Front Page Titles (by Subject) SALE'S PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. - The Quran, vol. 1
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
SALE’S PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. - Mohammed, The Quran, vol. 1 
A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran: Comprising Sale’s Translation and preliminary Discourse, with Additional Notes and Emendations (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., 1896). 4 vols.
Part of: The Quran, 4 vols.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
SALE’S PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE.
OF THE ARABS BEFORE MUHAMMAD; OR, AS THEY EXPRESS IT, IN THE TIME OF IGNORANCE; THEIR HISTORY,* RELIGION, LEARNING, AND CUSTOMS.
The name Arabia.
The Arabs, and the country they inhabit, which themselves call Jazírat al Arab, or the Peninsula of the Arabians, but we Arabia, were so named from Araba, a small territory in the province of Tahama;1 to which Yarab the son of Qahtán, the father of the ancient Arabs, gave his name, and where, some ages after, dwelt Ismaíl the son of Abraham by Hagar. The Christian writers for several centuries speak of them under the appellation of Saracens, the most certain derivation of which word is from shark, the east, where the descendants of Joctan, the Qahtán of the Arabs, are placed by Moses,1 and in which quarter they dwelt in respect to the Jews.2
Limits of Arabia.
The name of Arabia (used in a more extensive sense) sometimes comprehends all that large tract of land bounded by the river Euphrates, the Persian Gulf, the Sindian, Indian, and Red Seas, and part of the Mediterranean: above two-thirds of which country, that is, Arabia properly so called, the Arabs have possessed almost from the Flood; and have made themselves masters of the rest, either by settlements or continual incursions; for which reason the Turks and Persians at this day call the whole Arabistán, or the country of the Arabs.
But the limits of Arabia, in its more usual and proper sense, are much narrower, as reaching no farther northward than the Isthmus, which runs from Aila to the head of the Persian Gulf, and the borders of the territory of Kúfa; which tract of land the Greeks nearly comprenended under the name of Arabia the Happy. The Eastern geographers make Arabia Petræa to belong partly to Egypt, and partly to Shám or Syria, and the Desert Arabia they call the Deserts of Syria.3
Proper Arabia is by the Oriental writers generally divided into five provinces,4 viz., Yaman, Hijaz, Taháma, Najd, and Yamáma; to which some add Bahrain, as a sixth, but this province the more exact make part of Irák;5 others reduce them all to two, Yaman and Hijáz, the last including the three other provinces of Taháma, Najd, and Yamáma.
The province of Yaman.
The province of Yaman, so called either from its situation to the right hand, or south of the temple of Makkah, or else from the happiness and verdure of its soil, extends itself along the Indian Ocean from Aden to Cape Rasalgat; part of the Red Sea bounds it on the west and south sides, and the province of Hijáz on the north.1 It is subdivided into several lesser provinces, as Hadramaut, Shihr, Omán, Najrán, &c., of which Shihr alone produces the frankincense.2 The metropolis of Yaman is Sanaa, a very ancient city, in former times called Ozal,* and much celebrated for its delightful situation; but the prince at present resides about five leagues northward from thence, at a place no less pleasant, called Hisn al Mawáhib, or the Castle of Delights.3
So-called Arabian produce brought from India.
Produce of Yaman.
This country has been famous from all antiquity for the happiness of its climate, its fertility and riches,4 which induced Alexander the Great, after his return from his Indian expedition, to form a design of conquering it, and fixing there his royal seat; but his death, which happened soon after, prevented the execution of this project.5 Yet, in reality, great part of the riches which the ancients imagined were the produce of Arabia, came really from the Indies and the coasts of Africa; for the Egyptians, who had engrossed that trade, which was then carried on by way of the Red Sea, to themselves, industriously concealed the truth of the matter, and kept their ports shut to prevent foreigners penetrating into those countries, or receiving any information thence; and this precaution of theirs on the one side, and the deserts, unpassable to strangers, on the other, were the reason why Arabia was so little known to the Greeks and Romans. The delightfulness and plenty of Yaman are owing to its mountains; for all that part which lies along the Red Sea is a dry, barren desert, in some places ten or twelve leagues over, but in return bounded by those mountains, which being well watered, enjoy an almost continual spring, and, besides coffee, the peculiar produce of this country, yield great plenty and variety of fruits, and in particular excellent corn, grapes, and spices. There are no rivers of note in this country, for the streams which at certain times of the year descend from the mountains, seldom reach the sea, being for the most part drunk up and lost in the burning sands of that coast.1
The soil of the other provinces is much more barren than that of Yaman; the greater part of their territories being covered with dry sands, or rising into rocks, interspersed here and there with some fruitful spots, which receive their greatest advantages from their water and palm-trees.
The Hijáz its boundaries.
The province of Hijáz, so named because it divides Najd from Taháma, is bounded on the south by Yaman and Taháma, on the west by the Red Sea, on the north by the deserts of Syria, and on the east by the province of Najd.2 This province is famous for its two chief cities, Makkah and Madína, one of which is celebrated for its temple, and for having given birth to Muhammad; and the other for being the place of his residence for the last ten years of his life, and of his interment.
Makkah, sometimes also called Bakkah, which words are synonymous, and signify a place of great concourse, is certainly one of the most ancient cities of the world: it is by some3 thought to be the Mesa of the Scripture,4 a name not unknown to the Arabians, and supposed to be taken from one of Ismaíl’s sons.5 It is seated in a stony and barren valley, surrounded on all sides with mountains.6 The length of Makkah from south to north is about two miles, and its breadth from the foot of the mountain Ajyad, to the top of another called Koaikaán, about a mile.1 In the midst of this space stands the city, built of stone cut from the neighbouring mountains.2 There being no springs at Makkah,3 at least none but what are bitter and unfit to drink,4 except only the well Zamzam, the water of which, though far the best, yet cannot be drank of any continuance, being brackish,* and causing eruptions in those who drink plentifully of it,5 the inhabitants are obliged to use rain-water, which they catch in cisterns.6 But this not being sufficient, several attempts were made to bring water thither from other places by aqueducts; and particularly about Muhammad’s time, Zubair, one of the principal men of the tribe of Quraish, endeavoured, at a great expense, to supply the city with water from Mount Arafat, but without success; yet this was effected not many years ago, being begun at the charge of a wife of Sulaimán the Turkish emperor.7 But long before this another aqueduct had been made from a spring at a considerable distance, which was, after several years’ labour, finished by the Khalífah al Muktadir.8
How the people of Makkah subsist.
The soil about Makkah is so very barren as to produce no fruits but what are common in the deserts, though the prince or Sharíf has a garden well planted at his castle of Marbaa, about three miles westward from the city, where he usually resides. Having therefore no corn or grain of their own growth, they are obliged to fetch it from other places;1 and Hásham, Muhammad’s great-grandfather, then prince of his tribe, the more effectually to supply them with provisions, appointed two caravans to set out yearly for that purpose, the one in summer, and the other in winter:2 these caravans of purveyors are mentioned in the Qurán. The provisions brought by them were distributed also twice a year, viz., in the month of Rajab, and at the arrival of the pilgrims. They are supplied with dates in great plenty from the adjacent country, and with grapes from Táyif, about sixty miles* distant, very few growing at Makkah. The inhabitants of this city are generally very rich, being considerable gainers by the prodigious concourse of people of almost all nations at the yearly pilgrimage, at which time there is a great fair or mart for all kinds of merchandise. They have also great numbers of cattle, and particularly of camels: however, the poorer sort cannot but live very indifferently in a place where almost every necessary of life must be purchased with money. Notwithstanding this great sterility near Makkah, yet you are no sooner out of its territory than you meet on all sides with plenty of good springs and streams of running water, with a great many gardens and cultivated lands.3
The temple of Makkah and the reputed holiness of this territory, will be treated of in a more proper place.
Madína or Yathrab.
Madína, which till Muhammad’s retreat thither was called Yathráb, is a walled city about half as big as Makkah,4 built in a plain, salt in many places, yet tolerably fruitful, particularly in dates, but more especially near the mountains, two of which, Ohod on the north, and Air on the south, are about two leagues distant. Here lies Muhammad interred1 in a magnificent building, covered with a cupola, and adjoining to the east side of the great temple, which is built in the midst of the city.2
The provinces of Tahama. Najd, and Yamáma founded.
The province of Taháma was so named from the vehement heat of its sandy soil, and is also called Gaur from its low situation; it is bounded on the west by the Red Sea, and on the other sides by Hijáz and Yaman, extending almost from Makkah to Aden.3
The province of Najd, which word signifies a rising country, lies between those of Yamáma, Yaman, and Hijáz, and is bounded on the east by Irák.4
The province of Yamáma, also called Arúd from its oblique situation, in respect of Yaman, is surrounded by the provinces of Najd, Tahama, Bahrain, Omán, Shihr, Hadramaut, and Saba. The chief city is Yamáma, which gives name to the province: it was anciently called Jaw, and is particularly famous for being the residence of Muhammad’s competitor, the false prophet Musailama.5
Two classes of Arabians.
The Arabians, the inhabitants of this spacious country, which they have possessed from the most remote antiquity, are distinguished by their own writers into two classes, viz., the old lost Arabians, and the present.
The former were very numerous, and divided into several tribes, which are now all destroyed, or else lost and swallowed up among the other tribes, nor are any certain memoirs or records extant concerning them:1 though the memory of some very remarkable events and the catastrophe of some tribes have been preserved by tradition, and since confirmed by the authority of the Qurán.
The ancient Arabians.
The garden of Iram.
The tribe of Ád were descended from Ád, the son of Aws,2 the son of Aram,3 the son of Sem, the son of Noah,* who, after the confusion of tongues, settled in al Ahqáf, or the winding sands in the province of Hadramaut, where his posterity greatly multiplied. Their first king was Shadád the son of Ád, of whom the Eastern writers deliver many fabulous things, particularly that he finished the magnificent city his father had begun, wherein he built a fine palace, adorned with delicious gardens, to embellish which he spared neither cost nor labour, proposing thereby to create in his subjects a superstitious veneration of himself as a god.4 This garden or paradise was called the garden of Iram, and is mentioned in the Qurán,5 and often alluded to by the Oriental writers. The city, they tell us, is still standing in the deserts of Aden, being preserved by Providence as a monument of divine justice, though it be invisible, unless very rarely, when God permits it to be seen, a favour one Colabah pretended to have received in the reign of the Khalífah Muáwiyah, who sending for him to know the truth of the matter, Colabah related his whole adventure: that as he was seeking a camel he had lost, he found himself on a sudden at the gates of this city, and entering it, saw not one inhabitant, at which, being terrified, he stayed no longer than to take with him some fine stones which he showed the Khalífah.1*
Destruction of the Ádites.
The latter Adites.
The descendants of Ád in process of time falling from the worship of the true God into idolatry, God sent the prophet Húd (who is generally agreed to be Heber2† ) to preach to and reclaim them. But they refusing to acknowledge his mission, or to obey him, God sent a hot and suffocating wind, which blew seven nights and eight days together, and entering at their nostrils passed through their bodies,3 and destroyed them all, a very few only excepted, who had believed in Húd and retired with him to another place.4 That prophet afterwards returned into Hadramaut, and was buried near Hasiq, where there is a small town now standing called Qabr Húd, or the sepulchre of Húd. Before the Ádites were thus severely punished, God, to humble them and incline them to hearken to the preaching of his prophet, afflicted them with a drought for four years, so that all their cattle perished, and themselves were very near it; upon which they sent Luqmán (different from one of the same name who lived in David’s time) with sixty others to Makkah to beg rain, which they not obtaining, Luqmán with some of his company stayed at Makkah, and thereby escaped destruction, giving rise to a tribe called the latter Ád, who were afterward changed into monkeys.1
Some commentators on the Qurán2 tell us these old Ádites were of prodigious stature, the largest being 100 cubits high, and the least 60; which extraordinary size they pretend to prove by the testimony of the Qurán.3
The tribe of Thamúd.
Destruction of the Thamudites.
The tribe of Thamúd were the posterity of Thamúd the son of Jathar4 the son of Aram, who falling into idolatry, the prophet Sálih was sent to bring them back to the worship of the true God. This prophet lived between the time of Húd and of Abraham, and therefore cannot be the same with the patriarch Sálih, as M. d’Herbelot imagines.5 The learned Bochart with more probability takes him to be Phaleg.6 A small number of the people of Thamúd hearkened to the remonstrances of Sálih, but the rest requiring, as a proof of his mission, that he should cause a she-camel big with young to come out of a rock in their presence, he accordingly obtained it of God, and the camel was immediately delivered of a young one ready weaned; but they, instead of believing, cut the hamstrings of the camel and killed her; at which act of impiety God, being highly displeased, three days after struck them dead in their houses by an earthquake and a terrible noise from heaven, which, some7 say, was the voice of Gabriel the archangel crying aloud, “Die, all of you.” Sálih, with those who were reformed by him, were saved from this destruction; the prophet going into Palestine, and from thence to Makkah,8 where he ended his days.
Rock-cut houses of the Thamúdites.
This tribe first dwelt in Yaman,1 but being expelled thence by Himyár the son of Sába, they settled in the territory of Hajr in the province of Hijáz, where their habitations cut out of the rocks, mentioned in the Qurán,2 are still to be seen, and also the crack of the rock whence the camel issued, which, as an eyewitness3 hath declared, is sixty cubits wide. These houses of the Thamúdites being of the ordinary proportion, are used as an argument to convince those of a mistake who make this people to have been of a gigantic stature.
4 The tragical destructions of these two potent tribes are often insisted on in the Qurán as instances of God’s judgment on obstinate unbelievers.
The tribe of Tasm.
The tribe of Tasm were the posterity of Lúd the son of Sem, and Jadís of the descendants of Jathar.5 These two tribes dwelt promiscuously together under the government of Tasm, till a certain tyrant made a law that no maid of the tribe of Jadís should marry unless first deflowered by him;6 which the Jadísians not enduring, formed a conspiracy, and inviting the king and chiefs of Tasm to an ehtertainment, privately hid their swords in the sand, and in the midst of their mirth fell on them and slew them all, and extirpated the greatest part of that tribe; however, the few who escaped obtaining aid of the king of Yaman, then (as is said) Dhu Habshán Ibn Aqrán,7 assaulted the Jadís and utterly destroyed them, there being scarce any mention made from that time of either of these tribes.8
The Amalekites conquer Lower Egypt.
The former tribe of Jorham (whose ancestor some pretend was one of the eight persons saved in the ark with Noah, according to a Muhammadan tradition9 ) was contemporary with Ád, and utterly perished.1 The tribe of Amalek were descended from Amalek the son of Eliphaz the son of Esau,2 though some of the Oriental authors say Amalek was the son of Ham the son of Noah,3 and others the son of Azd the son of Sem.4 The posterity of this person rendered themselves very powerful,5 and before the time of Joseph conquered the Lower Egypt under their king Walíd, the first who took the name of Pharaoh, as the Eastern writers tell us;6 seeming by these Amalekites to mean the same people which the Egyptian histories call Phœnician shepherds.7 But after they had possessed the throne of Egypt for some descents, they were expelled by the natives, and at length totally destroyed by the Israelites.8
Origin of the present Arabe.
The present Arabians, according to their own historians, are sprung from two stocks, Qahtán,* the same with Joctan the son of Eber,9 and Adnán, descended in a direct line from Ismail the son of Abraham and Hagar; the posterity of the former they call al Arab al Áriba,10i.e., the genuine or pure Arabs, and those of the latter al Arab al Mustáriba, i.e., naturalised or insititious Arabs, though some reckon the ancient lost tribes to have been the only pure Arabians, and therefore call the posterity of Qahtán also Mutáriba, which word likewise signifies insititious Arabs, though in a nearer degree than Mustáriba, the descendants of Ismaíl being the more distant graff.
Their posterity have no claim to be pure Arabs.
The posterity of Ismaíl have no claim to be admitted as pure Arabs, their ancestor being by origin and language an Hebrew; but having made an alliance with the Jorhamites, by marrying a daughter of Mudád, and accustomed himself to their manner of living and language, his descendants became blended with them into one nation. The uncertainty of the descents between Ismaíl and Adnán is the reason why they seldom trace their genealogies higher than the latter, whom they acknowledge as father of their tribes, the descents from him downwards being pretty certain and uncontroverted.1*
The genealogy of these tribes being of great use to illustrate the Arabian history, I have taken the pains to form a genealogical table from their most approved authors, to which I refer the curious.
Besides these tribes of Arabs mentioned by their own authors, who were all descended from the race of Sem, others of them were the posterity of Ham by his son Cush, which name is in Scripture constantly given to the Arabs and their country, though our version renders it Ethiopia; but, strictly speaking, the Cushites did not inhabit Arabia properly so called, but the banks of the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf, whither they came from Chuzestán or Susiana, the original settlement of their father.1 They might probably mix themselves in process of time with the Arabs of the other race, but the Eastern writers take little or no notice of them.
The Arabians were for some centuries under the government of the descendants of Qahtán; Yárab, one of his sons, founding the kingdom of Yaman, and Jorham, another of them, that of Hijáz.
The Himyár princes of Yaman.
The province of Yaman, or the better part of it, particularly the provinces of Saba and Hadramaut, was governed by princes of the tribe of Himyár, though at length the kingdom was translated to the descendants of Qahlán, his brother, who yet retained the title of King of Himyár, and had all of them the general title of Tubba, which signifies successor, and was affected to this race of princes as that of Cæsar was to the Roman emperors, and Khalífah to the successors of Muhammad. There were several lesser princes who reigned in other parts of Yaman, and were mostly, if not altogether, subject to the king of Himyár, whom they called the great king, but of these history has recorded nothing remarkable or that may be depended upon.2
The inundation of Aram.
The first great calamity that befell the tribes settled in Yaman was the inundation of Aram, which happened soon after the time of Alexander the Great, and is famous in the Arabian history.* No less than eight tribes were forced to abandon their dwellings upon this occasion, some of which gave rise to the two kingdoms of Ghassán and Hira. And this was probably the time of the migration of those tribes or colonies which were led into Mesopotamia by three chiefs, Baqr, Mudar, and Rabía, from whom the three provinces of that country are still named Diyár Baqr, Diyár Mudar, and Diyar Rabía.1 Abd-as-Shams, surnamed Saba, having built the city from him called Saba, and afterwards Márib, made a vast mound, or dam,2 to serve as a basin or reservoir to receive the water which came down from the mountains, not only for the use of the inhabitants, and watering their lands, but also to keep the country they had subjected in greater awe by being masters of the water. This building stood like a mountain above their city, and was by them esteemed so strong that they were in no apprehension of its ever failing The water rose to the height of almost twenty fathoms, and was kept in on every side by a work so solid, that many of the inhabitants had their houses built upon it. Every family had a certain portion of this water, distributed by aqueducts. But at length God, being highly displeased at their great pride and insolence, and resolving to humble and disperse them,† sent a mighty flood, which broke down the mound by night while the inhabitants were asleep, and carried away the whole city, with the neighbouring towns and people.3
Ethiopian conquest of Yaman.
Persian supremacy established.
The tribes which remained in Yaman after this terrible devastation still continued under the obedience of the former princes, till about seventy years before Muhammad, when the king of Ethiopia sent over forces to assist the Christians of Yaman against the cruel persecution of their king, Dhu Nuwás, a bigoted Jew, whom they drove to that extremity that he forcéd his horse into the sea, and so lost his life and crown,1 after which the country was governed by four Ethiopian princes successively, till Salif, the son of Dhu Yazan, of the tribe of Himyár, obtaining succours from Khusrú Anushirwán, king of Persia, which had been denied him by the emperor Heraclius, recovered the throne and drove out the Ethiopians, but was himself slain by some of them who were left behind. The Persians appointed the succeeding princes till Yaman fell into the hands of Muhammad, to whom Bázán, or rather Bádhán, the last of them, submitted, and embraced this new religion.2
The kingdom of Ghassán founded.
It has been already observed that two kingdoms were founded by those who left their country on occasion of the inundation of Aram: they were both out of the proper limits of Arabia. One of them was the kingdom of Ghassán. The founders of this kingdom were of the tribe of Azd, who, settling in Syria Damascena near a water called Ghassán, thence took their name, and drove out the Dajaamian Arabs of the tribe of Sálih, who before possessed the country;5 where they maintained their kingdom 400 years, as others say 600, or, as Abulfeda more exactly computes, 616. Five of these princes were named Hárith, which the Greeks write Aretas: and one of them it was whose governor ordered the gates of Damascus to be watched to take St. Paul.1 This tribe were Christians,* their last king being Jabalah the son of al Ayham, who, on the Arabs’ successes in Syria professed Muhammadism under the Khalífah Omar; but receiving a disgust from him, returned to his former faith, and retired to Constantinople.2
The kingdom of Hira.
The other kingdom was that of Hira, which was founded by Malik, of the descendants of Qablán3 in Chaldea or Irák; but after three descents the throne came by marriage to the Lakhmians, called also the Mundárs (the general name of those princes), who preserved their dominion, notwithstanding some small interruption by the Persians, till the Khalífat of Abu Baqr, when al Mundár al Maghrúr, the last of them, lost his life and crown by the arms of Khálid Ibn al Walíd. This kingdom lasted 622 years eight months.4 Its princes were under the protection of the kings of Persia, whose lieutenants they were over the Arabs of Irák, as the kings of Ghassán were for the Roman emperors over those of Syria.5
Jorhamites of the Hijáz.
They are expelled and finally destroyed.
Jorham the son of Qahtán reigned in Hijáz, where his posterity kept the throne till the time of Ismaíl; but on his marrying the daughter of Mudád, by whom he had twelve sons, Qidár, one of them, had the crown resigned to him by his uncles the Jorhamites,6 though others say the descendants of Ismaíl expelled that tribe, who retiring to Johainah, were, after various fortune, at last all destroyed by an inundation.7
Of the kings of Himyár, Hira, Ghassán, and Jorham, Dr. Pocock has given us catalogues tolerably exact, to which I refer the curious.1
The Phylarchic government of the Hijáz.
After the expulsion of the Jorhamites, the government of Hijáz seems not to have continued for many centuries in the hands of one prince, but to have been divided among the heads of tribes, almost in the same manner as the Arabs of the desert are governed at this day. At Makkah an aristocracy prevailed, where the chief management of affairs till the time of Muhammad was in the tribe of Quraish, especially after they had gotten the custody of the Kaabah from the tribe of Khuzáah.2
Besides the kingdoms which have been taken notice of, there were some other tribes which in latter times had princes of their own, and formed states of lesser note, particularly the tribe of Kinda;3 but as I am not writing a just history of the Arabs, and an account of them would be of no great use to my present purpose, I shall waive any further mention of them.
The government of Arabia after the time of Muhammad.
After the time of Muhammad, Arabia was for about three centuries under the Khalífahs his successors. But in the year 325 of the Hijra, great part of that country was in the hands of the Karmatians,4 a new sect who had committed great outrages and disorders even in Makkah, and to whom the Khalífahs were obliged to pay tribute, that the pilgrimage thither might be performed: of this sect I may have occasion to speak in another place. Afterwards Yaman was governed by the house of Thabátiba, descended from Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad, whose sovereignty in Arabia some place so high as the time of Charlemagne. However, it was the posterity of Ali, or pretenders to be such, who reigned in Yaman and Egypt so early as the tenth century. The present reigning family in Yaman is probably that of Ayúb, a branch of which reigned there in the thirteenth century, and took the title of Khalífah and Imám, which they still retain.1* They are not possessed of the whole province of Yaman,2 there being several other independent kingdoms there, particularly that of Fartakh. The crown of Yaman descends not regularly from father to son, but the prince of the blood royal who is most in favour with the great ones, or has the strongest interest, generally succeeds.3
The governors of Makkah and Madína independent.
The governors of Makkah and Madína, who have always been of the race of Muhammad, also threw off their subjection to the Khalífahs, since which time four principal families, all descended from Hassan the son of Ali, have reigned there under the title of Sharíf, which signifies noble, as they reckon themselves to be on account of their descent. These are Banu Qádir, Banu Músa Thani, Banu Hásham, and Banu Kitáda;4 which last family now is, or lately was in the throne of Makkah, where they have reigned above 500 years.† The reigning family at Madína are the Banu Hásham, who also reigned at Makkah before those of Kitáda.1
The rulers of Yaman independent.
The kings of Yaman, as well as the princes of Makkah and Madína, are absolutely independent2 and not at all subject to the Turk, as some late authors have imagined3* These princes often making cruel wars among themselves, gave an opportunity to Selim I, and his son Sulaimán, to make themselves masters of the coasts of Arabia on the Red Sea, and of part of Yaman, by means of a fleet built at Sues: but their successors have not been able to maintain their conquests; for, except the port of Jidda, where they have a Pasha whose authority is very small, they possess nothing considerable in Arabia.1*
Arabian liberty preserved in all ages.
Thus have the Arabs preserved their liberty, of which few nations can produce so ancient monuments, with very little interruption, from the very Deluge; for though very great armies have been sent against them, all attempts to subdue them were unsuccessful. The Assyrian or Median empires never got footing among them.2 The Persian monarchs, though they were their friends, and so far respected by them as to have an annual present of frankincense,3 yet could never make them tributary;4 and were so far from being their masters, that Cambyses, on his expedition against Egypt, was obliged to ask their leave to pass through their territories;5 and when Alexander had subdued that mighty empire, yet the Arabians had so little apprehension of him, that they alone, of all the neighbouring nations, sent no ambassadors to him, either first or last; which, with a desire of possessing so rich a country, made him form a design against it, and had he not died before he could put it in execution,6 this people might possibly have convinced him that he was not invincible: and I do not find that any of his successors, either in Asia or Egypt, ever made any attempt against them.7 The Romans never conquered any part of Arabia properly so called; the most they did was to make some tribes in Syria tributary to them, as Pompey did one commanded by Sampsiceramus or Shams’alkerám, who reigned at Hems or Emesa;8 but none of the Romans, or any other nations that we know of, ever penetrated so far into Arabia as Ælius Gallus under Augustus Cæsar;9 yet he was so far from subduing it, as some authors pretend,10 that he was soon obliged to return without effecting anything considerable, having lost the best part of his army by sickness and other accidents.1 This ill success probably discouraged the Romans from attacking them any more; for Trajan, notwithstanding the flatteries of the historians and orators of his time, and the medals struck by him, did not subdue the Arabs; the province of Arabia, which it is said he added to the Roman empire, scarce reaching farther than Arabia Petræa, or the very skirts of the country. And we are told by one author,2 that this prince, marching against the Agarens who had revolted, met with such a reception that he was obliged to return without doing anything.
The religion of the Arabs before Muhammad.
The religion of the Arabs before Muhammad, which they call the state of ignorance, in opposition to the knowledge of God’s true worship revealed to them by their prophet, was chiefly gross idolatry; the Sabian religion having almost overrun the whole nation, though there were also great numbers of Christians, Jews, and Magians among them.
The Sabian religion described.
I shall not here transcribe what Dr. Prideaux3 has written of the original of the Sabian religion; but instead thereof insert a brief account of the tenets and worship of that sect. They do not only believe one God, but produce many strong arguments for his unity, though they also pay an adoration to the stars, or the angels and intelligences which they suppose reside in them, and govern the world under the Supreme Deity. They endeavour to perfect themselves in the four intellectual virtues, and believe the souls of wicked men will be punished for nine thousand ages, but will afterwards be received to mercy. They are obliged to pray three times4 a day; the first, half an hour or less before sunrise, ordering it so that they may, just as the sun rises, finish eight adorations, each containing three prostrations:5 the second prayer they end at noon, when the sun begins to decline, in saying which they perform five such adorations as the former: and the same they do the third time, ending just as the sun sets. They fast three times a year, the first time thirty days, the next nine days, and the last seven. They offer many sacrifices, but eat no part of them, burning them all. They abstain from beans, garlic, and some other pulse and vegetables.1 As to the Sabian Qibla, or part to which they turn their faces in praying, authors greatly differ; one will have it to be the north,2 another the south, a third Makkah, and a fourth the star to which they pay their devotions:3 and perhaps there may be some variety in their practice in this respect. They go on pilgrimage to a place near the city of Harran in Mesopotamia, where great numbers of them dwell, and they have also a great respect for the temple of Makkah, and the pyramids of Egypt;4 fancying these last to be the sepulchres of Seth, and of Enoch and Sabi his two sons, whom they look on as the first propagators of their religion; at these structures they sacrifice a cock and a black calf, and offer up incense.5 Besides the Book of Psalms, the only true Scripture they read, they have other books which they esteem equally sacred, particularly one in the Chaldean tongue which they call the Book of Seth, and which is full of moral discourses. This sect say they took the name of Sabian from the above mentioned Sabi, though it seems rather to be derived from צבא, Saba,6 or the host of heaven, which they worship.7 Travellers commonly call them Christians of St. John the Baptist, whose disciples also they pretend to be, using a kind of baptism, which is the greatest mark they bear of Christianity. This is one of the religions, the practice of which Muhammad tolerated (on paying tribute), and the professors of it are often included in that expression of the Qurán, “those to whom the Scriptures have been given,” or literally, the people of the book.*
Arab idolatry and starworship.
The idolatry of the Arabs then, as Sabians, chiefly consisted in worshipping the fixed stars and planets, and the angels and their images, which they honoured as inferior deities, and whose intercession they begged, as their mediators with God. For the Arabs acknowledged one supreme God, the Creator and Lord of the universe, whom they called Allah Taála, the most high God; and their other deities, who were subordinate to him, they called simply, al Ilahát, i.e., the goddesses; which words the Grecians not understanding, and it being their constant custom to resolve the religion of every other nation into their own, and find out gods of theirs to match the others’, they pretend that the Arabs worshipped only two deities, Orotalt and Alilat, as those names are corruptly written, whom they will have to be the same with Bacchus and Urania; pitching on the former as one of the greatest of their own gods, and educated in Arabia, and on the other because of the veneration shown by the Arabs to the stars.1
They acknowledged one supreme God.
That they acknowledged one supreme God, appears, to omit other proof, from their usual form of addressing themselves to him, which was this, “I dedicate myself to thy service, O God! Thou hast no companion, except thy companion of whom thou art absolute master, and of whatever is his.”2 So that they supposed the idols not to be sui juris, though they offered sacrifices and other offerings to them, as well as to God, who was also often put off with the least portion, as Muhammad upbraids them. Thus when they planted fruit-trees or sowed a field, they divided it by a line into two parts, setting one apart for their idols, and the other for God; if any of the fruits happened to fall from the idol’s part into God’s, they made restitution; but if from God’s part into the idol’s, they made no restitution. So when they watered the idol’s grounds, if the water broke over the channels made for that purpose, and ran on God’s part, they dammed it up again; but if the contrary, they let it run on, saying, they wanted what was God’s, but he wanted nothing.1 In the same manner, if the offering designed for God happened to be better than that designed for the idol, they made an exchange, but not otherwise.2
Muhammad restored primitive monotheism.
It was from this gross idolatry, or the worship of inferior deities, or companions of God, as the Arabs continue to call them, that Muhammad reclaimed his countrymen, establishing the sole worship of the true God among them; so that how much soever the Muhammadans are to blame in other points, they are far from being idolaters,* as some ignorant writers have pretended.
Origin of star-worship.
The worship of the stars the Arabs might easily be led into, from their observing the changes of weather to happen at the rising and setting of certain of them,3 which after a long course of experience induced them to ascribe a divine power to those stars, and to think themselves indebted to them for their rains, a very great benefit and refreshment to their parched country: this superstition the Qurán particularly takes notice of.4
The temple of Bait Ghumdán at Sanaa.
The ancient Arabians and Indians, between which two nations was a great conformity of religions, had seven celebrated temples, dedicated to the seven planets; one of which in particular, called Bait Ghumdán, was built in Sanaa, the metropolis of Yaman, by Dahaq, to the honour of al Zubarah or the planet Venus, and was demolished by the Khalífah Othman;1 by whose murder was fulfilled the prophetical inscription set, as is reported, over this temple, viz., “Ghumdán, he who destroyeth thee shall be slain.”2 The temple of Makkah is also said to have been consecrated to Zuhal, or Saturu.3
Different stars worshipped by different tribes.
Thus as to the stars and planets, the tribe of Himyár chiefly worshipped the sun; Misam,4 al Dabaráh, or the Bull’s-eye; Lakhm and Jedám, al Múshtari, or Jupiter; Tay, Suhail, or Canopus; Qais, Sirius, or the Dog-star; and Asad, Atárid, or Mercury,5 Among the worshippers of Sirius, one Abu Qabsha was very famous; some will have him to be the same with Waháb, Muhammad’s grandfather by the mother, but others say he was of the tribe of Khuzáah. This man used his utmost endeavours to persuade the Quraish to leave their images and worship this star; for which reason Muhammad, who endeavoured also to make them leave their images, was by them nicknamed the son of Abu Qabsha.6 The worship of this star is particularly hinted at in the Qurán.7
Angels or gods worshipped as intercessors.
Of the angels or intelligences which they worshipped, the Qurán8 makes mention only of three, which were worshipped under female names;9 at Lat, al Uzza, and Mínáh. These were by them called goddesses, and the daughters of God; an appellation they gave not only to the angels, but also to their images, which they either believed to be inspired with life by God, or else to become the tabernacles of the angels, and to be animated by them; and they gave them divine worship, because they imagined they interceded for them with God.
The idol al Lát.
Al Lát was the idol of the tribe of Thakíf who dwelt at Tayif, and had a temple consecrated to her in a place called Nakhla. This idol al Mughairah destroyed by Muhammad’s order, who sent him and Abu Sofián on that commission in the ninth year of the Hijra.1 The inhabitants of Tayif, especially the women, bitterly lamented the loss of this their deity, which they were so fond of, that they begged of Muhammad, as a condition of peace, that it might not be destroyed for three years, and not obtaining that, asked only a month’s respite; but he absolutely denied it.2 There are several derivations of this word, which the curious may learn from Dr. Pocock;3 it seems most probably to be derived from the same root with Allah, to which it may be a feminine, and will then signify the goddess.
The idol al Uzza.
Al Uzza, as some affirm, was the idol of the tribes of Quraish and Kinánah,4 and part of the tribe of Salim;5 others6 tell us it was a tree called the Egyptian thorn, or acacia, worshipped by the tribe of Ghatfán, first consecrated by one Dhálim, who built a chapel over it, called Boss, so contrived as to give a sound when any person entered. Khálid Ibn Walíd being sent by Muhammad in the eighth year of the Hijra to destroy this idol, demolished the chapel, and cutting down this tree or image, burnt it: he also slew the priestess, who ran out with her hair dishevelled, and her hands on her head as a suppliant. Yet the author who relates this, in another place says, the chapel was pulled down, and Dhálim himself killed by one Zuhair, because he consecrated this chapel with design to draw the pilgrims thither from Makkah, and lessen the reputation of the Kaabah. The name of this deity is derived from the root azza, and signifies the most mighty.
The idol Mínáh.
Mínáh was the object of worship of the tribes of Hudhail and Khuzáah,1 who dwelt between Makkah and Madína, and, as some say,2 of the tribes of Aws, Khazraj, and Thakíf also. This idol was a large stone,3 demolished by one Saad, in the eighth year of the Hijra, a year so fatal to the idols of Arabia. The name seems derived from mana, to flow, from the flowing of the blood of the victims sacrificed to the deity; whence the valley of Mína,4 near Makkah, had also its name, where the pilgrims at this day slay their sacrifices.5
Idols Wadd, Sawá, Yaghúth, Yäúq, and Nasr.
Before we proceed to the other idols, let us take notice of five more, which with the former three are all the Qurán mentions by name, and they are Wadd, Sawá, Yaghúth, Yäúq, and Nasr. These are said to have been antediluvian idols, which Noah preached against, and were afterwards taken by the Arabs for gods, having been men of great merit and piety in their time, whose statues they reverenced at first with a civil honour only, which in process of time became heightened to a divine worship.6
Wadd was supposed to be the heaven, and was worshipped under the form of a man by the tribe of Qalb in Daumat al Jandal.7
Sawá was adored under the shape of a woman by the tribe of Hamadan, or, as others8 write, of Hudhail in Rohat. This idol lying under water for some time after the Deluge, was at length, it is said, discovered by the devil, and was worshipped by those of Hudhail, who instituted pilgrimages to it.9
Yaghúth was an idol in the shape of a lion, and was the deity of the tribe of Madhaj and others who dwelt in Yaman.1 Its name seems to be derived from ghatha, which signifies to help.
Yäúq was worshipped by the tribe of Murád, or, according to others, by that of Hamadan,2 under the figure of a horse. It is said he was a man of great piety, and his death much regretted; whereupon the devil appeared to his friends in a human form, and undertaking to represent him to the life, persuaded them, by way of comfort, to place his effigies in their temples, that they might have it in view when at their devotions. This was done, and seven others of extraordinary merit had the same honours shown them, till at length their posterity made idols of them in earnest.3 The name Yäúq probably comes from the verb áqa, to prevent or avert.4
Nasr was a deity adored by the tribe of Himyár, or at Dhu’l Khalaah in their territories, under the image of an eagle, which the name signifies.
There are, or were, two statues at Bamiyan, a city of Cabul in the Indies, fifty cubits high, which some writers suppose to be the same with Yaghúth and Yäúq, or else with Mínáh and al Lát; and they also speak of a third standing near the others, but something less, in the shape of an old woman, called Nasram or Nasr. These statues were hollow within, for the secret giving of oracles;5 but they seem to have been different from the Arabian idols. There was also an idol at Súmenat in the Indies, called Lát or al Lát,* whose statue was fifty fathoms high, of a single stone, and placed in the midst of a temple supported by fifty-six pillars of massy gold: this idol Mahmúd Ibn Sabaqtaghín, who conquered that part of India, broke to pieces with his own hands.1
The worship of Hobai and other idols of the Kaabah.
Besides the idols we have mentioned, the Arabs also worshipped great numbers of others, which would take up too much time to have distinct accounts given of them; and not being named in the Qurán, are not so much to our present purpose: for besides that every housekeeper had his household god or gods, which he last took leave of and first saluted at his going abroad and returning home,2 there were no less than 360 idols,3 equalling in number the days of their year, in and about the Kaabah of Makkah: the chief of whom was Hobal,4 brought from Belka in Syria into Arabia by Amru Ibn Luhai, pretending it would procure them rain when they wanted it.5 It was the statue of a man, made of agate, which having by some accident lost a hand, the Quraish repaired it with one of gold: he held in his hand seven arrows without heads or feathers, such as the Arabs use in divination.6 This idol is supposed to have been the same with the image of Abraham,7 found and destroyed by Muhammad in the Kaabah, on his entering it, in the eighth year of the Hijra, when he took Makkah,8 and surrounded with a great number of angels and prophets, as inferior deities; among whom, as some say, was Ismaíl, with divining arrows in his hand also.9
The idols Asáf and Naílah of Safá and Marwa.
Asaf and Naílah, the former the image of a man, the latter of a woman, were also two idols brought with Hobal from Syria, and placed the one on Mount Safá, and the other on Mount Marwa.* They tell us Asáf was the son of Amru, and Nailah the daughter of Sahal, both of the tribe of Jorham, who committing whoredom together in the Kaabah, were by God converted into stone,1 and afterwards worshipped by the Quaraish, and so much reverenced by them, that though this superstition was condemned by Muhammad, yet he was forced to allow them to visit those mountains as monuments of divine justice.2
The dough-worship of the tribe of Hanífa.
I shall mention but one idol more of this nation, and that was a lump of dough worshipped by the tribe of Hanífa, who used it with more respect than the Papists do theirs, presuming not to eat it till they were compelled to it by famine.5
Origin of stone-worship.
Several of their idols, as Mínáh in particular, were no more than large rude stones, the worship of which the posterity of Ismaíl first introduced; for as they multiplied, and the territory of Makkah grew too strail for them, great numbers were obliged to seek new abodes; and on such migrations it was usual for them to take with them some of the stones of that reputed holy land, and set them up in the places where they fixed; and these stones they at first only compassed out of devotion, as they had accustomed to do the Kaabah. But this at last ended in rank idolatry, the Ismaílites forgetting the religion left them by their father so far as to pay divine worship to any fine stone they met with.4
Arab belief in a future life.
Some of the pagan Arabs believed neither a creation past, nor a resurrection to come, attributing the origin of things to nature, and their dissolution to age. Others believed both, among whom were those who, when they died, had their camel tied by their sepulchre, and so left, without meat or drink, to perish, and accompany them to the other world, lest they should be obliged, at the resurrection, to go on foot, which was reckoned very scandalous.5 Some believed a metempsychosis, and that of the blood near the dead person’s brain was formed a bird named Hámah, which once in a hundred years visited the sepulchre; though others say this bird was animated by the soul of him that is unjustly slain, and continually cries, Isqúni, Isqúni, i.e., “give me to drink”—meaning of the murderer’s blood—till his death be revenged, and then it flies away. This was forbidden by the Qurán to be believed.1
I might here mention several superstitious rites and customs of the ancient Arabs, some of which were abolished and others retained by Muhammad; but I apprehend it will be more convenient to take notice of them hereafter occasionally, as the negative or positive precepts of the Qurán, forbidding or allowing such practices, shall be considered.
Let us now turn our view from the idolatrous Arabs, to those among them who had embraced more rational religions.
The Magian religion adopted by some tribes.
The Persians had, by their vicinity and frequent intercourse with the Arabians, introduced the Magian religion among some of their tribes, particularly that of Tamím,2 a long time before Muhammad, who was so far from being unacquainted with that religion, that he borrowed many of his own institutions from it, as will be observed in the progress of this work. I refer those who are desirous to have some notion of Magism to Dr. Hyde’s curious account of it,3 a succinct abridgment of which may be read with much pleasure in another learned performance.4
Judaism introduced as a result of Roman persecution.
The Jews, who fled in great numbers into Arabia from the fearful destruction of their country by the Romans, made proselytes of several tribes, those of Kinánah, al Hárith Ibn Kaabah, and Kindah5 in particular, and in time became very powerful, and possessed of several towns and fortresses there. But the Jewish religion was not unknown to the Arabs, at least above a century before. Abu Qaríb Asad, taken notice of in the Qurán,1 who was king of Yaman, about 700 years before Muhammad,* is said to have introduced Judaism among the idolatrous Himyárites. Some of his successors also embraced the same religion, one of whom, Yusaf, surnamed Dhu Nuwás,2 was remarkable for his zeal and terrible persecution of all who would not turn Jews, putting them to death by various tortures, the most common of which was throwing them into a glowing pit of fire, whence he had the opprobrious appellation of the Lord of the Pit. This persecution is also mentioned in the Qurán.3
Christianity in Arabia.
