘alaikum síámu
Ramazána wa sunna qíámuhu). The Prophet was anxious lest the Tiráwíh
Namáz should become farz and, therefore, after going to the Mosque on two
successive nights in Ramazán, he stayed away on the third, giving as his
reason for so doing that he feared that, if he went every night, it might
be considered a farz and not a sunnat duty.^[211] The number of rak’ats is fixed at
twenty, as that was the number recited by Muhammad and by the Khalíf
Omar. The Shía’hs do not say these prayers or even enter the Mosque on
such occasions, as after every four rak’ats an eulogium is repeated on
the four Khalífs—the first three of whom they hate.

(v). Salát-ul-Kusúf and Salát-ul-Khusúf—Prayer said when an
eclipse of the sun, or of the moon takes place. In the former case, the
Imám recites with the congregation in the Mosque two rak’ats. The Azán
and the Iqámat are both omitted. No Khutba is said. In each rak’at one
rukú’ is read. The Sháfa’ítes read two. After the rak’ats are completed
those present remain in prayer (Du’á) until the eclipse is at an end. The
Namáz during an eclipse of the moon is the same as that during an eclipse
of the sun, with this exception that the rak’ats need not be recited in a
congregation. Each Muslim can say the Namáz privately in his own house.
The practice is founded on the Prophet’s saying: “When you see an eclipse
then remember God, pray (Du’á) and recite the Namáz until it becomes
light again.”

(vi). Salát-ul-Istisqá.—Prayer in time of drought. When [207]there
is a scarcity of water each person should, with face Qibla-wards, offer
up prayer to God. They can be said at home and in private. Care must be
taken that no Zimmí^[212]
is present. The reason given is that this is a prayer for a blessing; but
God sends no blessing on a company in which a Zimmí is present.

These prayers are simple Du’á and not a Namáz. There is no
well-authenticated Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever said
Namáz on such an occasion; whilst there are many which show that he made
Du’á. This is a very good example of the use of the term Salát as a
Mushtarik word, i.e. one which has several significations.
Its ordinary meaning is Namáz; here it means Du’á.

(vii). Salát-ul-Janáza.—Prayers at a Funeral. When a person is
about to die, the attendants should place him on his right side with his
face Qibla-wards. In that position he should repeat the
“Kalima-i-Shahádat,” the creed of testimony: “I confess that God is one,
without a partner; that truly Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle.”
After death has taken place, the corpse is laid out, incense is burnt,
and the shroud is perfumed an odd number of times. A tradition
states that an odd number is fixed upon, because the number one which
represents the unity of God is odd and not even. The lesser lustration
(wazú) is then made. The head and beard are washed with a decoction made
of some flowers, after which the greater lustration (ghusl) is made. The
members of the body used when making sijda (prostration) i.e.,
forehead, nose, hands, knees, feet, are then rubbed with camphor.

To recite the Salát-ul-Janáza is a duty called Farz-i-kifáya, that is,
if some few persons in the assembly say it, all need not do so; whilst if
no one repeats it all will be guilty of sin. To prove that this Namáz is
farz the following verse is quoted: “Take alms of their substance, that
thou mayest [208]cleanse and purify them thereby, and pray
for them; for thy prayers shall assure their minds: and God heareth,
knoweth.” (Súra ix. 104.) The proof that it is not Farz-i-‘ain
(i.e., incumbent on all), but Farz-i-kifáya is drawn from an
account given in a Hadís, to the effect that the Prophet one day did not
recite the Namáz over one of his deceased followers. Now, if the Namáz
had been Farz-i-‘ain even the Prophet could not have omitted it. His
Sunnat, or practice, has decided the nature of the farz command contained
in the verse of the Qurán just quoted.

The Namáz can only be said when the corpse is present. It is recited
in the open space in front of the Mosque, or in some neighbouring spot:
never in the graveyard.

When all are assembled the Imám or leader says: “Here begins the Namáz
for the dead.”

The company present then stand up in rows with faces turned in the
direction of Mecca. The Imám stands a little in front, near the head or
waist of the corpse according as it is that of a male or female. Then all
assume the Qíám, or standing position, and recite the Niyyat as
follows:—

“I recite Namáz for the sake of God, and offer prayers (Du’á) for this
deceased person, and I follow the Imám (who is about to officiate.)”

Then all at the first^[213] Takbír put the hands to the lobe of
the ears and say: “God is Great!”

Then they say the Saná (Ante, p. 195.):—

“Holiness to Thee O God! And to Thee be praise! Great is Thy Name!
Great is Thy greatness! Great is Thy praise! There is no God but
Thee!”

Then follows the second Takbír: “God is Great!”

Then all say the Darud-i-Ibráhím:—

“O God! have mercy on Muhammad and upon his descendants, as Thou didst
bestow mercy, and peace, and blessing, and compassion, and great kindness
upon [209]Abraham and upon his descendants.” “Thou
art praised, and Thou art Great!” “O God, bless Muhammad and his
descendants as Thou didst bless, and didst have compassion and great
kindness upon Abraham and upon his descendants.”

Then follows the third Takbír: “God is Great!”

The Du’á is then repeated:—

“O God, forgive our living and our dead, and those o£ us who are
present, and those who are absent, and our children and our full grown
persons, our men and our women. O God, those whom Thou dost keep alive
amongst us, keep alive in Islám, and those whom Thou causest to die, let
them die in the Faith.”^[214]

Then follows the fourth Takbír: “God is Great!”

Then all say:—

“O God, give us good in this world and in the next, and save us by Thy
mercy from the troubles of the grave and of hell.”

Then each one in a low voice says the Salám, as in an ordinary Namáz.
(Ante, p. 197.)^[215]

The Namáz is now over and the people make another Du’á
thus:—

“‘O our Lord! suffer not our hearts to go astray after that Thou hast
once guided us; and give us mercy from before Thee; for verily Thou art
He who giveth.’ (Súra iii. 6.) O God, Thou art his^[216] Master, and Thou createdst him, and
Thou didst nourish him, and didst guide him toward Islám, and Thou hast
taken his life, and Thou knowest well his inner and outer life. Provide
intercessors for us. Forgive him, for Thou art the Forgiver, the most
Merciful.”

[210]

Then going towards the head of the corpse, they say:—

“No doubt is there about this Book (Qurán.) It is a guidance to the
God-fearing, who believe in the unseen,^[217] who observe prayer (salát), and out
of what we have bestowed on them, expend (for God), and who believe in
that which hath been sent down to thee (Muhammad), and in what hath been
sent down before thee; and full faith have they in the life to come:
these are guided by their Lord; and with these it shall be well.” (Súra
ii. 1-4).

Then coming towards the feet of the corpse, they say:—

“The Apostle believeth in that which hath been sent down from his
Lord, as do the faithful also. Each believeth in God, and His angels, and
His Books and His Apostles: we make no distinction between any of His
Apostles.^[218] And they
say: ‘We have heard and we obey. (We implore) Thy mercy, Lord; for unto
Thee must we return.’ God will not burden any soul beyond its power. It
shall enjoy the good which it hath acquired, and shall bear the evil for
the acquirement of which it laboured. O our Lord! punish us not if we
forget, or fall into sin; O our Lord! and lay not on us a load like that
which Thou hast laid on those who have been before us^[219]; O our Lord! and lay not on us that
for which we have no strength: but blot out our sins and forgive us, and
have pity on us. Thou art our protector; give us victory therefore over
the infidel nations.” (Súra ii. 285, 286).

[211]

The chief mourner then gives the Izn-i-‘Ámm, that is, he
says:—

“All have permission to depart.”

Some then proceed homewards, others go with the corpse to the
graveyard. When the bier is lifted up, or when it is placed down near the
grave, the people say:—

“We commit thee to earth in the name of God and in the religion of the
Prophet.”

If the ground is very hard, a recess (lahad) is dug out in the side of
the grave. This must be high enough to allow the corpse to sit up when
Munkir and Nakír come to interrogate it. If the ground is soft a small
grave is excavated at the bottom of the larger one. The corpse is then
placed in the lower one. The idea in both cases is that the corpse must
be in such a position that it can have free movement. The body is placed
with the face towards Mecca. When the bands of the shroud have been
loosened the people say:—

“O God deprive us not of the heavenly reward of the deceased, place us
not in trouble.”