Christianity had likewise made a very great progress among this nation before Muhammad. Whether St. Paul preached in any part of Arabia, properly so called,4 is uncertain; but the persecutions and disorders which happened in the Eastern Church soon after the beginning of the third century, obliged great numbers of Christians to seek for shelter in that country of liberty, who, being for the most part of the Jacobite communion, that sect generally prevailed among the Arabs.5 The principal tribes that embraced Christianity were Himyár, Ghassán, Rabía, Taghlab, Bahrá, Tunúkh,6 part of the tribes of Tay and Kudáa, the inhabitants of Najrán, and the Arabs of Hira.7 As to the two last, it may be observed that those of Najrán became Christians in the time of Dhu Nuwás,8 and very probably, if the story be true, were some of those who were converted on the following occasion, which happened about that time, or not long before. The Jews of Himyar challenged some neighbouring Christians to a public disputation, which was held sub dio for three days before the king and his nobility and all the people, the disputants being Cregentius, bishop of Tephra (which I take to be Dhafar) for the Christians, and Herbanus for the Jews. On the third day, Herbanus, to end the dispute, demanded that Jesus of Nazareth, if he were really diving, and in heaven, and could hear the prayers of his worshippers, should appear from heaven in their sight, and they would then believe in him: the Jews crying out with one voice, “Show us your Christ, alas! and we will become Christians.” Whereupon, after a terrible storm of thunder and lightning, Jesus Christ appeared in the air, surrounded with rays of glory, walking on a purple cloud having a sword in his hand, and an inestimable diadem on his head, and spake these words over the heads of the assembly “Behold I appear to you in your sight, I, who was crucified by your fathers.” After which the cloud received him from their sight. The Christians eried out, “Kyrie eleeson,” i.c., “Lord, have mercy upon us;” but the Jews were stricken blind, and recovered not till they were all baptized.1*
Numán, king of Hira, converted to Christianiry.
The Christians at Hira received a great accession by several tribes, who fled thither for refuge from the persecution of Dhu Nuwás. Al Numán, surnamed Abu Kabús, king of Hira, who was slain a few months before Muhammad’s birth, professed himself a Christia on the following occasion. This prince, in a drunken fit, ordered two of his intimate companions, who overcome with liquor had fallen asleop, to be buried alive. When he came to himself, he was extremely concerned at what he had done, and to expiate his crime, not only raised a monument to the memory of his friends, but set apart two days, one of which he called the unfortunate, and the other the fortunate day; making it a perpetual rule to himself, that whoever met him on the former day should be slain, and his blood sprinkled on the monument, but he that met him on the other day should be dismissed in safety, with magnificent gifts. On one of those unfortunate days there came before him accidentally an Arab of the tribe of Tay, who had once entertained this king when fatigued with hunting and separated from his attendants. The king, who could neither discharge him contrary to the order of the day, nor put him to death, against the laws of hospitality, which the Arabians religiously observe, proposed, as an expedient, to give the unhappy man a year’s respite, and to send him home with rich gifts for the support of his family, on condition that he found a surety for his returning at the year’s end to suffer death. One of the prince’s court, out of compassion, offered himself as his surety, and the Arab was discharged. When the last day of the term came, and no news of the Arab, the king, not at all displeased to save his host’s life, ordered the surety to prepare himself to die. Those who were by represented to the king that the day was not yet expired, and therefore he ought to have patience till the evening; but in the middle of their discourse the Arab appeared. The king, admiring the man’s generosity, in offering himself to certain death, which he might have avoided by letting his surety suffer, asked him what his motive was for so doing? to which he answered, that he had been taught to act in that manner by the religion he professed; and al Numán demanding what religion that was, he replied, the Christian. Whereupon the king desiring to have the doctrines of Christianity explained to him, was baptized, he and his subjects; and not only pardoned the man and his surety, but abolished his barbarous custom.1 This prince, however, was not the first king of Hira who embraced Christianity; al Mundár, his grandfather, having also professed the same faith, and built large churches in his capital.2
The extent of the Christian Church in Arabia.
Since Christianity had made so great a progress in Arabia, we may consequently suppose they had bishops in several parts, for the more orderly governing of the ehurches. A bishop of Dhafár has been already named, and we are told that Najrán was also a bishop’s see.3 The Jacobites (of which sect we have observed the Arabs generally were) had two bishops of the Arabs subject to their Mafrián,* or metropolitan of the East; one was called the bishop of the Arabs absolutely, whose seat was for the most part at Akula, which some others make the same with Kúfa,4 others a different town near Baghdád.5 The other had the title of bishop of the Scenite Arabs, of the tribe of Thaalab in Hira, or Hirta, as the Syrians call it, whose seat was in that city. The Nestorians had but one bishop, who presided over both these dioceses of Hira and Akula, and was immediately subject to their patriarch.6
Free thought and Zendiciam among the Quraiah.
These were the principal religions which obtained among the ancient Arabs; but as freedom of thought was the natural consequence of their political liberty and independence, some of them fell into other different opinions. The Quraish, in particular, were infected with Zendicism,7 an error supposed to have very near affinity with that of the Sadducees among the Jews, and, perhaps, not greatly different from Deism; for there were several of that tribe, even before the time of Muhammad, who worshipped one God and were free from idolatry,1 and yet embraced none of the other religions of the country.
Two classes of Arabs previous to Muhammad.
The Arabians before Muhammad were, as they yet are, divided into two sorts—those who dwell in cities and towns, and those who dwell in tents. The former lived by tillage, the cultivation of palm-trees, breeding and feeding of cattle, and the exercise of all sorts of trades,2 particularly merchandising,3 wherein they were very eminent, even in the time of Jacob. The tribe of Quraish were much addicted to commerce, and Muhammad, in his younger years, was brought up to the same business; it being customary for the Arabians to exercise the same trade that their parents did.4 The Arabs who dwelt in tents employed themselves in pasturage, and sometimes in pillaging of passengers; they lived chiefly on the milk and flesh of camels; they often changed their habitations, as the convenience of water and of pasture for their cattle invited them, staying in a place no longer than that lasted, and then removing in search of other.5 They generally wintered in Irak and the confines of Syria. This way of life is what the greater part of Ismaíl’s posterity have used, as more agreeable to the temper and way of life of their father; and is so well described by a late author,6 that I cannot do better than refer the reader to his account of them.
The dialects of the Arabic language.
The art of writing in Arabia.
The Arabic language is undoubtedly one of the most ancient in the world, and arose soon after, if not at, the confusion of Babel. There were several dialects of it, very different from each other: the most remarkable were that spoken by the tribes of Himyár and the other genuine Arabs, and that of the Quraish. The Himyáritic seems to have approached nearer to the purity of the Syriac than the dialect of any other tribe; for the Arabs acknowledge their father Yarab to have been the first whose tongue deviated from the Syriac (which was his mother tongue, and is almost generally acknowledged by the Asiatics to be the most ancient) to the Arabic. The dialect of the Quraish is usually termed the pure Arabic, or, as the Qurán, which is written in this dialect, calls it, the perspicuous and clear Arabic; perhaps, says Dr. Pocock, because Ismaíl, their father, brought the Arabic he had learned of the Jorhamites nearer to the original Hebrew. But the politeness and elegance of the dialect of the Quraish is rather to be attributed to their having the custody of the Kaabah, and dwelling in Makkah, the centre of Arabia, as well more remote from intercourse with foreigners, who might corrupt their language, as frequented by the Arabs from the country all around, not only on a religious account, but also for the composing of their differences, from whose discourse and verses they took whatever words or phrases they judged more pure and elegant; by which means the beauties of the whole tongue became transfused into this dialect. The Arabians are full of the commendations of their language, and not altogether without reason; for it claims the preference of most others in many respects, as being very harmonious and expressive, and withal so copious, that they say no man without inspiration can be perfect master of it in its utmost extent; and yet they tell us, at the same time, that the greatest part of it has been lost; which will not be thought strange if we consider how late the art of writing was practised among them. For though it was known to Job,1 their countryman, and also to the Himyárites (who used a perplexed character called al Musnad, wherein the letters were not distinctly separate, and which was neither publicly taught, nor suffered to be used without permission first obtained), many centuries before Muhammad, as appears from some ancient monuments, said to be remaining in their character; yet the other Arabs, and those of Makkah in particular, were, for many ages, perfectly ignorant of it, unless such of them as were Jews or Christians.1 Murámir Ibn Murra of Anbár, a city of Irák, who lived not many years before Muhammad, was the inventor of the Arabic character, which Bashar the Kindian is said to have learned from those of Anbár, and to have introduced at Makkah but a little while before the institution of Muhammadism. These letters of Murámir were different from the Himyáritic; and though they were very rude, being either the same with or very much like the Cufic,2 which character is still found in inscriptions and some ancient books, yet they were those which the Arabs used for many years, the Qurán itself being at first written therein; for the beautiful character they now use was first formed from the Cufic by Ibn Muklah, Wazír (or Visir) to the Khalífahs al Muktadir, al Qáhir, and al Rádi, who lived about three hundred years after Muhammad, and was brought to great perfection by Ali Ibn Bawáb,3 who flourished in the following century, and whose name is yet famous among them on that account; yet it is said, the person who completed it, and reduced it to its present form, was Yaqút al Mustásami, secretary to al Mustásam, the last of the Khalífahs of the family of Abbás, for which reason he was surnamed al Khattái, or the Scribe.
Arab accomplishments and learning.
Style of prose and poetry.
Honour bestowed on poets.
Poetic contests at the fair of Okátz
The accomplishments the Arabs valued themselves chiefly on were: 1. Eloquence, and a perfect skill in their own tongue; 2. Expertness in the use of arms and horsemanship; and 3. Hospitality.1 The first they exercised themselves in by composing of orations and poems. Their orations were of two sorts, metrical or prosaic, the one being compared to pearls strung, and the other to loose ones. They endeavoured to excel in both, and whoever was able, in an assembly, to persuade the people to a great enterprise or dissuade them from a dangerous one, or gave them other wholesome advice, was honoured with the title of Khatíb, or orator, which is now given to the Muhammadan preachers. They pursued a method very different from that of the Greek and Roman orators; their sentences being like loose gems, without connection, so that this sort of composition struck the audience chiefly by the fulness of the periods, the elegance of the expression, and the acuteness of the proverbial sayings; and so persuaded were they of their excelling in this way, that they would not allow any nation to understand the art of speaking in public except themselves and the Persians, which last were reckoned much inferior in that respect to the Arabians.2 Poetry was in so great esteem among them, that it was a great accomplishment, and a proof of ingenious extraction, to be able to express one’s self in verse with ease and elegance on any extraordinary occurrence; and even in their common discourse they made frequent applications to celebrated passages of their famous poets. In their poems were preserved the distinction of descents, the rights of tribes, the memory of great actions, and the propriety of their language; for which reasons an excellent poet reflected an honour on his tribe, so that as soon as any one began to be admired for his performances of this kind in a tribe, the other tribes sent publicly to congratulate them on the occasion and themselves made entertainments, at which the women assisted, dressed in their nuptial ornaments, singing to the sound of timbrels the happiness of their tribe, who had now one to protect their honour, to preserve their genealogies and the purity of their language, and to transmit their actions to posterity;1 for this was all performed by their poems, to which they were solely obliged for their knowledge and instructions, moral and economical, and to which they had recourse, as to an oracle, in all doubts and differences.2 No wonder, then, that a public congratulation was made on this account, which honour they yet were so far from making cheap, that they never did it but on one of these three occasions, which were reckoned great points of felicity, viz., on the birth of a boy, the rise of a poet, and the fall of a foal of generous breed. To keep up an emulation among their poets, the tribes had, once a year, a general assembly at Okátz,3 a place famous on this account, and where they kept a weekly mart or fair, which was held on our Sunday.4 This annual meeting lasted a whole month, during which time they employed themselves, not only in trading, but in repeating their poetical compositions, contending and vieing with each other for the prize; whence the place, it is said, took its name.5 The poems that were judged to excel were laid up in their kings’ treasuries, as were the seven celebrated poems, thence called al Muallaqát, rather than from their being hung up on the Kaabah, which honour they also had by public order, being written on Egyptian silk and in letters of gold; for which reason they had also the name of al Mudháhabát, or the golden verses.6
This fair suppressed by Muhammad.
The fair and assembly at Okátz were suppressed by Muhammad, in whose time, and for some years after, poetry seems to have been in some degree neglected by the Arabs, who were then employed in their conquests; which being completed, and themselves at peace, not only this study was revived,1 but almost all sorts of learning were encouraged and greatly improved by them. This interruption, however, occasioned the loss of most of their ancient pieces of poetry, which were then chiefly preserved by memory; the use of writing being rare among them in their time of ignorance.2 Though the Arabs were so early acquainted with poetry, they did not at first use to write poems of a just length, but only expressed themselves in verse occasionally; nor was their prosody digested into rules, till some time after Muhammad;3 for this was done, as it is said, by al Khalíl Ahmad al Faráhídi, who lived in the reign of the Khalífah Harún al Rashíd.4
Arab equestrian and military training.
The exercise of arms and horsemanship they were in a manner obliged to practise and encourage, by reason of the independence of their tribes, whose frequent jarrings made wars almost continual; and they chiefly ended their disputes in field battles, it being a usual saying among them that God had bestowed four peculiar things on the Arabs—that their turbans should be to them instead of diadems, their tents instead of walls and houses, their swords instead of entrenchments, and their poems instead of written laws.5
Their hospitality and liberality.
Hospitality was so habitual to them, and so much esteemed, that the examples of this kind among them exceed whatever can be produced from other nations. Hátim, of the tribe of Tay,6 and Hasan, of that of Fizárah,7 were particularly famous on this account; and the contrary vice was so much in contempt, that a certain poet upbraids the inhabitants of Wasat, as with the greatest reproach, that none of their men had the heart to give nor their women to deny.1
Nor were the Arabs less propense to liberality after the coming of Muhammad than their ancestors had been. I could produce many remarkable instances of this commendable quality among them,2 but shall content myself with the following. Three men were disputing in the court of the Kaabah which was the most liberal person among the Arabs. One gave the preference to Abdallah, the son of Jaafar, the uncle of Muhammad; another to Qais Ibn Saad Ibn Obádah; and the third gave it to Arábah, of the tribé of Aws. After much debate one that was present, to end the dispute, proposed that each of them should go to his friend and ask his assistance, that they might see what every one gave, and form a judgment accordingly. This was agreed to; and Abdallah’s friend, going to him, found him with his foot in the stirrup, just mounting his camel for a journey, and thus accosted him: “Son of the apostle of God, I am travelling and in necessity.” Upon which Abdallah alighted, and bade him take the camel with all that was upon her, but desired him not to part with a sword which happened to be fixed to the saddle, because it had belonged to Ali, the son of Abutálib. So he took the camel, and found on her some vests of silk and 4000 pieces of gold; but the thing of greatest value was the sword. The second went to Qais Ibn Saad, whose servant told him that his master was asleep, and desired to know his business. The friend answered that he came to ask Qais’s assistance, being in want on the road. Whereupon the servant said that he had rather supply his necessity than wake his master, and gave him a purse of 7000 pieces of gold, assuring him that it was all the money then in the house. He also directed him to go to those who had the charge of the camels, with a certain token, and take a camel and a slave and return home with them. When Qais awoke, and his servant informed him of what he had done, he gave him his freedom, and asked him why he did not call him, “For,” says he, “I would have given him more.” The third man went to Arábah, and met him coming out of his house in order to go to prayers, and leaning on two slaves, because his eyesight failed him. The friend no sooner made known his case, but Arábah let go the slaves, and clapping his hands together, loudly lamented his misfortune in having no money, but desired him to take the two slaves, which the man refused to do, till Arábah protested that if he would not accept of them he gave them their liberty, and leaving the slaves, groped his way along by the wall. On the return of the adventurers, judgment was unanimous, and with great justice, given by all who were present, that Arábah was the most generous of the three.
Nor were these the only good qualities of the Arabs; they are commended by the ancients for being most exact to their words1 and respectful to their kindred.2 And they have always been celebrated for their quickness of apprehension and penetration, and the vivacity of their wit, especially those of the desert.3
Their national defects and vices.
As the Arabs have their excellences, so have they, like other nations, their defects and vices. Their own writers acknowledge that they have a natural disposition to war, bloodshed, cruelty,* and rapine, being so much addicted to bear malice that they scarce ever forget an old grudge; which vindictive temper some physicians say is occasioned by their frequently feeding on camels’ flesh* (the ordinary diet of the Arabs of the desert, who are therefore observed to be most inclined to these vices), that creature being most malicious and tenacious of anger,1 which account suggests a good reason for a distinction of meats.
Strange apology for plundering propensity.
The frequent robberies committed by these people on merchants and travellers have rendered the name of an Arab almost infamous in Europe; this they are sensible of, and endeavour to excuse themselves by alleging the hard usage of their father Ismaíl, who, being turned out of doors by Abraham, had the open plains and deserts given him by God for his patrimony, with permission to take whatever he could find there; and on this account they think they may, with a safe conscience, indemnify themselves as well as they can, not only on the posterity of Isaac, but also on everybody else, always supposing a sort of kindred between themselves and those they plunder. And in relating their adventures of this kind, they think it sufficient to change the expression, and instead of “I robbed a man of such or such a thing,” to say “I gained it.”2 We must not, however, imagine that they are the less honest for this among themselves, or towards those whom they receive as friends; on the contrary, the strictest probity is observed in their camp, where everything is open and nothing ever known to be stolen.*1
The sciences in Arabia previous to Muhammad.
The sciences the Arabians chiefly cultivated before Muhammadism were three—that of their genealogies and history, such a knowledge of the stars as to foretell the changes of weather, and the interpretation of dreams.2 They used to value themselves excessively on account of the nobility of their families, and so many disputes happened on that occasion, that it is no wonder if they took great pains in settling their descents. What knowledge they had of the stars was gathered from long experience, and not from any regular study or astronomical rules.3 The Arabians, as the Indians also did, chiefly applied themselves to observe the fixed stars, contrary to other nations, whose observations were almost confined to the planets, and they foretold their effects from their influences, not their nature; and hence, as has been said, arose the difference of the idolatry of the Greeks and Chaldeans, who chiefly worshipped the planets, and that of the Indians, who worshipped the fixed stars. The stars or asterisms they most usually foretold the weather by were those they called Anwa, or the houses of the moon. These are twenty-eight in number, and divide the zodiac into as many parts, through one of which the moon passes every night;1 as some of them set in the morning, others rise opposite to them, which happens every thirteenth night; and from their rising and setting, the Arabs, by long experience, observed what changes happened in the air, and at length, as has been said, came to ascribe divine power to them; saying that their rain was from such or such a star; which expression Muhammad condemned, and absolutely forbade them to use it in the old sense, unless they meant no more by it than that God had so ordered the seasons, that when the moon was in such or such a mansion or house, or at the rising or setting of such and such a star, it should rain or be windy, hot or cold.2
The old Arabians, therefore, seem to have made, no further progress in astronomy, which science they afterwards cultivated with so much success and applause,* than to observe the influence of the stars on the weather and to give them names; and this it was obvious for them to do, by reason of their pastoral way of life, lying night and day in the open plains. The names they imposed on the stars generally alluded to cattle and flocks, and they were so nice in distinguishing them, that no language has so many names of stars and asterisms as the Arabic; for though they have since borrowed the names of several constellations from the Greeks, yet the far greater part are of their own growth, and much more ancient, particularly those of the more conspicuous stars, dispersed in several constellations, and those of the lesser constellations which are contained within the greater, and were not observed or named by the Greeks.1
Thus have I given the most succinct account I have been able of the state of the ancient Arabians before Muhammad, or, to use their expression, in the time of ignorance. I shall now proceed briefly to consider the state of religion in the East, and of the two great empires which divided that part of the world between them at the time of Muhammad’s setting up for a prophet, and what were the conducive circumstances and accidents that favoured his success.
OF THE STATE OF CHRISTIANITY, PARTICULARLY OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES, AND OF JUDAISM, AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD’S APPEARANCE; AND OF THE METHODS TAKEN BY HIM FOR THE ESTABLISHING HIS RELIGION, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONCURRED THERETO.
The decline of true religion in the Church
If we look into the ecclesiastical historians even from the third century, we shall find the Christian world to have then had a very different aspect from what some authors have represented; and so far from being endued with active graces, zeal, and devotion, and established within itself with purity of doctrine, union, and firm profession of the faith,1 that on the contrary, what by the ambition of the clergy, and what by drawing the abtrusest niceties into controversy, and dividing and subdividing about them into endless schisms and contentious, they had so destroyed that peace, love, and charity from among them which the Gospel was given to promote, and instead thereof continually provoked each other to that malice, rancour, and every evil work, that they had lost the whole substance of their religion, while they thus eagerly contended for their own imaginations concerning it, and in a manner quite drove Christianity out of the world by those very controversies in which they disputed with each other about it.2 In these dark ages it was that most of those superstitions and corruptions we now justly abhor in the Church of Rome were not only broached but established, which gave great advantages to the propagation of Muhammadism. The worship of saints and images, in particular, was then arrived at such a scandalous pitch that it even surpassed whatever is now practised among the Romanists.1
Controversies in the Eastern Churches, and corruption of the clergy.
After the Nicene Council, the Eastern Church was engaged in perpetual controversies, and torn to pieces by the disputes of the Arians, Sabellians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, the heresies of the two last of which have been shown to have consisted more in the words and form of expression than in the doctrines themselves,2 and were rather the pretences than real motives of those frequent councils to and from which the contentious prelates were continually riding post, that they might bring everything to their own will and pleasure.3 And to support themselves by dependants and bribery, the clergy in any credit at court undertook the protection of some officer in the army, under the colour of which justice was publicly sold and all corruption encouraged.
In the Western Church Damasus and Ursicinus carried their contests at Rome for the episcopal seat so high, that they came to open violence and murder, which Viventius, the governor, not being able to suppress, he retired into the country, and left them to themselves, till Damasus prevailed. It is said that on this occasion, in the church of Sicininus, there were no less than one hundred and thirty-seven found killed in one day. And no wonder they were so fond of these seats, when they became by that means enriched by the presents of matrons, and went abroad in their chariots and sedans in great state, feasting sumptuously even beyond the luxury of princes, quite contrary to the way of living of the country prelates, who alone seemed to have some temperance and modesty left.1
Evil influence of Roman emperors in the Church.
These dissensions were greatly owing to the emperors, and particularly to Constantius, who, confounding the pure and simple Christian religion with anile superstitions, and perplexing it with intricate questions, instead of reconciling different opinions, excited many disputes, which he fomented as they proceeded with infinite altercations.2 This grew worse in the time of Justinian, who, not to be behind the bishops of the fifth and sixth centuries in zeal, thought it no crime to condemn to death a man of a different persuasion from his own.3
This corruption of doctrine and morals in the princes and clergy was necessarily followed by a general depravity of the people;4 those of all conditions making it their sole business to get money by any means, and then to squander it away when they had got it in luxury and debauchery.5
Arabia famous for heresy.
But, to be more particular as to the nation we are now writing of, Arabia was of old famous for heresies,6 which might be in some measure attributed to the liberty and independency of the tribes. Some of the Christians of that nation believed the soul died with the body, and was to be raised again with it at the last day:7 these Origen is said to have convinced.8 Among the Arabs it was that the heresies of Ebion, Beryllus, and the Nazaræans,9 and also that of the Collyridians, were broached, or at least propagated; the latter introduced the Virgin Mary for God, or worshipped her as such, offering her a sort of twisted cake called collyris, whence the sect had its name.10
Mariolatry and the doctrine of the Trinity
This notion of the divinity of the Virgin Mary was also believed by some at the Council of Nice, who said there were two gods besides the Father, viz., Christ and the Virgin Mary, and were thence named Mariamites.1 Others imagined her to be exempt from humanity and deified; which goes but little beyond the Popish superstition in calling her the complement of the Trinity, as if it were imperfect without her. This foolish imagination is justly condemned in the Qurán2 as idolatrous, and gave a handle to Muhammad to attack the Trinity itself.*
Arabia refuge for heretics.
Other sects there were of many denominations within the borders of Arabia, which took refuge there from the proscriptions of the imperial edicts, several of whose notions Muhammad incorporated with his religion, as may be observed hereafter.
The power of the Jews in Arabia, and Muhammad’s treatment of them.
Though the Jews were an inconsiderable and despised people in other parts of the world, yet in Arabia, whither many of them fled from the destruction of Jerusalem, they grew very powerful, several tribes and princes embracing their religion; which made Muhammad at first show great regard to them, adopting many of their opinions, doctrines, and customs, thereby to draw them, if possible, into his interest. But that people, agreeably to their wonted obstinacy, were so far from being his proselytes, that they were some of the bitterest enemies he had, waging continual war with him, so that their reduction cost him infinite trouble and danger, and at last his life. This aversion of theirs created at length as great a one in him to them, so that he used them, for the latter part of his life, much worse than he did the Christians, and frequently exclaims against them in his Qurán. His followers to this day observe the same difference between them and the Christians, treating the former as the most abject and contemptible people on earth.
Islám succeeds as a religion through political weakness of Rome and Persia.
It has been observed by a great politician,1 that it is impossible a person should make himself a prince and found a state without opportunities. If the distracted state of religion favoured the designs of Muhammad on that side, the weakness of the Roman and Persian monarchies might flatter him with no less hopes in any attempt on those once formidable empires, either of which, had they been in their full vigour, must have crushed Muhammadism in its birth; whereas nothing nourished it more than the success the Arabians met with in their enterprises against those powers, which success they failed not to attribute to their new religion and the divine assistance thereof.
Decline of the Roman empire.
The Roman empire declined apace after Constantine, whose successors were for the generality remarkable for their ill qualities, especially cowardice and cruelty. By Muhammad’s time, the western half of the empire was overrun by the Goths, and the eastern so reduced by the Huns on the one side and the Persians on the other, that it was not in a capacity of stemming the violence of a powerful invasion. The Emperor Maurice paid tribute to the Khagán or king of the Huns; and after Phocas had murdered his master, such lamentable havoc there was among the soldiers, that when Heraclius came, not above seven years after, to muster the army, there were only two soldiers left alive of all those who had borne arms when Phocas first usurped the empire. And though Heraclius was a prince of admirable courage and conduct, and had done what possibly could be done to restore the discipline of the army, and had had great success against the Persians, so as to drive them not only out of his own dominions, but even out of part of their own; yet still the very vitals of the empire seemed to be mortally wounded, that there could no time have happened more fatal to the empire or more favourable to the enterprises of the Arabs, who seem to have been raised up on purpose by God to be a scourge to the Christian Church for not living answerably to that most holy religion which they had received.1
The general luxury and degeneracy of manners into which the Grecians were sunk also contributed not a little to the enervating their forces, which were still further drained by those two great destroyers, monachism and persecution.
The communism of Mazdak.
The Persians had also been in a declining condition for some time before Muhammad, occasioned chiefly by their intestine broils and dissensions, great part of which arose from the devilish doctrines of Manes and Mazdak. The opinions of the former are tolerably well known: the latter lived in the reign of Khusrú Kobád, and pretended himself a prophet sent from God to preach a community of women and possessions, since all men were brothers and descended from the same common parents. This he imagined would put an end to all feuds and quarrels among men, which generally arose on account of one of the two. Kobád himself embraced the opinions of this impostor, to whom he gave leave, according to his new doctrine, to lie with the queen his wife; which permission Anushirwán, his son, with much difficulty prevailed on Mazdak not to make use of. These sects had certainly been the immediate ruin of the Persian empire, had not Anushirwán, as soon as he succeeded his father, put Mazdak to death with all his followers, and the Manicheans also, restoring the ancient Magian religion.2
Decline of the Persian empire.
In the reign of this prince, deservedly surnamed the Just, Muhammad was born. He was the last king of Persia who deserved the throne, which after him was almost perpetually contended for, till subverted by the Arabs. His son Hormuz lost the love of his subjects by his excessive cruelty: having had his eyes put out by his wife’s brothers, he was obliged to resign the crown to his son Khusrú Parvíz, who at the instigation of Bahrám Chubín had rebelled against him, and was afterwards strangled. Parvíz was soon obliged to quit the throne to Bahrám, but obtaining succours of the Greek emperor Maurice, he recovered the crown; yet towards the latter end of a long reign he grew so tyrannical and hateful to his subjects, that they held private correspondence with the Arabs, and he was at length deposed, imprisoned, and slain by his son Shirúyah.1 After Parvíz no less than six princes possessed the throne in less than six years. These domestic broils effectually brought ruin upon the Persians; for though they did rather by the weakness of the Greeks than their own force ravage Syria and sack Jerusalem and Damascus under Khusrú Parvíz, and, while the Arabs were divided and independent, had some power in the province of Yaman, where they set up the four last kings before Muhammad; yet, when attacked by the Greeks under Heraclius, they not only lost their new conquests, but part of their own dominions; and no sooner were the Arabs united by Muhammadism, than they beat them in every battle, and in a few years totally subdued them.
The political power of Arabia consolidated under Muhammad.
As these empires were weak and declining, so Arabia, at Muhammad’s setting up, was strong and flourishing; having been peopled at the expense of the Grecian empire, whence the violent proceedings of the domineering sects forced many to seek refuge in a free country, as Arabia then was, where they who could not enjoy tranquillity and their conscience at home found a secure retreat. The Arabians were not only a populous nation, but unacquainted with the luxury and delicacies of the Greeks and Persians, and inured to hardships of all sorts, living in a most parsimonious manner, seldom eating any flesh, drinking no wine, and sitting on the ground. Their political government was also such as favoured the designs of Muhammad; for the division and independency of their tribes were so necessary to the first propagation of his religion and the foundation of his power, that it would have been scarce possible for him to have effected either had the Arabs been united in one society. But when they had embraced his religion, the consequent union of their tribes was no less necessary and conducive to their future conquests and grandeur.
This posture of public affairs in the Eastern world, both as to its religious and political state, it is more than probable Muhammad was well acquainted with, he having had sufficient opportunities of informing himself in those particulars in his travels as a merchant in his younger years; and though it is not to be supposed his views at first were so extensive as afterwards, when they were enlarged by his good fortune, yet he might reasonably promise himself success in his first attempts from thence. As he was a man of extraordinary parts and address, he knew how to make the best of every incident, and turn what might seem dangerous to another to his own advantage.
Muhammad’s birth, nurture, marriage, and fortune.
Muhammad came into the world under some disadvantages, which he soon surmounted. His father, Abdallah, was a younger son1 of Abd al Mutallib, and dying very young and in his father’s lifetime, left his widow and infant son in very mean circumstances, his whole substance consisting but of five camels and one Ethiopian she-slave.2 Abd al Mutallib was therefore obliged to take care of his grandchild Muhammad, which he not only did during his life, but at his death enjoined his eldest son, Abu Tálib, who was brother to Abdallah by the same mother, to provide for him for the future; which he very affectionately did, and instructed him in the business of a merchant, which he ollowed; and to that end he took him with him into Syria when he was but thirteen, and afterward recommended him to Khadíjah, a noble and rich widow, for her factor, in whose service he behaved himself so well, that by making him her husband she soon raised him to an equality with the richest in Makkah.
He forms the design of reforming the religion of his countrymen.
After he began by this advantageous match to live at his ease it was that he formed a scheme of establishing a new religion, or, as he expressed it, of replanting the only true and ancient one, professed by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets,1 by destroying the gross idolatry into which the generality of his countrymen had fallen, and weeding out the corruptions and superstitions which the latter Jews and Christians had, as he thought, introduced into their religion, and reducing it to its original purity, which consisted chiefly in the worship of one only God.
Opinions as to probable motives of Muhammad
His hold on the doctrine of the unity of God.
Probably a monomaniac on the subject of religion.
Whether this was the effect of enthusiasm, or only a design to raise himself to the supreme government of his country, I will not pretend to determine. The latter is the general opinion of Christian writers, who agree that ambition and the desire of satisfying his sensuality were the motives of his undertaking. It may be so, yet his first views, perhaps, were not so interested. His original design of bringing the pagan Arabs to the knowledge of the true God was certainly noble, and highly to be commended; for I cannot possibly subscribe to the assertion of a late learned writer,2 that he made that nation exchange their idolatry for another religion altogether as bad. Muhammad was no doubt fully satisfied in his conscience of the truth of his grand point, the unity of God, which was what he chiefly attended to; all his other doctrines and institutions being rather accidental and unavoidable than premeditated and designed. Since, then, Muhammad was certainly himself persuaded of his grand article of faith, which, in his opinion, was violated by all the rest of the world, not only by the idolaters, but by the Christians, as well those who rightly worshipped Jesus as God, as those who superstitiously adored the Virgin Mary saints, and images; and also by the Jews, who are accused in the Qurán of taking Ezra for the son of God;1 it is easy to conceive that he might think it a meritorious work to rescue the world from such ignorance and superstition; and by degrees, with the help of a warm imagination, which an Arab seldom wants,2 to suppose himself destined by Providence for the effecting that great reformation. And this fancy of his might take still deeper root in his mind during the solitude he thereupon affected, usually retiring for a month in the year to a cave in Mount Hira, near Makkah. One thing which may be probably urged against the enthusiasm of this prophet of the Arabs is the wise conduct and great prudence he all along showed in pursuing his design, which seem inconsistent with the wild notions of a hot-brained religionist. But though all enthusiasts or madmen do not behave with the same gravity and circumspection that he did, yet he will not be the first instance, by several, of a person who has been out of the way only quoad hoc, and in all other respects acted with the greatest decency and precaution.*
He was ignorant of the pure doctrines of the Christian religion
The terrible destruction of the Eastern Churches, once so glorious and flourishing, by the sudden spreading of Muhammadism, and the great successes of its professors against the Christians, necessarily inspire a horror of that religion in those to whom it has been so fatal; and no wonder if they endeavour to set the character of its founder and its doctrines in the most infamous light. But the damage done by Muhammad to Christianity seems to have been rather owing to his ignorance than malice; for his great misfortune was his not having a competent knowledge of the real and pure doctrines of the Christian religion, which was in his time so abominably corrupted, that it is not surprising if he went too far, and resolved to abolish what he might think incapable of reformation.
His natural! ambition is inflamed by success.
It is scarce to be doubted but that Muhammad had a violent desire of being reckoned an extraordinary person, which he could attain to by no means more effectually than by pretending to be a messenger sent from God to inform mankind of his will. This might be at first his utmost ambition; and had his fellow-citizens treated him less injuriously, and not obliged him by their persecutions to seek refuge elsewhere, and to take up arms against them in his own defence, he had perhaps continued a private person, and contented himself with the veneration and respect due to his prophetical office; but being once got at the head of a little army, and encouraged by success, it is no wonder if he raised his thoughts to attempt what had never before entered into his imagination.
His sensuality and doctrine of polygamy in accordance with the morality of his time
That Muhammad was, as the Arabs are by complexion,1 a great lover of women, we are assured by his own confession; and he is constantly upbraided with it by the controversial writers, who fail not to urge the number of women with whom he had to do, as a demonstrative argument of his sensuality, which they think sufficiently proves him to have been a wicked man, and consequently an impostor. But it must be considered that polygamy, though it be forbidden by the Christian religion, was in Muhammad’s time frequently practised in Arabia and other parts of the East, and was not counted an immorality, nor was a man worse esteemed on that account; for which reason Muhammad permitted the plurality of wives, with certain limitations, among his own followers, who argue for the lawfulness of it from several reasons, and particularly from the examples of persons allowed on all hands to have been good men, some of whom have been honoured with the divine correspondence. The several laws relating to marriages and divorces, and the peculiar privileges granted to Muhammad in his Qurán, were almost all taken by him from the Jewish decisions, as will appear hereafter; and therefore he might think those institutions the more just and reasonable, as he found them practised or approved by the professors of a religion which was confessedly of divine original.
A tolerable morality was necessary to the success of his enterprise.
But whatever were his motives, Muhammad had certainly the personal qualifications which were necessary to accomplish his undertaking. The Muhammadan authors are excessive in their commendations of him, and speak much of his religious and moral virtues; as his piety, veracity, justice, liberality, clemency, humility and abstinence. His charity in particular, they say, was so conspicuous, that he had seldom any money in his house, keeping no more for his own use than was just sufficient to maintain his family; and he frequently spared even some part of his own provisions to supply the necessities of the poor; so that before the year’s end he had generally little or nothing left.1 “God,” says al Bokhári, “offered him the keys of the treasures of the earth, but he would not accept them.” Though the eulogies of these writers are justly to be suspected of partiality, yet thus much, I think, may be inferred from thence, that for an Arab who had been educated in Paganism, and had but a very imperfect knowledge of his duty, he was a man of at least tolerable morals, and not such a monster of wickedness as he is usually represented. And indeed it is scarce possible to conceive that a wretch of so profligate a character should ever have succeeded in an enterprise of this nature; a little hypocrisy and saving of appearances, at least, must have been absolutely necessary; and the sincerity of his intentions is what I pretend not to inquire into.
His intellectual gifts and suavity of manner.
He had indisputably a very piercing and sagacious wit, and was thoroughly versed in all the arts of insinuation.1 The Eastern historians describe him to have been a man of an excellent judgment and a happy memory; and these natural parts were improved by a great experience and knowledge of men, and the observations he had made in his travels. They say he was a person of few words, of an equal, cheerful temper, pleasant and familiar in conversation, of inoffensive behaviour towards his friends, and of great condescension towards his inferiors.2 To all which were joined a comely agreeable person and a polite address; accomplishments of no small service in preventing those in his favour whom he attempted to persuade.
His ignorance of letters and the use he made of it
As to acquired learning, it is confessed he had none at all; having had no other education than what was customary in his tribe, who neglected, and perhaps despised, what we call literature, esteeming no language in comparison with their own, their skill in which they gained by use and not by books, and contenting themselves with improving their private experience by committing to memory such passages of their poets as they judged might be of use to them in life. This defect was so far from being prejudicial or putting a stop to his design, that he made the greatest use of it; insisting that the writings which he produced as revelations from God could not possibly be a forgery of his own, because it was not conceivable that a person who could neither write nor read should be able to compose a book of such excellent doctrine and in so elegant a style, and thereby obviating an objection that might have carried a great deal of weight.1 And for this reason his followers, instead of being ashamed of their master’s ignorance, glory in it. as an evident proof of his divine mission, and scruple not to call him (as he is indeed called in the Qurán itself2 ) the “illiterate prophet.”
His scheme for the inauguration of his religion
The scheme of religion which Muhammad framed, and the design and artful contrivance of those written revelations (as he pretended them to be) which compose his Qurán, shall be the subject of the following sections: I shall therefore in the remainder of this relate, as briefly as possible. the steps he took towards the effecting of his enterprise, and the accidents which concurred to his success therein.
He begins with the conversion of his own household
Before he made any attempt abroad, he rightly judged that it was necessary for him to begin by the conversion of his own household. Having therefore retired with his family, as he had done several times before, to the above-mentioned cave in Mount Hira, he there opened the secret of his mission to his wife Khadíjah, and acquainted her that the Angel Gabriel had just before appeared to him, and told him that he was appointed the apostle of God: he also repeated to her a passage3 which he pretended had been revealed to him by the ministry of the angel, with those other circumstances of his first appearance which are related by the Muhammadan writers. Khadíjah received the news with great joy,4 swearing by him in whose hands her soul was that she trusted he would be the prophet of his nation, and immediately communicated what she had heard to her cousin, Waraqa Ibn Naufal, who, being a Christian, could write in the Hebrew character, and was tolerably well versed in the Scriptures:1 and he as readily came into her opinion, assuring her that the same angel who had formerly appeared unto Moses was now sent to Muhammad.2 This first overture the prophet made in the month of Pamadhán, in the fortieth year of his age, which is therefore usually called the year of his mission.
Gains other couverts, from his own tribe.
At the end of three years he openly proclaims his doctrine.
His relatives reject his prophetic clairus,
Encouraged by so good a beginning, he resolved to proceed, and try for some time what he could do by private persuasion, not daring to hazard the whole affair by exposing it too suddenly to the public. He soon made proselytes of those under his own roof, viz.) his wife Khadíjah his servant Zaid Ibn Hárith (to whom he gave his freedom3 on that occasion, which afterwards became a rule to his followers* ). and his cousin and pupil Ali, the son of Abu Tálib, though then very young; but this last, making no account of the other two, used to style himself the “first of believers.” The next person Muhammad applied to was Abdallah Ibn Abi Kuháfa, surnamed Abu Baqr, a man of great authority among the Quraish, and one whose interest he well knew would be of great service to him, as it soon appeared; for Abu Baqr being gained over, prevailed also on Othmán Ibn Affán, Abd al Rahmán Ibn Awf, Saad Ibn Abi Wakkás, Al Zubair Ibn al Awám, and Talha Ibn Obaidullah, all principal men in Makkah, to follow his example. These men were the six chief companions, who, with a few more, were converted in the space of three years, at the end of which Muhammad, having, as he hoped, a sufficient interest to support him, made his mission no longer a secret, but gave out that God had commanded him to admonish his near relations;1 and in order to do it with more convenience and prospect of success, he directed Ali to prepare an entertainment, and invite the sons and descendants of Abd al Mutallib, intending then to open his mind to them. This was done, and about forty of them came; but Abu Lahab, one of his uncles, making the company break up before Muhammad had an opportunity of speaking, obliged him to give them a second invitation the next day; and when they were come, he made them the following speech: “I know no man in all Arabia who can offer his kindred a more excellent thing than I now do you. I offer you happiness both in this life and in that which is to come. God Almighty hath commanded me to call you unto him; who therefore among you will be assisting to me herein, and become my brother and my vicegerent?” All of them hesitating and declining the matter, Ali at length rose up and declared that he would be his assistant, and vehemently threatened* those who should oppose him. Muhammad upon this embraced Ali with great demonstrations of affection, and desired ali who were present to hearken to and obey him as his deputy, at which the company broke out into great laughter, telling Abu Tálib that he must now pay obedience to his son.
Opposition aroused by his preaching.
He is protected by Abu Tálib.