Each person then takes seven clods of earth, and over each clod says;
“Bismilláh” (in the name of God), and the Súrat-ul-Iklás (Súra cxii) and
then places each clod by the head of the corpse. Unburnt bricks, bamboos
or boards having then been placed over the smaller grave, the persons
present with both hands throw clods of earth three times into the grave.
The first time they say: “From it (earth) We created you”; the second
time, “and into it will We return you;” the third time, “and out of it
will We bring you a second time.” (Súra xx. 57).

Then they say this Du’á: “O God I beseech Thee for the sake of
Muhammad not to trouble the deceased.”

When the attendants are filling up the grave they say:—

“O God, defend the deceased from Shaitan (devil) and from the torments
of the grave.”

When the grave is completely filled up, one man pours [212]water three,
or five, or seven times over it and then plants a green branch on it.^[220]

One of the mourners then draws near the middle of the grave and
recites the Talqín (instruction):—

“O servant of God, and child of a female servant of God.

O son of (such an one),^[221] remember the faith you professed on
earth to the very last; that is, your witness that there is no God but
God, and that certainly Muhammad is His Apostle, and that Paradise and
Hell and the Resurrection from the dead are real; that there will be a
day of judgment, and say: ‘I confess that God is my Lord, Islám my
religion, Muhammad (on whom be the mercy and peace of God) my Prophet,
the Qurán my guide, the K’aba my Qibla, and that Muslims are my
brethren.’ O God, keep him (the deceased) firm in this faith, and widen
his grave, and make his examination (by Munkir and Nakír) easy, and exalt
him and have mercy on him, O Thou most Merciful.”

The other persons present then offer a Fátiha.^[222]

After this, they may, if they like to do so, read the Súrat-ul-Yá Sín
(xxxvi) and the Súrat-ul-Mulk (lxvii.) It is not common to do so. Then
retiring forty paces from the grave they again offer a Fátiha, for by
this time the examination of the deceased has commenced. The first night
is one of great trouble to the deceased, so alms should be given
liberally that night in his name. In order to relieve him as much as
possible, two nafl rak’ats of a Namáz should be said. After the Fátiha in
each rak’at the worshipper should repeat the Áyat-ul-Kursí [213](Throne-verse)^[223] three times; then the
Súrat-ut-Takísur (102) eleven times; then the Súrat-ul-Iklás (112) three
times.

After the Salám and the Darúd the worshipper lifts up both hands, and
with great humility prays that the reward of the service just concluded
may be bestowed on the deceased.

(viii). Salát-ul-Istikhára.—This is a Namáz said before
undertaking any special work. The person recites two rak’at prayers.
After each rak’at he says the following Du’á: “O God, make me know what
is best for me, and keep me from evil, and bestow good upon me, for I
have no power to know what is best for me.” He then goes to sleep, during
which period be expects to receive a special inspiration (Ilhám) which
will give him the needed directions and guide him aright as to the matter
in hand.

(ix). Salát-ut-Taráwih.—This consists of twenty rak’ats recited
each evening during the month of Ramazán. An account of these will be
given in the next chapter when the ceremonies connected with the Ramazán
fast are described.

3. Roza, the thirty days’ fast of
Ramazán.—Fasting is defined to be abstinence from food,
drink and cohabitation from sunrise to sunset. There must also be in the
mind the intention of keeping a fast. The person should say: “O Lord, I
intend to fast to-morrow for Thy sake. Forgive my past and future sin.”
When the fast is ended he says: “O God I fasted for Thy sake and had
faith in Thee, and confided in Thee and now I break (iftár) the fast with
the food Thou givest. Accept this act.”

It is a farz duty to keep the fast during the thirty days of the month
Ramazán. This is laid down in the words: “O believers! a fast is
prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you.” “As to the
month Ramazán, in which the Qurán was sent down to be man’s guidance, and
an explanation of that guidance, and of that [214]illumination, as soon
as any one of you observeth the moon, let him set about the fast.” (Súra
ii. 179-181). The Ijmá’ is also unanimous on this point. Young children
and idiots are excused. Sick persons and travellers may postpone the fast
to another time. “He who is sick, or upon a journey, shall fast a like
number of other days. God wisheth you ease, but wisheth not your
discomfort, and that you fulfil the number of days.” (Súra ii. 181). This
is called a qazá fast, that is, a fast kept at another time in lieu of
one which has been omitted.