This repulse, however, was so far from discouraging Muhammad, that he began to preach in public to the people, who heard him with some patience, till he came to upbraid them with the idolatry, obstinacy, and perverseness of themselves and their fathers, which so highly provoked them that they declared themselves his enemies, and would soon have procured his ruin had he not been protected by Abu Tálib. The chief of the Quraish warmly solicited this person to desert his nephew, making frequent remonstrances against the innovations he was attempting, which proving ineffectual, they at length threatened him with an open rupture if he did not prevail on Muhammad to desist. At this Abu Tálib was so far moved that he earnestly dissuaded his nephew from pursuing the affair any further, representing the great danger he and his friends must otherwise run. But Muhammad was not to be intimidated, telling his uncle plainly “that if they set the sun against him on his right hand and the moon on his left, he would not leave his enterprise;” and Abu Tálib, seeing him so firmly resolved to proceed, used no further arguments, but promised to stand by him against all his enemies.1
First emigration to Abyssinia.
The Quraish, finding they could prevail neither by fair words nor menaces, tried what they could do by force and ill-treatment, using Muhammad’s followers so very injuriously that it was not safe for them to continue at Makkah any longer: whereupon Muhammad gave leave to such of them as had not friends to protect them to seek for refuge elsewhere. And accordingly, in the fifth year of the prophet’s mission, sixteen of them, four of whom were women, fled into Ethiopia; and among them Othman Ibn Affán and his wife Rakiah, Muhammad’s daughter. This was the first flight; but afterwards several others followed them, retiring one after another, to the number of eighty-three men and eighteen women, besides children.1 These refugees were kindly received by the Najáshi,2 or king of Ethiopia, who refused to deliver them up to those whom the Quraish sent to demand them, and, as the Arab writers unanimously attest, even professed the Muhammadan religion.
Conversion of Hamza and Omar
Social ostracism of the Háshimites.
In the sixth year of his mission3 Muhammad had the pleasure of seeing his party strengthened by the conversion of his uncle Hamza, a man of great valour and merit, and of Omar Ibn al Khattáb, a person highly esteemed, and once a violent opposer of the prophet. As persecution generally advances rather than obstructs the spreading of a religion, Islám made so great a progress among the Arab tribes, that the Quraish, to suppress it effectually, if possible, in the seventh year of Muhammad’s mission,4 made a solemn league or covenant against the Háshimites and the family of al Mutallib, engaging themselves to contract no marriages with any of them, and to have no communication with them; and to give it the greater sanction, reduced it into writing, and laid it up in the Kaabah. Upon this the tribe became divided into two factions, and the family of Háshim all repaired to Abu Tálib, as their head, except only Abd al Uzza, surnamed Abu Lahab, who, out of his inveterate hatred to his nephew and his doctrine, went over to the opposite party, whose chief was Abu Sofián Ibn Harb of the family of Ommeya.
The league against the Háshimites broken.
The families continued thus at variance for three years; but in the tenth year of his mission, Muhammad told his uncle Abu Tálib that God had manifestly showed his disapprobation of the league which the Quraish had made against them, by sending a worm to eat out every word of the instrument except the name of God. Of this accident Muhammad had probably some private notice; for Abu Tálib went immediately to the Quraish and acquainted them with it; offering, if it proved false, to deliver his nephew up to them; but in case it were true, he insisted that they ought to lay aside their animosity, and annul the league they had made against the Háshimites. To this they acquiesced, and going to inspect the writing, to their great astonishment found it to be as Abu Tálib had said, and the league was thereupon declared void.
Death of Abu Talib and Khadíjah.
In the same year Abu Tálib died, at the age of above fourscore; and it is the general opinion that he died an infidel, though others say that when he was at the point of death he embraced Muhammadism, and produce some passages out of his poetical compositions to confirm their assertion. About a month, or, as some write, three days after the death of this great benefactor and patron, Muhammad had the additional mortification to lose his wife Khadíjah, who had so generously made his fortune. For which reason this year is called the year of mourning.1
Seeks refuge in Tayif and is rejected.
On the death of these two persons the Quraish began to be more troublesome than ever to their prophet, and especially some who had formerly been his intimate friends; insomuch that he found himself obliged to seek for shelter elsewhere, and first pitched upon Tayif, about sixty miles east from Makkah, for the place of his retreat. Thither therefore he went, accompanied by his servant Zaid, and applied himself to two of the chief of the tribe of Thakif, who were the inhabitants of that place; but they received them very coldly. However, he stayed there a month; and some of the more considerate and better sort of men treated him with a little respect; but the slaves and inferior people at length rose against him, and bringing him to the wall of the city, obliged him to depart and return to Makkah, where he put himself under the protection of al Mutám Ibn Adi.1
Makes converts of six men of Madina
This repulse greatly discouraged his followers: however, Muhammad was not wanting to himself, but boldly continued to preach to the public assemblies at the pilgrimage, and gained several proselytes, and among them six of the inhabitants of Yathrab of the Jewish tribe of Khazraj, who on their return home failed not to speak much in commendation of their new religion, and exhorted their fellow-citizens to embrace the same.
Night journey from Makkah to Jerusalem and heaven.
In the twelfth year of his mission it was that Muhammad gave out that he had made his night journey from Makkah to Jerusalem and thence to heaven,2 so much spoken of by all that write of him. Dr. Prideaux3 thinks he invented it either to answer the expectations of those who demanded some miracle as a proof of his mission, or else, by pretending to have conversed with God, to establish the authority of whatever he should think fit to leave behind by way of oral tradition, and make his sayings to serve the same purpose as the oral law of the Jews. But I do not find that Muhammad himself ever expected so great a regard should be paid to his sayings as his followers have since done; and seeing he all along disclaimed any power of performing miracles, it seems rather to have been a fetch of policy to raise his reputation, by pretending to have actually conversed with God in heaven, as Moses had heretofore done in the mount, and to have received several institutions immediately from him, whereas before he contented himself with persuading that he had all by the ministry of Gabriel.
This device raises his credit
However, this story seemed so absurd and incredible, that several of his followers left him upon it, and it had probably ruined the whole design, had not Abu Baqr vouched for his veracity, and declared that if Muhammad affirmed it to be true, he verily believed the whole. This happy incident not only retrieved the prophet’s credit, but increased it to such a degree, that he was secure of being able to make his disciples swallow whatever he pleased to impose on them for the future. And I am apt to think this fiction, notwithstanding its extravagance, was one of the most artful contrivances Muhammad ever put in practice, and what chiefly contributed to the raising of his reputation to that great height to which it afterwards arrived.
The first pledge of Aqabah
In this year, called by the Muhammadans the accepted year, twelve men of Yathrab or Madína, of whom ten were of the tribe of Khazraj, and the other two of that of Aws, came to Makkah, and took an oath of fidelity to Muhammad at al Aqabah, a hill on the north of that city. This oath was called the women’s oath, not that any women were present at this time, but because a man was not thereby obliged to take up arms in defence of Muhammad or his religion; it being the same oath that was afterwards exacted of the women, the form of which we have in the Qurán,1 and is to this effect, viz.: “That they should renounce all idolatry; that they should not steal, nor commit fornication, nor kill their children (as the pagan Arabs used to do when they apprehended they should not be able to maintain them2 ), nor forge calumnies; and that they should obey the prophet in all things that were reasonable.” When they had solemnly engaged to do all this, Muhammad sent one of his disciples, named Musáb Ibn Omair, home with them, to instruct them more fully in the grounds and ceremonies of his new religion.
Missionary success at Madína.
Musáb, being arrived at Madína, by the assistance of those who had been formerly converted, gained several prosolytes, particularly Osaid Ibn Hudaira, a chief man of the city, and Saad Ibn Muádh, prince of the tribe of Aws; Muhammadism spreading so fast, that there was scarce a house wherein there were not some who had embraced it.
The second pledge of Aqabah.
The next year, being the thirteenth of Muhammad’s mission, Musáb returned to Makkah, accompanied by seventy-three men and two women of Madína, who had professed Islám, besides some others who were as yet unbelievers. On their arrival, they immediately sent to Muhammad, and offered him their assistance, of which he was now in great need, for his adversaries were by this time grown so powerful in Makkah, that he could not stay there much longer without imminent danger. Wherefore he accepted their proposal, and met them one night by appointment, at al Aqabah above mentioned, attended by his uncle al Abbas, who, though he was not then a believer wished his nephew well, and made a speech to those of Madína, wherein he told them, that as Muhammad was obliged to quit his native city and seek an asylum elsewhere, and they had offered him their protection, they would do well not to deceive him; and that if they were not firmly resolved to defend and not betray him, they had better declare their minds, and let him provide for his safety in some other manner. Upon their protesting their sincerity, Muhammad swore to be faithful to them, on condition that they should protect him against all insults as heartily as they would their own wives and families. They then asked him what recompense they were to expect if they should happen to be killed in his quarrel; he answered, Paradise. Whereupon they pledged their faith to him, and so returned home,1 after Muhammad had chosen twelve out of their number, who were to have the same authority among them as the twelve apostles of Christ had among his disciples.2
Islám thus far propagated by persuasion.
Muhammad’s moderation owing to his helplessness.
Hitherto Muhammad had propagated his religion by fair means, so that the whole success of his enterprise, before his flight to Madína, must be attributed to persuasion only, and not to compulsion. For before this second oath of fealty or inauguration at al Aqabah he had no permission to use any force at all; and in several places of the Qurán, which he pretended were revealed during his stay at Makkah, he declares his business was only to preach and admonish; that he had no authority to compel any person to embrace his religion; and that whether people believed or not was none of his concern, but belonged solely unto God. And he was so far from allowing his followers to use force, that he exhorted them to bear patiently those injuries which were offered them on account of their faith; and when persecuted himself, chose rather to quit the place of his birth and retire to Madína, than to make any resistance. But this great passiveness and moderation seems entirely owing to his want of power, and the great superiority of his opposers for the first twelve years of his mission; for no sooner was he enabled, by the assistance of those of Madína, to make head against his enemies, than he gave out that God had allowed him and his followers to defend themselves against the infidels; and at length, as his forces increased, he pretended to have the divine leave even to attack them, and to destroy idolatry, and set up the true faith by the sword; finding by experience that his designs would otherwise proceed very slowly, if they were not utterly overthrown, and knowing, on the other hand, that innovators, when they depend solely on their own strength, and can compel, seldom run any risk; from whence the politician observes it follows, that all the armed prophets have succeeded, and the unarmed ones have failed.* Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus would not have been able to establish the observance of their institutions for any length of time had they not been armed.1 The first passage of the Qurán which gave Muhammad the permission of defending himself by arms is said to have been that in the twenty-second chapter; after which a great number to the same purpose were revealed.
He authorises the enforcement of his doctrines by the sword.
The sword declares Islám to be of human origin.
Christianity compared with it
That Muhammad had a right to take up arms for his own defence against his unjust persecutors may perhaps be allowed; but whether he ought afterwards to have made use of that means for the establishing of his religion is a question I will not here determine. How far the secular power may or ought to interpose in affairs of this nature, mankind are not agreed. The method of converting by the sword gives no very favourable idea of the faith which is so propagated, and is disallowed by everybody in those of another religion, though the same persons are willing to admit of it for the advancement of their own, supposing that though a false religion ought not to be established by authority, yet a true one may; and accordingly force is almost as constantly employed in these cases by those who have the power in their hands, as it is constantly complained of by those who suffer the violence. It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Muhammadism was no other than a human invention that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword; and it is one of the strongest demonstrations of the divine original of Christianity that it prevailed against all the force and powers of the world by the mere dint of its own truth, after having stood the assaults of all manner of persecutions, as well as other oppositions, for 300 years together, and at length made the Roman emperors themselves submit thereto;2 after which time, indeed, this proof seems to fail, Christianity being then established and Paganism abolished by public authority, which has had great influence in the propagation of the one and destruction of the other ever since.1 But to return.
Emigration of Muslims to Madina.
Consequent excitement among the Quraish.
They conspire against Muhammad,
Muhammad having provided for the security of his companions as well as his own by the league offensive and defensive which he had now concluded with those of Madína, directed them to repair thither, which they accordingly did; but himself with Abu Baqr and Ali stayed behind, having not yet received the divine permission, as he pretended, to leave Makkah. The Quraish, fearing the consequence of this new alliance, began to think it absolutely necessary to prevent Muhammad’s escape to Madína, and having held a council thereon, after several milder expedients had been rejected, they came to a resolution that he should be killed; and agreed that a man should be chosen out of every tribe for the execution of this design, and that each man should have a blow at him with his sword, that the guilt of his blood might fall equally on all the tribes, to whose united power the Háshimites were much inferior, and therefore durst not attempt to revenge their kinsman’s death.*
This conspiracy was scarce formed when by some means or other it came to Muhammad’s knowledge, and he gave out that it was revealed to him by the Angel Gabriel, who had now ordered him to retire to Madína. Whereupon, to amuse his enemies, he directed Ali to lie down in his place and wrap himself up in his green cloak, which he did, and Muhammad escaped miraculously, as they pretend,1 to Abu Baqr’s house, unperceived by the conspirators, who had already assembled at the prophet’s door. They in the meantime, looking through the crevice and seeing Ali, whom they took to be Muhammad himself, asleep, continued watching there till morning, when Ali arose, and they found themselves deceived.
Muhammad escapes to Madína.
From Abu Baqr’s house Muhammad and he went to a cave in Mount Thúr, to the south-east* of Makkah, accompanied only by Amar Ibn Fuháirah, Abu Baqr’s servant, and Abdallah Ibn Oraikat, an idolater, whom they had hired for a guide. In this cave they lay hid three days to avoid the search of their enemies, which they very narrowly escaped, and not without the assistance of more miracles than one; for some say that the Quraish were struck with blindness, so that they could not find the cave; others, that after Muhammad and his companions were got in, two pigeons laid their eggs at the entrance, and a spider covered the mouth of the cave with her web,1 which made them look no further.2* Abu Baqr, seeing the prophet in such imminent danger, became very sorrowful, whereupon Muhammad comforted him with these words, recorded in the Qurán:3 “Be not grieved, for God is with us.” Their enemies being retired, they left the cave and set out for Madína by a by-road, and having fortunately, or, as the Muhammadans tell us, miraculously, escaped some who were sent to pursue them, arrived safely at that city, whither Ali followed them in three days, after he had settled some affairs at Makkah.4†
He builds a mosque at Madína.
The first thing Muhammad did after his arrival at Madina was to build a temple for his religious worship, and a house for himself, which he did on a parcel of ground which had before served to put camels in, or, as others tell us, for a burying-ground, and belonged to Sahal and Sohail the sons of Amru, who were orphaus.5 This action Dr. Prideaux exclaims against, representing it as a flagrant instance of injustice, for that, says he, he violently dispossessed these poor orphans, the sons of an inferior artificer (whom the author he quotes1 calls a carpenter) of this ground, and so founded the first fabric of his worship with the like wickedness as he did his religion.2 But to say nothing of the improbability that Muhammad should act in so impolitic a manner at his first-coming, the Muhammadan writers set this affair in a quite different light; one tells us that he treated with the lads about the price of the ground, but they desired he would accept it as a present;3 however, as historians of good credit assure us, he actually bought it,4 and the money was paid by Abu Baqr.5 Besides, had Muhammad accepted it as a present, the orphans were in circumstances sufficient to have afforded it; for they were of a very good family, of the tribe of Najjár, one of the most illustrious among the Arabs, and not the sons of a carpenter, as Dr. Prideaux’s author writes, who took the word Najjár, which signifies a carpenter, for an appellative, whereas it is a proper name.6
Makes predatory raids on the caravans of the Quraish
Muhammad being securely settled at Madína, and able not only to defend himself against the insults of his enemies, but to attack them, began to send out small parties to make reprisals on the Quraish; the first party consisting of no more than nine men, who intercepted and plundered a caravan belonging to that tribe, and in the action took two prisoners. But what established his affairs very much, and was the foundation on which he built all his succeeding greatness, was the gaining of the battle of Badr, which was fought in the second year of the Hijra, and is so famous in the Muhammadan history.7 As my design is not to write the life of Muhammad, but only to describe the manner in which he carried on his enterprise, I shall not enter into any detail of his subsequent battles and expeditions, which amounted to a considerable number. Some reckon no less than twenty-seven expeditions wherein Muhammad was personally present, in nine of which he gave battle, besides several other expeditions in which he was not present;1 some of them, however, will be necessarily taken notice of in explaining several passages of the Qurán. His forces he maintained partly by the contributions of his followers for this purpose, which he called by the name of Zakát or alms, and the paying of which he very artfully made one main article of his religion; and partly by ordering a fifth part of the plunder to be brought into the public treasury for that purpose, in which matter he likewise pretended to act by the divine direction.
He goes to Makkah, but is not allowed to enter.
The ten years’ truce
In a few years, by the success of his arms (notwithstanding he sometimes came off by the worst), he considerably raised his credit and power. In the sixth year of the Hijra he set out with 1400 men to visit the temple of Makkah, not with any intent of committing hostilities, but in a peaceable manner. However, when he came to al Hudaibiya, which is situate partly within and partly without the sacred territory, the Quraish sent to let him know that they would not permit him to enter Makkah, unless he forced his way; whereupon he called his troops about him, and they all took a solemn oath of fealty or homage to him, and he resolved to attack the city; but those of Makkah sending Arau Ibn Masud, prince of the tribe of Thakíf, as their ambassador to desire peace, a truce was concluded between them for ten years, by which any person was allowed to enter into league either with Muhammad or with the Quraish, as he thought fit.
Muslim veneration of their prophet.
It may not be improper, to show the inconceivable veneration and respect the Muhammadans by this time had for their prophet, to mention the account which the above-mentioned ambassador gave the Quraish, at his return, of their behaviour. He said he had been at the courts both of the Roman emperor and of the king of Persia, and never saw any prince so highly respected by his subjects as Muhammad was by his companions; for whenever he made the ablution, in order to say his prayers, they ran and catched the water that he had used; and whenever he spit, they immediately licked it up, and gathered up every hair that fell from him with great superstition.1*
He sends letters inviting foreign princes to embrace Islam
In the seventh year of the Hijra, Muhammad began to think of propagating his religion beyond the bounds of Arabia, and sent messengers to the neighbouring princes with letters to invite them to Muhammadism. Nor was this project without some success. Khusrú Parvíz, then king of Persia, received his letter with great disdain, and tore it in a passion, sending away the messenger very abruptly, which when Muhammad heard, he said, “God shall tear his kingdom.” And soon after a messenger came to Muhammad from Badhán, king of Yaman, who was a dependent on the Persians,2 to acquaint him that he had received orders to send him to Khusrú. Muhammad put off his answer till the next morning, and then told the messenger it had been revealed to him that night that Khusrú was slain by his son Shirúyih adding that he was well assured his new religion and empire should rise to as great a height as that of Khusrú, and therefore bid him advise his master to embrace Muhammadism. The messenger being returned, Badhán in a few days received a letter from Shirúyih informing him of his father’s death, and ordering him to give the prophet no further disturbance; whereupon Badhán and the Persians with him turned Muhammadans.1*
The emperor Heraclius, as the Arabian historians assure us, received Muhammad’s letter with great respect, laying it on his pillow, and dismissed the bearer honourably. And some pretend that he would have professed this new faith had he not been afraid of losing his crown.2†
Mukauicas’ presents to Muhammad
Muhammad wrote to the same effect to the king of Ethiopia, though he had been converted before, according to the Arab writers; and to Mukaukas, governor of Egypt, who gave the messenger a very favourable reception, and sent several valuable presents to Muhammad, and among the rest two girls, one of which, named Mary,3 became a great favourite with him. He also sent letters of the like purport to several Arab princes, particularly one to al Harith Ibn Abi Shamir,4 king of Ghassán, who returning for answer that he would go to Muhammad himself, the prophet said, “May his kingdom perish;” another to Haudha Ibn Ali, king of Yamáma, who was a Christian, and having some time before professed Islám, had lately returned to his former faith; this prince sent back a very rough answer, upon which Muhammad cursing him, he died soon after; and a third to al Mundár Ibn Sáwa, king of Bahrain, who embraced Muhammadism, and all the Arabs of that country followed his example.1*
Khálid and Amru converted
The expedition to Syria.
The eighth year of the Hijra was a very fortunate year to Muhammad. In the beginning of it Khálid Ibn al Walid and Amru Ibn al As, both excellent soldiers, the first of whom afterwards conquered Syria and other countries, and the latter Egypt, became proselytes of Muhammadism. And soon after the prophet sent 3000 men against the Grecian forces to revenge the death of one of his ambassadors, who being sent to the governor of Bosra on the same errand as those who went to the above-mentioned princes, was slain by an Arab of the tribe of Ghassan at Múta, a town in the territory of Balká in Syria, about three days’ journey eastward from Jerusalem, near which town they encountered. The Grecians being vastly, superior in number (for, including the auxiliary Arabs, they had an army of 100,000 men), the Muhammadans were repulsed in the first attack, and lost successively three of their generals, viz., Zaid Ibn Hárith, Muhammad’s freedman, Jaafar, the son of Abu Tálib, and Abdallah Ibn Rawáha; but Khálid Ibn al Walid, succeeding to the command, overthrew the Greeks with a great slaughter, and brought away abundance of rich spoil;2† on occasion of which action Muhammad gave him the honourable title of Saif min suyúf Allah, One of the Swords of God.1
The truce with the people of Makkah broken.
In this year also Muhammad took the city of Makkah, the inhabitants whereof had broken the truce concluded on two years before. For the tribe of Baqr, who were confederates of the Quraish, attacking those of Khuzáah, who were allies of Muhammad, killed several of them, being supported in the action by a party of the Quraish themselves. The consequence of this violation was soon apprehended, and Abu Sufián himself made a journey to Madína on purpose to heal the breach and renew the truce,2 but in vain, for Muhammad, glad of this opportunity, refused to see him; whereupon he applied to Abu Baqr and Ali, but they giving him no answer, he was obliged to return to Makkah as he came.
Muhammad captures Makkah.
Muhammad immediately gave orders for preparations to be made, that he might surprise the people of Makkah while they were unprovided to receive him. In a little time he began his march thither, and by the time he came near the city his forces were increased to 10,000 men. Those of Makkah being not in a condition to defend themselves against so formidable an army, surrendered at discretion, and Abu Sufián saved his life by turning Muhammadan. About twenty-eight of the idolaters were killed by a party under the command of Khálid; but this happened contrary to Muhammad’s orders, who, when he entered the town, pardoned all the Quraish on their submission, except only six men and four women, who were more obnoxious than ordinary (some of them having apostatised), and were solemnly proscribed by the prophet himself; but of these no more than three men and one woman were put to death, the rest obtaining pardon on their embracing Muhammadism, and one of the women making her escape.1
The remainder of this year Muhammad employed in destroying the idols in and round about Makkah, sending several of his generals on expeditions for that purpose, and to invite the Arabs to Islám: wherein it is no wender if they now met with success.
Many tribes converted.
The next year, being the ninth of the Hijra, the Muhammadans call “the year of embassies,” for the Arabs had been hitherto expecting the issue of the war between Muhammad and the Quraish; but so soon as that tribe—the principal of the whole nation, and the genuine descendants of Ismaíl, whose prerogatives none offered to dispute—had submitted, they were satisfied that it was not in their power to oppose Muhammad, and therefore began to come in to him in great numbers, and to send embassies to make their submissions to him, both to Makkah, while he stayed there, and also to Madína, whither he returned this year.2 Among the rest, five kings of the tribe of Himyár professed Muhammadism, and sent ambassadors to notify the same.3
Ali’s expedition to Yaman.
In the tenth year Ali was sent into Yaman to propagate the Muhammadan faith there, and as it is said, converted the whole tribe of Hamdán in one day.* Their example was quickly followed by all the inhabitants of that province, except only those of Najrán, who, being Christians, chose rather to pay tribute.4
Arabia accepts Islám.
Thus was Muhammadism established and idolatry rooted out, even in Muhammad’s lifetime (for he died the next year), throughout all Arabia, except only Yamáma, where Musailama, who set up also for a prophet as Muhammad’s competitór, had a great party, and was not reduced till the Khalífat of Abu Baqr. And the Arabs being then united in one faith and under one prince, found themselves in a condition of making those conquests which extended the Muhammadan faith over so great a part of the world.
OF THE QURÁN ITSELF, THE PECULIARITIES OF THAT BOOK; THE MANNER OF ITS BEING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED, AND THE GENERAL DESIGN OF IT.
Import of the word qaraa.
The word Qurán, derived from the verb qaraa, to read, signifies properly in Arabic “the reading,” or rather “that which ought to be read;” by which name the Muhammadans denote not only the entire book or volume of the Qurán, but also any particular chapter or section of it; just as the Jews call either the whole Scripture or any part of it by the name of Karâh or Mikra,1 words of the same origin and import; which observation seems to overthrow the opinion of some learned Arabians, who would have the Qurán so named because it is a collection of the loose chapters or sheets which compose it—the verb karaa signifying also to gather or collect;2 and may also, by the way, serve as an answer to those who object3 that the Qurán must be a book forged at once, and could not possibly be revealed by parcels at different times during the course of several years, as the Muhammadans affirm, because the Qurán is often mentioned and called by that name in the very book itself. It may not be amiss to observe, that the syllable Al in the word Alqurán is only the Arabic article, signifying the, and therefore ought to be omitted when the English article is prefixed.
Other names applied to the Qurán.
Besides this peculiar name, the Qurán is also honoured with several appellations common to other books of Scripture: as, al Furqán, from the verb faraqa, to divide or distinguish; not, as the Muhammadan doctors say, because those books are divided into chapters or sections, or distinguish between good and evil, but in the same notion that the Jews use the word Perek or Pirka, from the same root, to denote a section or portion of Scripture.1 It is also called al Musháf, the volume, and al Kitáb, the Book, by way of eminence, which answers to the Biblia of the Greeks; and al Dhikr, the admonition, which name is also given to the Pentateuch and Gospels.
Divisions of the Qurán.
The Qurán is divided into 114 larger portions of very unequal length, which we call chapters, but the Arabians Súwar, in the singular Súra, a word rarely used on any other occasion, and properly signifying a row, order, or regular series, as a course of bricks in building or a rank of soldiers in an army; and is the same in use and import with the Súra or Tora of the Jews, who also call the fifty-three sections of the Pentateuch Sedárim, a word of the same signification.2
Titles of the chapters.
These chapters are not in the manuscript copies distinguished by their numerical order, though for the reader’s ease they are numbered in this edition, but by particular titles, which (except that of the first, which is the initial chapter, or introduction to the rest, and by the old Latin translator not numbered among the chapters) are taken sometimes from a particular matter treated of or person mentioned therein, but usually from the first word of note, exactly in the same manner as the Jews have named their Sedárim; though the words from which some chapters are denominated be very far distant, towards the middle, or perhaps the end of the chapter, which seems ridiculous. But the occasion of this seems to have been, that the verse or passage wherein such word occurs was, in point of time, revealed and committed to writing before the other verses of the same chapter which precede it in order: and the title being given to the chapter before it was completed or the passages reduced to their present order, the verse from whence such title was taken did not always happen to begin the chapter. Some chapters have two or more titles, occasioned by the difference of the copies.
Some of the chapters having been revealed at Makkah and others at Madína, the noting this difference makes a part of the title; but the reader will observe that several of the chapters are said to have been revealed partly at Makkah and partly at Madína; and as to others, it is yet a dispute among the commentators to which place of the two they belong.
The verses of the chapters.
Every chapter is subdivided into smaller portions, of very unequal length also, which we customarily call verses; but the Arabic word is Ayát, the same with the Hebrew Ototh, and signifies signs or wonders; such as are the secrets of God, his attributes, works, judgments, and ordinances, delivered in those verses; many of which have their particular titles also, imposed in the same manner as those of the chapters.
* Notwithstanding this subdivision is common and well known, yet I have never yet seen any manuscript wherein the verses are actually numbered; though in some copies the number of verses in each chapter is set down after the title, which we have therefore added in the table of the chapters And the Muhammadans seem to have some scruple in making an actual distinction in their copies, because the chief disagreement between their several editions of the Qurán consists in the division and number of the verses and for this reason I have not taken upon me to make any such division.
The seven principal editions of the Quran.
Number of verses, words, &c.
Having mentioned the different editions of the Qurán, if may not be amiss here to acquaint the reader that there are seven principal editions, if I may so call them, or ancient copies of that book, two of which were published and used at Madína, a third at Makkah, a fourth at Kúfa, a fifth at Basra, a sixth in Syria, and a seventh called the common or vulgar edition. Of these editions, the first, of Madína, makes the whole number of the verses 6000; the second and fifth, 6214, the third, 6219; the fourth, 6236; the sixth, 6226; and the last, 6225. But they are all said to contain the same number of words, namely, 77,639,1 and the same number of letters, viz., 323,015;2* for the Muhammadans have in this also imitated the Jews, that they have superstitiously numbered the very words and letters of their law; nay, they have taken the pains to compute (how exactly I know not) the number of times each particular letter of the alphabet is contained in the Qurán.3
Other divisions of the Qurán.
Besides these unequal divisions of chapter and verse, the Muhammadans have also divided their Qurán into sixty equal portions, which they call Ahzáb in the singular Hizb, each subdivided into four equal parts; which is also an imitation of the Jews, who have an ancient division of their Mishna into sixty portions called Massictoth;4 but the Qurán is more usually divided into thirty sections only, named Ajzá, from the singular Juz, each of twice the length of the former, and in the like manner subdivided into four parts. These divisions are for the use of the readers of the Qurán in the royal temples, or in the adjoining chapels where the emperors and great men are interred. There are thirty of these readers belonging to every chapel, and each reads his section every day, so that the whole Qurán is read over once a day.1 I have seen several copies divided in this manner, and bound up in as many volumes; and have thought it proper to mark these divisions in the margin of this translation by numeral letters.*
Next after the title, at the head of every chapter, except only the ninth, is prefixed the following solemn form, by the Muhammadans called the Bismillah, “In the name of the most merciful God;” which form they constantly place at the beginning of all their books and writings in general, as a peculiar mark or distinguishing characteristic of their religion, it being counted a sort of impiety to omit it. The Jews for the same purpose make use of the form, “In the name of the Lord,” or, “In the name of the great God;” and the Eastern Christians that of, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But I am apt to believe Muhammad really took this form, as he did many other things, from the Persian Magi, who used to begin their books in these words, Banám Yazdán bakhshaïshghar dádár; that is, “In the name of the most merciful, just God.”2
This auspicatory form, and also the titles of the chapters, are by the generality of the doctors and commentators believed to be of divine original, no less than the text itself; but the more moderate are of opinion they are only human additions, and not the very word of God.
The letters A.L.M., &c.
There are twenty-nine chapters of the Qurán, which have this peculiarity, that they begin with certain letters of the alphabet, some with a single one, others with more. These letters the Muhammadans believe to be the peculiar marks of the Qurán, and to conceal several profound mysteries, the certain understanding of which, the more intelligent confess, has not been communicated to any mortal, their prophet only excepted. Notwithstanding which, some will take the liberty of guessing at their meaning by that species of Cabbala called by the Jews Notarikon,1 and suppose the letters to stand for as many words expressing the names and attributes of God, his works, ordinances, and decrees; and therefore these mysterious letters, as well as the verses themselves, seem in the Qurán to be called signs. Others explain the intent of these letters from their nature or organ, or else from their value in numbers, according to another species of the Jewish Cabbala called Gematria;2 the uncertainty of which conjectures sufficiently appears from their disagreement. Thus, for example, five chapters, one of which is the second, begin with these letters, A.L.M., which some imagine to stand for Allah latíf majíd, “God is gracious and to be glorified;” or, Ana li minni, “To me and from me,” viz., belongs all perfection and proceeds all good; or else for Ana Allah álam, “I am the most wise God,” taking the first letter to mark the beginning of the first word, the second the middle of the second word, and the third the last of the third word; or for “Allah, Gabriel, Muhammad,” the author, revealer, and preacher of the Qurán. Others say that as the letter A belongs to the lower part of the throat, the first of the organs of speech; L to the palate, the middle organ; and M to the lips, which are the last organs; so these letters signify that God is the beginning, middle, and end, or ought to be praised in the beginning, middle, and end of all our words and actions: or, as the total value of those three letters in numbers is seventy-one, they signify that in the space of so many years, the religion preached in the Qurán should be fully established. The conjecture of a learned Christian1 is, at least, as certain as any of the former, who supposes those letters were set there by the amanuensis, for Amar li Muhammad, i.e., “at the command of Muhammad,” as the five letters prefixed to the nineteenth chapter seem to be there written by a Jewish scribe for koh yaas, i.e., “Thus he commanded.”*
The language of the Qurán.
The Qurán is universally allowed to be written with the utmost elegance and purity of language, in the dialect of the tribe of Quraish, the most noble and polite of all the Arabians, but with some mixture, though very rarely, of other dialects. It is confessedly the standard or the Arabic tongue and as the more orthodox believe, and are taught by the book itself, inimitable by any human pen (though some sectaries have been of another opinion),2 and therefore insisted on as a permanent miracle, greater than that of raising the dead,3 and alone sufficient to convince the world of its divine original.
its elegance of style elaimed to be miraculous.
And to this miracle did Muhammad himself chiefly appeal for the confirmation of his mission, publicly challenging the most eloquent men in Arabia, which was at that time stocked with thousands whose sole study and ambition it was to excel in elegance of style and composition,4 to produce even a single chapter that might be compared with it1* I will mention but one instance out of several, to show that this book was really admired for the beauty of its composure by those who must be allowed to have been conrpetent judges. A poem of Lábíd Ibn Rabia, one of the greatest wits in Arabia in Muhammad’s time, being fixed up on the gate of the temple of Makkah, an honour allowed to none but the most esteemed performances none of the other poets durst offer anything of their own in competition with it. But the second chapter of the Qurán being fixed up by it soon after. Lábid himself (then an idolater), on reading the first verses only, was struck with admiration, and immediately professed the religion taught thereby, declaring that such words could proceed from an inspired person only. This Lábíd was afterwards of great service to Muhammad in writing answers to the satires and invectives that were made on him and his religion by the infidels, and particularly by Amri al Qais,2 prince of the tribe of Asad,3 and author of one of those seven famous poems called al Muallaqat.4†
The style the composition.
The style of the Qurán is generally beautiful and fluent, especially where it imitates the prophetic manner and Scripture phrases. It is concise and often obscure, adorned with bold figures after the Eastern taste, enlivened with florid and sententious expressions, and in many places, especially where the majesty and attributes of God are described, sublime and magnificent; of which the reader cannot but observe several instances, though he must not imagine the translation comes up to the original, notwithstanding my endeavours to do it justice.
Though it be written in prose, yet the sentences generally conclude in a long continued rhyme, for the sake of which the sense is often interrupted, and unnecessary repetitions too frequently made, which appear still more ridiculous in a translation, where the ornament, such as it is, for whose sake they were made, cannot be perceived. However, the Arabians are so mightily delighted with this jingling, that they employ it in their most elaborate compositions, which they also embellish with frequent passages of, and allusions to, the Qurán, so that it is next to impossible to understand them without being well versed in this book.
The influence of this style on Muhammad’s hearers.
It is probable the harmony of expression which the Arabians find in the Qurán might contribute not a little to make them relish the doctrine therein taught, and give an efficacy to arguments which, had they been nakedly proposed without this rhetorical dress, might not have so easily prevailed. Very extraordinary effects are related of the power of words well chosen and artfully placed, which are no less powerful either to ravish or amaze than music itself; wherefore as much has been ascribed by the best orators to this part of rhetoric as to any other.1 He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Muhammad seems not to have been ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men; for which reason he has not only employed his utmost skill in these his pretended revelations, to preserve that dignity and sublimity of style which might seem not unworthy of the majesty of that Being whom he gave out to be the Author of them, and to imitate the prophetic manner of the Old Testament; but he has not neglected even the other arts of oratory, wherein he succeeded so well, and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his opponents thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as he sometimes complains.1
Design of the Qurán
“The general design of the Qurán” (to use the words of a very learned person) “seems to be this: to unite the professors of the three different religions then followed in the populous country of Arabia, who for the most part lived promiscuously, and wandered without guides, the far greater number being idolaters, and the rest Jews and Christians, mostly of erroneous and heterodox belief, in the knowledge and worship of one eternal, invisible God, by whose power all things were made, and those which are not, may be, the supreme Governor, Judge, and absolute Lord of the creation; established under the sanction of certain laws, and the outward signs of certain ceremonies, partly of ancient and partly of novel institution, and enforced by setting before them rewards and punishments, both temporal and eternal; and to bring them all to the obedience of Muhammad, as the prophet and ambassador of God, who after the repeated admonitions, promises, and threats of former ages, was at last to establish and propagate God’s religion on earth by force of arms, and to be acknowledged chief pontiff in spiritual matters, as well as supreme prince in temporal.”2
The doctrine of the Qurán regarding religion and revelation
The use made of Old Testament history in the Qurán.
The great doctrine, then, of the Qurán is the unity of God, to restore which point Muhammad pretended was the chief end of his mission; it being laid down by him as a fundamental truth that there never was nor ever can be more than one true orthodox religion. For though the particular laws or ceremonies are only temporary, and subject to alteration according to the divine direction, yet the substance of it being eternal truth, is not liable to change, but continues immutably the same. And he taught that whenever this religion became neglecte or corrupted in essentials, God had the goodness to re-inform and re-admonish mankind thereof by several prophets, of whom Moses and Jesus were the most distinguished, till the appearance of Muhammad, who is their seal, no other being to be expected after him. And the more effectually to engage people to hearken to him great part of the Qurán is employed in relating examples of dreadful punishments formerly inflicted by God on those who rejected and abused his messengers; several of which stories, or some circumstances of them, are taken from the Old and New Testament, but many more from the apocryphal books and traditions of the Jews and Christians of those ages, set up in the Qurán as truths in opposition to the Scriptures, which the Jews and Christians are charged with having altered; and I am apt to believe that few or none of the relations or circumstances in the Qurán were invented by Muhammad, as is generally supposed, it being easy to trace the greatest part of them much higher, as the rest might be, were more of those books extant, and it was worth while to make the inquiry.
The other part of the Qurán is taken up in giving necessary laws and directions, in frequent admonitions to moral and divine virtues, and above all to the worshipping and reverencing of the only true God, and resignation to his will; among which are many excellent things intermixed not unworthy even a Christian’s perusal.
The use made of the Qurán by Muhammad in emergency.
But besides these, there are a great number of passages which are occasional, and relate to particular emergencies. For whenever anything happened which perplexed and gravelled Muhammad, and which he could not otherwise get over, he had constant recourse to a new revelation, as an infallible expedient in all nice cases; and he found the success of this method answer his expectation. It was certainly an admirable and politic contrivance of his to bring down the whole Qurán at once to the lowest heaven only, and not to the earth, as a bungling prophet would probably have done; for if the whole had been published at once, innumerable objections might have been made, which it would have been very hard, if not impossible, for him to solve; but as he pretended to have received it by parcels, as God saw proper that they should be published for the conversion and instruction of the people, he had a sure way to answer all emergencies, and to extricate himself with honour from any difficulty which might occur. If any objection be hence made to that eternity of the Qurán which the Muhammadans are taught to believe, they easily answer it by their doctrine of absolute predestination, according to which all the accidents for the sake of which these occasional passages were revealed were predetermined by God from all eternity.
Muhammad the author of the Qurán
That Muhammad was really the author and chief contriver of the Qurán is beyond dispute, though it be highly probable that he had no small assistance in his design from others, as his countrymen failed not to object to him.1 However, they differed so much in their conjectures as to the particular persons who gave him such assistance,2 that they were not able, it seems, to prove the charge; Muhammad, it is to be presumed, having taken his measures too well to be discovered. Dr. Prideaux3 has given the most probable account of this matter, though chiefly from Christian writers, who generally mix such ridiculous fables with what they deliver, that they deserve not much credit.
The divine original of the Qurán.
However it be, the Muhammadans absolutely deny the Qurán was composed by their prophet himself, or any other for him, it being their general and orthodox belief that it is of divine original; nay, that it is eternal and uncreated, remaining, as some express it, in the very essence of God; that the first transcript has been from everlasting by God’s throne, written on a table of vast bigness, called the Preserved Table, in which are also recorded the divine decrees past and future; that a copy from this table, in one volume on paper, was by the ministry of the Angel Gabriel sent down to the lowest heaven, in the month of Ramadhán, on the night of power;1 from whence Gabriel revealed it to Muhammad by parcels, some at Makkah, and some at Madína, at different times, during the space of twenty-three years, as the exigency of affairs required; giving him, however, the consolation to chow him the whole (which they tell us was bound in silk, and adorned with gold and precious stones of paradise) once a year; but in the last year of his life he had the favour to see it twice. They say that few chapters were delivered entire, the most part being revealed piecemeal, and written down from time to time by the prophet’s amanuenses in such or such a part of such or such a chapter till they were completed, according to the directions of the angel.2 The first parcel that was revealed is generally agreed to have been the first five verses of the ninety-sixth chapter.3
Original MSS. of the Qurán.
After the new revealed passages had been from the prophet’s mouth taken down in writing by his scribe, they were published to his followers, several of whom took copies for their private use, but the far greater number got them by heart. The originals when returned were put promiscuously into a chest,* observing no order of time, for which reason it is uncertain when many passages were revealed.
Collected into one volume by Abu Baqr.
When Muhammad died, he left his revelations in the same disorder I have mentioned, and not digested into the method, such as it is, which we now find them in. This was the work of his successor, Abu Baqr, who considering that a great number of passages were committed to the memory of Muhammad’s followers, many of whom were slain in their wars, ordered the whole to be collected, not only from the palm-leaves and skins on which they had been written, and which were kept between two boards or covers, but also from the mouths of such as had gotten them by heart. And this transcript when completed he committed to the custody of Hafsa the daughter of Omar, one of the prophet’s widows.1
From this relation it is generally imagined that Abu Baqr was really the compiler of the Qurán; though for aught appears to the contrary, Muhammad left the chapters complete as we now have them, excepting such passages as his successor might add or correct from those who had gotten them by heart; what Abu Baqr did else being perhaps no more than to range the chapters in their present order, which he seems to have done without any regard to time, having generally placed the longest first.
However, in the thirtieth year of the Hijra, Othmán being then Khalífah, and observing the great disagreement in the copies of the Qurán in the several provinces of the empire—those of Irak, for example, following the reading of Abu Musa al Ashari, and the Syrians that of Maqdád Ibn Aswad—he, by advice of the companions, ordered a great number of copies to be transcribed from that of Abu Baqr, in Hafsa’s care, under the inspection of Zaid Ibn Thábit, Abdallah Ibn Zobair, Saïd Ibn al As, and Abdalrahmán Ibn al Hárith, the Makhzumite; whom he directed, that wherever they disagreed about any word, they should write it in the dialect of the Quraish, in which it was at first delivered.1 These copies when made were dispersed in the several provinces of the empire, and the old ones burnt and suppressed. Though many things in Hafsa’s copy were corrected by the above-mentioned supervisors, yet some few various readings still occur, the most material of which will be taken notice of in their proper places.
Various readings: how they originated.
The want of vowels2 in the Arabic character made Muqrís, or readers whose peculiar study and profession it was to read the Qurán with its proper vowels, absolutely necessary. But these, differing in their manner of reading, occasioned still further variations in the copies of the Qurán, as they are now written with the vowels: and herein consist much the greater part of the various readings throughout the book. The readers whose authority the commentators chiefly allege, in admitting these various readings, are seven in number.
The doctrine of abrogation
There being some passages in the Qurán which are contradictory, the Mùhammadan doctors obviate any objection from thence by the doctrine of abrogation; for they say that God in the Qurán commanded several things which were for good reasons afterwards revoked and abrogated.
Passages abrogated are distinguished into three kinds: the first where the letter and the sense are both abrogated; the second, where the letter only is abrogated, but the sense remains; and the third, where the sense is abrogated, though the letter remains.
Of the first kind were several verses which, by the tradition of Malik Ibn Ans, were in the prophet’s lifetime read in the chapter of Repentance, but are not now extant, one of which, being all he remembered of them, was the following: “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 (to be added) unto them neither shall the belly of a son of Adam be fihed but with dust. God will turn unto him who shall repent” Another instance of this kind we have from the tradition of Abdallah Ibn Masúd, who reported that the prophet gave him a verse to read which he wrote down; but the next morning, looking in his book, he found it was vanished, and the leaf blank: this he acquainted Muhammad with, who assured him the veise was revoked the same night.
Of the second kind is a verse called the verse of Stoning, which, according to the tradition of Omar, afterwards Khalífah, was extant while Muhammad was living, though it be not now to be found. The words are these: “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.”
Of the last kind are observed several verses in sixty-three different chapters, to the number of 225; such as the precepts of turning in prayer to Jerusalem, fasting after the old custom, forbearance towards idolaters, avoiding the ignorant, and the like.1 The passages of this sort have been carefully collected by several writers and are most of them remarked in their proper places.
The Qurán believed to be eternal.
Though it is the belief of the Sonnites or orthodox that the Qurán is uncreated and eternal, subsisting in the very essence of God, and Muhammad himself is said to have pronounced him an infidel who asserted the contrary, yet several have been of a different opinion; particularly the sect of the Mutazalites,1 and the followers of Isa Ibn Subaih Abu Músa, surnamed al Muzdár, who stuck not to accuse those who held the Qurán to be uncreated of infidelity, as asserters of two eternal beings.2
This point was controverted with so much heat that it occasioned many calamities under some of the Khalífahs of the family of Abbás, al Mámún3 making a public edict declaring the Qurán to be created, which was confirmed by his successors al Mutasim4 and al Wáthik,5 who whipped, imprisoned, and put to death those of the contrary opinion. But at length al Mutawakkil,6 who succeeded al Wáthik, put an end to these persecutions by revoking the former edicts, releasing those that were imprisoned on that account, and leaving every man at liberty as to his belief in this point.7
Al Ghazáli’s opinion as to the Quran
Al Ghazáli seems to have tolerably reconciled both opinions, saying that the Qurán is read and pronounced with the tongue, written in books, and kept in memory; and is yet eternal, subsisting in God’s essence, and not possible to be separated thence by any transmission into men’s memories or the leaves of books;8 by which he seems to mean no more than that the original idea of the Qurán only is really in God, and consequently co-essential and co-eternal with him, but that the copies are created and the work of man.
Opinion of al Jahidh.
The opinion of al Jahidh, chief of a sect bearing his name, touching the Qurán, is too remarkable to be omitted: he used to say it was a body, which might sometimes be turned into a man,1 and sometimes into a beast;2 which seems to agree with the notion of those who assert the Qurán to have two faces, one of a man, the other of a beast;3 thereby, as I conceive, intimating the double interpretation it will admit of, according to the letter or the spirit.
As some have held the Qurán to be created, so there have not been wanting those who have asserted that there is nothing miraculous in that book in respect to style or composition, excepting only the prophetical relations of things past, and predictions of things to come; and that had God left men to their natural liberty, and not restrained them in that particular, the Arabians could have composed something not only equal but superior to the Qurán in eloquence, method, and purity of language. This was another opinion of the Mutazilites, and in particular of al Muzdár, above mentioned, and al Nudhám.4
Muslim exegetical rules.
The Qurán being the Muhammadans’ rule of faith and practice, it is no wonder its expositors and commentators are so very numerous. And it may not be amiss to take notice of the rules they observe in expounding it.
One of the most learned commentators5 distinguishes the contents of the Qurán into allegorical and literal. The former comprehends the more obscure, parabolical, and enigmatical passages, and such as are repealed or abrogated; the latter those which are plain, perspicuous, liable to no doubt, and in full force.
To explain these severally in a right manner, it is necessary from tradition and study to know the time when each passage was revealed, its circumstances, state, and history, and the reasons or particular emergencies for the sake of which it was revealed;1 or, more explicitly, whether the passage was revealed at Makkah or at Madína; whether it be abrogated, or does itself abrogate any other passage; whether it be anticipated in order of time or postponed; whether it be distinct from the context or depends thereon; whether it be particular or general; and, lastly, whether it be implicit by intention or explicit in words.2
Muslim reverence for the Qurán
By what has been said the reader may easily believe this book is in the greatest reverence and esteem among the Muhammadans. They dare not so much as touch it without being first washed or legally purified;3 which, lest they should do by inadvertence, they write these words on the cover or label, “Let none touch it but they who are clean.” They read it with great care and respect, never holding it below their girdles. They swear by it, consult it in their weighty occasions,4 carry it with them to war, write sentences of it on their banners, adorn it with gold and precious stones, and knowingly suffer it not to be in the possession of any of a different persuasion.
The Muhammadans, far from thinking the Qurán to be profaned by a translation, as some authors have written,5 have taken care to have their Scriptures translated not only into the Persian tongue, but into several others, particularly the Javan and Malayan,1 though out of respect to the original Arabic these versions are generally (if not always) interlineary.*
OF THE DOCTRINES AND POSITIVE PRECEPTS OF THE QURÁN, WHICH RELATE TO FAITH AND RELIGIOUS DUTIES.
Islám the one true orthodox belief.
It has been already observed more than once, that the fundamental position on which Muhammad erected the superstructure of his religion was, that from the beginning to the end of the world there has been, and for ever will be, but one true orthodox belief, consisting, as to matter of faith, in the acknowledging of the only true God, and the believing in and obeying such messengers or prophets as he should from time to time send, with proper credentials, to reveal his will to mankind; and as to matter of practice, in the observance of the immutable and eternal laws of right and wrong, together with such other precepts and ceremonies as God should think fit to order for the time being, according to the different dispensations in different ages of the world; for these last he allowed were things indifferent in their own nature, and became obligatory by God’s positive precept only, and were therefore temporary, and subject to alteration according to his will and pleasure. And to this religion he gives the name of Islám, which word signifies resignation, or submission to the service and commands of God,1 and is used as the proper name of the Muhammadan religion, which they will also have to be the same at bottom with that of all the prophets from Adam.
Under pretext that this eternal religion was in his time corrupted, and professed in its purity by no one sect of men, Muhammad pretended to be a prophet sent by God to reform those abuses which had crept into it, and to reduce it to its primitive simplicity; with the addition, however, of peculiar laws and ceremonies, some of which had been used in former times, and others were now first instituted. And he comprehended the whole substance of his doctrine under these two propositions or articles of faith, viz., that there is but one God, and that himself was the apostle of God; in consequence of which latter article, all such ordinances and institutions as he thought fit to establish must be received as obligatory and of divine authority.
Five points of Imán and Dín.
The Muhammadans divide their religion, which, as I just now said, they call Islám, into two distinct parts: Imán, i.e., faith or theory, and Dín, i.e., religion or practice; and teach that it is built on five fundamental points, one belonging to faith, and the other four to practice.
First fundamental point of Islám.
The first is that confession of faith which I have already mentioned, that “there is no god but the true God, and that Muhammad is his apostle,” under which they comprehend six distinct branches, viz., 1. Belief in God; 2. In his angels; 3. In his Scriptures; 4. In his prophets; 5. In the resurrection and day of judgment; and, 6. In God’s absolute decree and predetermination both of good and evil.
Four points of religion.
The four points* relating to practice are: 1. Prayer, under which are comprehended those washings or purifications which are necessary preparations required before prayer; 2. Alms; 3. Fasting; and, 4. The pilgrimage to Makkah. Of each of these I shall speak in their order.
The God of Islam the true God
That both Muhammad and those among his followers who are reckoned orthodox had and continue to have just and true notions of God and his attributes (always excepting their obstinate and impious rejecting of the Trinity), appears so plain from the Qurán itself and all the Muhammadan divines, that it would be loss of time to refute those who suppose the God of Muhammad to be different from the true God, and only a fictitious deity or idol of his own creation.1* Nor shall I here enter into any of the Muhammadan controversies concerning the divine nature and attributes, because I shall have a more proper opportunity of doing it elsewhere.2
Belief in the doctrine of angels required.
The existence of angels and their purity are absolutely required to be believed in the Qurán, and he is reckoned an infidel who denies there are such beings, or hates any of them,1 or asserts any distinction of sexes among them. They believe them to have pure and subtle bodies, created of tire;2 that they neither eat nor drink, nor propagate their species; that they have various forms and offices: some adoring God in different postures others singing praises to him, or interceding for mankind They hold that some of them are employed in writing down the actions of men, others in carrying the throne of God and other services.
Gabriel, Michael, Azrael, Isráfíl, and guardian angels
The four angels whom they look on as more eminently in God’s favour, and often mention on account of the offices assigned them, are Gabriel, to whom they give several titles, particularly those of the holy spirit,3 and the angel of revelations,4 supposing him to be honoured by God with a greater confidence than any other, and to be employed in writing down the divine decrees;5 Michael, the friend and protector of the Jews;6 Azrael,* the angel of death, who separates men’s souls from their bodies;7 and Isráfíl, whose office it will be to sound the trumpet at the resurrection.1 The Muhammadans also believe that two guardian angels attend on every man to observe and write down his actions,2 being changed every day, and therefore called al Muaqqibát, or the angels who continually succeed one another.
This doctrine borrowed from the Jews.
This whole doctrine concerning angels Muhammad and his disciples have borrowed from the Jews, who learned the names and offices of those beings from the Persians, as themselves confess.3 The ancient Persians firmly believed the ministry of angels, and their superintendence over the affairs of this world (as the Magians still do), and therefore assigned them distinct charges and provinces, giving their names to their months and the days of their months. Gabriel they called Sarosh and Raván Bakhsh, or the giver of souls, in opposition to the contrary office of the angel of death, to whom among other names they gave that of Murdád, or the giver of death; Michael they called Beshter, who according to them provides sustenance for mankind.4 The Jews teach that the angels were created of fire;5 that they have several offices;6 that they intercede for men,7 and attend them.8 The angel of death they name Dúma, and say he calls dying persons by their respective names at their last hour.9
Belief concerning Satan.
The devil, whom Muhammad names Iblís, from his despair, was once one of those angels who are nearest to God’s presence, called Azazíl,10 and fell, according to the doctrine of the Qurán, for refusing to pay homage to Adam at the command of God.1
Concerning the Genii.
Besides angels and devils, the Muhammadans are taught by the Qurán to believe in an intermediate order of creatures, which they call Jin or Genii, created also of fire,2 but of a grosser fabric than angels, since they eat and drink, and propagate their species, and are subject to death.3 Some of these are supposed to be good and others bad, and capable of future salvation or damnation, as men are; whence Muhammad pretended to be sent for the conversion of genii as well as men.4 The Orientals pretend that these genii inhabited the world for many ages before Adam was created, under the government of several successive princes, who all bore the common name of Solomon; but falling at length into an almost general corruption, Iblís was sent to drive them into a remote part of the earth, there to be confined; that some of that generation still remaining, were by Tahmúrath, one of the ancient kings of Persia, who waged war against them, forced to retreat into the famous mountains of Qáf. Of which successions and wars they have many fabulous and romantic stories. They also make different ranks and degrees among these beings (if they be not rather supposed to be of a different species), some being called absolutely Jin, some Pari or fairies. some Dev or giants, others Taqwíms or fates.5
Agrees with Jewish belief in Shedím.
The Muhammadan notions concerning these genii agree almost exactly with what the Jews write of a sort of demons called Shedím, whom some fancy to have been begotten by two angels, named Aza and Azaël, on Naamah the daughter of Lamech, before the Flood.6 However, the Shedím, they tell us, agree in three things with the ministering angels, for that, like them, they have wings, and fly from one end of the world to the other, and have some knowledge of futurity; and in three things they agree with men, like whom they eat and drink, are propagated, and die.1 They also say that some of them believe in the law of Moses, and are consequently good, and that others of them are infidels and reprobates.2
The former Scriptures.
Alleged corruption of Jewish and Christian Scriptures
Muslim Psalter and Gospel of Barnabas
Muslim use of spurious Gospels.
As to the Scriptures, the Muhammadans are taught by the Qurán that God, in divers ages of the world, gave revelations of his will in writing to several prophets, the whole and every word of which it is absolutely necessary for a good Muslim to believe. The number of these sacred books were, according to them, one hundred and four. Of which ten were given to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Idrís or Enoch, ten to Abraham; and the other four, being the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Qurán, were successively delivered to Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad; which last being the seal of the prophets, those revelations are now closed, and no more are to be expected. All these divine books, except the four last, they agree to be now entirely lost, and their contents unknown, though the Sabians have several books which they attribute to some of the antediluvian prophets. And of those four, the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Gospel, they say, have undergone so many alterations and corruptions, that though there may possibly be some part of the true Word of God therein, yet no credit is to be given to the present copies in the hands of the Jews and Christians. The Jews in particular are frequently reflected on in the Qurán for falsifying and corrupting their copies of their law;* and some instances of such pretended corruptions, both in that book and the two others, are produced by Muhammadan writers, wherein they merely follow their own prejudices, and the fabulous accounts of spurious légends. Whether they have any copy of the Pentateuch among them different from that of the Jews or not, I am not entirely satisfied, since a person who travelled into the East was told that they had the books of Moses, though very much corrupted;1 but I know nobody that has ever seen them. However, they certainly have and privately read a book which they call the Psalms of David in Arabic and Persian, to which are added some prayers of Moses, Jonas, and others.2 This Mr. Reland supposes to be a translation from our copies (though no doubt falsified in more places than one); but M D’Herbelot says it contains not the same Psalms which are in our Psalter, being no more than an extract from thence mixed with other very different pieces.3 The easiest way to reconcile these two learned gentlemen is to presume that they speak of different copies. The Muhammadans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St. Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Muhammad has followed in his Qurán.* Of this Gospel the Moriseoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish;1 and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy a manuscript of some antiquity containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel,2 made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. This book appears to be no original forgery of the Muhammadans, though they have no doubt interpolated and altered it since, the better to serve their purpose; and in particular, instead of the Paraclete or Comforter,3 they have in this apocryphal Gospel inserted the word Periclyte, that is, the famous or illustrious, by which they pretend their prophet was foretold by name that being the signification of Muhammad in Arabic;4 and this they say to, justify that passage of the Qurán5 where Jesus Christ is formally asserted to have foretold his coming, under his other name of Ahmad, which is derived from the same root as Muhammad, and of the same import. From these or some other forgeries of the same stamp it is that the Muhammadans quote several passages of which there are not the least footsteps in the New Testament. But after all, we must not hence infer that the Muhammadans, much less all of them, hold these copies of theirs to be the ancient and genuine Scriptures themselves. If any argue, from the corruption which they insist has happened to the Pentateuch and Gospel, that the Qurán may possibly be corrupted also, they answer that God has promised that he will take care of the latter, and preserve it from any addition or diminution;6 but that he left the two other to the care of men. However, they confess there are some various readings in the Qurán,7 as has been observed.
Besides the books above mentioned, the Muhammadans also take notice of the writings of Daniel and several other prophets, and even make quotations thence; but these they do not believe to be divine scripture, or of any authority in matters of religion.1
The prophets recognised by Islám.
The number of the prophets which have been from time to time sent by God into the world amounts to no less than 224,000, according to one Muhammadan tradition, or to 124,000 according to another; among whom 313 were apostles, sent with special commissions to reclaim mankind from infidelity and superstition, and six of them brought new laws or dispensations, which successively abrogated the preceding: these were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. All the prophets in general the Muhammadans believe to have been free from great sins and errors of consequence, and professors of one and the same religion, that is, Islám, notwithstanding the different laws and institutions which they observed. They allow of degrees among them, and hold some of them to be more excellent and honourable than others.2 The first place they give to the revealers and establishers of new dispensations, and the next to the apostles.
In this great number of prophets they not only reckon divers patriarchs and persons named in Scripture, but not recorded to have been prophets (wherein the Jewish and Christian writers have sometimes led the way3 ), as Adam, Seth, Lot, Ismaíl, Nun, Joshua, &c., and introduce some of them under different names, as Enoch, Heber, and Jethro, who are called in the Qurán Idrís, Húd, and Shuaib, but several others whose very names do not appear in Scripture (though they endeavour to find some persons there to fix them on), as Sálih, Khidhar, Dhu’l Kifl, &c. Several of their fabulous traditions concerning these prophets we shall occasionally mention in the notes on the Qurán.
Muhammad appeals to the Bible in proof of his mission.
As Muhammad acknowledged the divine authority of the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Gospel, he often appeals to the consonancy of the Qurán with those writings, and to the prophecies which he pretended were therein concerning himself, as proofs of his mission; and he frequently charges the Jews and Christians with stifling the passages which bear witness to him.1 His followers also fail not to produce several texts even from our present copies of the Old and New Testament to support their master’s cause.2*
Doctrine of the resurrection
The next article of faith required by the Qurán is the belief of a general resurrection and a future judgment. But before we consider the Muhammadan tenets in those points, it will be proper to mention what they are taught to believe concerning the intermediate state, both of the body and of the soul, after death.
Concerning the soul after death.
When a corpse is laid in the grave, they say he is received by an angel, who gives him notice of the coming of the two examiners, who are two black, livid angels, of a terrible appearance, named Munkir and Nakír. These order the dead person to sit upright, and examine him concerning his faith, as to the unity of God and the mission of Muhammad; if he answer rightly, they suffer the body to rest in peace, and it is refreshed by the air of paradise; but if not, they beat him on the temples with iron maces, till he roars out for anguish so loud, that he is heard by all from east to west, except men and genii. Then they press the earth on the corpse, which is gnawed and stung till the resurrection by ninety-nine dragons, with seven heads each; or, as others say, their sins will become venomous beasts, the grievous ones stinging like dragons, the smaller like scorpions, and the others like serpents: circumstances which some understand in a figurative sense.1
The examination of the sepulchre is not only founded on an express tradition of Muhammad, but is also plainly hinted at, though not directly taught, in the Qurán,2 as the commentators agree. It is therefore believed by the orthodox Muhammadans in general, who take care to have their graves made hollow, that they may sit up with more ease while they are examined by the angels;3 but is utterly rejected by the sect of the Mutazilites, and perhaps by some others.
This belief borrowed from the Jews.
These notions Muhammad certainly borrowed from the Jews, among whom they were very anciently received.4 They say that the angel of death coming and sitting on the grave, the soul immediately enters the body and raises it on his feet; that he then examines the departed person, and strikes him with a chain half of iron and half of fire; at the first blow all his limbs are loosened, at the second his bones are scattered, which are gathered together again by angels, and the third stroke reduces the body to dust and ashes, and it returns into the grave. This rack or torture they call Hibbút haqqeber, or the beating of the sepulchre, and pretend that all men in general must undergo it, except only those who die on the evening of the Sabbath, or have dwelt in the land of Israel.1
If it be objected to the Muhammadans that the cry of the persons under such examination has never been heard, or if they be asked how those can undergo it whose bodies are burnt or devoured by beasts or birds, or otherwise consumed without burial; they answer, that it is very possible notwithstanding, since men are not able to perceive what is transacted on the other side the grave, and that it is sufficient to restore to life any part of the body which is capable of understanding the questions put by the angels.2
The state of Al Barzakh: various opinions.
As to the soul, they hold that when it is separated from the body by the angel of death, who performs his office with ease and gentleness towards the good and with violence towards the wicked,3 it enters into that state which they call Al Barzakh,4 or the interval between death and the resurrection. If the departed person was a believer, they say two angels meet it, who convey it to heaven, that its place there may be assigned, according to its merit and degree. For they distinguish the souls of the faithful into three classes: the first of prophets, whose souls are admitted into paradise immediately; the second of martyrs, whose spirits, according to a tradition of Muhammad, rest in the crops of green birds which eat of the fruits and drink of the rivers of paradise; and the third of other believers, concerning the state of whose souls before the resurrection there are various opinions. For, 1. Some say they stay near the sepulchres, with liberty, however, of going wherever they please; which they confirm from Muhammad’s manner of saluting them at their graves, and his affirming that the dead heard those salutations as well as the living, though they could not answer. Whence perhaps proceeded the custom of visiting the tombs of relations, so common among the Muhammadans.1 2. Others imagine they are with Adam in the lowest heaven, and also support their opinion by the authority of their prophet, who gave out that in his return from the upper heavens in his pretended night journey, he saw there the souls of those who were destined to paradise on the right hand of Adam, and of those who were condemned to hell on his left.2 3. Others fancy the souls of believers remain in the well Zamzam, and those of infidels in a certain well in the province of Hadramant, called Burhút; but this opinion is branded as heretical. 4. Others say they stay near the graves for seven days; but that whither they go afterwards is uncertain. 5. Others that they are all in the trumpet whose sound is to raise the dead. 6. And others that the souls of the good dwell in the forms of white birds under the throne of God.3 As to the condition of the souls of the wicked, besides the opinions that have been already mentioned, the more orthodox hold that they are offered by the angels to heaven, from whence being repulsed as stinking and filthy, they are offered to the earth, and being also refused a place there, are carried down to the seventh earth, and thrown into a dungeon, which they call Sajín, under a green rock, or, according to a tradition of Muhammad, under the devil’s jaw,4 to be there tormented till they are called up to be joined again to their bodies.
The resurrection of the body: opinions of Muslims.
Though some among the Muhammadans have thought that the resurrection will be merely spiritual, and no more than the returning of the soul to the place whence it first came (an opinion defended by Ibn Sina,1 and called by some the opinion of the philosophers);2 and others, who allow man to consist of body only, that it will be merely corporeal; the received opinion is, that both body and soul will be raised, and their doctors argue strenuously for the possibility of the resurrection of the body, and dispute with great subtlety concerning the manner of it.3 But Muhammad has taken care to preserve one part of the body, whatever becomes of the rest, to serve for a basis of the future edifice, or rather a leaven for the mass which is to be joined to it. For he taught that a man’s body was entirely consumed by the earth, except only the bone called al Ajb, which we name the os coceygis, or rumpbone; and that as it was the first formed in the human body, it will also remain uncorrupted till the last day, as a seed from whence the whole is to be renewed: and this he said would be effected by a forty days’ rain which God should send, and which would cover the earth to the height of twelve cubits, and cause the bodies to sprout forth like plants.4 Herein also is Muhammad beholden to the Jews, who say the same things of the bone Luz,6 excepting that what he attributes to a great rain will be effected, according to them, by a dew impregnating the dust of the earth.
Signs of the resurrection day.
The time of the resurrection the Muhammadans allow to be a perfect secret to all but God alone: the angel Gabriel himself acknowledging his ignorance on this point when Muhammad asked him about it. However, they say the approach of that day may be known from certain signs which are to precede it. These signs they distinguish into two sorts—the lesser and the greater—which I shall briefly enumerate after Dr. Pocock.1
Lesser signs of its approach.
The lesser signs are: 1. The decay of faith among men.2 2. The advancing of the meanest persons to eminent dignity. 3. That a maid-servant shall become the mother of her mistress (or master), by which is meant either that towards the end of the world men shall be much given to sensuality, or that the Muhammadans shall then take many captives. 4. Tumults and seditions. 5. A war with the Turks. 6. Great distress in the world, so that a man when he passes by another’s grave shall say, “Would to God I were in his place.” 7. That the provinces of Irák and Syria shall refuse to pay their tribute. And, 8. That the buildings of Madína shall reach to Aháb or Yaháb.
The greater signs are:
1. The sun’s rising in the west, which some have imagined it originally did.3
2. The appearance of the beast, which shall rise out of the earth, in the temple of Makkah, or on Mount Safá, or in the territory of Táyif, or some other place. This beast they say is to be sixty cubits high: though others, not satisfied with so small a size, will have her reach to the clouds and to heaven when her head only is out; and that she will appear for three days, but show only a third part of her body. They describe this monster, as to her form, to be a compound of various species, having the head of a bull, the eyes of a hog, the ears of an elephant, the horns of a stag, the neck of an ostrich, the breast of a lion, the colour of a tiger, the back of a cat, the tail of a ram, the legs of a camel, and the voice of an ass. Some say this beast is to appear three times in several places, and that she will bring with her the rod of Moses and the seal of Solomon; and being so swift that none can overtake or escape her, will with the first strike all the believers on the face and mark them with the word Múmin, i.e., believer; and with the latter will mark the unbelievers, on the face likewise, with the word Káfir, i.e., infidel, that every person may be known for what he really is. They add that the same beast is to demonstrate the vanity of all religions except Islám, and to speak Arabic. All this stuff seems to be the result of a confused idea of the beast in the Revelation.1
3. War with the Greeks, and the taking of Constantinople by 70,000 of the posterity of Isaac, who shall not win that city by force of arms, but the walls shall fall down while they cry out, “There is no god but God: God is most great!” As they are dividing the spoil, news will come to them of the appearance of Antichrist, whereupon they shall leave all, and return back.
4 The coming of Antichrist, whom the Muhammadans call al Masíh al Dajjál, i.e., the false or lying Christ, and simply al Dajjál. He is to be one-eyed, and marked on the forehead with the letters K.F.R., signifying Káfir, or infidel. They say that the Jews give him the name of Messiah Ben David, and pretend he is to come in the last days and to be lord both of land and sea, and that he will restore the kingdom to them. According to the traditions of Muhammad, he is to appear first between Irák and Syria, or according to others, in the province of Khurasán; they add that he is to ride on an ass, that he will be followed by 70,000 Jews of Ispahán, and continue on earth forty days, of which one will be equal in length to a year, another to a month, another to a week, and the rest will be common days; that he is to lay waste all places, but will not enter Makkah or Madína, which are to be guarded by angels; and that at length he will be slain by Jesus, who is to encounter him at the gate of Lud. It is said that Muhammad foretold several Antichrists, to the number of about thirty, but one of greater note than the rest.
5. The descent of Jesus on earth. They pretend that he is to descend near the white tower to the east of Damascus when the people are returned from the taking of Constantinople; that he is to embrace the Muhammadan religion marry a wife; get children, kill Antichrist, and at length die after forty years’ or, according to others, twenty-four years’,1 continuance on earth. Under him thay say there will be great security and plenty in the world, all hatred and malice being laid aside; when lions and camels, bears and sheep, shall live in peace, and a child shall play with serpents unhurt.2
6. War with the Jews, of whom the Muhammadans are to make a religious slaughter, the very trees and stones discovering such of them as hide themselves, except only the tree called Gharkad, which is the tree of the Jews.
The cruption of Gog and Magog, or, as they are called in the East, Yájúj and Májúj, of whom many things are related in the Quran3 and the traditions of Muhammad. These barbarians, they tell us, having passed the lake of Tiberias, which the vanguard of their vast army will drink dry, will come to Jerusalem, and there greatly distress Jesus and his companions; till at his request God will destroy them, and fill the earth with their carcases, which after some time God will send birds to carry away, at the prayers of Jesus and his followers. Their bows, arrows, and quivers the Muslims will burn for seven years together;4 and at last God will send a rain to cleanse the earth, and to make it fertile.
8. A smoke which shall fill the whole earth.5
9. An eclipse of the moon. Muhammad is reported to have said that there would be three eclipses before the last hour; one to be seen in the East, another in the West, and the third in Arabia.
10. The returning of the Arabs to the worship of al Lát and al Uzza and the rest of their ancient idols, after the decease of every one in whose heart there was faith equal to a grain of mustard-seed, none but the very worst of men being left alive. For God, they say, will send a cold odoriferous wind, blowing from Syria Damascena, which shall sweep away the souls of all the faithful, and the Qurán itself, so that men will remain in the grossest ignorance for a hundred years.
11. The discovery of a vast heap of gold and silver by the retreating of the Euphrates, which will be the destruction of many.
12. The demolition of the Kaabah or temple of Makkah by the Ethiopians.1
13. The speaking of beasts and inanimate things.
14. The breaking out of fire in the province of Hijáz; or, according to others, in Yaman.
15. The appearance of a man of the descendants of Qahtán, who shall drive men before him with his staff.
16. The coming of the Mahdí or director, concerning whom Muhammad prophesied that the world should not have an end till one of his own family should govern the Arabians, whose name should be the same with his own name, and whose father’s name should also be the same with his father’s name, who should fill the earth with righteousness.* This person the Shiites believe to be now alive, and concealed in some secret place till the time of his manifestation; for they suppose him to be no other than the last of the twelve Imáms, named Muhammad Abu’l Qásim, as their prophet was, and the son of Hasan al Askarí, the eleventh of that succession. He was born at Sarmaurái in the 255th year of the Hijra.1 From this tradition, it is to be presumed, an opinion pretty current among the Christians took its rise, that the Muhammadans are in expectation of their prophet’s return.
17. A wind which shall sweep away the souls of all who have but a grain of faith in their hearts, as has been mentioned under the tenth sign.
The blast of the resurrection trump.
Effects of the first blast.
These are the greater signs, which, according to their doctrine, are to precede the resurrection, but still leave the hour of it uncertain: for the immediate sign of its being come will be the first blast of the trumpet, which they believe will be sounded three times. The first they call the blast of consternation, at the hearing of which all creatures in heaven and earth shall be struck with terror, except those whom God shall please to exempt from it. The effects attributed to this first sound of the trumpet are very wonderful; for they say the earth will be shaken, and not only all buildings, but the very mountains levelled; that the heavens shall melt, the sun be darkened, the stars fall, on the death of the angels, who, as some imagine, hold them suspended between heaven and earth, and the sea shall be troubled and dried up, or, according to others, turned into flames, the sun, moon, and stars being thrown into it: the Qurán, to express the greatness of the terror of that day, adds that women who give suck shall abandon the care of their infants, and even the shecamels which have gone ten months with young (a most valuable part of the substance of that nation) shall be utterly neglected. A further effect of this blast will be that concourse of beasts mentioned in the Qurán,2 though some doubt whether it be to precede the resurrection or not. They who suppose it will precede, think that all kinds of animals, forgetting their respective natural fierceness and timidity, will run together into one place, being terrified by the sound of the trumpet and the sudden shock of nature.
Effects of the second blast
The Muhammadans believe that this first blast will be followed by a second, which they call the blast of examination,1 when all creatures, both in heaven and earth, shall die or be annihilated, except those which God shall please to exempt from the common fate;2 and this, they say, shall happen in the twinkling of an eye, nay, in an instant, nothing surviving except God alone, with paradise and hell, and the inhabitants of those two places, and the throne of glory.3 The last who shall die will be the angel of death.
Effects of the third blast
Forty years after this will be heard the blast of resurrection, when the trumpet shall be sounded the third time by Israfíl, who, together with Gabriel and Michael, will be previously restored to life, and standing on the rock of the temple of Jerusalem,4 shall, at God’s command, call together all the dry and rotten bones, and other dispersed parts of the bodies, and the very hairs, to judgment. This angel having, by the divine order, set the trumpet to his mouth, and called together all the souls from all parts, will throw them into his trumpet, from whence, on his giving the last sound, at the command of God, they will fly forth like bees, and fill the whole space between heaven and earth, and then repair to their respective bodies, which the opening earth will suffer to arise; and the first who shall so arise, according to a tradition of Muhammad, will be himself. For this birth the earth will be prepared by the rain above mentioned, which is to fall continually for forty years,1 and will resemble the seed of a man, and be supplied from the water under the throne of God, which is called living water; by the efficacy and virtue of which the dead bodies shall spring forth from their graves, as they did in their mother’s womb, or as corn sprouts forth by common rain, till they become perfect; after which breath will be breathed into them, and they will sleep in their sepulchres till they are raised to life at the last trump.
Length of the judgment-day.
As to the length of the day of judgment, the Qurán in one place tells us that it will last 1000 years,2 and in another 50,000.3 To reconcile this apparent contradiction, the commentators use several shifts: some saying they know not what measure of time God intends in those passages; others, that these forms of speaking are figurative and not to be strictly taken, and were designed only to express the terribleness of that day, it being usual for the Arabs to describe what they dislike as of long continuance, and what they like as the contrary; and others suppose them spoken only in reference to the difficulty of the business of the day, which, if God should commit to any of his creatures, they would not be able to go through it in so many thousand years; to omit some other opinions which we may take notice of elsewhere.
Having said so much in relation to the time of the resurrection, let us now see who are to be raised from the dead, in what manner and form they shall be raised, in what place they shall be assembled, and to what end, according to the doctrine of the Muhammadans.
Resurrection to be general
That the resurrection will be general, and extend to all creatures, both angels, genii, men, and animals, is the received opinion, which they support by the authority of the Qurán, though that passage which is produced to prove the resurrection of brutes be otherwise interpreted by some.1
Manner of the rising of the dead.
The manner of their resurrection will be very different. Those who are destined to be partakers of eternal happiness will arise in honour and security; and those who are doomed to misery, in disgrace and under dismal apprehensions. As to mankind, they say that they will be raised perfect in all their parts and members, and in the same state as they came out of their mother’s wombs, that is, barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised; which circumstances when Muhammad was telling his wife Ayesha, she, fearing the rules of modesty might be thereby violated, objected that it would be very indecent for men and women to look upon one another in that condition; but he answered her, that the business of the day would be too weighty and serious to allow them the making use of that liberty. Others, however, allege the authority of their prophet for a contrary opinion as to their nakedness, and pretend he asserted that the dead should arise dressed in the same clothes in which they died;2 unless we interpret these words, as some do, not so much of the outward dress of the body, as the inward clothing of the mind, and understand thereby that every person will rise again in the same state as to his faith or infidelity, his knowledge or ignorance, his good or bad works. Muhammad is also said to have further taught, by another tradition, that mankind shall be assembled at the last day distinguished into three classes. The first, of those who go on foot; the second, of those who ride; and the third, of those who creep grovelling with their faces on the ground. The first class is to consist of those believers whose good works have been few; the second of those who are in greater honour with God, and more acceptable to him; whence Ali affirmed that the pious when they come forth from their sepulchres shall find ready prepared for them white-winged camels with saddles of gold, wherein are to be observed some footsteps of the doctrine of the ancient Arabians;1 and the third class, they say, will be composed of the infidels, whom God shall cause to make their appearance with their faces on the earth, blind, dumb, and deaf. But the ungodly will not be thus only distinguished; for, according to a tradition of the prophet, there will be ten sorts of wicked men on whom God shall on that day fix certain discretory remarks. The first will appear in the form of apes; these are the professors of Zendicism: the second in that of swine; these are they who have been greedy of filthy lucre and enriched themselves by public oppression: the third will be brought with their heads reversed and their feet distorted; these are the usurers: the fourth will wander about blind; these are unjust judges: the fifth will be deaf, dumb, and blind, understanding nothing; these are they who glory in their own works: the sixth will gnaw their tongues, which will hang down upon their breasts, corrupted blood flowing from their mouths like spittle, so that everybody shall detest them; these are the learned men and doctors, whose actions contradict their sayings: the seventh will have their hands and feet cut off; these are they who have injured their neighbours: the eighth will be fixed to the trunks of palm trees or, stakes of wood; these are the false accusers and informers: the ninth will stink worse than a corrupted corpse; these are they who have indulged their passions and voluptuous appetites, but refused God such part of their wealth as was due to him: the tenth will be clothed with garments daubed with pitch; and these are the proud, the vainglorious, and the arrogant.
The place of final judgment.
As to the place where they are to be assembled to judgment, the Qurán and the traditions of Muhammad agree that it will be on the earth, but in what part of the earth it is not agreed. Some say their prophet mentioned Syria for the place: others a white and even tract of land, without inhabitants or any signs of buildings. Al Ghazáli imagines it will be a second earth, which he supposes to be of silver; and others, an earth which has nothing in common with ours but the name; having, it is possible, heard something of the new heavens and new earth mentioned in Scripture: whence the Quran has this expression, “On the day wherein the earth shall be changed into another earth.”1
End of the resurrection.
The end of the resurrection the Muhammadans declare to be, that they who are so raised may give an account of their actions and receive the reward thereof. And they believe that not only mankind, but the genii and irrational animals also,2 shall be judged on this great day, when the unarmed cattle shall take vengeance on the horned, till entire satisfaction shall be given to the injured.3
State of the resurrected pending judgment.
As to mankind, they hold that when they are all assembled together, they will not be immediately brought to judgment, but the angels will keep them in their ranks and order while they attend for that purpose; and this attendance some say is to last forty years, others seventy others 300, nay, some say no less than 50,000 years, each of them vouching their prophet’s authority. During this space they will stand looking up to heaven, but without receiving any information or orders thence, and are to suffer grievous torments, both the just and the unjust, though with manifest difference. For the limbs of the former, particularly those parts which they used to wash in making the ceremonial ablution before prayer, shall shine gloriously, and their sufferings shall be light in comparison, and shall last no longer than the time necessary to say the appointed prayers; but the latter will have their faces obscured with blackness, and disfigured with all the marks of sorrow and deformity. What will then occasion not the least of their pain is a wonderful and incredible sweat, which will even stop their mouths, and in which they will be immersed in various degrees according to their demerits, some to the ankles only, some to the knees, some to the middle, some so high as their mouth, and others as their ears. And this sweat, they say, will be provoked not only by that vast concourse of all sorts of creatures mutually pressing and treading on one another’s feet, but by the near and unusual approach of the sun, which will be then no farther from them than the distance of a mile, or, as some translate the word, the signification of which is ambiguous, than the length of a bodkin. So that their skulls will boil like a pot,1 and they will be all bathed in sweat. From this inconvenience, however, the good will be protected by the shade of God’s throne; but the wicked will be so miserably tormented with it, and also with hunger, and thirst, and a stifling air, that they will cry out, “Lord, deliver us from this anguish, though thou send us into hell-fire.”2 What they fable of the extraordinary heat of the sun on this occasion, the Muhammadans certainly borrowed from the Jews, who say, that for the punishment of the wicked on the last day that planet shall be drawn from its sheath, in which it is now put up, lest it should destroy all things by its excessive heat.1
Muhammad’s intercession in the judgment.
The great day of assizes.
When those who have risen shall have waited the limited time, the Muhammadans believe God will at length appear to judge them; Muhammad undertaking the office of intercessor, after it shall have been declined by Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jesus, who shall beg deliverance only for their own souls. They say that on this solemn occasion God will come in the clouds, surrounded by angels, and will produce the books wherein the actions of every person are recorded by their guardian angels,2 and will command the prophets to bear witness against those to whom they have been respectively sent. Then every one will be examined concerning all his words and actions, uttered and done by him in this life; not as if God needed any information in those respects, but to oblige the person to make public confession and acknowledgment of God’s justice. The particulars of which they shall give an account, as Muhammad himself enumerated them, are—of their time, how they spent it; of their wealth, by what means they acquired it and how they employed it; of their bodies, wherein they exercised them; of their knowledge and learning, what use they made of them. It is said, however, that Muhammad has affirmed that no less than 70,000 of his followers should be permitted to enter paradise without any previous examination, which seems to be contradictory to what is said above. To the questions we have mentioned each person shall answer, and make his defence in the best manner he can, endeavouring to excuse himself by casting the blame of his evil deeds on others, so that a dispute shall arise even between the soul and the body, to which of them their guilt ought to be imputed, the soul saying, “O Lord, my body I received from thee; for thou createdst me without a hand to lay hold with, a foot to walk with, an eye to see with, or an understanding to apprehend with, till I came and entered into this body; therefore, punish it eternally, but deliver me.” The body, on the other side, will make this apology:—“O Lord, thou createdst me like a stock of wood, having neither hand that I could lay hold with, nor foot that I could walk with, till this soul, like a ray of light, entered into me, and my tongue began to speak, my eye to see, and my foot to walk; therefore, punish it eternally, but deliver me.” But God will propound to them the following parable of the blind man and the lame man, which, as well as the preceding dispute, was borrowed by the Muhammadans from the Jews:1 —A certain king, having a pleasant garden, in which were ripe fruits, set two persons to keep it, one of whom was blind and the other lame, the former not being able to see the fruit nor the latter to gather it; the lame man, however, seeing the fruit, persuaded the blind man to take him upon his shoulders; and by that means he easily gathered the fruit, which they divided between them. The lord of the garden, coming some time after, and inquiring after his fruit, each began to excuse himself; the blind man said he had no eyes to see with, and the lame man that he had no feet to approach the trees. But the king, ordering the lame man to be set on the blind, passed sentence on and punished them both. And in the same manner will God deal with the body and the soul. As these apologies will not avail on that day, so will it also be in vain for any one to deny his evil actions, since men and angels and his own members, nay, the very earth itself, will be ready to bear witness against him.
Time allotted to the trial.
Though the Muhammadans assign so long a space for the attendance of the resuscitated before their trial, yet they tell us the trial itself will be over in much less time, and, according to an expression of Muhammad familiar enough to the Arabs, will last no longer than while one may milk an ewe, or than the space between the two milkings of a she-camel.1 Some, explaining those words so frequently used in the Qurán, “God will be swift in taking an account,” say that he will judge all creatures in the space of half a day, and others that it will be done in less time than the twinkling of an eye.2
The account books delivered.
At this examination they also believe that each person will have the book wherein all the actions of his life are written delivered to him; which books the righteous will receive in their right hand, and read with great pleasure and satisfaction, but the ungodly will be obliged to take them against their wills in their left,3 which will be bound behind their backs, their right hand being tied up to their necks.4
The great balance described.