If a person makes a vow that, if God grants a certain request, he will
fast (roza-i-nazr), or if he fasts by way of atonement for some sin
committed (roza-i-kafára), in both cases it is a wájib duty to keep the
fast. Some hold that the former is a farz duty and base their assertion
on the verse: “Let them bring the neglect of their persons to a close,
and let them pay their vows.” (Súra xxii. 30).

All other kinds of fasts are nafl, a term already explained (p. 199). Such are the fasts kept on the 10th day of
Muharram, on the Aiyám-i-Bíz (bright days)—the 13th, 14th and 15th
day of any month, on the 15th of Sh’abán, that is, the day following the
night called Shab-Barát, and on the 30th of each month in which there are
thirty days. A nafl fast may be broken if the person who intended to keep
it receives an invitation to a feast. According to Bukhárí, a woman may
not make a nafl fast without the consent of her husband. The reverse is
not the case, for “Men are superior to women on account of the qualities
with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the
outlay they make from their substance for them.” (Súra iv. 38). It is
said that one day a woman came to the Prophet and said that her husband
had slapped her. The Prophet wished to punish him for doing so improper
an act, but he was prevented by the descent from heaven of the verse just
quoted, which is held to be conclusive evidence of the inferiority of
women. The verse also contains the words “chide those [215](wives) for
whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
and scourge them.” It is mustahab to fast some days in the month Shawwál,
for Muhammad is reported to have said: “Whosoever keeps the fast of
Ramazán and some seven days in the preceding month of Shawwál, it is as
if his whole life were a fast.”

If on account of dull weather, or of dust storms the new moon is not
visible, it is sufficient to act on the testimony of a trustworthy person
who declares that Ramazán has commenced. Imám Sháfa’í requires two, but
the following Tradition is quoted against him: “An Arab came to the
Prophet and said: ‘I have seen the new moon.’ His Excellency said: ‘Dost
thou believe that there is no God but God? Dost thou confess that
Muhammad is His Apostle?’ ‘Yes,’ replied the man. The Prophet calling
Billál, the Mu,azzin, said: ‘Tell the people to commence the fast.'” This
proves that the evidence of one good Muslim is sufficient testimony in
the matter.

The fast is destroyed in the following cases:—if when cleansing
the teeth a little water should pass into the throat, if food is eaten
under compulsion, if an enema is used, if medicine is put into the ears,
nose or a wound in the head, if a meal has been taken on the supposition
that it was night when it was really day, if the niyyat (intention) in
the Ramazán fast was not properly made, if after a meal taken during the
night a portion of food larger than a grain of corn remains between the
teeth or in a cavity of a tooth, lastly, if food is vomited. In each of
these cases a qazá fast must be kept in lieu of the one thus broken.

In the case where the fast is deliberately broken, the person must
atone for his sin by setting a slave at liberty; if from any cause that
cannot be done, he must fast every day for two months; if that cannot be
done, he must give sixty persons two full meals each, or give one man
such meals daily for sixty days.

The fast is not broken by merely tasting anything, by [216]applying
antimony to the eyes, and oil to the beard, by cleansing the teeth, or by
kissing a person; but it is considered better not to do these things
during the day-time. The Imám As-Sháfa’í declared that it was very wrong
indeed to do either of these actions after noon. He used to repeat the
following Tradition handed down by Tabrání. “The Prophet said: ‘when you
fast, cleanse the teeth in the early morning, because when the lips of
him who fasts become dry and parched, they will be for him a light in the
day of judgment.'”

If a person through the infirmity of old age is not able to keep the
fast, he must perform sadqa, that is, he must feed a poor person. This
opinion is based on a sentence in the Qurán, which has caused a good deal
of dispute: “As for those who are able (to keep it and yet break
it), the expiation of this shall be the maintenance of a poor man.”
(Súra ii. 180). This seems to make fasting a matter of personal option,
and some Commentators admit that at first it was so, but they say that
the words have been abrogated^[224] by the following sentence which
occurs in the next verse: “As soon as any one of you observeth the moon,
let him set about the fast.” Others say that the negative particle “not”
must be understood before “able,” in which case the words in italics must
be omitted. Others explain the expression “those who are able” as
equivalent to “those who have great difficulty therein,” such as aged and
infirm persons. This seems to be the best interpretation and is the one
which practically is acted on.