To show the exact justice which will be observed on this great day of trial, the next thing they describe is the balance wherein all things shall be weighed. They say it will be held by Gabriel, and that it is of so vast a size, that its two scales, one of which hangs over paradise, and the other over hell, are capacious enough to contain both heaven and earth. Though some are willing to understand what is said in the Qurán concerning this balance allegorically, and only as a figurative representation of God’s equity, yet the more ancient and orthodox opinion is that it is to be taken literally; and since words and actions, being mere accidents, are not capable of being themselves weighed, they say that the books wherein they are written will be thrown into the scales, and according as those wherein the good or the evil actions are recorded shall preponderate, sentence will be given; those whose balances laden with their good works shall be heavy will be saved, but those whose balances are light will be condemned.1 Nor will any one have cause to complain that God suffers any good action to pass unrewarded, because the wicked for the good they do have their reward in this life, and therefore can expect no favour in the next.
Notions of books and balance borrowed from Jews and Magians.
The old Jewish writers make mention as well of the books to be produced at the last day, wherein men’s actions are registered,2 as of the balance wherein they shall be weighed;3 and the Scripture itself seems to have given the first notion of both.4 But what the Persian Magi believe of the balance comes nearest to the Muhammadan opinion. They hold that on the day of judgment two angels, named Mihr and Sarosh, will stand on the bridge we shall describe by and by, to examine every person as he passes; that the former, who represents the divine mercy, will hold a balance in his hand to weigh the actions of men; that according to the report he shall make thereof to God, sentence will be pronounced, and those whose good works are found more ponderous, if they turn the scale but by the weight of a hair, will be permitted to pass forward to paradise; but those whose good works shall be found light will be by the other angel, who represents God’s justice, precipitated from the bridge into hell.5
Mutual retaliation of the creatures and of men.
Fate of the brutes and genii.
This examination being passed, and every one’s works weighed in a just balance, that mutual retaliation will follow, according to which every creature will take vengeance one of another, or have satisfaction made them for the injuries which they have suffered. And since there will then be no other way of returning like for like, the manner of giving this satisfaction will be by taking away a proportionable part of the good works of him who offered the injury, and adding it to those of him who suffered it. Which being done, if the angels (by whose ministry this is to be performed) say, “Lord, we have given to every one his due, and there remaineth of this person’s good works so much as equalleth the weight of an ant,” God will of his mercy cause it to be doubled unto him, that he may be admitted into paradise; but if, on the contrary, his good works be exhausted, and there remain evil works only, and there be any who have not yet received satisfaction from him, God will order that an equal weight of their sins be added unto his, that he may be punished for them in their stead, and he will be sent to hell laden with both. This will be the method of God’s dealing with mankind. As to brutes, after they shall have likewise taken vengeance of one another, as we have mentioned above, he will command them to be changed into dust;1 wicked men being reserved to more grievous punishment, so that they shall cry out, on hearing this sentence passed on the brutes, “Would to God that we were dust also!” As to the genii, many Muhammadans are of opinion that such of them as are true believers will undergo the same fate as the irrational animals, and have no other reward than the favour of being converted into dust; and for this they quote the authority of their prophet. But this, however, is judged not so very reasonable, since the genii, being capable of putting themselves in the state of believers as well as men, must consequently deserve, as it seems, to be rewarded for their faith, as well as to be punished for infidelity. Wherefore some entertain a more favourable opinion, and assign the believing genii a place near the confines of paradise, where they will enjoy sufficient felicity, though they be not admitted into that delightful mansion. But the unbelieving genii, it is universally agreed, will be punished eternally, and be thrown into hell with the infidels of mortal race. It may not be improper to observe, that under the denomination of unbelieving genii, the Muhammadans comprehend also the devil and his companions.1
Passing the bridge over hell.
The trials being over and the assembly dissolved, the Muhammadans hold that those who are to be admitted into paradise will take the right-hand way, and those who are destined to hell-fire will take the left; but both of them must first pass the bridge, called in Arabic al Sirát, which they say is laid over the midst of hell, and described to be finer than a hair and sharper than the edge of a sword, so that it seems very difficult to conceive how any one shall be able to stand upon it; for which reason most of the sect of the Mutazilites reject it as a fable, though the orthodox think it a sufficien proof of the truth of this article that it was seriously affirmed by him who never asserted a falsehood, meaning their prophet, who, to add to the difficulty of the passage has likewise declared that this bridge is beset on each side with briars and hooked thorns, which will, however, be no impediment to the good, for they shall pass with wonderful ease and swiftness, like lightning or the wind, Muhammad and his Muslims leading the way; whereas the wicked, what with the slipperiness and extreme narrowness of the path, the entangling of the thorns, and the extinction of the light which directed the former to paradise, will soon miss their footing, and fall down headlong into hell, which is gaping beneath them.2
This notion also borrowed from the Magians.
This circumstance Muhammad seems also to have borrowed from the Magians, who teach that on the last day all mankind will be obliged to pass a bridge which they call Púl Chínavad or Chínavar, that is, the straightbridge, leading directly into the other world; on the midst of which they suppose the angels, appointed by God to perform that office, will stand, who will require of every one a strict account of his actions, and weigh them in the manner we have already mentioned.1 It is true the Jews speak likewise of the bridge of hell, which they say is no broader than a thread; but then they do not tell us that any shall be obliged to pass it except the idolaters, who will fall thence into perdition.2
The seven apartments of hell and their inmates.
As to the punishment of the wicked, the Muhammadans are taught that hell is divided into seven storeys, or apartments, one below another, designed for the reception of as many distinct classes of the damned.3 The first, which they call Jahannam, they say will be the receptacle of those who acknowledged one God, that is, the wicked Muhammadans, who, after having there been punished according to their demerits, will at length be released. The second, named Ladhwá, they assign to the Jews; the third, named Hutama, to the Christians; the fourth, named al Saír, to the Sabians; the fifth, named Saqar, to the Magians; the sixth, named al Jahím, to the idolaters; and the seventh, which is the lowest and worst of all, and is called al Háwíya, to the hypocrites, or those who outwardly professed some religion, but in their hearts were of none.4 Over each of these apartments they believe there will be set a guard of angels,5 nineteen in number,1 to whom the damned will confess the just judgment of God, and beg them to intercede with him for some alleviation of their pain, or that they may be delivered by being annihilated.2
Proportion of suffering in hell.
Final restoration of Muslim culprits
Cleansing the infernals.
Muhammad has, in his Qurán and traditions, been very exact in describing the various torments of hell, which, according to him, the wicked will suffer both from intense heat and excessive cold. We shall, however, enter into no detail of them here, but only observe that the degrees of these pains will also vary, in proportion to the crimes of the sufferer and the apartment he is condemned to; and that he who is punished the most lightly of all will be shod with shoes of fire, the fervour of which will cause his skull to boil like a caldron. The condition of these unhappy wretches, as the same prophet teaches, cannot be properly called either life or death; and their misery will be greatly increased by their despair of being ever delivered from that place, since, according to that frequent expression in the Qurán, “they must remain therein for ever.” It must be remarked, however, that the infidels alone will be liable to eternity of damnation, for the Muslims, or those who have embraced the true religion, and have been guilty of heinous sins, will be delivered thence after they shall have expiated their crimes by their sufferings. The contrary of either of these opinions is reckoned heretical; for it is the constant orthodox doctrine of the Muhammadans that no unbeliever or idolater will ever be released, nor any person who in his lifetime professed and believed the unity of God be condemned to eternal punishment. As to the time and manner of the deliverance of those believers whose evil actions shall outweigh their good, there is a tradition of Muhammad that they shall be released after they shall have been scorched and their skins burnt black, and shall afterwards be admitted into paradise; and when the inhabitants of that place shall, in contempt, call them infernals, God will, on their prayers, take from them that opprobrious appellation. Others say he taught that while they continue in hell they shall be deprived of life, or (as his words are otherwise interpreted) be cast into a most profound sleep, that they may be the less sensible of their torments; and that they shall afterwards be received into paradise, and there revive on their being washed with the water of life; though some suppose they will be restored to life before they come forth from their place of punishment, that at their bidding farewell to their pains they may have some little taste of them. The time which these believers shall be detained there, according to a tradition handed down from their prophet, will not be less than 900 years, nor more than 7000. And as to the manner of their delivery, they say that they shall be distinguished by the marks of prostration on those parts of their bodies with which they used to touch the ground in prayer, and over which the fire will, therefore, have no power; and that being known by this characteristic, they will be relieved by the mercy of God, at the intercession of Muhammad and the blessed; whereupon those who shall have been dead will be restored to life, as has been said, and those whose bodies shall have contracted any sootiness or filth from the flames and smoke of hell will be immersed in one of the rivers of paradise, called the river of life, which will wash them whiter than pearls.1
Muhammad indebted to Jews and Magians for his notions of hell and the state of the lost.
For most of these circumstances relating to hell and the state of the damned, Muhammad was likewise, in all probability, indebted to the Jews, and in part to the Magians, both of whom agree in making seven distinct apartments in hell,2 though they vary in other particulars. The former place an angel as a guard over each of these infernal apartments, and suppose he will intercede for the miserable wretches there imprisoned, who will openly acknowledge the justice of God in their condemnation.1 They also teach that the wicked will suffer a diversity of punishments, and that by intolerable cold2 as well as heat, and that their faces shall become black;3 and believe those of their own religion shall also be punished in hell hereafter, according to their crimes (for they hold that few or none will be found so exactly righteous as to deserve no punishment at all), but will soon be delivered thence, when they shall be sufficiently purged from their sins by their father Abraham, or at the intercession of him or some other of the prophets.4 The Magians allow but one angel to preside over all the seven hells, who is named by them Vanánd Yazád, and, as they teach, assigns punishments proportionate to each person’s crimes, restraining also the tyranny and excessive cruelty of the devil, who would, if left to himself, torment the damned beyond their sentence.5 Those of this religion do also mention and describe various kinds of torments, wherewith the wicked will be punished in the next life, among which, though they reckon extreme cold to be one, yet they do not admit fire, out of respect, as it seems, to that element, which they take to be the representation of the divine nature; and, therefore, they rather choose to describe the damned souls as suffering by other kinds of punishments, such as an intolerable stink, the stinging and biting of serpents and wild beasts, the cutting and tearing of the flesh by the devils, excessive hunger and thirst, and the like.6
The partition al Araf.
Before we proceed to a description of the Muhammadan paradise, we must not forget to say something of the wall or partition which they imagine to be between that place and hell, and seems to be copied from the great gulf of separation mentioned in Scripture.1 They call it al Urf, 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, they say, those who stand on this partition will know and distinguish the blessed from the damned by their respective marks or characteristics;2 and others say the word properly intends anything that is high raised or elevated, as such a wall of separation must be supposed to be.3 The Muhammadan writers greatly differ as to the persons who are to be found on al Aráf. 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, among whom, they say, there will be also angels in the form of men. 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, they say, 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 paradise for their disobedience, and escaping hell because they are martyrs. The breadth of this partition wall cannot be supposed to be exceeding great, since not only those who shall stand thereon will hold conference with the inhabitants both of paradise and of hell, but the blessed and the damned themselves will also be able to talk to one another.4
If Muhammad did not take his notions of the partition we have been describing from Scripture, he must at least have borrowed it at second-hand from the Jews, who mention a thin wall dividing paradise from hell.1
The refreshing water of al Kauthar.
The righteous, as the Muhammadans are taught to believe, having surmounted the difficulties and passed the sharp bridge above mentioned, before they enter paradise will be refreshed by drinking at the pond of their prophet, who describes it to be an exact square, of a month’s journey in compass: its water, which is supplied by two pipes from al Kauthar, one of the rivers of paradise, being whiter than milk or silver and more odoriferous than musk, with as many cups set around it as there are stars in the firmament, of which water whoever drinks will thirst no more for ever.2 This is the first taste which the blessed will have of their future and now near-approaching felicity.
Though paradise be so very frequently mentioned in the Qurán, yet it is a dispute among the Muhammadans whether it be already created, or be to be created hereafter: the Mutazilites and some other sectaries asserting that there is not at present any such place in nature, and that the paradise which the righteous will inhabit in the next life will be different from that from which Adam was expelled. However, the orthodox profess the contrary, maintaining that it was created even before the world, and describe it, from their prophet’s traditions, in the following manner.
They say it is situate above the seven heavens (or in the seventh heaven) and next under the throne of God; and to express the amenity of the place, tell us that the earth of it is of the finest wheat flour, or of the purest musk, or, as others will have it, of saffron; that its stones are pearls and jacinths, the walls of its buildings enriched with gold and silver, and that the trunks of all its trees are of gold, among which the most remarkable is the tree called Túba, or the tree of happiness. Concerning this tree they fable that it stands in the palace of Muhammad, though a branch of it will reach to the house of every true believer;1 that it will be laden with pomegranates, grapes, dates, and other fruits of surprising bigness, and of tastes unknown to mortals. So that if a man desire to eat of any particular kind of fruit, it will immediately be presented to him, or if he choose flesh, birds ready dressed will be set before him according to his wish. They add that the boughs of this tree will spontaneously bend down to the hand of the person who would gather of its fruits, and that it will supply the blessed not only with food, but also with silken garments, and beasts to ride on ready saddled and bridled, and adorned with rich trappings, which will burst forth from its fruits; and that this tree is so large, that a person mounted on the fleetest horse would not be able to gallop from one end of its shade to the other in a hundred years.2
The rivers of paradise.
As plenty of water is one of the greatest additions to the pleasantness of any place, the Qurán often speaks of the rivers of paradise as a principal ornament thereof. Some of these rivers, they say, flow with water, some with milk, some with wine, and others with honey, all taking their rise from the root of the tree Túba: two of which rivers, named al Kauthar and the river of life, we have already mentioned. And lest these should not be sufficient, we are told this garden is also watered by a great number of lesser springs and fountains, whose pebbles are rubies and emeralds, their earth of camphire, their beds of musk, and their sides of saffron, the most remarkable among them being Salsabíl and Tasním.
Glories of the Húr al oyún.
But all these glories will be eclipsed by the resplendent and ravishing girls of paradise, called, from their large black eyes, Húr al oyún, the enjoyment of whose company will be a principal felicity of the faithful. These, they say, are created not of clay, as mortal women are, but of pure musk, being, as their prophet often affirms in his Qurán, free from all natural impurities, defects, and inconveniences incident to the sex, of the strictest modesty, and secluded from public view in pavilions of hollow pearls, so large, that, as some traditions have it, one of them will be no less than four parasangs (or, as others say, sixty miles) long, and as many broad.
Names of the abode of bliss.
The name which the Muhammadans usually give to this happy mansion is al Jannat, or the garden; and sometimes they call it, with an addition, Jannat-ul-Firdaus, the garden of paradise, Jannat-ul-Adan, the garden of Eden (though they generally interpret the word Eden, not according to its acceptation in Hebrew, but according to its meaning in their own tongue, wherein it signifies a settled or perpetual habitation), Jannat-ul-Mawá, the garden of abode, Jannat-ul-Naím, the garden of pleasure, and the like; by which several appellations some understand so many different gardens, or at least places of different degrees of felicity (for they reckon no less than a hundred such in all), the very meanest whereof will afford its inhabitants so many pleasures and delights, that one would conclude they must even sink under them, had not Muhammad declared, that in order to qualify the blessed for a full enjoyment of them, God will give to every one the abilities of a hundred men.
The two fountains at the gate of paradise, celestial attendance, &c.
The mercy of God, the ground; works, the measure of the rewards of the righteous
We have already described Muhammad’s pond, whereof the righteous are to drink before their admission into this delicious seat; besides which some authors1 mention two fountains springing from under a certain tree near the gate of paradise, and say that the blessed will also drink of one of them to purge their bodies and carry off all excrementitious dregs, and will wash themselves in the other. When they are arrived at the gate itself, each person will there be met and saluted by the beautiful youths appointed to serve and wait upon him, one of them running before, to carry the news of his arrival to the wives destined for him; and also by two angels, bearing the presents sent him by God, one of whom will invest him with a garment of paradise, and the other will put a ring on each of his fingers, with inscriptions on them alluding to the happiness of his condition. By which of the eight gates (for so many they suppose paradise to have) they are respectively to enter, is not worth inquiry; but it must be observed that Muhammad has declared that no person’s good works will gain him admittance, and that even himself shall be saved, not by his merits, but merely by the mercy of God. It is, however, the constant doctrine of the Qurán that the felicity of each person will be proportioned to his deserts, and that there will be abodes of different degrees of happiness; the most eminent degree being reserved for the prophets, the second for the doctors and teachers of God’s worship, the next for the martyrs, and the lower for the rest of the righteous, according to their several merits. There will also some distinction be made in respect to the time of their admission, Muhammad (to whom, if you will believe him, the gates will first be opened) having affirmed that the poor will enter paradise five hundred years before the rich: nor is this the only privilege which they will enjoy in the next life, since the same prophet has also declared, that when he took a view of paradise, he saw the majority of its inhabitants to be the poor, and when he looked down into hell, he saw the greater part of the wretches confined there to be women.
The great feast of God.
For the first entertainment of the blessed on their admission, they fable that the whole earth will then be as one loaf of bread, which God will reach to them with his hand, holding it like a cake; and that for meat they will have the ox Balám and the fish Nún, the lobes of whose livers will suffice 70,000 men, being, as some imagine, to be set before the principal guests, viz., those who, to that number, will be admitted into paradise without examination;1 though others suppose that a definite number is here put for an indefinite, and that nothing more is meant thereby than to express a great multitude of people.
Rewards of the faithful described.
From this feast every one will be dismissed to the mansion designed for him, where (as has been said) he will enjoy such a share of felicity as will be proportioned to his merits, but vastly exceed comprehension or expectation, since the very meanest in paradise (as he who, it is pretended, must know best has declared) will have eighty thousand servants, seventy-two wives of the girls of paradise, besides the wives he had in this world, and a tent erected for him of pearls, jacinths, and emeralds, of a very large extent; and, according to another tradition, will be waited on by three hundred attendants while he eats, will be served in dishes of gold, whereof three hundred shall be set before him at once, containing each a different kind of food, the last morsel of which will be as grateful as the first; and will also be supplied with as many sorts of liquors in vessels of the same metal; and, to complete the entertainment, there will be no want of wine, which, though forbidden in this life, will yet be freely allowed to be drunk in the next, and without danger, since the wine of paradise will not inebriate, as that we drink here. The flavour of this wine we may conceive to be delicious without a description, since the water of Tasním and the other fountains which will be used to dilute it is said to be wonderfully sweet and fragrant. If any object to these pleasures, as an impudent Jew did to Muhammad, that so much eating and drinking must necessarily require proper evacuations, we answer, as the prophet did, that the inhabitants of paradise will not need to ease themselves, nor even to blow their nose, for that all superfluities will be discharged and carried off by perspiration, or a sweat as odoriferous as musk, after which their appetite shall return afresh.
The magnificence of the garments and furniture promised by the Qurán to the godly in the next life is answerable to the delicacy of their diet; for they are to be clothed in the richest silks and brocades chiefly of green, which will burst forth from the fruits of paradise, and will be also supplied by the leaves of the tree Túba; they will be adorned with bracelets of gold and silver, and crowns set with pearls of incomparable lustre; and will make use of silken carpets, litters of a prodigious size, couches, pillows, and other rich furniture embroidered with gold and precious stones.
Ability of the faithful to enjoy.
That we may the more readily believe what has been mentioned of the extraordinary abilities of the inhabitants of paradise to taste these pleasures in their height, it is said they will enjoy a perpetual youth; that in whatever age they happen to die, they will be raised in their prime and vigour, that is, of about thirty years of age, which age they will never exceed (and the same they say of the damned); and that when they enter paradise they will be of the same stature with Adam, who, as they fable, was no less than sixty cubits high. And to this age and stature their children, if they shall desire any (for otherwise their wives will not conceive), shall immediately attain, according to that saying of their prophet, “If any of the faithful in paradise be desirous of issue, it shall be conceived, born, and grown up within the space of an hour.” And in the same manner, if any one shall have a fancy to employ himself in agriculture (which rustic pleasure may suit the wanton fancy of some), what he shall sow will spring up and come to maturity in a moment.
Lest any of the senses should want their proper delight, we are told the ear will there be entertained, not only with the ravishing songs of the angel Isráfíl, who has the most melodious voice of all God’s creatures, and of the daughters of paradise; but even the trees themselves will celebrate the divine praises with a harmony exceeding what ever mortals have heard; to which will be joined the sound of the bells hanging on the trees, which will be put in motion by the wind proceeding from the throne of God, so often as the blessed wish for music; nay, the very clashing of the golden-bodied trees, whose fruits are pearls and emeralds, will surpass human imagination; so that the pleasures of this sense will not be the least of the enjoyments of paradise.
The spiritual enjoyments of heaven.
The delights we have hitherto taken a view of, it is said, will be common to all the inhabitants of paradise, even those of the lowest order. What then, think we, must they enjoy who shall obtain a superior degree of honour and felicity? To these, they say, there are prepared, besides all this, “such things as eye hath not seen, nor hath ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive;” an expression most certainly borrowed from Scripture.1 That we may know wherein the felicity of those who shall attain the highest degree will consist, Muhammad is reported to have said that the meanest of the inhabitants of paradise will see his gardens, wives, servants, furniture, and other possessions take up the space of a thousand years’ journey (for so far and farther will the blessed see in the next life) but that he will be in the highest honour with God who shall behold his face morning and evening; and this favour al Ghazáli supposes to be that additional or superabundant recompense promised in the Qurán,2 which will give such exquisite delight, that in respect thereof all the other pleasures of paradise will be forgotten and lightly esteemed; and not without reason, since, as the same author says, every other enjoyment is equally tasted by the very brute beast who is turned loose into luxuriant pasture.3 The reader will observe, by the way, that this is a full confutation of those who pretend that the Muhammadans admit of no spiritual pleasure in the next life, but make the happiness of the blessed to consist wholly in corporeal enjoyments.1*
Muhammad indebted to Jews and Magians for his notions of paradise.
Whence Muhammad took the greatest part of his paradise it is easy to show. The Jews constantly describe the future mansion of the just as a delicious garden, and make it also reach to the seventh heaven.2 They also say it has three gates,3 or, as others will have it, two,4 and four rivers (which last circumstance they copied, to be sure, from those of the Garden of Eden),5 flowing with milk, wine, balsam, and honey.6 Their Behemoth and Leviathan, which they pretend will be slain for the entertainment of the blessed,7 are so apparently the Balám and Nún of Muhammad, that his followers themselves confess he is obliged to them for both.8 The Rabbins likewise mention seven different degrees of felicity,9 and say that the highest will be of those who perpetually contemplate the face of God.10 The Persian Magi had also an idea of the future happy estate of the good, very little different from that of Muhammad. Paradise they called Bahisht, and Mínu, which signifies crystal, where they believe the righteous shall enjoy all manner of delights, and particularly the company of the Hurán-i-bahisht, or black-eyed nymphs of paradise,11 the care of whom, they say, is committed to the angel Zamiyád;12 and hence Muhammad seems to have taken the first hint of his paradisiacal ladies.
Christian and Muslim notions of the future state compared.
It is not improbable, however, but that he might have been obliged, in some respect, to the Christian accounts of the felicity of the good in the next life.* As it is scarce possible to convey, especially to the apprehensions of the generality of mankind, an idea of spiritual pleasures without introducing sensible objects, the Scriptures have been obliged to represent the celestial enjoyments by corporeal images, and to describe the mansion of the blessed as a glorious and magnificent city, built of gold and precious stones, with twelve gates, through the streets of which there runs a river of water of life, and having on either side the tree of life, which bears twelve sorts of fruits and leaves of a healing virtue.1 Our Saviour likewise speaks of the future state of the blessed as of a kingdom where they shall eat and drink at his table.2 But then these descriptions have none of those puerile imaginations3 which reign throughout that of Muhammad, much less any the most distant intimation of sensual delights, which he was so fond of; on the contrary, we are expressly assured that “in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be as the angels of God in heaven.”1 Muhammad, however, to enhance the value of paradise with his Arabians, chose rather to imitate the indecency of the Magians than the modesty of the Christians in this particular, and lest his beatified Muslims should complain that anything was wanting, bestows on them wives, as well as the other comforts of life; judging, it is to be presumed, from his own inclinations, that, like Panurgus’s ass,2 they would think all other enjoyments not worth their acceptance if they were to be debarred from this.
The description of paradise in the Qurán to be understood in a literal sense.
Had Muhammad, after all, intimated to his followers, that what he had told them of paradise was to be taken, not literally, but in a metaphorical sense (as it is said the Magians do the description of Zoroaster’s3 ), this might, perhaps, make some atonement; but the contrary is so evident from the whole tenor of the Qurán, that although some Muhammadans, whose understandings are too refined to admit such gross conceptions, look on their prophet’s descriptions as parabolical, and are willing to receive them in an allegorical or spiritual acceptation,4 yet the general and orthodox doctrine is, that the whole is to be strictly believed in the obvious and literal acceptation; to prove which I need only urge the oath they exact from Christians (who they know abhor such fancies) when they would bind them in the most strong and sacred manner; for in such a case they make them swear that if they falsify their engagement, they will affirm that there will be black-eyed girls in the next world and corporeal pleasures.5
The rewards of Muslim women.
Before we quit this subject it may not be improper to observe the falsehood of a vulgar imputation on the Muhammadans, who are by several writers1 reported to hold that women have no souls, or, if they have, that they will perish, like those of brute beasts, and will not be rewarded in the next life. But whatever may be the opinion of some ignorant people among them, it is certain that Muhammad had too great a respect for the fair sex to teach such a doctrine; and there are several passages in the Qurán which affirm that women, in the next life, will not only be punished for their evil actions, but will also receive the rewards of their good deeds, as well as the men, and that in this case God will make no distinction of sexes.2 It is true the general notion is that they will not be admitted into the same abode as the men are, because their places will be supplied by the paradisiacal females (though some allow that a man will there also have the company of those who were his wives in this world, or at least such of them as he shall desire3 ), but that good women will go into a separate place of happiness, where they will enjoy all sorts of delights;4 but whether one of those delights will be the enjoyment of agreeable paramours created for them, to complete the economy of the Muhammadan system, is what I have nowhere found decided. One circumstance relating to these beatified females, conformable to what he had asserted of the men, he acquainted his followers with in the answer he returned to an old woman, who, desiring him to intercede with God that she might be admitted into paradise, he told her that no old woman would enter that place; which setting the poor woman a crying, he explained himself by saying that God would then make her young again.5
The decrees of God.
The sixth great point of faith which the Muhammadans are taught by the Qurán to believe is God’s absolute decree and predestination both of good and evil; for the orthodox doctrine is, that whatever hath or shall come to pass in this world, whether it be good or whether it be bad, proceedeth entirely from the divine will, and is irrevocably fixed and recorded from all eternity in the preserved table,1God having secretly predetermined not only the adverse and prosperous fortune of every person in this world, in the most minute particulars, but also his faith or infidelity, his obedience or disobedience, and consequently his everlasting happiness or misery after death, which fate or predestination it is not possible by any foresight or wisdom to avoid.
Use made of this doctrine by Muhammad.
Of this doctrine Muhammad makes great use in his Qurán for the advancement of his designs, encouraging his followers to fight without fear, and even desperately, for the propagation of their faith, by representing to them that all their caution could not avert their inevitable destiny or prolong their lives for a moment,2 and deterring them from disobeying or rejecting him as an impostor by setting before them the danger they might thereby incur of being, by the just judgment of God, abandoned to seduction, hardness of heart, and a reprobate mind, as a punishment for their obstinacy.3
As this doctrine of absolute election and reprobation has been thought by many of the Muhammadan divines to be derogatory to the goodness and justice of God, and to make God the author of evil, several subtle distinctions have been invented and disputes raised to explicate or soften it, and different sects have been formed, according to their several opinions or methods of explaining this point, some of them going so far as even to hold the direct contrary position of absolute free will in man, as we shall see hereafter.1
Prayer or sulat.
Of the four fundamental points of religious practice required by the Qurán the first is prayer, under which, as has been said, are also comprehended those legal washings or purifications which are necessary preparations thereto.
Ceremonial purifications required.
Of these purifications there are two degrees, one called Ghusl, being a total immersion or bathing of the body in water, and the other called Wadhú (by the Persians Ábdast), which is the washing of their faces, hands, and feet after a certain manner, The first is required in some extraordinary cases only, as after having lain with a woman, or being polluted by emission of seed, or by approaching a dead body; women also being obliged to it after their courses or childbirth. The latter is the ordinary ablution in common cases and before prayer, and must necessarily be used by every person before he can enter upon that duty.2 It is performed with certain formal ceremonies, which have been described by some writers, but are much easier apprehended by seeing them done than by the best description.
These were borrowed from the Jews.
These purifications were perhaps borrowed by Muhammad from the Jews; at least they agree in a great measure with those used by that nation,3 who in process of time burdened the precepts of Moses in this point with so many traditionary ceremonies, that whole books have been written about them, and who were so exact and superstitious therein, even in our Saviour’s time, that they are often reproved by him for it.4 But as it is certain that the pagan Arabs used lustrations of this kind5 long before the time of Muhammad, as most nations did, and still do in the East, where the warmth of the climate requires a greater nicety and degree of cleanliness than these colder parts, perhaps Muhammad only recalled his countrymen to a more strict observance of those purifying rites, which had been probably neglected by them, or at least performed in a careless and perfunctory manner. The Muhammadans, however, will have it that they are as ancient as Abraham,1 who, they say, was enjoined by God to observe them, and was shown the manner of making the ablution by the Angel Gabriel in the form of a beautiful youth.2 Nay, some deduce the matter higher, and imagine that these ceremonies were taught our first parents by the angels.3
The practice of religion based on cleanliness.
That his followers might be the more punctual in this duty, Muhammad is said to have declared, that “the practice of religion is founded on cleanliness,” which is the one-half of the faith and the key of prayer, without which it will not be heard by God.4 That these expressions may be the better understood, al Ghazáli reckons four degrees of purification, of which the first is, the cleansing of the body from all pollution, filth, and excrements; the second, the cleansing of the members of the body from all wickedness and unjust actions; the third, the cleansing of the heart from all blamable inclinations and odious vices; and the fourth, the purging a man’s secret thoughts from all affections which may divert their attendance on God: adding, that the body is but as the outward shell in respect to the heart, which is as the kernel. And for this reason he highly complains of those who are superstitiously solicitous in exterior purifications, avoiding those persons as unclean who are not so scrupulously nice as themselves, and at the same time have their minds lying waste, and overrun with pride, ignorance, and hypocrisy.1 Whence it plainly appears with how little foundation the Muhammadans have been charged by some writers2 with teaching or imagining that these formal washings alone cleanse them from their sins.3
Lustration with sand instead of water allowed.
Lest so necessary a preparation to their devotions should be omitted, either where water cannot be had, or when it may be of prejudice to a person’s health, they are allowed in such cases to make use of fine sand or dust in lieu of it;4 and then they perform this duty by clapping their open hands on the sand, and passing them over the parts, in the same manner as if they were dipped in water. But for this expedient Muhammad was not so much indebted to his own cunning5 as to the example of the Jews, or perhaps that of the Persian Magi, almost as scrupulous as the Jews themselves in their lustrations, who both of them prescribe the same method in cases of necessity;6 and there is a famous instance in ecclesiastical history of sand being used, for the same reason, instead of water, in the administration of the Christian sacrament of baptism, many years before Muhammad’s time.7
Minor points of purification.
Neither are the Muhammadans contented with bare washing, but think themselves obliged to several other necessary points of cleanliness, which they make also parts of this duty; such as combing the hair, cutting the beard, paring the nails, pulling out the hairs of their armpits, shaving their private parts, and circumcision;8 of which last I will add a word or two, lest I should not find a more proper place.
The Muslim doctrine of circumcision.
Circumcision, though it be not so much as once mentioned in the Qurán, is yet held by the Muhammadans to be an ancient divine institution, confirmed by the religion of Islám, and though not so absolutely necessary but that it may be dispensed with in some cases,1 yet highly proper and expedient. The Arabs used this rite for many ages before Muhammad, having probably learned it from Ismaíl, though not only his descendants, but the Himyárites,2 and other tribes, practised the same. The Ismaílites, we are told,3 used to circumcise their children, not on the eighth day, as is the custom of the Jews, but when about twelve or thirteen years old, at which age their father underwent that operation;4 and the Muhammadans imitate them so far as not to circumcise children before they be able, at least, distinctly to pronounce that profession of their faith, “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the apostle of God;”5 but pitch on what age they please for the purpose, between six and sixteen or thereabouts.6 Though the Muslim doctors are generally of opinion, conformably to the Scripture, that this precept was originally given to Abraham, yet some have imagined that Adam was taught it by the Angel Gabriel, to satisfy an oath he had made to cut off that flesh which, after his fall, had rebelled against his spirit; whence an odd argument has been drawn for the universal obligation of circumcision.7 Though I cannot say the Jews led the Muhammadans the way here, yet they seem so unwilling to believe any of the principal patriarchs or prophets before Abraham were really uncircumcised, that they pretend several of them, as well as some holy men who lived after his time, were born ready circumcised, or without a foreskin, and that Adam, in particular, was so ereated;1 whence the Muhammadans affirm the same thing of their prophet.2
Prayer the key of paradise.
Prayer was by Muhammad thought so necessary a duty, that he used to call it the pillar of religion and the key of paradise; and when the Thakifites, who dwelt at Tayif, sending in the ninth year of the Hijra to make their submissicn to the prophet, after the keeping of their favourite idol had been denied them,3 begged, at least, that they might be dispensed with as to their saying of the appointed prayers, he answered, “That there could be no good in that religion wherein was no prayer.”4
The hours of prayer.
Manner of performing the service of prayer.
That so important a duty, therefore, might not be neglected, Muhammad obliged his followers to pray five times every twenty-four hours, at certain stated times; viz., 1 In the morning, before sunrise; 2. When noon is past, and the sun begins to decline from the meridian; 3. In the afternoon, before sunset; 4. In the evening, after sunset, and before day be shut in; and 5. After the day is shut in, and before the first watch of the night.5 For this institution he pretended to have received the divine command from the throne of God himself, when he took his night journey to heaven; and the observing of the stated times of prayer is frequently insisted on in the Qurán, though they be not particularly prescribed therein. Accordingly, at the aforesaid times, of which public notice is given by the Muadhdhíns, or Criers, from the steeples of their mosques (for they use no bell), every conscientious Muslim prepares himself for prayer, which he performs either in the mosque or any other place, provided it be clean, after a prescribed form, and with a certain number of phrases or ejaculations (which the more acrupulous count by a string of beads) and using certain postures of worship; all which have been particularly set down and described though with some few mistakes, by other writers,1 and ought not to be abridged, unless in some special cases, as on a journey, on preparing for battle, &c.
For the regular performance of the duty of prayer among the Muhammadans, besides the particulars above mentioned, it is also requisite that they turn their faces, while they pray, towards the temple of Makkah,2 the quarter where the same is situate being, for that reason, pointed out within their mosques by a niche, which they call al Mihráb, and without by the situation of the doors opening into the galleries of the steeples: there are also tables calculated for the ready finding out their Qibla, or part towards which they ought to pray, in places where they have no other direction.3
But what is principally to be regarded in the discharge of this duty, say the Muslim doctors, is the inward disposition of the heart, which is the life and spirit of prayer;4 the most punctual observance of the external rites and ceremonies before mentioned being of little or no avail, if performed without due attention, reverence, devotion, and hope;5 so that we must not think the Muhammadans, or the considerate part of them at least, content themselves with the mere opus operatum, or imagine their whole religion to be placed therein.6
Regulations as to apparel and women in time of prayer.
I had like to have omitted two things which in my mind deserve mention on this head, and may, perhaps, be better defended than our contrary practice. One is, that the Muhammadans never address themselves to God in sumptuous apparel, though they are obliged to be decently clothed, but lay aside their costly habits and pompons ornaments, if they wear any, when they approach the divine presence, lest they should seem proud and arrogant.1 The other is, that they admit not their women to pray with them in public, that sex being obliged to perform their devotions at home, or if they visit the mosques, it must be at a time when the men are not there; for the Muslims are of opinion that their presence inspires a different kind of devotion from that which is requisite in a place dedicated to the worship of God.2
The institution of prayer borrowed from the Jews.
The greater part of the particulars comprised in the Muhammadan institution of prayer their prophet seems to have copied, from others, and especially the Jews, exceeding their institutions only in the number of daily prayers.3 The Jews are directed to pray three times a day,4 in the morning, in the evening, and within night, in imitation of Abraham,5 Isaac,6 and Jacob;7 and the practice was as early, at least, as the time of Daniel.8 The several postures used by the Muhammadans in their prayers are also the same with those prescribed by the Jewish Rabbins, and particularly the most solemn act of adoration, by prostrating themselves so as to touch the ground with their forebead;1 notwithstanding, the latter pretend the practice of the former, in this respect, to be a relic of their ancient manner of paying their devotions to Baalpeor.2 The Jews likewise constantly pray with their faces turned towards the temple of Jerusalem,3 which has been their Qibla from the time it was first dedicated by Solomon;4 for which reason Daniel, praying in Chaldea, had the windows of his chamber open towards that city;5 and the same was the Qibla of Muhammad and his followers for six or seven months,6 and till he found himself obliged to change it for the Kaabah. The Jews, moreover, are obliged by the precepts of their religion to be careful that the place they pray in, and the garments they have on when they perform their duty, be clean:7 the men and women also among them pray apart (in which particular they were imitated by the Eastern Christians); and several other conformities might be remarked between the Jewish public worship and that of the Muhammadans.8
Almsgiving the second fundamental act of religious practice.
The next point of the Muhammadan religion is the giving of alms, which are of two sorts, legal and voluntary. The legal alms are of indispensable obligation, being commanded by the law, which directs and determines both the portion which is to be given and of what things it ought to be given; but the voluntary alms are left to every one’s liberty, to give more or less as he shall see fit The former kind of alms some think to be properly called Zakát and the latter Sadaqa, though this name be also frequently given to the legal alms. They are called Zakát, either because they increase a man’s store, by drawing down a blessing thereon, and produce in his soul the virtue of liberality,1 or because they purify the remaining part of one’s substance from pollution and the soul from the filth of avarice;2 and Sadaqa, because they are a proof of a man’s sincerity in the worship of God. Some writers have called the legal alms tithes, but improperly, since in some eases they fall short, and in others exceed that proportion.
The giving of alms is frequently commanded in the Quran, and often recommended therein jointly with prayer; the former being held of great efficacy in causing the latter to be heard of God: for which reason the Khalífah Omar Ibn Abd al Azíz used to say “that prayer carries us half-way to God, fasting brings us to the door of his palace, and alms procures us admission.”3 The Muhammadans, therefore esteem almsdeeds to be highly meritorious, and many of them have been illustrious for the exercise thereof. Hasan, the son of Ali and grandson of Muhammad, in particular, is related to have thrice in his life divided his substance equally between himself and the poor, and twice to have given away all he had;4 and the generality are so addicted to the doing of good, that they extend their charity even to brutes.5*
Laws relating to legal alms.
Alms, according to the prescriptions of the Muhammadan law, are to be given of five things: 1. Of cattle, that is to say, of camels, kine, and sheep; 2. Of money; 3. Of corn; 4. Of fruits, viz., dates and raisins; and 5. Of wares sold. Of each of these a certain portion is to be given in alms, being usually one part in forty, or two and a half per cent of the value. But no alms are due for them, unless they amount to a certain quantity or number; nor until a man has been in possession of them eleven months, he not being obliged to give alms thereout before the twelfth month is begun; nor are alms due for cattle employed in tilling the ground or in carrying of burdens. In some cases a much larger portion than the before-mentioned is reckoned due for alms: thus of what is gotten out of mines, or the sea, or by any art or profession over and above what is sufficient for the reasonable support of a man’s family, and especially where there is a mixture or suspicion of unjust gain, a fifth part ought to be given in alms. Moreover, at the end of the fast of Ramadhán, every Muslim is obliged to give in alms for himself and for every one of his family, if he has any, a measure1 of wheat, barley, dates, raisins, rice, or other provisions commonly eaten.2
Appropriation of legal alms.
The legal alms were at first collected by Muhammad himself, who employed them as he thought fit, in the relief of his poor relations and followers, but chiefly applied them to the maintenance of those who served in his wars, and fought, as he termed it, in the way of God. His successors continued to do the same, till, in process of time, other taxes and tributes being imposed for the support of the government, they seem to have been weary of acting as almoners to their subjects, and to have left the paying them to their consciences.
Jewish and Muslim almsgiving compared.
In the foregoing rules concerning alms we may observe also footsteps of what the Jews taught and practised in respect thereto. Alms, which they also call Sedaka, i.e., justice or righteousness,1 are greatly recommended by their Rabbins, and preferred even to sacrifices,2 as a duty the frequent exercise whereof will effectually free a man from hell-fire,3 and merit everlasting life;4 wherefore, besides the corners of the field and the gleanings of their harvest and vineyard, commanded to be left for the poor and the stranger by the law of Moses,5 a certain portion of their corn and fruits is directed to be set apart for their relief, which portion is called the tithes of the poor.6 The Jews likewise were formerly very conspicuous for their charity. Zaccheus gave the half of his goods to the poor;7 and we are told that some gave their whole substance: so that their doctors at length decreed that no man should give above a fifth part of his goods in alms.8 There were also persons publicly appointed in every synagogue to collect and distribute the people’s contributions.9
The duty of fasting.
The third point of religious practice is fasting, a duty of so great moment, that Muhammad used to say it was “the gate of religion,” and that “the odour of the mouth of him who fasteth is more grateful to God than that of musk;” and al Ghazáli reckons fasting one-fourth part of the faith. According to the Muhammadan divines, there are three degrees of fasting: 1. The restraining the belly and other parts of the body from satisfying their lusts; 2. The restraining the ears, eyes, tongue, hands, feet, and other members from sin; and 3. The fasting of the heart from worldly cares, and refraining the thoughts from everything besides God.10
The fast of Ramadhán.
The Muhammadans are obliged, by the express command of the Qurán, to fast the whole month of Ramadhán, from the time the new moon first appears till the appearance of the next new moon; during which time they must abstain from eating, drinking, and women, from daybreak till night,1 or sunset. And this injunction they observe so strictly, that while they fast they suffer nothing to enter their mouths, or other parts of their body, esteeming the fast broken and null if they smell perfumes, take a clyster or injection, bathe, or even purposely swallow their spittle; some being so cautious that they will not open their mouths to speak, lest they should breathe the air too freely:2 the fast is also deemed void if a man kiss or touch a woman, or if he vomit designedly. But after sunset they are allowed to refresh themselves, and to eat and drink, and enjoy the company of their wives till daybreak;3 though the more rigid begin the fast again at midnight.4 This fast is extremely rigorous and mortifying when the month of Ramadhán happens to fall in summer, for the Arabian year being lunar,5 each month runs through all the different seasons in the course of thirty three years, the length and heat of the days making the observance of it much more difficult and uneasy then than in winter.
The reason given why the month of Ramadhán was pitched on for this purpose is, that on that month the Qurán was sent down from heaven.1 Some pretend that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus received their respective revelations in the same month.2
The rule of fasting for the sick, &c
From the fast of Ramadhán none are exensed, except only travellers and sick persons (under which last denomination the doctors comprehend all whose health would manifestly be injured by their keeping the fast; as women with child and giving suck, ancient people, and young children); but then they are obliged, as soon as the impediment is removed, to fast an equal number of other days: and the breaking the fast is ordered to be expiated by giving alms to the poor.3
This also borrowed from the Jews.
Muhammad seems to have followed the guidance of the Jews in his ordinances concerning fasting, no less than in the former particulars. That nation, when they fast, abstain not only from eating and drinking, but from women, and from anointing themselves,4 from daybreak until sunset, and the stars begin to appear,5 spending the night in taking what refreshments they please.6 And they allow women with child and giving suck, old persons, and young children to be exempted from keeping most of the public fasts.7
Voluntary fasts of Muslims
Ashúra borrowed from the Jewish day of atonement.
Though my design here be briefly to treat of those points only which are of indispensable obligation on a Muslim, and expressly required by the Qurán, without entering into their practice as to voluntary and supererogatory works; yet, to show how closely Muhammad’s institutions follow the Jewish I shall add a word or two of the voluntary fasts of the Muhammadans. These are such as have been recommended either by the example or approbation of their prophet; and especially certain days of those months which they esteem sacred there being a tradition that he used to say That a fast of one day in a sacred month was better than a fast of thirty days in another month, and that the fast of one day in Ramadhán was more meritorious than a fast of thirty days in a sacred month.1 Among the more commendable days is that of Ashúra, the tenth of Muharram, which, though some writers tell us it was observed by the Arabs, and particularly the tribe of Quraish, before Muhammad’s time,2 yet, as others assure us, that prophet borrowed both the name and the fast from the Jews, it being with them the tenth of the seventh month, or Tisri, and the great day of expiation commanded to be kept by the law of Moses.3 Al Kazwíni relates that when Muhammad came to Madína, and found the Jews there fasted on the day of Ashúra, he asked them the reason of it; and they told him it was because on that day Pharaoh and his people were drowned, Moses and those who were with him escaping: whereupon he said that he bore a nearer relation to Moses than they, and ordered his followers to fast on that day. However it seems afterwards he was not so well pleased in having imitated the Jews herein; and therefore declared that, if he lived another year, he would alter the day, and fast on the ninth, abhorring so near an agreement with them.4
Pilgrimage to Makkah.
The pilgrimage to Makkah is so necessary a point of practice that, according to a tradition of Muhammad, he who dies without performing it may as well die a Jew or a Christian;1 and the same is expressly commanded in the Qurán.2 Before I speak of the time and manner of performing this pilgrimage, it may be proper to give a short account of the temple of Makkah, the chief scene of the Muhammadan worship; in doing which I need be the less prolix, because that edifice has been already described by several writers,3 though they, following different relations, have been led into some mistakes, and agree not with one another in several particulars: nor, indeed, do the Arab authors agree in all things, one great reason whereof is their speaking of different times.
The temple of Makkah described.
The temple of Makkah stands in the midst of the city, and is honoured with the title of Masjid al Harám, i.e., the sacred or inviolable temple. What is principally reverenced in this place, and gives sanctity to the whole, is a square stone building called the Kaabah, as some fancy, from its height, which surpasses that of the other buildings in Makkah,4 but more probably from its quadrangular form, and Bait Allah, i.e., the house of God, being peculiarly hallowed and set apart for his worship. The length of this edifice, from north to south, is twenty-four cubits, its breadth from east to west twenty three cubits, and its height twenty-seven cubits: the door, which is on the east side, stands about four cubits from the ground; the floor being level with the bottom of the door.5 In the corner next this door is the black stone, of which I shall take notice by and by. On the north side of the Kaabah, within a semicircular enclosure fifty cubits long, lies the white stone, said to be the sepulchre of Ismail, which receives the rain-water that falls off the Kaabah by a spout, formerly of wood,6 but now of gold. The Kaabah has a double roof, supported within by three octangular pillars of aloes wood, between which, on a bar of iron; hang some silver lamps. The outside is covered with rich black damask, adorned with an embroidered band of gold, which is changed every year, and was formerly sent by the Khalífahs, afterwards by the Sultáns of Egypt, and is now provided by the Turkish emperors.* At a small distance from the Kaabah, on the east side, is the Station or Place of Abraham, where is another stone much respected by the Muhammadans, of which something will be said hereafter.
The Kaabah, at some distance, is surrounded, but not entirely, by a circular enclosure of pillars, joined towards the bottom by a low balustrade, and towards the top by bars of silver. Just without this inner enclosure, on the south, north, and west sides of the Kaabah, are three buildings which are the oratories, or places where three of the orthodox sects assemble to perform their devotions (the fourth sect, viz., that of al Sháfaí, making use of the Station of Abraham for that purpose), and towards the south-east stands the edifice which covers the well Zamzam, the treasury, and the cupola of al Abbás.1
All these buildings are enclosed, a considerable distance, by a magnificent piazza, or square colonnade, like that of the Royal Exchange in London, but much larger, covered with small domes or cupolas, from the four corners whereof rise as many minarets or steeples, with double galleries and adorned with gilded spires and crescents, as are the cupolas which cover the piazza and the other buildings Between the pillars of both enclosures hang a great number of lamps, which are constantly lighted at night. The first foundations of this outward enclosure were laid by Omar, the second Khalifah, who built no more than a low wall, to prevent the court of the Kaabah, which before lay open, from being encroached on by private buildings; but the structure has been since raised, by the liberality of many succeeding princes and great man, to its present lustre.2
This is properly all that is called the temple but the whole territory of Makkah being also Haram or sacred, there is a third enclosure, distinguished at certain distances by small turrets, some five, some seven, and others ten miles distant from the city.3 Within this compass of ground it is not lawful to attack an enemy or even to hunt or fowl, or cut a branch from a tree: which is the true reason why the pigeons at Makkah are reckoned sacred, and not that they are supposed to be of the race of that imaginary pigeon which some authors, who should have known better, would persuade us Muhammad made pass for the Holy Ghost.4
The antiquity of the Kasbah.
The temple of Makkah was a place of worship, and in singular veneration with the Arabs from great antiquity, and many centuries before Muhammad. Though it was most probably dedicated at first to an idolatrous use,1 yet the Muhammadans are generally persuaded that the Kasbah is almost coeval with the world: for they say that Adam, after his expulsion from paradise, begged of God that he might erect a building like that he had seen there, called Bait al Mámúr, or the frequented house, and al Duráh, towards which he might direct his prayers, and which he might compass, as the angels do the celestial one. Whereupon God let down a representation of that house in curtains of light,2 and set it in Makkah, perpendicularly under its original,3 ordering the patriarch to turn towards it when he prayed, and to compass it by way of devotion.4 After Adam’s death, his son Seth built a house in the same form of stones and clay, which being destroyed by the Deluge, was rebuilt by Abraham and Ismail,5 at God’s command, in the place where the former had stood, and after the same model, they being directed therein by revelation.
The present building.
6 After this edifice had undergone several reparations, it was, a few years after the birth of Muhammad, rebuilt by the Quraish on the old foundation,7 and afterwards repaired by Abdullah Ibn Zubair, the Khalífah of Makkah, und at length again rebuilt by al Haláj Ibn Yusaf in the seventy-fourth year of the Hijra with some alterations, in the form wherein it now remains.1 Some years after, however, the Khalífah Harún al Rashíd (or as others write, his father, al Mahdi, or his grandfather, al Mansúr) intended again to change what had been altered by al Hajáj, and to reduce the Kaabah to the old form in which it was lett by Abdullah, but was dissuaded from meddling with it, lest so holy a place should become the sport of princes, and being new modelled after every one’s fancy, should lose that reverence which was justly paid it.2 But notwithstanding the antiquity and holiness of this building, they have a prophecy, by tradition from Muhammad, that in the last times the Ethiopians shall come and utterly demolish it, after which it will not be rebuilt again for ever.3
The Black stone described.
Before we leave the temple of Makkah, two or three particulars deserve further notice. One is the celebrated black stone, which is set in silver, and fixed in the southeast corner of the Kaabah,* being that which looks towards Basra, about two cubits and one-third, or, which is the same thing, seven spans from the ground. This stone is exceedingly respected by the Muhammadans, and is kissed by the pilgrims with great devotion, being called by some the right hand of God on earth. They fable that it is one of the precious stones of paradise, and fell down to the earth with Adam, and being taken up again, or otherwise preserved at the Deluge, the Angel Gabriel afterwards brought it back to Abraham when he was building the Kaabah. It was at first whiter than milk, but grew black long since by the touch of a menstruous woman, or, as others toll us, by the sins of mankind,1 or rather by the touches and kisses of so many people the superficies only being black and the inside still remaining white.2 When the Karmatians,3 among other profanations by them offered to the temple of Makkah, took away this stone, they could not be prevailed on, for love or money, to restore it, though those of Makkah offered no less than five thousand pieces of gold for it.4 However, after they had kept it twenty-two years, seeing they could not thereby draw the pilgrims from Makkah, they sent it back of their own accord, at the same time bantering its devotees by telling them it was not the true stone; but, as it is said, it was proved to be no counterfeit by its peculiar quality of swimming on water.5
The stone in Abraham’s Place
Another thing observable in this temple is the stone in Abraham’s Place wherein they pretend to show his footsteps, telling us he stood on it when he built the Kaabah,1 and that it served him for a scaffold, rising and falling of itself as he had occasion,2 though another tradition says he stood upon it while the wife of his son Ismaíl, whom he paid a visit to, washed his head.3 It is now enclosed in an iron chest, out of which the pilgrims drink the water of Zamzam,4 and are ordered to pray at it by the Qurán.5 The officers of the temple took care to hide this stone when the Karmatians took the other.6
The well Zamzam.
The last thing I shall take notice of in the temple is the well Zamzam, on the east side of the Kaabah, and which is covered with a small building and cupola. The Muhammadans are persuaded it is the very spring which gushed out for the relief of Ismaíl, when Hagar his mother wandered with him in the desert;7 and some pretend it was so named from her calling to him, when she spied it, in the Egyptian tongue, Zam, zam, that is, “Stay, stay,”8 though it seems rather to have had the name from the murmuring of its waters. The water of this well is reckoned holy, and is highly reverenced, being not only drunk with particular devotion by the pilgrims, but also sent in bottles, as a great rarity, to most parts of the Muhammadan dominions. Abdullah, surnamed al Háfidh, from his great memory, particularly as to the traditions of Muhammad, gave out that he acquired that faculty by drinking large draughts of Zamzam water,9 to which I really believe it as efficacious as that of Helicon to the inspiring of a poet.
Fame of the pilgrimage to Makkah
To this temple every Muhammadan, who has health and means sufficient,10 ought once, at least, in his life to go on pilgrimage; nor are women excused from the performance of this duty. The pilgrims meet at different places near Makkah, according to the different parts from whence they come,1 during the months of Shawwál and Dhu’l Qaada, being obliged to be there by the beginning of Dhu’l Hajja, which month, as its name imports, is peculiarly set apart for the celebration of this solemnity
The sacred habit put on.
At the places above mentioned the pilgrims properly commence the sacred rites. The men put on the Ihrám, or sacred habit, which consists only of two woollen wrappers, one wrapped about the middie to cover their shame, and the other thrown over their shoulders, having their heads bare, and a kind of slippers which cover neither the heel nor the instep, and so enter the sacred territory on their way to Makkah. While they have this habit on they must neither hunt nor fowl2 (though they are allowed to fish3 ), which precept is so punctually observed, that they will not kill even a louse or a flea, if they find them on their bodies: there are some noxious animals, however, which they have permission to kill during the pilgrimage, as kites, ravens, scorpions, mice, and dogs given to bite.4 During the pilgrimage it benoves a man to have a constant guard over his words and actions, and to avoid all quarrelling or ill language, and all converse with women and obscene discourse, and to apply his whole intention to the good work he is engaged in.
Visiting the temple, &c
The pilgrims, being arrived at Makkah, immediately visit the temple, and then enter on the performance of the prescribed ceremonies, which consist chiefly in going in procession round the Kaabah, in running between the Mounts Safá and Marwa, in making the station on Mount Arafát, and slaying the victims, and shaving their heads in the valley of Miná. These ceremonies have been so particularly described by others,5 that I may be excused if I but just mention the most material circumstances thereof.
In compassing the Kaabah, which they do seven times, beginning at the corner where the black stone is fixed, they use a short, quick pace the three first times they go round it, and a grave, ordinary pace the four last; which, it is said, was ordered by Muhammad, that his followers might show themselves strong and active, to cut off the hopes of the infidels, who gave out that the immoderate heats of Madina had rendered them weak1 But the aforesaid quick pace they are not obliged to use every time they perform this piece of devotion but only at some particular times.2 So often as they pass by the black stone, they either kiss it, or touch it with their hand, and kiss that.
The running between Safá and Marwa3 is also performed seven times, partly with a slow pace, and partly running;4 for they walk gravely till they come to a place between two pillars; and there they run, and afterwards walk again; sometimes looking back, and sometimes stopping, like one who has lost something, to represent Hagar seeking water for her son;5 for the ceremony is said to be as ancient as her time.6
On the ninth of Dhu’l Hajja, after morning prayer, the pilgrims leave the valley of Miná, whither they come the day before, and proceed in a tumultuous and rushing manner to Mount Arafát,7 where they stay to perform their devotions till sunset: then they go to Muzadalífah, an oratory between Arafát and Miná, and there spend the night in prayer and reading the Quran. The next morning, by daybreak they visit al Mashar al Harám, or the sacred monument,1 and departing thence before sunrise, haste by Batn Muhassir to the valley of Miná, where they throw seven stones2 at three marks or pillars, in imitation of Abraham, who, meeting the devil in that place, and being by him disturbed in his devotions, or tempted to disobedience, when he was going to sacrifice his son, was commanded by God to drive him away by throwing stones at him,3 though others pretend this rite to be as old as Adam, who also put the devil to flight in the same place and by the same means.4
Sacrifices and sacred offerings.
This ceremony being over, on the same day, the tenth of Dhu’l Hajja, the pilgrims slay their victims in the said valley of Miná, of which they and their friends eat part, and the rest is given to the poor. These victims must be either sheep, goats, kine, or camels; males if of either of the two former kinds, and females if of either of the latter, and of a fit age.5 The sacrifices being over, they shave their heads and cut their nails, burying them in the same place: after which the pilgrimage is looked on as completed,6 though they again visit the Kaabah, to take their leave of that sacred building.
The ceremonies of pilgrimage borrowed arom Arabneathenism.
The above-mentioned ceremonies, by the confession of the Muhammadans themselves, were almost all of them observed by the pagan Arabs many ages before their prophet’s appearance; and particularly the compassing of the Kaabah the running between Safá and Marwa and the throwing of the stones in Miná; and were confirmed by Muhammad with some alterations in such points as seemed most exceptionable: thus, for example, he ordered that when they compassed the Kaabah they should be clothed;7 whereas, before his time, they performed that piece of devotion naked, throwing off their clothes as a mark that they had cast off their sins,1 or as signs of their disobedience towards God.2
Object of the pilgrimage.
It is also acknowledged that the greater part of these rites are of no intrinsic worth, neither affecting the soul nor agreeing with natural reason, but altogether arbitrary, and commanded merely to try the obedience of mankind, without any further view, and are therefore to be complied with; not that they are good in themselves, but because God has so appointed.3 Some, however, have endeavoured to find out some reasons for the abitrary injunctions of this kind, and one writer,4 supposing men ought to imitate the heavenly bodies, not only in their purity but in their circular motion, seems to argue the procession round the Kaabah to be therefore a rational practice. Reland5 has observed that the Romans had something like this in their worship, being ordered by Numa to use a circular motion in the adoration of the gods, either to represent the orbicular motion of the world, or the perfecting the whole office of prayer to that God who is maker of the universe, or else in allusion to the Egyptian wheels, which were hieroglyphics of the instability of human fortune.6
Muhammad’s concession to Arab custom and superstition.
The pilgrimage to Makkah, and the ceremonies prescribed to those who perform it, are, perhaps, hable to greater exception than other of Muhammad’s institutions, not only as silly and ridiculous in themselves, but as relics of idolatrous superstition.7 Yet whoever seriously considers how difficult it is to make people submit to the abolishing of ancient customs, how unreasonable soever, which they are fond of, especially where the interest of a considerable party is also concerned, and that a man may with less danger change many things than one great one,1 must excuse Muhammad’s yielding some points of less moment to gain the principal. The temple of Makkah was held in excessive veneration by all the Arabs in general (if we except only the tribes of Tay and Khuzáah and some of the posterity of al Hárith Ibn Qaab,2 who used not to go in pilgrimage thereto), and especially by those of Makkah, who had a particular interest to support that veneration; and as the most silly and insignificant things are generally the objects of the greatest superstition, Muhammad found it much easier to abolish idolatry itself than to eradicate the superstitious bigotry with which they were addicted to that temple and the rites performed there; wherefore, after several fruitless trials to wean them therefrom,3 he thought it best to compromise the matter, and rather than to frustrate his whole design, to allow them to go on pilgrimage thither, and to direct their prayers thereto, contenting himself with transferring the devotions there paid from their idols to the true God, and changing such circumstances therein as he judged might give scandal. And herein he followed the example of the most famous legislators, who instituted not such laws as were absolutely the best in themselves, but the best their people were capable of receiving; and we find God himself had the same condescendence for the Jews, whose nardness of heart he humoured in many things, giving them therefore statutes that were not good, and judgmonts whereby they should not live.4*
OF NERTAIN NEGATIVE PRECEPTS IN THE QURÁN.
Having in the preceding section spoken of the fundamental points of the Muhammadan religion, relating both to faith and to practice, I shall in this and the two following discourses speak in the same brief method of some other precepts and institutions of the Qurán which deserve peculiar notice, and first of certain things which are thereby prohibited.
The drinking of wine and spirituous liquors forbidden.
The drinking of wine, under which name all sorts of strong and inebriating liquors are comprehended, is forhidden in the Qurán in more places than one.1 Some indeed, have imagined that excess therein is only forbidden, and that the moderate use of wine is allowed by two passages in the same book;2 but the more received opinion is, that to drink any strong liquors, either in a lesser quantity or in a greater, is absolutely unlawful; and though libertines3 indulge themselves in a contrary practice, yet the more conscientious are so strict, especially if they have performed the pilgrimage to Makkah,4 that they hold it unlawful not only to taste wine, but to press grapes for the making of it, to buy or to sell it, or even to maintain themselves with the money arising by the sale of that liquor. The Persians, however, as well as the Turks are very fond of wine; and if one asks them how it comes to pass that they venture to drink it, when it is so directly forbidden by their religion, they answer, that it is with them as with the Christians, whose religion prohibits drunkenness and whoredom as great sins, and who glory, notwithstanding, some in debauching girls and married women, and others in drinking to excess.1
Question as to coffee and tobacco.
It has been a question whether coffee comes not under the above-mentioned prohibition,2 because the fumes of it have some effect on the imagination. This drink, which was first publicly used at Aden in Arabia Felix, about the middle of the ninth century of the Hijra, and thence gradually introduced into Makkah, Madína, Egypt Syria, and other parts of the Levant, has been the occasion of great disputes and disorders, having been sometimes publicly condemned and forbidden, and again declared lawful and allowed.3 At present the use of coffee is generally tolerated, if not granted, as is that of tobacco, though the more religious make a scruple of taking the latter, not only because it inebriates, but also out of respect to a traditional saying of their prophet (which, if it could be made out to be his, would prove him a prophet indeed), “That in the latter days there should be men who should bear the name of Muslims, but should not be really such; and that they should smoke a certain weed, which should be called tobacco.” However, the Eastern nations are generally so addicted to both, that they say, “A dish of coffee and a pipe of tobacco are a complete entertainment;” and the Persians have a proverb that coffee without tobacco is meat without salt.4
Opium and bang (which latter is the leaves of hemp in pills or conserve) are also by the rigid Muhammadans esteemed unlawful, though not mentioned in the Qurán, because they intoxicate and disturb the understanding as wine does, and in a more extraordinary manner: yet these drugs are now commonly taken in the East;* but they who are addicted to them are generally looked upon as debauchees.1
The reason why wine-drinking was prohibited.
Several stories have been told as the occasion of Muhammad’s prohibiting the drinking of wine;2 but the true reasons are given in the Qurán, viz., because the ill qualities of that liquor surpass its good ones, the common effects thereof being quarrels and disturbances in company, and neglect, or at least indecencies, in the performance of religious duties.3 For these reasons it was that the priests were, by the Levitical law, forbidden to drink wine or strong drink when they entered the tabernacle,4 and that the Nazarites,5 and Rechabites,6 and many pious persons among the Jews and primitive Christians, wholly abstained therefrom; nay, some of the latter went so far as to condemn the use of wine as sinful.7 But Muhammad is said to have had a nearer example than any of these, in the more devout persons of his own tribe.8
Lots and games of chance for bidden
Gaming is prohibited by the Quran9 in the same passages, and for the same reasons, as wine. The word al maisar, which is there used, signifies a particular manner of casting lots by arrows, much practised by the pagan Arabs, and performed in the following manner. A young camel being bought and killed, and divided into ten or twenty-eight parts, the persons who cast lots for them, to the number of seven, met for that purpose; and eleven arrows were provided, without heads or feathers, seven of which were marked, the first with one notch, the second with two, and so on, and the other four had no mark at all.1 These arrows were put promiscuously into a bag, and then drawn by an indifferent person, who had another near him to receive them, and to see he acted fairly; those to whom the marked arrows fell won shares in proportion to their lot, and those to whom the blanks fell were entitled to no part of the camel at all, but were obliged to pay the full price of it. The winners, however, tasted not of the flesh, any more than the losers, but the whole was distributed among the poor; and this they did out of pride and ostentation, it being reckoned a shame for a man to stand out, and not venture his money on such an occasion.2 This custom, therefore, though it was of some use to the poor and diversion to the rich, was forbidden by Muhammad,3 as the source of great inconveniences, by occasioning quarrels and heart-burnings, which arose from the winners insulting of those who lost.
Chess allowable under restrictions
Under the name of lots the commentators agree that all other games whatsoever, which are subject to hazard or chance, are comprehended and forbidden, as dice, cards, tables, &c. And they are reckoned so ill in themselves, that the testimony of him who plays at them is by the more rigid judged to be of no validity in a court of justice. Chess is almost the only game which the Muhammadan doctors allow to be lawful (though it has been a doubt with some),4 because it depends wholly on skill and management, and not at all on chance: but then it is allowed under certain restrictions, viz., that it be no hindrance to the regular performance of their devotions, and that no money or other thing be played for or betted; which last the Turks, being Sunnis, religiously observe, but the Persians and Moguls do not.1 But what Muhammad is supposed chiefly to have disliked in the game of chess was the carved pieces, or men, with which the pagan Arabs played, being little figures of men, elephants, horses, and dromedaries;2 and these are thought, by some commentators, to be truly meant by the images prohibited in one of the passages of the Qurán3 quoted above. That the Arabs in Muhammad’s time actually used such images for chessmen appears from what is related in the Sunnat of Ali, who, passing accidentally by some who were playing at chess, asked, “What images they were which they were so intent upon?”4 for they were perfectly new to him, that game having been but very lately introduced into Arabia, and not long before into Persia, whither it was first brought from India in the reign of Khusrú Anushirwán.5 Hence the Muhammadan doctors infer that the game was disapproved only for the sake of the images: wherefore the Sunnis always play with plain pieces of wood or ivory; but the Persians and Indians, who are not so scrupulous, continue to make use of the carved ones.6*
The Muhammadans comply with the prohibition of gaming much better than they do with that of wine; for though the common people, among the Turks more frequently, and the Persians more rarely, are addicted to play, yet the better sort are seldom guilty of it.7
Gaming, at least to excess, has been forbidden in all well-ordered states. Gaming-houses were reckoned scandalous places among the Greeks, and a gamester is declared by Aristotle8 to be no better than a thief: the Roman senate made very severe laws against playing at games of hazard,9 except only during the Saturnalia; though the people played often at other times, notwithstanding the prohibition: the civil law forbade all pernicious games,1 and though the laity were, in some cases, permitted to play for money, provided they kept within reasonable bounds, yet the clergy were forbidden to play at tables (which is a game of hazard), or even to look on while others played.2 Accursius, indeed is of opinion they may play at chess, notwithstanding that law, because it is a game not subject to chance,3 and being but newly invented in the time of Justinian, was not then known in the Western parts. However, the monks for some time were not allowed even chess.4
As to the Jews, Muhammad’s chief guides, they also highly disapprove gaming: gamesters being severely censured in the Talmud, and their testimony declared invalid.5
Divining by arrows forbidden.
Another practice of the idolatrous Arabs forbidden also in one of the above-mentioned passages,6 was that of divining by arrows. The arrows used by them for this purpose were like those with which they cast lots, being without heads or feathers, and were kept in the temple of some idol, in whose presence they were consulted. Seven such arrows were kept at the temple of Makkah;7 but generally in divination they made use of three only, on one of which was written, “My Lord hath commanded me,” on another, “My Lord hath forbidden me,” and the third was blank. If the first was drawn, they looked on it as an approbation of the enterprise in question; if the second, they made a contrary conclusion; but if the third happened to be drawn, they mixed them and drew over again, till a decisive answer was given by one of the others. These divining arrows were generally consulted before anything of moment was undertaken; as when a man was about to marry or about to go a journey, or the like.1 This superstitious practice of divining by arrows was used by the ancient Greeks,2 and other nations; and is particularly mentioned in Scripture,3 where it is said that “the king of Babylon stood at the parring of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright” (or, according to the version of the Vulgate, which seems preferable in this place, “he mixed together or shook the arrows”), “he consulted with images,” &c.; the commentary of St. Jerome on which passage wonderfully agrees with what we are told of the aforesaid custom of the old Arabs: “He shall stand” says he, “in the highway, and consult the oracle after the manner of his nation, that he may cast arrows into a quiver, and mix them together, being written upon or marked with the names of each people, that he may see whose arrow will come forth, and which city he ought first to attack.”4
Laws concerning meats.
A distinction of meats was so generally used by the Eastern nations, that it is no wonder that Muhammad made some regulations in that matter. The Qurán, therefore prohibits the eating of blood, and swine’s flesh and whatever dies of itself, or is slain in the name or in honour of any idol, or is strangled or killed by a blow, or a fall, or by any other beast.5 In which particulars Muhammad seems chiefly to have imitated the Jews, by whose law, as is well known, all those things are forbidden; but he allowed some things to be eaten which Moses did not,6 as camels’ flesh7 in particular. In cases of necessity, however, where a man may be in danger of starving, he is allowed by the Muhammadan law to eat any of the said prohibited kinds of food;1 and the Jowish doctors grant the same liberty in the same case.2 Though the aversion to blood and what dies of itself may seem natural, yet some of the pagan Arabs used to eat both: of their eating of the latter some instances will be given hereafter; and as to the former, it is said they used to pour blood, which they sometimes drew from a live camel, into a gut, and then broiled it in the fire, or boiled it, and ate it:3 this food they called Muswadd, from Aswad, which signifies black; the same nearly resembling our black puddings in name as well as composition.4 The eating of meat offered to idols I take to be commonly practised by all idolaters, being looked on as a sort of communion in their worship, and for that reason esteemed by Christians, if not absolutely unlawful, yet as what may be the occasion of great scandal;5 but the Arabs were particularly superstitious in this matter, killing what they ate on stones erected on purpose around the Kaabah, or near their own houses, and calling, at the same time, on the name of some idol.6 Swine’s flesh, indeed, the old Arabs seem not to have eaten; and their prophet, in prohibiting the same, appears to have only confirmed the common aversion of the nation. Foreign writers tell us that the Arabs wholly abstained from swine’s flesh,7 thinking it unlawful to feed thereon,8 and that very few, if any, of those animals are found in their country, because it produces not proper food for them;9 which has made one writer imagine that if a hog were carried thither, it would immediately die.10
Of usury and certain superstitions customs
In the prohibition of usury1 I presume Muhammad also followed the Jews, who are strictly forbidden by their law to exercise it among one another, though they are so infamously guilty of it in their dealing with those of a different religion; but I do not find the prophet of the Arabs has made any distinction in this matter.
Several superstitious customs relating to cattle, which seem to have been peculiar to the pagan Arabs, were also abolished by Muhammad. The Qurán2 mentions four names by them given to certain camels or sheep, which for some particular reasons were left at free liberty, and were not made use of as other cattle of the same kind. These names are Bahira, Sáiba, Wasíla, and Hámi: of each whereof in their order.
The customs relating to the Bahira, Sáiba, Wasíla and Hámí explained.
As to the first, it is said that when a she-camel or a sheep had borne young ten times, they used to slit her ear, and turn her loose to feed at full liberty; and when she died, her flesh was eaten by the men only, the women being forbidden to eat thereof: and such a camel or sheep, from the slitting of her ear, they called Bahíra. Or the Bahíra was a she-camel, which was turned loose to feed, and whose fifth young one, if it proved a male, was killed and eaten by men and women promiscuously; but if it proved a female, had its ear slit, and was dismissed to free pasture, none being permitted to make use of its flesh or milk, or to ride on it; though the women were allowed to eat the flesh of it when it died: or it was the female young of the Sáiba, which was used in the same manner as its dam; or else an ewe, which had yeaned five times.3 These, however, are not all the opinions concerning the Bahíra; for some suppose that name was given to a she-camel, which, after having brought forth young five times, if the last was a male, had her ear slit, as a mark thereof, and was let go loose to feed, none driving her from pasture or water, nor using her for carriage;1 and other tell us that when a camel had newly brought forth, they used to slit the ear of her young one, saying, “O God, if it live, it shall be for cur use, but if it die, it shall be deemed rightly slain;” and when it died they ate it.2
Sáiba signifies á she-camel turned loose to go where she will. And this was done on various accounts: as when she had brought forth females ten times together; or in satisfaction of a vow, or when a man had recovered from sickness, or returned safe from a journey, or his camel had escaped some signal danger either in battle or otherwise. A camel so turned loose was declared to be Sáiba, and, as a mark of it, one of the vertebræ or bones was taken out of her back, after which none might drive her from pasture or water, or ride on her.3 Some say that the Sáiba, when she had ten times together brought forth females, was sunered to go at liberty, none being allowed to ride on her, and that her milk was not to be drank by any but her young one, or a guest, till she died; and then her flesh was eaten by men as well as women, and her last female young one had her ear slit, and was called Bahíra, and turned loose as her dam had been.4
This appellation, however, was not so strictly proper to female camels, but that it was given to the male when his young one had begotten another young one:5 nay, a servant set at liberty and dismissed by his master was also called Sáiba;6 and some are of opinion that the word denotes an animal which the Arabs used to turn loose in honour of their idols, allowing none to make use of them thereafter, except women only.7
Wasíla is, by one author,8 explained to signify a she-camel which had brought forth ten times, or an ewe which had yeaned seven times, and every time twins; and if the seventh time she brought forth a male and a female, they said, “Wusilat akháha,” i.e., “She is joined,” or, “was brought forth with her brother,” after which none might drink the dam’s milk, except men only; and she was used as the Sáiha Or Wasíla was particularly meant of sheep; as when an ewe brought forth a female, they took it to themselves, but when she brought forth a male, they consecrated it to their gods, but if both a male and a female, they said, “She is joined to her brother” and did not sacrifice that male to their gods: or Wasíla was an ewe which brought forth first a male and then a female, on which account, or because she followed her brother, the male was not killed; but if she brought forth a male only, they said, “Let this be an offering to our gods.”1 Another2 writes, that if an ewe brought forth twins seven times together, and the eighth time a male, they sacrificed that male to their gods; but if the eighth time she brought both a male and a female, they used to say, “She is joined to her brother,” and for the female’s sake they spared the male, and permitted not the dam’s milk to be drunk by women. A third writer tells us, that Wasíla was an ewe, which having yeaned seven times, if that which she brought forth the seventh time was a male they sacrificed it, but if a female, it was suffered to go loose, and was made use of by women only; and if the seventh time she brought forth both a male and a female, they held them both to be sacred, so that men only were allowed to make any use of them, or to drink the milk of the female: and a fourth3 describes it to be an ewe which brought forth ten females at five births one after another, i.e., every time twins, and whatever she brought forth afterwards was allowed to men, and not to women &c.
Hámi was a male camel used for a stallion, which, if the females had conceived ten times by him, was afterwards freed from labour, and let go loose, none driving him from pasture or from water; nor was any allowed to receive he least benefit from him, not even to shear his hair.1
These things were observed by the old Arabs in honour of their false gods,2 and as part of the worship which they paid them, and were ascribed to the divine institution; but are all condemned in the Qurán, and declared to be impious superstitions.3
Muhammad prohibits infanticide.
The law of Muhammad also put a stop to the inhuman custom, which had been long practised by the pagan Arabs, of burying their daughters alive, lest they should be reduced to poverty by providing for them, or else to avoid the displeasure and disgrace which would follow, if they should happen to be made captives, or to become scandalous by their behaviour;4 the birth of a daughter being, for these reasons, reckoned a great misfortune,5 and the death of one as a great happiness.6 The manner of their doing this is differently related: some say that when an Arab had a daughter born, if he intended to bring her up, he sent her, clothed in a garment of wool or hair, to keep camels or sheep in the desert; but if he designed to put her to death, he let her live till she became six years old, and then said to her mother, “Perfume her, and adorn her, that I may carry her to her mothers;” which being done the father led her to a well or pit dug for that purpose, and having bid her to look down into it, pushed her in headlong, as he stood behind her, and then filling up the pit, levelled it with the rest of the ground; but others say, that when a woman was ready to fall in labour, they dug a pit, on the brink whereof she was to be delivered, and if the child happened to be a daughter, they threw it into the pit, but if a son, they saved it alive.7 This custom, though not observed by all the Arabs in general, was yet very common among several of their tribes, and particularly those of Quraish and Kinda; the former using to bury their daughters alive in Mount Abu Dalama, near Makkah.1 In the time of ignorance while they used this method to get rid of their daughters, Sásaá, grandfather to the celebrated poet al Farazdak, frequently redeemed female children from death, giving for every one two she-camels big with young, and a he-camel; and hereto al Farazdak alluded when, vaunting himself before one of the Khalífahs of the family of Omayyah, he said, “I am the son of the giver of life to the dead;” for which expression being censured, he excused himself by aileging the following words of the Qurán,2 “He who saveth a soul alive, shall be as if he had saved the lives of all mankind.”3 The Arabs, in thus murdering of their children, were far from being singular; the practice of exposing infants and putting them to death being so common among the ancients, that it is remarked as a thing very extraordinary in the Egyptians, that they brought up all their children;4 and by the laws of Lycurgus5 no child was allowed to be brought up without the approbation of public officers. At this day, it is said, in China, the poorer sort of people frequently put their children, the females especially, to death with impunity.6*
This wicked practice is condemned by the Qurán in several passages;1 one of which, as some commentators2 judge, may also condemn another custom of the Arabians, altogether as wicked, and as common among other nations of old, viz., the sacrificing of their children to their idols; as was frequently done, in particular, in satisfaction of a vow they used to make, that if they had a certain number of sons born, they would offer one of them in sacrifice.
Several other superstitious customs were likewise abrogated by Muhammad, but the same being of less moment, and not particularly mentioned in the Quran, or having been occasionally taken notice of elsewhere I shall say nothing of them in this place
OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE QURÁN IN CIVIL AFFAIRS
The Muhammadan civil law is founded on the precepts and determinations of the Qurán, as the civil laws of the Jews were on those of the Pentateuch; yet being variously interpreted, according to the different decisions of their civilians, and especially of their four great doctors, Abu Hanífa, Málik, al Shafai, and Ibn Hanbal,1 to treat thereof fully and distinctly in the manner the curiosity and usefulness of the subject deserves, would require a large volume; wherefore the most that can be expected here is a summary view of the principal institutions, without minutely entering into a detail of particulars. We shall begin with those relating to marriage and divorce.
Laws regulating polygamy.
That polygamy, for the moral lawfulness of which the Muhammadan doctors advance several arguments,2 is allowed by the Qurán, every one knows, though few are acquainted with the limitations with which it is allowed. Several learned men have fallen into the vulgar mistake that Muhammad granted to his followers an unbounded plurality; some pretending that a man may have as many wives,3 and others as many concubines,4 as he can maintain; whereas, according to the express words of the Qurán,1 no man can have more than four, whether wives or concubines;2* and if a man apprehend any inconvenience from even that number of ingenuous wives, it is added, as an advice (which is generally followed by the middling and inferior people),3 that he marry one only, or, if he cannot be contented with one, that he take up with his she-slaves, not exceeding, however, the limited number;4 and this is certainly the utmost Muhammad allowed his followers: nor can we urge, as an argument against so plain a precept, the corrupt manners of his followers, many of whom, especially men of quality and fortune, indulge themselves in criminal excesses;5 nor yet the example of the prophet himself,† who had peculiar privileges in this and other points, as will be observed hereafter. In making the above-mentioned limitation, Muhammad was directed by the decision of the Jewish doctors, who, by way of counsel, limit the number of wives to four,1 though their law confines them not to any certain number.2
Law concerning divorce.
Divorce is also well known to be allowed by the Muhammadan law, as it was by the Mosaic, with this difference only, that, according to the latter, a man could not take again a woman whom he had divorced, and who had been married or betrothed to another;3 whereas Muhammad, to prevent his followers from divorcing their wives on every light occasion, or out of an inconstant humour, ordained that if a man divorced his wife the third time (for he might divorce her twice without being obliged to part with her, if he repented of what he had done), it should not be lawful for him to take her again until she had been first married and bedded by another, and divorced by such second husband.4 And this precaution has had so good an effect that the Muhammadans are seldom known to proceed to the extremity of divorce, notwithstanding the liberty given them, it being reckoned a great disgrace so to do; and there are but few, besides those who have little or no sense of honour, that will take a wife again on the condition enjoined.5* It must be observed that, though a man is allowed by the Muhammadan, as by the Jewish law,1 to repudiate his wife even on the slightest disgust, yet the women are not allowed to separate themselves from their husbands, unless it be for ill-usage, want of proper maintenance, neglect of conjugal duty, impotency, or some cause of equal import; but then she generally loses her dowry,2 which she does not if divorced by her husband, unless she has been guilty of impudicity or notorious disobedience.3
When a woman is divorced, she is obliged, by the direction of the Qurán, to wait till she hath had her courses thrice, or, if there be a doubt whether she be subject to them or not, by reason of her age, three months, before she marry another; after which time expired, in case she be found not with child, she is at full liberty to dispose of herself as she pleases; but if she prove with child, she must wait till she be delivered; and during her whole term of waiting she may continue in the husband’s house, and is to be maintained at his expense, it being forbidden to turn the woman out before the expiration of the term, unless she be guilty of dishonesty.4 Where a man divorces a woman before consummation, she is not obliged to wait any particular time,5 nor is he obliged to give her more than one-half of her dower.6 If the divorced woman have a young child, she is to suckle it till it be two years old; the father, in the meantime, maintaining her in all respects: a widow is also obliged to do the same, and to wait four months and ten days before she marry again.7
These rules are also copied from those of the Jews, according to whom a divorced woman or a widow cannot marry another man till ninety days be past, after the divorce or death of the husband;1 and she who gives suck is to be maintained for two years, to be computed from the birth of the child, within which time she must not marry, unless the child die, or her milk be dried up.2
Laws concerning adultery and fornication.
Whoredom, in single women as well as married, was, in the beginning of Muhammadism, very severely punished, such being ordered to be shut up in prison till they died; but afterwards it was ordained by the Sunnat that an adulteress should be stoned3 and an unmarried woman guilty of fornication scourged with a hundred stripes and banished for a year.4 A she-slave, if convicted of adultery, is to suffer but half the punishment of a free woman,5 viz., fifty stripes and banishment for six months, but is not to be put to death. To convict a woman of adultery, so as to make it capital, four witnesses are expressly required,6 and those, as the commentators say, ought to be men; and if a man falsely acense a woman of reputation of whoredom of any kind, and is not able to support the charge by that number of witnesses, he is to receive fourscore stripes, and his testimony is to be held invalid for the future.7 Fornication, in either sex, is by the sentence of the Qurán to be punished with a hundred stripes.8
If a man accuse his wife of infidelity, and is not able to prove it by sufficient evidence, and will swear four times that it is true, and the fifth time imprecate God’s vengeance on him if it be false, she is to be looked on as convicted, unless she will take the like oaths and make the like imprecation in testimony of her innocency; which if she do, she is free from punishment, though the marriage ought to be dissolved.1
What the law of the Quran owes to Judaism
In most of the last-mentioned particulars the decisions of the Qurán also agree with those of the Jews. By the law of Moses, adultery, whether in a married woman or a virgin betrothed, was punished with death; and the man who debauched them was to suffer the same punishment.2 The penalty of simple fornication was scourging, the general punishment in cases where none is particularly appointed; and a betrothed bondmaid, if convicted of adultery, underwent the same punishment, being exempted from death because she was not free.3 By the same law no person was to be put to death on the oath of one witness;4 and a man who slandered his wife was also to be chastised, that is, scourged, and fined one hundred shekels of silver.5 The method of trying a woman suspected of adultery where evidence was wanting, by forcing her to drink the bitter water of jealousy,6 though disused by the Jews long before the time of Muhammad,7 yet, by reason of the oath of cursing with which the woman was charged, and to which she was obliged to say “Amen,” bears great resemblance to the expedient devised by the prophet on the like occasion.