In the case of women with child, mothers giving suck to their
children, sick persons whom fasting at this particular time might injure,
it is sufficient if they keep it at another time; that is, they must when
convenient make a qazá fast. [217]In these cases the sadqa or feeding of the
poor is not required. Thus Abu Dáúd says: “The Prophet said, ‘God allows
travellers to shorten the Namáz and to postpone the fast. Women also are
allowed to fast another time.'” The Qurán is also clear on the point: “He
who is sick or upon a journey, shall fast a like number of other days.”
(Súra ii. 181). There are five days in the year in which it is unlawful
to fast. These are, ‘Íd-ul-Fitr, Baqr-‘íd and the three following days,
viz: the 11th, 12th and 13th of Zu’l-Hajja. If during the month of
Ramazán, a person arrives at maturity, or an Infidel becomes a Muslim,
each must keep the fast during the remaining days of the month.

To take the Sahra, or meal taken just before sunrise in the month of
Ramazán, is a Sunnat act. The great Traditionists, Bukhárí, Muslim and
Tirmízí, all agree that the Prophet said: “Eat Sahra because there is a
blessing in it. The difference between our fast and that of the men of
the Book (Christians) is the partaking of Sahra.”

The meal eaten immediately after sunset is called Iftár, or the
breaking of the fast. In India it is the custom to eat a date first, or
if that fruit is not procurable to drink a little water. In Turkey an
olive is chosen as the fruit with which the fast should be broken.

The distinctive feature of a Muhammadan fast is, that it is a fast
during the day only. The rich classes by turning day into night avoid
much of its rigour.

They, however, frequently break the fast, though any such action must
be done in secret, for popular opinion all over the Musalmán world is
strongly against a man who does not outwardly, at least, observe the fast
of Ramazán. In this matter it may be said

Those who have to work for their living find the observance of the
fast very difficult, for however laborious may be their occupation they
must not swallow any liquid; yet as [218]a rule the lower
classes observe it strictly.^[225] In hot climates this is often
exceedingly distressing. In such circumstances the evening twilight is
anxiously looked for, as then the Iftár can be commenced. The month of
Ramazán brings with it other duties than that of fasting. These will be
described in the next chapter.

4. Zakát.—There are two terms in use to
express almsgiving. The first is Zakát (literally, “purification”) or the
legal alms due, with certain exceptions, from every Muslim. The second is
Sadqa, or offerings on the feast day known as ‘Íd-ul-Fitr, or alms in
general.^[226] It is the
first of these that has now to be considered.

On the authority of the Qurán and the Ijmá’-i-Ummat it is declared to
be a farz duty for every Muslim of full age, after the expiration of a
year, to give the Zakát on account of his property; provided that, he has
sufficient for his subsistence and is a Sáhib-i-Nisáb, or one who
possesses an income equivalent to about £5 per annum. The Qurán says:
“Observe prayer (Salát) and the legal impost (Zakát).” (Súra ii. 40). The
Khalíf ‘Umr Ibn ‘Abd-ul-‘Azíz used to say: “Prayer carries us half way to
God, fasting brings us to the door of His palace, and alms procure us
admission.” The three conditions without which Zakát would not be
compulsory are Islám, Hurriat (freedom) and Nisáb (stock). The reason for this is, that
Zakát is said to be a fundamental part of ‘Ibádat (worship), and that, as
the Infidels cannot perform acceptable worship, they have nothing to do
with Zakát. Freedom is necessary, for slaves hold no [219]property.
Nisáb is required, for so the Prophet has decreed. When the Nisáb is
required for daily use the zakát is not taken from it; such as a slave
retained for personal service, grain for food, weapons, tools, books,
household furniture, wearing apparel, horses for riding, &c., for one
Tradition records that the Prophet specially exempted all these, whilst
another given on the authority of Bukhárí states that for slaves employed
in domestic service only the Sadqa-i-fitr^[227] should be given. If a person owes a
debt, the amount necessary for its liquidation must be deducted from his
property and the Zakát given on the balance. If it is a debt due to God,
such as an offering due on a vow or to be given in atonement for the
neglect of some religious duty, it must not be so deducted from the
property on which Zakát is due.