The institutions of Muhammad relating to the pollution of women during their courses,1 the taking of slaves to wife,2 and the prohibiting of marriage within certain degrees,3 have likewise no small affinity with the institutions of Moses;4 and the parallel might be carried farther in several other particulars.
As to the prohibited degrees, it may be observed that the pagan Arabs abstained from marrying their mothers,* daughters, and aunts, both on the father’s side and on the mother’s, and held it a most scandalous thing to marry two sisters, or for a man to take his father’s wife;5 which last was, notwithstanding, too frequently practised,6 and is expressly forbidden in the Qurán.7
Peculiar privileges of Muhammad as to marriage.
Before I leave the subject of marriages, it may be proper to take notice of some peculiar privileges in relation thereto which were granted by God to Muhammad, as he gave out, exclusive of all other Muslims. One of them was that he might lawfully marry as many wives and have as many concubines as he pleased, without being confined to any particular number;8 and this he pretended to have been the privilege of the prophets before him. Another was that he might alter the turns of his wives, and take such of them to his bed as he thought fit, without being tied to that order and equality which others are obliged to observe.9 A third privilege was that no man might marry any of his wives,10 either such as he should divorce during his lifetime, or such as he should leave widows at his death; which last particular exactly agrees with what the Jewish doctors have determined concerning the wives of their princes; it being judged by them to be a thing very indecent, and for that reason unlawful, for another to marry either the divorced wife or the widow of a king:1 and Muhammad, it seems, thought an equal respect, at least, due to the prophetic as to the regal dignity, and therefore ordered that his relicts should pass the remainder of their lives in perpetual widowhood.
Laws concerning inheritance.
The laws of the Qurán concerning inheritances are also in several respects conformable to those of the Jews, though principally designed to abolish certain practices of the pagan Arabs, who used to treat widows and orphan children with great injustice, frequently denying them any share in the inheritance of their fathers or their husbands, on pretence that the same ought to be distributed among those only who were able to bear arms, and disposing of the widows, even against then consent, as part of their husband’s possessions.2 To prevent such injuries for the future, Muhammad ordered that women should be respected, and orphans have no wrong done them; and in particular that women should not be taken against their wills, as by right of inheritance, but should themselves be entitled to a distributive part of what their parents, husbands, and near relations should leave behind them, in a certain proportion.3
The general rule to be observed in the distribution of the deceased’s estate is, that a male shall have twice as much as the female;4 but to this rule there are some few exceptions; a man’s parents, for example, and also his brothers and sisters, where they are entitled not to the whole but a small part of the inheritance, being to have equal shares with one another in the distribution thereof, without making any difference on account of sex.1 The particular proportions, in several cases, distinctly and sufficiently declare the intention of Muhammad, whose decisions, expressed in the Qurán,2 seem to be pretty equitable preferring a man’s children first, and then his nearest relations.
Law concerning wills.
If a man dispose of any part of his estate by will, two witnesses, at the least, are required to render the same valid; and such witnesses ought to be of his own tribe, and of the Muhammadan religion, if such can be had.3 Though there be no express law to the contrary, yet the Muhammadan doctors reckon it very wrong for a man to give away any part of his substance from his family, unless it be in legacies for pious uses; and even in that case a man ought not to give all he has in charity, but only a reasonable part in proportion to his substance. On the other hand, though a man make no will, and bequeath nothing for charitable uses, yet the heirs are directed, on the distribution of the estate, if the value will permit, to bestow something on the poor, especially such as are of kin to the deceased and to the orphans.4
The first law, however, laid down by Muhammad touching inheritances was not very equitable; for he declared that those who had fled with him from Makkah, and those who had received and assisted him at Madína, should be deemed the nearest of kin, and consequently heirs to one another, preferably to and in exclusion of their relations by blood; nay, though a man were a true believer, yet if he had not fled his country for the sake of religion and joined the prophet, he was to be looked on as a stranger,5 but this law continued not long in force, being quickly abrogated.6
Children of concubines legitimate.
It must be observed that among the Muhammadans the children of their concubines or slaves are esteemed as equally legitimate with those of their legal and ingenuous wives, none being accounted bastards except such only as are born of common women and whose fathers are unknown.
Law concerning private contracts.
As to private contracts between man and man, the conscientious performance of them is frequently recommended in the Qurán.1 For the preventing of disputes, all contracts are directed to be made before witnesses,2 and in case such contracts are not immediately executed, the same ought to be reduced into writing in the presence of two witnesses3 at least, who ought to be Muslims and of the male sex; but if two men cannot be conveniently had, then one man and two women may suffice. The same method is also directed to be taken for the security of debts to be paid at a future day; and where a writer is not to be found, pledges are to be taken.4 Hence, if people trust one another without writing witnesses, or pledge, the party on whom the demand is made is always acquitted if he denies the charge on oath, and swears that he owes the plaintiff nothing, unless the contrary be proved by very convincing circumstances.5
Murder and its penalty
Wilful murder, though forbidden by the Qurán under the severest penalties to be inflicted in the next life,6 is yet, by the same book, allowed to be compounded for, on payment of a fine to the family of the deceased, and freeing a Muslim from captivity; but it is in the election of the next of kin, or the revenger of blood, as he is called in the Pentateuch, either to accept of such satisfaction or to refuse it; for he may, if he pleases, insist on having the murderer delivered into his hands, or be put to death in such manner as he shall think fit.7 In this particular Muhammad has gone against the express letter of the Mosaic law, which declares that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer;1 and he seems, in so doing, to have had respect to the customs of the Arabs in his time, who, being of a vindictive temper, used to revenge murder in too unmerciful a manner,2 whole tribes frequently engaging in bloody wars on such occasions, the natural consequence of their independency, and having no common judge or superior.
Manslaughter and its penalty.
If the Muhammadan laws seem light in case of murder, they may perhaps be deemed too rigorous in case of manslaughter, or the killing of a man undesignedly, which must be redeemed by fine (unless the next of kin shall think fit to remit it out of charity), and the freeing of a captive; but if a man be not able to do this, he is to fast two months together by way of penance.3 The fine for a man’s blood is set in the Sunnat at a hundred camels,4 and is to be distributed among the relations of the deceased according to the laws of inheritance; but it must be observed that though the person slain be a Muslim, yet if he be of a nation or party at enmity, or not in confederacy with those to whom the slayer belongs, he is not then bound to pay any fine at all, the redeeming a captive being, in such case, declared a sufficient penalty.5 I imagine that Muhammad, by these regulations, laid so heavy a punishment on involuntary manslaughter, not only to make people beware incurring the same, but also to humour, in some degree, the revengeful temper of his countrymen, which might be with difficulty, if at all, prevailed on to accept a lighter satisfaction. Among the Jews, who seem to have been no less addicted to revenge than their neighbours, the manslayer who had escaped to a city of refuge was obliged to keep himself within that city and to abide there till the death of the person who was high priest at the time the fact was committed, that his absence and time might cool the passion and mitigate the resentment of the friends of the deceased; but if he quitted his asylum before that time, the revenger of blood, if he found him, might kill him without guilt;1 nor could any satisfaction be made for the slayer to return home before the prescribed time2
Penalty for theft.
Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the hand,3 which, at first sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian, forbidding a thief to be maimed,4 is more reasonable; because stealing being generally the effect of indigence, to cut off that limb would be to deprive him of the means of getting his livelihood in an honest manner.5 The Sunnat forbids the inflicting of this punishment, unless the thing stolen be of a certain value. I have mentioned in another place the further penalties which those incur who continue to steal, and of those who rob or assault people on the road.6
Law of retaliation.
As to injuries done to men in their persons, the law of retaliation, which was ordained by the law of Moses,7 is also approved by the Qurán;8 but this law, which seems to have been allowed by Muhammad to his Arabians for the same reasons as it was to the Jews, viz., to prevent particular revenges, to which both nations were extremely addicted,9 being neither strictly just nor practicable in many cases, is seldom put in execution, the punishment being generally turned into a mulct or fine, which is paid to the party injured.10 Or rather, Muhammad designed the words of the Qurán relating thereto should be understood in the same manner as those of the Pentateuch most probably ought to be—that is, not of an actual retaliation, according to the strict literal meaning, but of a retribution proportionable to the injury; for a criminal had not his eyes put out nor was a man mutilated according to the law of Moses, which, besides, condemned those who had wounded any person, where death did not ensue, to pay a fine only,1 the expression “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” being only a proverbial manner of speaking, the sense whereof amounts to this, that every one shall be punished by the judges according to the heinousness of the fact.2
Penalty for petty crimes.
In injuries and crimes of an inferior nature, where no particular punishment, is provided by the Qurán, and where a pecuniary compensation will not do, the Muhammadans, according to the practice of the Jews in the like case3 have recourse to stripes or drubbing, the most common chastisement used in the East at this day, as well as fermerly; the cudgel, which, for its virtue and efficacy in keeping, their people in good order and within the bounds of duty, they say came down from heaven, being the instrument wherewith the judge’s sentence is generally executed.4
Distinction between civil and ecclesiastical law.
Notwithstanding the Qurán is by the Muhammadans in general regarded as the fundamental part of their civil law, and the decisions of the Sunnat among the Turks and of the Imáms among those of the Persian sect. with the explications of their several doctors, are usually followed in judicial determinations, yet the secular tribunals do not think themselves bound to observe the same in all cases, but frequently give judgment against those decisions, which are not always consonant to equity and reason; and therefore distinction is to be made between the written civil law, as administered in the ecclesiastical courts, and the law of nature or common law (if I may so call it) which takes place in the secular courts, and has the executive power on its side.1
The command to war against infidels.
Jewish doctrine concerning war in defence of religion.
Opinions of Christian Crusaders on the same subject.
Under the head of civil laws may be comprehended the injunction of warring against infidels, which is repeated in several passages of the Qurán,2 and declared to be of high merit in the sight of God, those who are slain fighting in defence of the faith being reckoned martyrs, and promised immediate admission into paradise.3 Hence this duty is greatly magnified by the Muhammadan divines, who call the sword the key of heaven and hell, and persuade their people that the least drop of blood spilt in the way of God, as it is called, is most acceptable unto him, and that the defending the territories of the Muslims for one night is more meritorious than a fast of two months;4 on the other hand, desertion, or refusing to serve in these holy wars, or to contribute towards the carrying them on, if a man has ability, is accounted a most heinous crime, being frequently declaimed against in the Qurán.5 Such a doctrine, which Muhammad ventured not to teach till his circumstances enabled him to put it in practice,6 it must be allowed, was well calculated for his purpose, and stood him and his successors in great stead: for what dangers and difficulties may not be despised and overcome by the courage and constancy which these sentiments necessarily inspire? Nor have the Jews and Christians, how much soever they detest such principles in others, been ignorant of the force of enthusiastic heroism, or omitted to spirit up their respective partisans by the like arguments and promises. “Let him who has listed himself in defence of the law,” says Maimonides,7 “rely on him who is the hope of Israel, and the saviour thereof in the time of trouble;1 and let him know that he fights for the profession of the divine unity: wherefore let him put his life in his hand,2 and think neither of wife nor children, but banish the memory of them from his heart, having his mind wholly fixed on the war. For if he should begin to waver in his thoughts, he would not only confound himself, but sin against the law; nay, the blood of the whole people hangeth on his neck; for if they are discomfited, and he has not fought stoutly with all his might, it is equally the same as if he had shed the blood of them all; according to that saying, Let him return, lest his brethren’s heart fail as his own.”3 To the same purpose doth the Kabala accommodate that other passage, “Cursed be he who doth the work of the Lord negligently, and cursed be he who keepeth back his sword from blood.4 On the contrary, he who behaveth bravely in battle, to the utmost of his endeavour, without trembling, with intent to glorify God’s name, he ought to expect the victory with confidence, and to apprehend no danger or misfortune, but may be assured that he will have a house built him in Israel, appropriated to him and his children for ever; as it is said, God shall certainly make my lord a sure house, because he hath fought the battles of the Lord, and his life shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the Lord his God.”5 More passages of this kind might be produced from the Jewish writers, and the Christians come not far behind them. “We are desirous of knowing, says one,6 writing to the Franks engaged in the holy war, “the charity of you all; for that every one (which we speak not because we wish it) who shall faithfully lose his life in this warfare shall be by no means denied the kingdom of heaven.” And another gives the following exhortation: “Laying aside all fear and dread, endeavour to act effectually against the enemies of the holy faith and the adversaries of all religions; for the Almighty knoweth if any of you die, that he dieth for the truth of the faith, and the salvation of his country, and the defence of Christians; and therefore he shall obtain of him a celestial reward.”1 The Jews, indeed, had a divine commission, extensive and explicit enough, to attack, subdue, and destroy the enemies of their religion; and Muhammad pretended to have received one in favour of himself and his Muslims in terms equally plain and full;* and therefore it is no wonder that they should act consistently with their avowed principles; but that Christians should teach and practice a doctrine so opposite to the temper and whole tenor of the Gospel seems very strange; and yet the latter have carried matters further, and shown a more violent spirit of intolerance than either of the former.
Laws of war among Muslims.
The laws of war, according to the Muhammadans, have been already so exactly set down by the learned Reland,2 that I need say very little of them. I shall, therefore, only observe some conformity between their military laws and those of the Jews.
While Muhammadism was in its infancy the opposers thereof taken in battle were doomed to death without mercy; but this was judged too severe to be put in practice when that religion came to be sufficiently established, and past the danger of being subverted by its enemies.1 The same sentence was pronounced not only against the seven Canaanitish nations,2 whose possessions were given to the Israelites, and without whose destruction, in a manner, they could not have settled themselves in the country designed them, but against the Amalekites3 and Midianites,4 who had done their utmost to cut them off in their passage thither. When the Muhammadans declare war against a people of a different faith, they give them their choice of three offers, viz., either to embrace Muhammadism, in which case they become not only secure in their persons, families, and fortunes, but entitled to all the privileges of other Muslims; or to submit and pay tribute,5 by doing which they are allowed to profess their own religion, provided it be not gross idolatry or against the moral law; or else to decide the quarrel by the sword, in which last case, if the Muslims prevail, the women and children which are made captives become absolute slaves, and the men taken in battle may either be slain, unless they turn Muhammadans, or otherwise disposed of at the pleasure of the prince.6 Herewith agree the laws of war given to the Jews which relate to the nations not devoted to destruction;7* and Joshua is said to have sent even to the inhabitants of Canaan, before he entered the land, three schedules, in one of which was written, “Let him fly who will;” in the second, “Let him surrender who will;” and in the third, “Let him fight who will;”1 though none of those nations made peace with the Israelites (except only the Gibeonites, who obtained terms of security by stratagem, after they had refused those offered by Joshua), “it being of the Lord to harden their hearts, that he might destroy them utterly.”2
Law regulating the division of spoils.
On the first considerable success of Muhammad in war, the dispute which happened among his followers in relation to the dividing of the spoil rendered it necessary for him to make some regulation therein; he therefore pretended to have received the divine commission to distribute the spoil among his soldiers at his own discretion,3 reserving thereout, in the first place, one-fifth part4 for the uses after mentioned; and, in consequence hereof, he took himself to be authorised, on extraordinary occasions, to distribute it as he thought fit, without observing an equality. Thus he did, for example, with the spoil of the tribe Hawázín taken at the battle of Hunain, which he bestowed by way of presents on those of Makkah only, passing by those of Madína, and highly distinguishing the principal Quraish, that he might ingratiate himself with them after he had become master of their city1 He was also allowed in the expedition against those of al Nadhir to take the whole booty to himself, and to dispose thereof as he pleased, because no horses or camels were made use of in that expedition,2 but the whole army went on foot; and this became thence-forward a law;3 the reason of which seems to be, that the spoil taken by a party consisting of infantry only should be considered as the more immediate gift of God,4 and therefore properly left to the disposition of his apostle According to the Jews, the spoil ought to be divided into two equal parts, one to be shared among the captors, and the other to be taken by the prince,5 and by him employed for his own support and the use of the public. Moses, it is true, divided one-half of the plunder of the Midianites among those who went to battle, and the other half among all the congregation;6 but this, they say, being a peculiar case, and done by the express order of God himself, must not be looked on as a precedent.7 It should seem, however, from the word of Joshua to the two tribes and a half, when he sent them home into Gilead after the conquest and division of the land of Canaan, that they were to divide the spoil of their enemies with their brethren after their return;8 and the half which was in succeeding times taken by the king was in all probability taken by him as head of the community, and representing the whole body. It is remarkable that the dispute among Muhammad’’s men about sharing the booty at Badr9 arose on the same occasion as did that among David’s soldiers in relation to the spoils recovered from the Amalekites,1 those who had been in the action insisting that they who tarried by the stuff should have no part of the spoil; and that the same decision was given in both cases, which became a law for the future, to wit, that they should part alike.
God’s fifth of the spoils—how to be used.
The fifth part directed by the Quran to be taken out of the spoil before it be divided among the captors is declared to belong to God, and to the apostle and his kindred, and the orphans, and the poor, and the traveller:2 which words are variously understood. Al Sháfíi was of opinion that the whole ought to be divided into five parts; the first, which be called God’s part, to go to the treasury, and be employed in building and repairing fortresses, bridges, and other public works, and in paying salaries to magistrates, civil officers, professors of learning, ministers of public worship, &c.; the second part to be distributed among the kindred of Muhammad, that is, the descendants of his grandfather Hásham, and of his great-uncle al Mutallib,3 as well the rich as the poor, the children as the adult, the women as the men, observing only to give a female but half the share of a male; the third part to go to the orphans; the fourth part to the poor, who have not wherewithal to maintain themselves the year round, and are not able to get their livelihood; and the fifth part to travellers who are in want on the road, notwithstanding they may be rich men in their own country.4 According to Málik Ibn Ans, the whole is at the disposition of the Imám or prince, who may distribute the same at his own discretion, where he sees most need.5 Abu’l Aliya went according to the letter of the Quran, and declared his opinion to be that the whole should be divided into six parts, and that God’s part should be applied to the service of the Kaabah; while others supposed God’s part and the apostle’s to be one and the same.1 Abu Hanífa thought that the share of Muhammad and his kindred sank at that prophet’s death, since which the whole ought to be divided among the orphans, the poor, and the traveller.2 Some insist that the kindred of Muhammad entitled to a share of the spoils are the posterity of Hásham only; but those who think the descendants of his brother al Mutallib have also a right to a distributive part, allege a tradition in their favour purporting that Muhammad himself divided the share belonging to his relations among both families; and when Othmán Ibn Assán and Jubair Ibn Matam (who were descended from Abd-as-shams and Naufal, the other brothers of Hásham) told him that though they disputed not the preference of the Háshamites, they could not help taking it ill to see such difference made between the family of al Mutallib and themselves, who were related to him in an equal degree, and yet had no part in the distribution, the prophet replied that the descendants of al Mutallib had forsaken him neither in the time of ignorance nor since the revelation of Islám, and joined his fingers together in token of the strict union between them and the Hashamites.3 Some exclude none of the tribe of Quraish from receiving a part in the division of the spoil, and make no distinction between the poor and the rich; though, according to the more reasonable opinion, such of them as are poor only are intended by the text of the Quran, as is agreed in the case of the stranger; and others go so far as to assert that the whole fifth commanded to be reserved belongs to them only, and that the orphans and the poor, and the traveller, are to be understood of such as are of that tribe.4 It must be observed that immovable possessions, as lands, &c., taken in war, are suoject to the same laws as the movable, excepting only that the fifth part of the former is not actually divided, but the income and profits thereof, or of the price thereof, if sold, are applied to public and pious uses, and distributed once a year, and that the prince may either take the fifth part of the land itself, or the fifth part of the income and produce of the whole, as he shall make his election.
OF THE MONTHS COMMANDED BY THE QURÁN TO BE KEPT SACRED, AND OF THE SETTING APART OF FRIDAY FOR THE ESPECIAL SERVICE OF GOD.
The four sacred months.
It was a custom among the ancient Arabs to observe four months in the year as sacred, during which they held it unlawful to wage war, and took off the heads from their spears, ceasing from incursions and other hostilities. During these months whoever was in fear of his enemy lived in full security, so that if a man met the murderer of his father or his brother, he durst not offer him any violence.1 “A great argument,” says a learned writer, “of a humane disposition in that nation, who being, by reason of the independent governments of their several tribes, and for the preservation of their just rights, exposed to frequent quarrels with one another, had yet learned to cool their inflamed breasts with moderation, and restrain the rage of war by stated times of truce.”2
This institution obtained among all the Arabian tribes, except only those of Tay and Khuzáah, and some of the descendants of al Hárith Ibn Kaab (who distinguished no time or place as sacred),3 and was so religiously observed, that there are but few instances in history (four, say some, six, say others4 ) of its having been transgressed; the war which were carried on without regard thereto being therefore termed impious One of those instances was in the war between the tribes of Quraisl and Qais Ailán, wherein Muhammad himself served under his uncles, being then fourteen1 or, as others say, twenty2 years old.
The months which the Arabs held sacred were al Muharram, Rajab Dhu’l Qáada, and Dhu’l Hajja; the first, the seventh the eleventh, and the twelfth in the year.3 Dhu’l Hajja being the month wherein they performed the pilgrimage to Makkah, not only that month, but also the preceding and the following, were for that reason kept inviolable, that every one might safely and without interruption pass and repass to and from the festival.4 Rajab is said to have been more strictly observed than any of the other three,5 probably because in that month the pagan Arabs used to fast;6 Ramadhan, which was afterwards set apart by Muhammad for that purpose, being in the time of ignorance dedicated to drinking in excess.7 By reason of the profound peace and security enjoyed in this month, one part of the provisions brought by the caravans of purveyors annually set out by the Quraish for the supply of Makkah,8 was distributed among the people; the other part being, for the like reason, distributed at the pilgrimage.9
Their observance among Muslims
The observance of the aforesaid months seemed so reasonable to Muhammad, that it met with his approbation, and the same is accordingly confirmed and enforced by several passages of the Qurán.1 which forbid war to be waged during those months against such as acknowledge them to be sacred, but grant, at the same time, full permission to attack those who make no such distinction, in the sacred months as well as in the profane.2
Regulations concerning Muharram.
One practice, however, of the pagan Arabs, in relation to these sacred months, Muhammad thought proper to reform; for some of them, weary of sitting quiet for three months together, and eager to make their accustomed incursions for plunder, used, by way of expedient, whenever it suited their inclinations or conveniency, to put off the observing of al Muharram to the following month, Safar,3 thereby avoiding to keep the former, which they supposed it lawful for them to profane, provided they sanctified another month in lieu of it, and gave public not e thereof at the preceding pilgrimage. This transferring the observation of a sacred month to a prolane month is what is truly meant by the Arabic word al Nasi, and is absolutely condemned and declared to be an impious innovation in a passage of the Quran4 which Dr Prideaux,5 misled by Golius,6 imagines to relate to the prolonging of the year by adding an intercalary month thereto. It is true the Arabs, who imitated the Jews in their manner of computing by lunar years, had also learned their method of reducing them to solar years by intercalaring a month sometimes in the third and sometimes in the second year,7 by which ineans they fixed the pilgrimage of Makkah (contrary to the original institution) to a certain sesson of the year, viz., to antumn, as most convenient for the pilgrims, by reason of the temperateness of the weather and the plenty of provisions;8 and it is also true that Muhammad forbade such intercalation by a passage in the same chapter of the Qurán; but then it is not the passage above mentioned, which prohibits a different thing, but one a little before it, wherein the number of months in the year, according to the ordinance of God is declared to be twelve;1 whereas, if the intercalation of á month were allowed, every third or second year would consist of thirteen, contrary to God’s appointment.
Friday instituted as a sacred day
The setting apart of one day in the week for the more peculiar attendance on God’s worship, so strictly required by the Jewish and Christian religions, appeared to Muhammad to be so proper an institution, that he could not but imitate the professors thereof in that particular; though, for the sake of distinction, he might think himself obliged to order his followers to observe a different day from either. Several reasons are given why the sixth day of the week was pitched on for this purpose;2 but Muhammad seems to have preferred that day chiefly because it was the day on which the people used to be assembled long before his time,3 though such assemblies were had, perhaps, rather on a civil than a religious account. However it be, the Muhammadan writers bestow very extraordinary encomiums on this day, calling it the prince of days, and the most excellent day on which the sun rises;4 pretending also that it will be the day whereon the last judgment will be solemnised;5 and they esteem it a peculiar honour to Islám that God has been pleased to appoint this day to be the feast-day of the Muslims; and granted them the advantage of having first observed it.6
Though the Muhammadans do not think themselves bound to keep their day of public worship so holy as the Jews and Christians are certainly obliged to keep theirs, there being a permission, as is generally supposed, in the Quran,1 allowing them to return to their employments or diversion after divine service is over; yet the more devout disapprove the applying of any part of that day to worldly affairs, and require it to be wholly dedicated to the business of the life to come.2
The two principal annual feasts.
Since I have mentioned the Muhammadan weekly feast, I beg leave just to take notice of their two Bairáms,3 or principal annual feasts. The first of them is called in Arabic, Íd ul Fitr, i.e., The feast of breaking the fast, and begins the first of Shawwál, immediately succeeding the fast of Ramadhán; and the other is called Íd ul Qurbán, or Íd ul Adhá, i.e., The feast of the sacrifice, and begins on the tenth of Dhu’l Hajja, when the victims are slain at the pilgrimage of Makkah.4 The former of these feasts is properly the lesser Bairám, and the latter the greater Bairám;5 but the vulgar, and most authors who have written of the Muhammadan affairs,6 exchange the epithets, and call that which follows Ramadhán the greater Bairám, because it is observed in an extraordinary manner, and kept for three days together at Constantinople and in other parts of Turkey, and in Persi, for five or six days, by the common people, at least, with great demonstrations of public joy, to make themselves amends, as it were, for the mortification of the preceding month;7 whereas, the feast of sacrifices, though it be also kept for three days, and the first of them be the most solemn day of the pilgrimage, the principal act of devotion among the Muhammadans is taken much less notice of by the generality of people, who are not struck therewith, because the ceremonies with which the same is observed are performed at Makkah, the only scene of that solemnity.*
OF THE PRINZIPAD SECTS AMONG THE MUHAMMADANS, AND OF THOSE WHO HAVE PRETENDED TO PROPHECY AMONG THE ARABS IN OR SINCE THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD
Before we take a view of the sects of the Muhammadans, it will be necessary to say something of the two sciences by which all disputed questions among them are determined viz., their Scholastic and Practical Divinity
Their scholastic divinity is a mongrel science, consisting of logical metaphysical, theological, and philosophical disquisitions, and built on principles and methods of reasoning very different from what are used by those who pass among the Muhammadans themselves for the sounder divines or more able philosophers,1 and, therefore, in the partition of the sciences this is generally left out, as unworthy a place among them.2 The learned Maimonides3 has laboured to expose the principles and systems of the scholastic divines, as frequently repugnant to the nature of the world and the order of the creation, and intolerably absurd.
Its origin and use
This art of handling religious disputes was not known in the infancy of Muhammadanism, but was brought in when sects sprang up and articles of religion began to be called in question, and was at first made use of to defend the truth of those articles against innovators;4 and while it keeps within those bounds is allowed to be a commendable study, being necessary for the defence of the faith; but when it proceeds farther, out of an itch of disputation, it is judged worthy of censure.
This is the opinion of al Gházali,1 who observes a medium between those who have too high a value for this science, and those who absolutely reject it. Among the latter was al Sháfíi, who declared that, in his judgment, if any man employed his time that way, he deserved to be fixed to a stake and carried about through all the Arab tribes, with the following proclamation to be made before him: “This is the reward of him who, leaving the Qurán and the Sunnat, applied himself to the study of scholastic divinity.”2 Al Ghazáli, on the other hand, thinks that as it was introduced by the invasion of heresies, it is necessary to be retained in order to quell them; but then in the person who studies this science he requires three things—diligence, acuteness of judgment, and probity of manners; and is by no means for suffering the same to be publicly explained.3 This science, therefore, among the Muhammadans, is the art of controversy, by which they discuss points of faith concerning the essence and attributes of God, and the conditions of all possible things, either in respect to their creation or final restoration, according to the rules of the religion of Islám.4
The other science is practical divinity or jurisprudence, and is the knowledge of the decisions of the law which regard practice, gathered from distinct proofs.
Al Ghazáli declares that he had much the same opinion of this science as of the former, its original being owing to the corruption of religion and morality; and therefore judged both sciences to be necessary, not in themselves, but by accident only, to curb the irregular imaginations and passions of mankind (as guards become necessary in the highways by reason of robbers), the end of the first being the suppression of heresies, and of the other the decision of legal controversies, for the quiet and peaceable living of mankind in this world, and for the preserving the rule by which the magistrate may prevent one man from injuring another, by declaring what is lawful and what is unlawful, by determining the satisfaction to be given or punishment to be inflicted, and by regulating other outward actions; and not only so, but to decide of religion itself, and its conditions, so far as relates to the profession made by the mouth, it not being the business of the civilian to inquire into the heart:1 the depravity of men’s manners, however, has made this knowledge of the laws so very requisite, that it is usually called-the Science, by way of excellence, nor is any man reekoned learned who has not applied himself thereto.2
Points of faith subjec to scholastic discussion.
The points of faith subject to the examination and discussion of the scholastic divines are reduced to four general heads, which they call the four bases, or great fundamental articles.3
The first basis relates to the attributes of God and his unity consistent therewith. Under this bead are comprehended the questions concerning the eternal attributes which are asserted by some and denied by others; and also the explication of the essential attributes and attributes of action, what is proper for God to do, and what may be affirmed of him and whal it is impossible for him to do. These things are controverted between the Asharians, the Karámians, the Mujassamians or Corporalists, and the Mutazilites.4
The second basis regards predestination and the justice thereof, which comprises the questions concerning Gon’s purpose and decree man’s compulsion or necessity to act and his co-operation in producing actions by which he may gain to himself good or evil, and also those which concern Gon’s willing good and evil, and what things are subject to his power, and what to his knowledge; some maintaining the affirmative, and others the negative. These points are disputed among the Qadríans the Najríans, the Jabrians the Asharíans, and the Karámians.1
The third basis concerns the promises and threats, the precise acceptation of names used in divinity, and the divine decisions, and comprehends questions relating to faith, repentance, promises, threats, forbearance, infidelity and error. The controversies under this head are on foot between the Murjians, the Waidians, the Mutazilites the Asharians, and the Karámians.2
The fourth basis regards history and reason, that is, the just weight they ought to have in matters belonging to faith and religion and also the mission of the prophets and the office of the Imám or chief pontiff. Under this head are comprised all casuistical questiens relating to the moral beauty or turpitude of actions; inquiring whether things are allowed or forbidden by reason of their own nature or by the positive law; and also questions concerning the preference of actions, the favour or grace of God, the innocence which ought to attend the prophetical office, and the conditions requisite in the office of Imám; some asserting it depends on right of succession, others on the consent of the faithful; and also the method of transferring it with the former, and of confirming it with the latter. These matters are the subjects of dispute between the Shíahs, the Mutazilites, the Karamians and the Asharíans.3
The sects of Islam.
The former, by a general name are called Sunnis or Traditionists, because they acknowledge the authority of the Sunnat, or collection of moral traditions of the sayings and actions of their prophet, which is a sort of supplement to the Qurán, directing the observance of several things omitted in that book and in name as well as design answering to the Mishna of the Jews.1
Divisions of the Sunnís: the four orthodox sects.
The Sunnís are subdivided into four chief sects, which, notwithstanding some differences as to legal conclusions in their interpretation of the Qurán and matters of practice, are generally acknowledged to be orthodox in radicals or matters of faith and capable of salvation, and have each of them their several stations or oratories in the temple of Makkah.2 The founders of these sects are looked upon as the great masters of jurisprudence, and are said to have been men of great devotion and self-denial, well versed in the knowledge of those things which belong to the next life and to man’s right conduct here, and directing all their knowledge to the glory of God. This is al Ghazáli’s encomium of them, who thinks it derogatory to their honour that their names should be used by those who, neglecting to imitate the other virtues which make up their character, apply themselves only to attain their skill and follow their opinions in matters of legal practice.3
The first of the four orthodox sects is that of the Hanífites, so named from their founder, Abu Hanífa al Númán Ibn Thábit, who was born at Kufa in the 80th year of the Hijra, and died in the 150th, according to the more preferable opinion as to the time.4 He ended his life in prison at Baghdád where he had been confined because he refused to be made qádi or judge,5 on which account he was very hardly dealt with by his superiors, yet could not be prevailed on, either by threats or illtreatment, to undertake the charge, “choosing rather to be punished by them than by God,” says al Ghazáli, who adds, that when he excused himself from accepting the office by alleging that he was unfit for it, being asked the reason, he replied, “If I speak the truth, I am unfit; but if I tell a lie, a liar is not fit to be a judge.” It is said that he read the Qurán in the prison where he died no less than 7000 times.1
The Hanífites are called by an Arabian writer2 the followers of reason, and those of the three other sects, followers of tradition, the former being principally guided by their own judgment in their decisions, and the latter adhering more tenaciously to the traditions of Muhammad.
The sect of Abu Hanífa heretofore obtained chiefly in Irák,3 but now generally prevails among the Turks and Tartars: his doctrine was brought into great credit by Abu Yúsuf, chief-justice under the Khalífahs al Hádi and Harún al Rashíd.4
Málik Ibn Ans and his sect.
The second orthodox sect is that of Málik Ibn Ans, who was born at Madína in the year of the Hijra 90, 93, 94,5 or 95,6 and died there in 177,7 178,8 or 1799 (for so much do authors differ). This doctor is said to have paid great regard to the traditions of Muhammad.10 In his last illness, a friend going to visit him, found him in tears, and asking him the reason of it, he answered, “How should I not weep? and who has more reason to weep than I? Would to God that for every question decided by me according to my own opinion I had received so many stripes! then would my accounts be easier. Would to God I had never given any decision of my own!”1 Al Ghazáli thinks it a sufficient proof of Málik’s directing his knowledge to the glory of God, that being once asked his opinion as to forty-eight questions, his answer to thirty-two of them was, that he did not know; it being no easy matter for one who has any other view than God’s glory to make so frank a confession of his ignorance.2
The doctrine of Málik is chiefly followed in Barbary and other parts of Africa.
Muhammad Ibn Idris al Shafíi.
The author of the third orthodox sect was Muhammad Ibn Idris al Sháfíi, born either at Gaza or Ascalon, in Palestine, in the year of the Hijra 150, the same day (as some will have it) that Abu Hanífa died, and was carried to Makkah at two years of age, and there educated.3 He died in 204,4 in Egypt, whither he went about five years before.5 This doctor is celebrated for his excellency in all parts of learning, and was much esteemed by Ibn Hanbal, his contemporary, who used to say that “he was as the sun to the world, and as health to the body.” Ibn Hanbal, however, had so ill an opinion of al Sháfíi at first, that he forbade his scholars to go near him; but some time after one of them, meeting his master trudging on foot after al Sháfíi, who rode on a mule, asked him how it came about that he forbade them to follow him, and did it himself; to which Ibn Hanbal replied, “Hold thy peace; if thou but attend his mule thou wilt profit thereby.”6
Al Sháfíi is said to have been the first who discoursed of jurisprudence, and reduced that science into a method;7 one wittily saying, that the relators of the traditions of Muhammad were asleep till al Sháfíi came and waked them.1 He was a great enemy to the scholastic divines, as has been already observed.2 Al Ghazáli tells us that al Sháfíi used to divide the night into three parts, one for study, another for prayer, and the third for sleep. It is also related of him that he never so much as once swore by God, either to confirm a truth or to affirm a falsehood; and that being once asked his opinion, he remained silent for some time, and when the reason of his silence was demanded, he answered, “I am considering first whether it be better to speak or to hold my tongue.” The following saying is also recorded of him, viz., “Whoever pretends to love the world and its Creator at the same time is a liar.”3 The followers of this doctor are from him called Sháfíites, and were formerly spread into Mawara’lnahr and other parts eastward but are now chiefly of Arabia and Persia.
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the founder of the fourth sect, was born in the year of the Hijra 164; but as to the place of his birth there are two traditions: some say he was born at Mirú in Khurasán, of which city his parents were, and that his mother brought him from thence to Baghdád at her breast; while others assure us that she was with child of him when she came to Baghdád, and that he was born there.4 Ibn Hanbal in process of time attained a great reputation on account of his virtue and knowledge; being so well versed in the traditions of Muhammad in particular, that it is said he could repeat no less than a million of them.5 He was very intimate with al Sháfíi, from whom he received most of his traditionary knowledge, being his constant attendant till his departure for Egypt.6 Refusing to acknowledge the Qurán to be created,7 he was, by order of the Khalífah al Mutasim, severely scourged and imprisoned.8 Ibn Hanbal died at Baghdád, in the year 241, and was followed to his grave by eight hundred thousand men and sixty thousand women. It is related, as something very extraordinary, if not miraculous, that on the day of his death no less than twenty thousand Christians, Jews, and Magians embraced the Muhammadan faith.1 This sect increased so fast and became so powerful and bold, that in the year 323, in the Khalífat of al Rádi, they raised a great commotion in Baghdád, entering people’s houses, and spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating the singing-women they met with, and breaking their instruments; and a severe edict was published against them before they could be reduced to their duty;2 but the Hanbalites at present are not very numerous, few of them being to be met with out of the limits of Arabia.
Heretical sects of Muhammadans.
The first controversies relating to fundamentals began when most of the companions of Muhammad were dead;3 for in their days was no dispute, unless about things of small moment, if we except only the dissensions concerning the Imams, or rightful successors of their prophet, which were stirred up and fomented by interest and ambition; the Arabs’ continual employment in the wars during that time allowing them little or no leisure to enter into nice inquiries and subtle distinctions. But no sooner was the ardour of conquest a little abated than they began to examine the Qurán more nearly; whereupon differences in opinion became unavoidable, and at length so greatly multiplied, that the number of their sects, according to the common opinion, are seventy-three. For the Muhammadans seem ambitious that their religion should exceed others even in this respect, saying, that the Magians are divided inte seventy sects, the Jews into seventy-one, the Christians into seventy-two, and the Muslims into seventy-three as Muhammad had foretold:1 of which sects they reckon one to be always orthodox and entitled to salvation.2
The first heresy was that of the Khárijites, who revolted from Ali in the thirty-seventh year of the Hijra; and not long after, Mábad al Johni, Ghailán of Damascus, and Jonas al Aswári broached heterodox opinions concerning predestination and the ascribing of good and evil unto God, whose opinions were followed by Wasil Ibn Atá.3 This latter was the scholar of Hasan of Basra, in whose school a question being proposed, whether he who had committed a grievous sin was to be deemed an infidel or not, the Khárijites (who used to come and dispute there) maintaining the affirmative, and the orthodox the negative, Wásil, without waiting his master’s decision, withdrew abruptly, and began to publish among his fellow-scholars a new opinion of his own, to wit, that such a sinner was in a middle state; and he was thereupon expelled the school; he and his followers being thenceforth called Mutazilites, or Separatists.4
The several sects which have arisen since this time are variously compounded and decompounded of the opinions of four chief sects, the Mutazilites, the Sifátians, the Khárijites, and the Shiites.5
I. The Mutazilites were the followers of the beforementioned Wásil Ibn Atá. As to their chief and general tenets: 1. They entirely rejected all eternal attributes of God, to avoid the distinction of persons made by the Christians, saying that eternity is the proper or tormal attribute of his essence, that God knows by his essence, and not by his knowledge:1 and the same they affirined of his other attributes2 (though all the Mutazilites do not understand these words in one sense); and hence this sect were also named Muattalites, from their divesting God of his attributes;3 and they went so far as to say that to affirm these attributes is the same thing as to make more eternals than one, and that the unity of God is inconsistent with such an opinion;4 and this was the true doctrine of Wásil their master, who declared that whoever asserted an eternal attribute asserted there were two Gods.5 This point of speculation concerning the divine attributes was not ripe at first, but was at length brought to maturity by Wásil’s followers after they had read the books of the philosophers.6 2. They believed the Word of God to have been created in subjecto (as the schoolmen term it), and to consist of letters and sound, copies thereof being written in books to express or imitate the original. They also went farther, and affirmed that whatever is created in subjecto is also an accident and liable to perish.7 3. They denied absolute predestination, holding that God was not the author of evil, but of good only, and that man was a free agent.8 which being properly the opinion of the Qadarians, we defer what may be further said thereof till we come to speak of that sect. On account of this tenet and the first, the Mutazilites look on themselves as the defenders of the unity and justice of God.1 4. They held that if a professor of the true religion be guilty of a grievous sin and die without repentance, he will be eternally damned, though his punishment will be lighter than that of the infidels.2 5. They denied all vision of God in paradise by the corporeal eye and rejected all comparisons or similitudes applied to God.3
Various divisions of this sect.
This sect are said to have been the first inventors of scholastic divinity,4 and are subdivided into several inferior sects, amounting, as some reckon, to twenty, which mutually brand one another with infidelity.5 The most remarkable of them are:—
1 The Hudailians, or followers of Hamadán Abu Hudail, a Mutazilite doctor, who differed something from the common form of expression used by this sect, saying that God knew by his knowledge, but that his knowledge was his essence; and so of the other attributes: which opinion he took from the philosophers, who affirm the essence of God to be simple and without multiplicity, and that his attributes are not posterior or accessory to his essence, or subsisting therein, but are his essence itself; and this the more orthodox take to be next kin to making, distinctions in the deity which is the thing they so much abhor in the Christians.6 As to the Qurán’s being created he made some distinction, holding the Word of God to be partly not in subjecto (and therefore uncreated) as when he spake the word Kum i.e., fiat at the creation, and partly in subjecto, as the precepts prohibitions, &c.7 Marracci8 mentions an opinion of Abu Hudail’s concerning predestination, from an Arab writer,9 which being by him expressed in a manner not very intelligible. I choose to omit.