The amount of gold which constitutes a Nisáb is 20 miskats, or of
silver 200 dirhems (=£5 4s.). Whether these metals are in coin or
not, one-fortieth part is due. Some say that gold and silver ornaments
are exempt, but Imám Sháfa’í does not admit this, and quotes from Abu
Dáúd the following Tradition: “A woman with a child, on whose arms were
heavy golden bracelets, came to the Prophet. He enquired if the Zakát had
been given for them. On receiving a reply in the negative he said: ‘It is
easy for God in the day of judgment to make thee wear bracelets of fire.’
The girl then took them off and said: ‘These are for the service of God
and of His Prophet.'” On all treasure known as rikáz, that is, buried
treasure found by any one, and on valuable metals extracted from mines,
one-fifth of the value must be paid, whether the land be Khárijí, rented
at its proper market value; or ‘Usharí possessed by the payment of a
tithe. If the rikáz is found in Dar-ul-Harb, a country under a non-Muslim
Government, the whole belongs to the finder, if it is on his own land, or
if on unclaimed [220]land he must pay the one-fifth. If the
coins found bear the mint stamp of a Musalmán Government, the finder
must, if he can, find the owner and return them to him; if they were
coined in a mint belonging to the Infidels, after having given one-fifth
as Zakát, he may retain four-fifths for himself.

Pearls, amber and turquoise are not subject to any deduction, for the
Prophet said: “There is no Zakát for stones.”

As regards cattle the following rules have been laid down. For sheep
and goats nothing is given when the number is under forty. The owner must
give one for one hundred and twenty, two for the next eighty and one for
every hundred after. The scale for buffaloes is the same as that for
sheep.

For camels the rule is as follows: from 5 to 24 in number, one sheep
or goat must be given; from 25 to 35, one yearling female camel
(bint-i-mukház); from 36 to 45, one two-year old female camel
(bint-i-labún); from 46 to 60, one three-year old female camel (hiqqah);
from 61 to 75, one four-year old female camel (jaz’ah); from 76 to 90,
two bint-i-labún; from 91 to 120, two hiqqah; and from 121 upwards,
either a bint-i-labún for every forty or a hiqqah for every fifty. Horses
follow this scale, or two and a half per cent on the value may be given
instead. For 30 cows a one-year old female calf (tabi’a) must be given;
for 40, a two-year old female calf (musinna), and after that one calf for
every ten cows.

Donkeys and mules are exempt, for the Prophet said: “No order has come
down (from heaven) to me about them.”

If a stock of merchandize exceeds the Nisáb (£5 4s.), Zakát
must be given on it and on the profits at the rate of one in forty, or
two-and-a-half per cent. The Hanífites do not count a fraction of the
forty. The Sháfa’ítes count such a fractional part as forty and require
the full Zakát to be paid on it.

Honey, fruit, grain, &c., although less than five camel [221]loads,^[228] must according to Imám
Abu Hanífa pay one-tenth; but the Sáhibain and Imám Sháfa’í say that if
there is less than the five camel loads no Zakát is required. The Prophet
said: “If produced on land naturally watered one-tenth is due, if on land
artificially irrigated one-twentieth.” As he said nothing about the
quantity, the Hanífites adduce the fact of the omission as a proof on
their side.

The Zakát should be given to the classes of person mentioned in the
following verse. “Alms are to be given to the poor and the needy, and to
those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won to
Islám, and for ransoms, and for debtors, and for the cause of God,
and for the wayfarer.” (Súra ix. 60). The words italicised, according to
the Tafsír-i-Husainí, are now cancelled (mansúkh). The reference is to
the Arab Chiefs who were beaten by the Prophet at the battle of Honein
(A.H. 8). This victory is referred to in the
25th verse of this Súra. “God hath helped you in many battle fields, and
on the day of Honein.” Abu Bakr abolished this giving of Zakát to
converts, and the Khalíf Omar said to these or similar persons: “This
Zakát was given to incline your hearts toward Islám. Now God has
prospered Islám. If you be converted it is well; if not, a sword is
between us.” No Companion has denied this statement, and so the authority
for the cancelling of this clause is that of the Ijmá’-i-Ummat (unanimous
consent). It is well that an appeal to unworthy motives should be
abolished, but no commentator so far as I know makes that a reason for
the cancelling of this order. It is always placed on the ground of the
triumphant nature of Islám which now needs no such support. Contemptuous
indifference, not any high moral motive was the cause of the change.