2. The Jubbáians, or followers of Abu Ali Muhammad Ibn Abd al Wahab surnamed al Jubbái, whose meaning when he made use of the common expression of the Mutazilites, that “God knows by his essence,” &c., was that God’s being knowing is not an attribute the same with knowledge, nor such a state as rendered his being knowing necessary.1 He held God’s Word to be created in subjecto. as in the preserved table, for example, the memory of Gabriel Muhammad, &c.2 This sect, if Marracci has given the true sense of his author, denied that God could be seen in paradise without the assistance of corporeal eyes, and held that man produced his acts by a power superadded to health of body and soundness of limbs, that he whe was guilty of a mortal sin was neither a believer nor an infidel, but a transgressor (which was the original opinion of Wásil), and if he died in his sins, would be doomed to hell for eternity: and that God conceals nothing of whatever he knows from his servants3
3. The Háshamians, who were so named from their master, Abu Hásham Abd al Salám, the son of Abu Ali al Jubbái and whose tenets nearly agreed with those of the preceding sect.4 Abu Hásham took the Mutazilite form of expression that “God knows by his essence” in a different sense from others, supposing it to mean that God hath or is endued with a disposition which is a known property or quality posterior or accessory to his existence.5 His followers were so much afraid of making God the author of evil that they would not allow him to be said to create an infidel, because, according to their way of arguing, an infidel is a compound of infidelity and man, and God is not the creator of infidelity.6 Abu Hásham and his father, Abu Ali al Jubbái, were both celebrated for their skill in scholastic divinity.1
4. The Nudhámians, or followers of Ibrahim al Nudhám, who having read books of philosophy, set up a new sect and imagining he could not sufficiently remove God from being the author of evil without divesting him of his power in respect thereto taught that no power ought to be ascribed to God concerning evil and rebellious actions; but this he affirmed against the opinion of his own disciples, who allowed that God could do evil, but did not, because of its turpitude.2 Of his opinion as to the Qurán’s being created we have spoken elsewhere.3
5. The Háyatians, so named from Ahmad Ibn Hayat, who had been of the sect of the Nudhamians, but broached some new notions on reading the philosophers. His peculiar opinions were: 1. That Christ was the eternal Word incarnate, and took a true and real body, and will judge all creatures in the life to come:4 he also farther asserted that there are two Gods or Creators—the one eternal, viz., the most high God, and the other not eternal, viz., Christ5 —which opinion, though Dr. Pocock urges the same as an argument that he did not rightly understand the Christian mysteries,6 is not much different from that of the Arians and Soeinians. 2. That there is a successive transmigration of the soul from one body into another, and that the last body will enjoy the reward or suffer the punishment due to each soul;7 and 3. That God will be seen at the resurrection, not with the bodily eyes, but those of the understanding.8
6. The Jahidhians, or followers of Amru Ibn Bahr, surnamed al Jahidh a great doctor of the Mutazilites, and very much admired for the elegance of his composures1 who differed from his brethren in that he imagined that the damned would not be eternally tormented in hell, but would be changed into the nature of fire, and that the fire would of itself attract them, without any necessity of their going into it.2 He also taught that if a man believed God to be his Lord and Muhammad the apostle of God, he became one of the faithful, and was obliged to nothing farther.3 His peculiar opinion as to the Qurán has been taken notice of before4
7. The Muzdárians, who embraced the opinions of Isa Ibn Subaih al Muzdár, and those very absurd ones; for, besides his notions relating to the Qurán,5 he went so directly counter to the opinion of those who abridged God of the power to do evil, that he affirmed it possible for God to be a liar and unjust.6 He also pronounced him to be an infidel who thrust himself into the supreme government;7 nay, he went so far as to assert men to be infidels while they said “There is no God but God,” and even condemned all the rest of mankind as guilty of infidelity; upon which Ibrahim Ibn al Sandi asked him whether paradise, whose breadth equals that of heaven and earth, was created only for him and two or three more who thought as he did? to which it is said he could return no answer.8
8. The Basharians, who maintained the tenets of Bashar Ibn Mutamir, the master of al Muzdar,9 and a principal man among the Mutazilites. He differed in some things from the general opinion of that sect, carrying man’s free agency to a great excess, making it even independent; and yet he thought God might doom an infant to eternal punishment, but granted he would be unjust in so doing. He taught that God is not always obliged to do that which is best for if he pleased he could make all men true believers. These sectaries also held that if a man repent of a mortal sin and afterwards return to it, he will be liable to suffer the punishment due to the former tranagression.1
9 The Thamámians, who follow Thamáma Ibn Bashar, a chief Mutazilite. Their peculiar opinions were: 1. That sinners should remain in hell for ever. 2. That free actions have no producing author. 3. That at the resurrection all infidels, idolaters, atheists, Jews, Christians, Magians, and heretics shall be reduced to dust2
10 The Qadarians, which is really a more ancient name than that of Mutazilites, Mábad al Johni and his adherents being so called, who disputed the doctrine of predestination before Wásil quitted his master:3 for which reason some use the denomination of Qadarians as more extensive than the other, and comprehend all the Mutazilites under it4 This sect deny absolute predestination, saying that evil and injustice ought not to be attributed to God, but to man, who is a free agent, and may therefore be rewarded or punished for his actions, which God has granted him power either to do or to let alone.5 And hence it is said they are called Qadarians because they deny al Qadr, or God’s absolute decree; though others, thinking it not so proper to affix a name to a sect from a doctrine which they combat, will have it come from Qadr or Qudrat, i.e., power, because they assert man’s power to act freely.6 Those, however, who give the name of Qadarians to the Mutazilites are their enemies, for they disclaim it, and give it to their antagonists, the Jabarians who likewise refuse it as an infamous appellation,7 because Muhammad is said to have declared the Qadarians to be the Magians of his followers1 But what the opinion of these Qadarians in Muhammad’s time was is very uncertain. The Mutazilites say the name belongs to those who assert predestination and make God the author of good and evil,2 viz. the Jabarians; but all the other Muhammadan seets agree to fix it on the Mutazilites, who, they say, are like the Magians in establishing two principles, Light, or God the author of good: and Darkness or the devil, the author of evil; but this cannot absolutely be said of the Mutazilites, for they (at least the generality of them) ascribe men’s good deeds to God, but their evil deeds to themselves; meaning thereby that man has a free liberty and power to do either good or evil, and is master of his actions; and for this reason it is that the other Muhammadans call them Magians because they assert another author of actions besides God.2 And indeed it is a difficult matter to say what Muhammad’s own opinion was in this matter; for on the one side the Qurán itself is pretty plain for absolute predestination, and many sayings of Muhammad are recorded to that purpose,4 and one in particular wherein he introduces Adam and Moses disputing before God in this manner: “Thou,” says Moses, “art Adam whom God created, and animated with the breath of life and caused to be worshipped by the angels, and placed in paradise, from whence mankind have been expelled for thy fault,” whereto Adam answered, “Thou art Moses, whom God chose for his apostle, and intrusted with his Word by giving thee the tables of the law, and whom he vouchsafed to admit to discourse with himself: how many years dost thou find the law was written before I was created?” Says Moses, “Forty” “And dost thou not find,” replied Adam, “these words therein, ‘And Adam rebelled against his Lord and transgressed’?” which Moses confessing, “Dost thou therefore blame me,” continued he, “for doing that which God wrote of me that I should do forty years before I was created? nay, for what was decreed concerning me fifty thousand years before the creation of heaven and earth?” In the conclusion of which dispute Muhammad declared that Adam had the better of Moses.1 On the other side it is urged in the behalf of the Mutazilites, that Muhammad declaring that the Qadarians and Murjians had been cursed by the tongues of seventy prophets, and being asked who the Qadarians were, answered, “Those who assert that God predestinated them to be guilty of rebellion, and yet punishes them for it.” Al Hasan is also said to have declared that God sent Muhammad to the Arabs while they were Qadarians or Jabarians, and laid their sins upon God: and to confirm the matter, this sentence of the Qurán is quoted:2 “When they commit a filthy action, they say, We found our fathers practising the same, and God hath commanded us so to do: Say, Verily God commandeth not filthy actions.”3
II. The Sifátians held the opposite opinion to the Mutazilites in respect to the eternal attributes of God, which they affirmed, making no distinction between the essential attributes and those of operation; and hence they were named Sifátians, or Attributists. Their doctrine was that of the first Muhammadans, who were not yet acquainted with these nice distinctions: but this sect afterwards introduced another species of declarative attributes, or such as were necessarily used in historical narration, as hands, face, eyes, &c., which they did not offer to explain, but contented themselves with saying they were in the law, and that they called them declarative attributes.4 However, at length, by giving various explications and interpretations of these attributes, they divided into many different opinions: some, by taking the words in the literal sense, fell into the notion of a likeness or similitude between God and created beings; to which it is said the Karaites among the Jews, who are for the literal interpretation of Moses’s law had shown them the way:1 others explained them in another manner, saying that no creature was like God, but that they neither understood nor thought it necessary to explain the precise signification of the words, which seem to affirm the same of both, it being sufficient to believe that God hath no companion or similitude. Of this opinion was Málik Ibn Ans, who declared as to the expression of God’s sitting on his throne, in particular, that though the meaning is known, yet the manner is unknown; and, that it is necessary to believe it, but heresy to make any questions about it.2
The sects of the Sifátians are:—
1. The Asharíans, the followers of Abu’l Hasan al Asharí, who was first a Mutazilite, and the scholar of Abu Ali al Jobbái, but disagreeing from his master in opinion as to God’s being bound (as the Mutazilites assert) to do always that which is best or most expedient, left him and set up a new sect of himself. The occasion of this difference was the putting a case concerning three brothers, the first of whom lived in obedience to God, the second in rebellion against him, and the third died an infant. Al Jobbái being asked what he thought would become of them, answered, that the first would be rewarded in paradise the second punished in hell, and the third neither rewarded nor punished. “But what,” objected al Ashari, “if the third say, O Lord, if thou hadst given me longer life, that I might have entered paradise with my believing brother it would have been better for me?” To which al Jobbai replied, “That God would answer, I knew that if thou hadst lived longer thou wouldst have been a wicked person, and therefore cast into hell.” “Then,” retorted al Asharí, “the second will say, O Lord, why didst thou not take me away while I was an infant, as thou didst my brother, that I might not have deserved to be punished for my sins nor to be cast into hell?” To which al Jobbai could return no other answer than that God prolonged his life to give him an opportunity of obtaining the highest degree of perfection, which was best for him; but al Asharí demanding further why he did not for the same reason grant the other a longer life, to whom it would have been equally advantageous, al Jobbái was so put to it, that he asked whether the devil possessed him. “No,” says al Asharí, “but the master’s ass will not pass the bridge;”1i.e., he is posed.
Opinions regarding the attributes of God.
Their views of sin.
The opinions of the Asharíans were: 1. That they allowed the attributes of God to be distinct from his essence, yet so as to forbid any comparisom to be made between God and his creatures2 This was also the opinion of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, and David al Ispaháni, and others, who herein followed Málik Ibn Ans, and were so cautious of any assimilation of God to created beings, that they declared whoever moved his hand while he read these words, “I have created with my hand,” or stretched forth his finger in repeating this saying of Muhammad, “The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the Merciful,” ought to have his hand and finger cut off;3 and the reasons they gave for not explaining any such words were, that it is forbidden in the Qurán, and that such explications were necessarily founded on conjecture and opinion, from which no man ought to speak of the attributes of God, because the words of the Quran might by that means come to be understood differently from the author’s meaning: nay, some have been so superstitiously scrupulous in this matter as not to allow the words hand, face, and the like, when they occur in the Quran to be rendered into Persian or any other language, but require them to be read in the very original words and this they call the safe way1 2. As to predestination, they held that God hath one eternal will, which is applied to whatsoever he willeth, both of his own actions and those of men, so far as they are created by bini, but not as they are acquired or gained by them; that he willeth both their good and their evil, their profit and their hurt, and as he willeth and knoweth, he willeth concerning men that which he knoweth, and hath commanded the pen to write the same in the Preserved Table and this is his decree and eternal immutable counsel and purpose.2 They also went so far as to say that it may be agreeable to the way of God that man should be commanded what he is not able to perform.3 But while they allow man some power, they seem to restrain it to such a power as cannot produce anything new; only God, say they, so orders his providence that he creates, after or under and together with every created or new power, an action which is ready whenever a man wills it and sets about it; and this action is called Casb, i.e., Acquisition, being in respect to its creation, from God, but in respect to its being produced, employed, and acquired, from man.4 And this being generally esteemed the orthodox opinion, it may not be improper farther to explain the same in the words of some other writers. The elective actions of men, says one, fall under the power of God alone; nor is their own power effectual thereto, but God causeth to exist in man power and choice; and if there be no impediment, he causeth his action to exist also, subject to his power, and joined with that and his choice; which action, as created, is to be ascribed to God, but as produced, employed, or acquired to man.4 So that by the acquisition of an action is properly meant a man’s joining or connecting the same with his power and will, yet allowing herein no impression or influence on the existence thereof, save only that it is subject to his power.1 Others, however, who are also on the side of al Ashari, and reputed orthodox, explain the matter in a different manner and grant the impression or influence of the created power of man on his action, and that this power is what is called Acquisition.2 But the point will be still clearer if we hear a third author, who rehearses the various opinions or explications of the opinion of this sect in the following words, viz.:Abu’l Hasan al Ashari asserts all the actions of men to be subject to the power of God, being created by him, and that the power of man hath no influence at all on that which he is empowered to do, but that both the power and what is subject thereto fall under the power of God. Al Qádhi Abu Baqr says that the essence or substance of the action is the effect of the power of God, but its being either an action of obedience, as prayer, or an action of disobedience, as fornication, are qualities of the action, which proceed from the power of man. Abdal Málik, known by the title of Imám al Haramain, Abu’l Husain of Basra, and other learned men, held that the actions of men are effected by the power which God hath created in man, and that God causeth to exist in man both power and will, and that this power and will do necessarily produce that which man is empowered to do; and Abu Isháq al Isfarayain taught that that which maketh impression or hath influence on an action is a compound of the power of God and the power of man.3 The same author observes that their ancestors, perceiving a manifest difference between those things which are the effects of the election of man and those things which are the necessary effects of inanimate agents, destitute both of knowledge and choice, and being at the same time pressed by the arguments which prove that God is the Creator of all things, and consequently of those things which are done by men, to conciliate the matter, chose the middle way, asserting actions to proceed from the power of God and the acquisition of man, God’s way of dealing with his servants being, that when man intendeth obedience, God createth in him an action of obedience; and when he intendeth disobedience, he createth in him an action of disobedience; so that man seemeth to be the effective producer of his action, though he really be not.1 But this, proceeds the same writer, is again pressed with its difficulties, because the very intention of the mind is the work of God, so that no man hath any share in the production of his own actions: for which reason the ancients disapproved of too nice an inquiry into this point, the end of the dispute concerning the same being, for the most part, either the taking away of all precepts, positive as well as negative, or else the associating of a companion with God, by introducing some other independent agent besides him. Those, therefore, who would speak more accurately, use this form: There is neither compulsion nor free liberty but the way lies between the two: the power and will in man being both created by God, though the merit or guilt be imputed unto man. Yet, after all, it is judged the safest way to follow the steps of the primitive Muslims, and, avoiding subtle disputations and too curious inquiries, to leave the knowledge of this matter wholly unto God.2 3 As to mortal sin, the Asharíans taught, that if a believer guilty of such sin die without repentance his sentence is to be left with God, whether he pardon him out of mercy, or whether the prophet intercede for him (according to that saying recorded of him. “My intercession shall be employed for those among my people who shall have been guilty of grievous crimes”) or whether be punish him in proportion to his demerit and afterwards, through his mercy, admit him into paradise but that it is not to be supposed he witl remain for ever in hell with the infidels, seeing it is declared that whoevertshall have faith in his heart but of the weight of an ant, shall be delivered from hell-fire.1 And this is generally received for the orthodox doctrine in this point, and is diametrically opposite to that of the Mutazilites.
These were the more rational Sifátians, but the ignorant part of them, not knowing how otherwise to explain the expressions of the Qurán relating to the declarative attributes, fell into most gross and absurd opinions, making God corporeal and like created beings.2 Such were—
2. The Mushábbihites, or Assimilators, who allowed a resemblance between God and his creatures,3 supposing him to be a figure composed of members or parts, either spiritual or corporeal, and capable of local motion, of ascent and descent, &c.1 Some of this sect inclined to the opinion of the Hulúlians, who believed that the divine nature might be united with the human in the same person; for they granted it possible that God might appear in a human form, as Gabriel did; and to confirm their opinion they allege Muhammad’s words, that he saw his Lord in a most beautiful form, and Moses talking with God face to face.2 And
The Karamians or Mujassamians.
3. The Karamians, or followers of Muhammad Ibn Karam, called also Mujassamians, or Corporalists, who not only admitted a resemblance between God and created beings, but declared God to be corporeal.3 The more sober among them, indeed, when they applied the word “body” to God, would be understood to mean that he is a self-subsisting being, which with them is the definition of body; but yet some of them affirmed him to be finite, and circumscribed, either on all sides, or on some only (as beneath, for example), according to different opinions;4 and others allowed that he might be felt by the hand and seen by the eye. Nay, one David al Jawári went so far as to say that his deity was a body composed of flesh and blood, and that he had members, as hands, feet, a head, a tongue, eyes, and ears; but that he was a body, however, not like other bodies, neither was he like to any created being: he is also said further to have affirmed that from the crown of the head to the breast he was hollow, and from the breast downward solid, and that he had black curled hair.5 These most blasphemous and monstrous notions were the consequence of the literal acceptation of those passages in the Qurán which figuratively attribute corporeal actions to God, and of the words of Muhammad when he said that God created man in his own image, and that himself had felt the fingers of God, which he laid on his back, to be cold. Besides which, this sect are charged with fathering on their prophet a great number of spurious and forged traditions to support their opinion, the greater part whereof they borrowed from the Jews, who are accused as naturally prone to assimilate God to men, so that they describe him as weeping for Noah’s flood till his eyes were sore.1 And, indeed, though we grant the Jews may have imposed on Muhammad and his followers in many instances, and told them as solemn truths things which themselves believed not or had invented, yet many expressions of this kind are to be found in their writings; as when they introduce God roaring like a lion at every watch of the night, and crying, “Alas! that I have laid waste my house, and suffered my temple to be burnt, and sent my children into banishment among the heathen,” &c.2
The Jabarians and their various denominations.
The Jabarians, who are the direct opponents of the Qadarians, denying free agency in men, and ascribing his actions wholly unto God.3 They take their denomination from al jabr, which signifies necessity or compulsion; because they hold man to be necessarily and inevitably constrained to act as he does by force of God’s eternal and immutable decree.4 This sect is distinguished into several species, some being more rigid and extreme in their opinion, who are thence called pure Jabarians, and others more moderate, who are therefore called middle Jabarians. The former will not allow men to be said either to act or to have any power at all, either operative or acquiring, asserting that man can do nothing, but produces all his actions by necessity, having neither power, nor will, nor choice, any more than an inanimate agent; they also declare that rewarding and punishing are also the effects of necessity; and the same they say of the imposing of commands. This was the doctrine of the Jahmians, the followers of Jahm Ibn Safwán, who likewise held that paradise and hell will vanish or be annihilated after those who are destined thereto respectively shall have entered them, so that at last there will remain no existing being besides God;1 supposing those words of the Qurán which declare that the inhabitants of paradise and of hell shall remain therein for ever to be hyperbolical only, and intended for corroboration, and not to denote an eternal duration in reality.2 The moderate Jabarians are those who ascribe some power to man, but such a power as hath no influence on the action; for as to those who grant the power of man to have a certain influence on the action, which influence is called Acquisition, some3 will not admit them to be called Jabarians, though others reckon those also to be called middle Jabarians, and to contend for the middle opinion between absolute necessity and absolute liberty, who attribute to man Acquisition or concurrence in producing the action, whereby he gaineth commendation or blame (yet without admitting it to have any influence on the action), and therefore make the Asharians a branch of this sect.4 Having again mentioned the term Acquisition, we may perhaps have a clearer idea of what the Muhammadans mean thereby when told that it is defined to be an action directed to the obtaining of profit or the removing of hurt, and for that reason never applied to any action of God, who acquireth to himself neither profit nor hurt.5 Of the middle or moderate Jabarians were the Najarians and the Dirárians The Najarians were the adherents of al Hasan Ibn Muhammad al Najár, who taught that God was he who created the actions of men, both good and bad, and that man acquired them, and also that man’s power had an influence on the action, or a certain co-operation, which he called Acquisition; and herein he agreed with al Asharí.1 The Dirárians were the disciples of Dirár Ibn Amru, who held also that men’s actions are really created by God, and that man really acquired them.2 The Jabarians also say that God is absolute hard of his creatures, and may deal with them according to his own pleasure, without rendering account to any, and that if he should admit all men without distinction into paradise, it would be no impartiality, or if he should cast them all into hell, it would be no injustice.3 And in this particular likewise they agree with the Ashariáns, who assert the same,4 and say that reward is a favour from God, and punishment a piece of justice; obedience being by them considered as a sign only of future reward, and transgression as a sign of future punishment.5
5. The Murjians, who are said to be derived from the Jabarians.6 These teach that the judgment of every true believer, who hath been guilty of a grievous sin, will be deferred till the resurrection; for which reason they pass no sentence on him in this world, either of absolution or condemnation. They also hold that disobedience with faith hurteth not, and that, on the other hand, obedience with infidelity profiteth not.1 As to the reason of their name the learned differ, because of the different significations of its root, each of which they accommodate to some opinion of the sect. Some think them so called because they postpone works to intention, that is, esteem works to be inferior in degree to intention and profession of the faith;2 others because they allow hope, by asserting that disobedience with faith hurteth not, &c.; others take the reason of the name to be their deferring the sentence of the heinous sinner till the resurrection;3 and others their degrading of Ali, or removing him from the first degree to the fourth;4 for the Murjians, in some points relating to the office of Imám, agree with the Khárijites. This sect is divided into four species, three of which, according as they happen to agree in particular dogmas with the Khárijites, the Qadarians, or the Jabarians, are distinguished as Murjians of those sects, and the fourth is that of the pure Murjians, which last species is again subdivided into five others.5 The opinions of Muqátil and Báshar, both of a sect of the Murjians called Thaubánians, should not be omitted. The former asserted that disobedience hurts not him who professes the unity of God and is endued with faith, and that no true believer shall be cast into hell. He also taught that God will surely forgive all crimes besides infidelity, and that a disobedient believer will be punished at the day of resurrection on the bridge6 laid over the midst of hell, where the flames of hell-fire shall catch hold on him, and torment him in proportion to his disobedience, and that he shall then be admitted into paradise.7 The latter held that if God do cast the believers guilty of grievous sins into hell, yet they will be delivered thence after they shall have been sufficiently punished; but that it is neither possible nor consistent with justice that they should remain therein for ever; which, as has been observed, was the opinion of al Asharí.
III. The Khárijites are they who depart or revolt from the lawful prince established by public consent; and thence comes their name, which signifies revolters or rebels1 The first who were so called were twelve thousand men who revolted from Ali, after they had fought under him at the battle of Saffain, taking offence at his submitting the decision of his right to the Khalifat, which Muáwiyah disputed with him, to arbitration, though they themselves had first obliged him to it.2 These were also called Muhaqqimites, or Judiciarians, because the reason which they gave for their revolt was that Ali had referred a matter concerning the religion of God to the judgment of men, whereas the judgment, in such case, belonged only unto God.3 The heresy of the Khárijites consisted chiefly in two things:—1. In that they affirmed a man might be promoted to the dignity of Imám or prince though he was not of the tribe of Quraish, or even a freeman, provided he was a just and pious person, and endued with the other requisite qualifications; and also held that if the Imám turned aside from the truth, he might be put to death or deposed; and that there was no absolute necessity for any Imám at all in the world. 2. In that they charged Ali with sin, for having left an affair to the judgment of men which ought to have been determined by God alone; and went so far as to declare him guilty of infidelity and to curse him on that account.4 In the 38th year of the Hijra, which was the year following the revolt, all these Khárijites who persisted in their rebellion, to the number of four thousand, were cut to pieces by Ali, and, as several historians5 write, even to a man; but others say nine of them escaped, and that two fled into Omán, two into Karman, two into Sajistán, two into Mesopotamia, and one to Tel Mawrun, and that these propagated their heresy in those places, the same remaining there to this day.1 The principal sects of the Khárijites, besides the Muhaqqimites above mentioned, are six, which, though they greatly differ among themselves in other matters, yet agree in these, viz., that they absolutely reject Othmán and Ali, preferring the doing of this to the greatest obedience, and allowing marriages to be contracted on no other terms; that they account those who are guilty of grievous sins to be infidels: and that they hold it necessary to resist the Imám when he transgresses the law. One sect of them deserves more particular notice, viz.—
Peculiar views of the Wáidians.
The Wáidians so called from al Wáid, which signifies the threats denounced by God against the wicked These are the antagonists of the Murjians, and assert that he who is guilty of a grievous sin ought to be declared an infidel or apostate and will be eternally punished in hell, though he were a true believer;2 which opinion of theirs, as has been observed, occasioned the first rise of the Mutazilites. One Jaafar Ibn Mubashshar, of the sect of the Nudhámians, was yet more severe than the Wáidians, pronouncing him to be a reprobate and an apostate who steals but a grain of corn.3
The Shíahs and their distinguishing doctrines.
IV The Shíahs are the opponents of the Khárijites: their name properly signifies sectaries or adherents in general, but is peculiarly used to denote those of Ali Ibn Tálib, who maintain him to be lawful Khálífah and Imám, and that the supreme authority, both in spirituals and temporals, of right belongs to his descendants, notwithstanding they may be deprived of it by the injustice of others or their own fear. They also teach that the office of Imám is not a common thing, depending on the will of the vulgar, so that they may set up whom they please, but a fundamental affair of religion, and an article which the prophet could not have neglected or left to the fancy of the common people:1 nay some, thence called Imámians, go so far as to assert that religion consists solely in the knowledge of the true Imám.2 The principal sects of the Shíahs are five, which are subdivided into an almost innumerable number, so that some understand Muhammad’s prophecy of the seventy odd sects of the Shíahs only Their general opinions are—1. That the peculiar designation of the Imám, and the testimonies of the Qurán and Muhammad concerning him, are necessary points 2. That the Imáms ought necessarily to keep themselves free from light sins as well as more grievous. 3. That every one ought publicly to declare who it is that he adheres to, and from whom he separates himself, by word, deed, and engagement, and that herein there should be no dissimulation. But in this last point some of the Zaidians, a sect so named from Zaid, the son of Ali surnamed Zain al Ábidin, and great-grandson of Ali, dissented from the rest of the Shíahs3 As to other articles wherein they agreed not, some of them came pretty near to the notions of the Mutazilites, others to those of the Mushábbihites, and others to those of the Sunnís4 Among the latter of these Muhammad al Bákir, another son of Zain al Ábidín’s, seems to claim a place, for his opinion as to the will of God was that God willeth something in us and something from us, and that what he willeth from us he hath revealed to us; for which reason he thought it preposterous that we should employ our thoughts about these things which God willeth in us, and neglect those which he willeth from us: and as to God’s decree, he held that the way lay in the middle, and that there was neither compulsion nor free liberty.1 A tenet of the Khattábians, or disciples of one Abu’l Khattáb, is too peculiar to be omitted. These maintained paradise to be no other than the pleasures of this world, and hell-fire to be the pains thereof, and that the world will never decay: which proposition being first laid down, it is no wonder they went further, and declared it lawful to indulge themselves in drinking wine and whoring, and to do other things forbidden by the law, and also to omit doing the things commanded by the law.2
Their veneration of Ali and his descendants.
Many of the Shíahs carried their veneration for Ali and his descendants so far that they transgressed all bounds of reason and decency, though some of them were less extravagant than others. The Ghuláites, who had their name from their excessive zeal for their Imáms, were so highly transported therewith that they raised them above the degree of created beings, and attributed divine properties to them; transgressing on either hand, by deifying of mortal men, and by making God corporeal; for one while they liken one of their Imáms to God, and another while they liken God to a creature.3 The sects of these are various, and have various appellations in different countries.4 Abdallah Ibn Saba (who had been a Jew, and had asserted the same thing of Joshua the son of Nun) was the ringleader of one of them. This man gave the following salutation to Ali, viz., “Thou art Thou,” i.e., thou art God: and hereupon the Ghuláites became divided into several species, some maintaining the same thing, or something like it, of Ali, and others of some of one of his descendants, affirming that he was not dead, but would return again in the clouds and fill the earth with justice. But how much soever they disagreed in other things, they unanimously held a metempsychosis, and what they call al Hulúl, or the descent of God on his creatures, meaning thereby that God is present in every place, and speaks with every tongue, and appears in some individual person;1 and hence some of them asserted their Imáms to be prophets, and at length gods.2 The Nusairians and the Isháqians taught that spiritual substances appear in grosser bodies, and that the angels and the devil have appeared in this manner. They also assert that God hath appeared in the form of certain men; and since, after Muhammad, there hath been no man more excellent than Ali, and, after him, his sons have excelled all other men, that God hath appeared in their form, spoken with their tongue, and made use of their hands; for which reason, say they, we attribute divinity to them.3* And to support these blasphemies they tell several miraculous things of Ali, as his moving the gates of Khaibar,4 which they urge as a plain proof that he was endued with a particle of divinity and with sovereign power, and that he was the person in whose form God appeared, with whose hands he created all things, and with whose tongue he published his commands; and therefore they say he was in being before the creation of heaven and earth.5 In so impious a manner do they seem to wrest those things which are said in Scripture of Christ by applying them to Ali. These extravagant fancies of the Shíahs, however, in making their Imáms partakers of the divine nature, and the impiety of some of those Imáms in laying claim thereto, are so far from being peculiar to this sect, that most of the other Muhammadan sects are tainted with the same madness, there being many found among them, and among the Súfis especially, who pretend to be nearly related to heaven, and who boast or strange revelations before the credulous people.1 It may not be amiss to hear what al Ghazáli has written on this occasion. “Matters are come to that pass,” says he, “that some boast of an union with God, and of discoursing familiarly with him, without the interposition of a veil, saying, ‘It hath been thus said to us,’ and ‘We have thus spoken,’ affecting to imitate Husain al Halláj, who was put te death for some words of this kind uttered by him, he having said (as was proved by credible witnesses), ‘I am the Truth,’2 or A’bu Yazíd al Bastámi, of whom it is related that be often used the expression, Subháni,’ i.e., ‘Praise be unto me!’ But this way of talking is the cause of great mischief among the common people, insomuch that husbandmen; neglecting the tillage of their land, have pretended to the like privileges, nature being tickled with discourses of this kind, which furnish men with an excuse for leaving their occupations, under pretence of purifying their souls, and attaining I know not what degrees and conditions. Nor is there anything to hinder the most stupid fellows from forming the like pretensions and catching at such vain expressions; for whenever what they say is denied to be true, they fail not to reply that our unbelief proceeds from learning and logic; affirming learning to be a veil, and logic the work of the mind; whereas what they tell us appears only within, being discovered by the light of truth. But this is that truth the sparks whereof have flown into several countries and occasioned great mischiefs; so that it is more for the advantage of God’s true religion to put to death one of those who utter such things than to bestow life on ten others.”34
Main points of difference between the Shiahs and the Sunnis
Thus far have we treated of the chief sects among the Muhammadans of the first ages, omitting to say anything of the more modern sects, because the same are taken little or no notice of by their own writers, and would be of no use to our present design.1 It may be proper, however, to mention a word or two of the great schism at this day subsisting between the Sunnis and the Shiahs, or partisans of Ali, and maintained on either side with implacable hatred and furious zeal. Though the difference arose at first on a political occasion, it has, notwithstanding, been so well improved by additional circumstances and the spirit of contradiction, that each party detest and anathematise the other as abominable heretics, and farther from the truth than either the Christians or the Jews.2 The chief points wherein they differ are—1. That the Shíahs reject Abu Baqr, Omar, and Othman, the three first Khalífahs, as usurpers and intruders; whereas the Sunnís acknowledge and respect them as rightful Imams. 2. The Shíahs prefer Ali to Muhammad, or at least esteem them both equal. but the Sunnís admit neither Alí nor any of the prophets to be equal to Muhammad. 3. The Sunnís charge the Shíahs with corrupting the Quran and neglecting its precepts, and the Shíahs retort the same charge on the Sunnís. 4. The Sunnís receive the Sunnat, or book of traditions of their prophet, as of canonical authority, whereas the Shíahs reject it as apocryphal and unworthy of credit. And to these disputes, and some others of less moment, is principally owing the antipathy which has long reigned between the Turks, who are Sunnis and the Persians who are of the sect of Ali. It seems strange that Spinoza, had he known of no other schism among the Muhammadans, should yet never have heard of one so publicly notorious as this between the Turks and Persians; but it is plain he did not, or he would never have assigned it as the reason of his preferring the order of the Muhammadan Church to that of the Roman, that there have arisen no schisms in the former since its birth.1
Muslim false prophets.
As success in any project seldom fails to draw in imitators, Muhammad’s having raised himself to such a degree of power and reputation by acting the prophet induced others to imagine they might arrive at the same height by the same means. His most considerable competitors in the prophetic office were Musailama and al Aswad, whom the Muhammadans usually call “the two liars”
Claim of Musailama to the prophetic office.
The former was of the tribe of Hunaifa, who inhabited the province of Yamáma, and a principal man among them. He headed an embassy sent by his tribe to Muhammad in the ninth year of the Hijra, and professed himself a Muslim;2 but on his return home, considering that he might possibly share with Muhammad in his power, the next year he set up for a prophet also, pretending to be joined with him in the commission to recall mankind from idolatry to the worship of the true God;3 and he published written revelations in imitation of the Qurán, of which Abulfaragius4 has preserved the following passage, viz.: “Now hath God been gracious unto her that was with child, and hath brought forth from her the soul which runneth between the peritonæum and the bowels.” Musailama, having formed a considerable party among those of Hunaifa, began to think himself upon equal terms with Muhammad, and sent him a letter, offering to go halves with him,5 in these words: “From Musailama the apostle of God, to Muhammad the apostle of God. Now let the earth be half mine and half thine.” But Muhammad, thinking himself too well established to need a partner. wrote him this answer: “From Muhammad the apostle of God, to Musailama the liar. The earth is God’s: he giveth the same for inheritance unto such of his servants as he pleaseth; and the happy issue shall attend those who fear him.”1 During the few months which Muhammad lived after this revolt, Musailama rather gained than lost ground, and grew very formidable, but Abu Baqr, his successor, in the eleventh year of the Hijra, sent a great army against him, under the command of that consummate general, Khálid Ibn al Walíd, who engaged Musailama in a bloody battle, wherein the false prophet, happening to be slain by Wahsha, the negro slave who had killed Hamza at Ohod, and by the same lance,2 the Muslims gained an entire victory ten thousand of the apostates being left dead on the spot, and the rest returning to Muhammadism.3
Al Aswad the second of “the two liars
Al Aswad, whose name was Aihala, was of the tribe of Ans, and governed that and the other tribes of Arabs descended from Madhhaj.4 This man was likewise an apostate from Muhammadism, and set up for himself the very year that Muhammad died.5 He was surnamed Dhu’l Hamár, or the master of the asses, because he used frequently to say, “The master of the asses is coming unto me;”6 and pretended to receive his revelations from two angels named Suhaiq and Shuraiq.7 Having a good hand at legerdemain and a smooth tongue, he gained mightily on the multitude by the strange feats which he showed them and the eloquence of his discourse;8 by these means he greatly increased his power, and having made himself master of Najrán and the territory of al Táyif,1 on the death of Badhán, the governor of Yaman for Muhammad, he seized that province also, killing Shahr, the son of Badhán, and taking to wife his widow, whose father, the uncle of Firúz the Dailamite, he had also slain.2 This news being brought to Muhammad, he sent to his friends and to those of Hamdán, a party of whom, conspiring with Qais Ibn’ Abd al Yaghúth, who bore al Aswad a grudge, and with Firuz and al Aswad’s wife, broke by night into his house, where Firúz surprised him and cut off his head. While he was despatching he roared like a bull; at which his guards came to the chamber door, but were sent away by his wife, who told them the prophet was only agitated by the divine inspiration. This was done the very night before Muhammad died. The next morning the conspirators caused the following proclamation to be made, viz., “I bear witness that Muhammad is the apostle of God, and that Aihala is a liar;” and letters were immediately sent away to Muhammad, with an account of what had been done; but a messenger from heaven outstripped them, and acquainted the prophet with the news, which he imparted to his companions but a little before his death, the letters themselves not arriving till Abu Baqr was chosen Khalífah. It is said that Muhammad, on this occasion, told those who attended him that before the day of judgment thirty more impostors, besides Musailama and al Aswad, should appear, and every one of them set up for a prophet. The whole time, from the beginning of al Aswad’s rebellion to his death, was about four months.3
In the same eleventh year of the Hijra, but after the death of Muhammad, as seems most probable, Tulaiha Ibn Khuwailid set up for a prophet, and Sajáj Bint al Mundár4 for a prophetess.
Tulaiha and Sajáj.
Tulaiha was of the tribe of Asad, which adhered to him, together with great numbers of the tribes of Ghatfán and Tay. Against them likewise was Khálid sent, who engaged and put them to flight, obliging Tulaiha with his shattered troops to retire into Syria, where he stayed till the death of Abu Baqr; then he went to Omar and embraced Muhammadism in his presence, and having taken the oath of fidelity to him, returned to his own country and people.1
Sajáj, surnamed Omm Sádir, was of the tribe of Tamím, and the wife of Abu Qahdála, a soothsayer of Yamánia. She was followed not only by those of her own tribe, but by several others. Thinking a prophet the most proper husband for her, she went to Musailama, and married him, but after she had stayed with him three days, she left him and returned home.2 What became of her afterwards I do not find. Ibn Shohnah has given us part of the conversation which passed at the interview between those two pretenders to inspiration, but the same is a little too immodest to be translated.
In succeeding ages several impostors from time to time started up, most of whom quickly came to nothing, but some made a considerable figure, and propagated sects which continued long after their decease. I shall give a brief account of the most remarkable of them in order of time.
Hakím Ib Hásham and his practices.
In the reign of al Mahdi, the third Khalífah of the race of al Abbas, one Hakim Ibn Hásham,3 originally of Merú in Khurasán, who had been an under-secretary to Abu Muslim, the governor of that province, and afterwards turned soldier, passed thence into Mawaralnahr, where he gave himself out for a prophet. He is generally named by the Arab writers al Mukanna, and sometimes al Burkaí, that is, “the veiled,” because he used to cover his face with a veil or a gilded mask, to conceal his deformity, having lost an eye in the wars, and being otherwise of a despicable appearance; though his followers pretended he did it for the same reason as Moses did, viz., lest the splendour of his countenance should dazzle the eyes of the beholders. He made a great many proselytes at Nakhshab and Kash, deluding the people with several juggling performances, which they swallowed for miracles, and particularly by causing the appearance of a moon to rise out of a well for many nights together; whence he was also called, in the Persian tongue, Sázindah-mah, or the moonmaker. This impious impostor, not content with being reputed a prophet, arrogated divine honours to himself, pretending that the deity resided in his person; and the doctrine whereon he built this was the same with that of the Ghuláites above mentioned, who affirmed a transmigration or successive manifestation of the divinity through and in certain prophets and holy men, from Adam to these latter days (of which opinion was also Abu Muslim himself1 ); but the particular doctrine of al Mukanna was that the person in whom the deity had last resided was the aforesaid Abu Muslim, and that the same had, since his death, passed into himself. The faction of al Mukanna, who had made himself master of several fortified places in the neighbourhood of the cities above mentioned, growing daily more and more powerful, the Khalífah was at length obliged to send an army to reduce him at the approach whereof al Mukanna retired into one of his strongest fortresses, which he had well provided for a siege, and sent his emissaries abroad to persuade people that he raised the dead to life and knew future events. But being straitly besieged by the Khalífah’s forces, when he found there was no possibility for him to escape, he gave poison in wine to his whole family, and all that were with him in the castle; 1 and when they were dead he burnt their bodies, together with their clothes, and all the provisions and cattle; and then, to prevent his own body being found, he threw himself into the flames, or, as others say, into a tub of aquafortis, or some other preparation, which consumed every part of him, except only his hair, so that when the besiegers entered the place they found no creature in it, save one of al Mukanna’s concubines, who, suspecting his design, had hid herself, and discovered the whole matter. This contrivance, however, failed not to produce the effect which the impostor designed among the remaining part of his followers; for he had promised them that his soul should transmigrate into the form of a grey-headed man riding on a greyish beast, and that after so many years he would return to them, and give them the earth for their possession: the expectation of which promise kept the sect in being for several ages after under the name of Mubayyidites, or, as the Persians call them, Safaid jámahghián, i.e., the clothed in white, because they wore their garments of that colour, in opposition, as is supposed, to the Khalífahs of the family of Abbás, whose banners and habits were black. The historians place the death of al Mukanna in the 162d or 163d year of the Hijra.2
Bábik and his cruelties
In the year of the Hijra 201, Bábik, surnamed al Khurrami and Khurramdín, either because he was of a certain district near Ardaibíl in Adhairbiján called Khurram, or because he instituted a merry religion, which is the signification of the word in Persian, began to take on him the title of a prophet. I do not find what doctrine he taught, but it is said he professed none of the religions then known in Asia. He gained a great number of devotees in Adhairbiján and the Persian Iraq, and grew powerful enough to wage war with the Khalífah al Mámún, whose troops he often beat, killing several of his generals, and one of them with his own hand; and by these victories he became so formidable that al Mútasim, the successor of al Mámún, was obliged to employ the forces of the whole empire against him, The general sent to reduce Bábik was Afshíd, who having overthrown him in battle, took his castles one after another with invincible patience, notwithstanding the rebels gave him great annoyance, and at last shut up the impostor in his principal fortress; which being taken, Bábik found means to escape thence in disguise, with some of his family and principal followers; but taking refuge in the territories of the Greeks, was betrayed in the following manner. Sahel, an Armenian officer, happening to know Bábik, enticed him, by offers of service and respect, into his power, and treated him as a mighty prince, till, when he sat down to eat, Sahel clapped himself down by him; at which Bábik being surprised, asked him how he dared to take that liberty unasked? “It is true, great king.” replied Sahel, “I have committed a fault; for who am I, that I should sit at your majesty’s table?” And immediately sending for a smith, he made use of this bitter sarcasm, “Stretch forth your legs, great king, that this man may put fetters on them.” After this Sahel sent him to Afshíd, though he had offered a large sum for his liberty, having first served him in his own kind by causing his mother, sister, and wife to be ravished before his face, for so Babik used to treat his prisoners Afshid having the arch rebel in his power, conducted him to al Mutasim, by whose order he was put to an ignominious and cruel death. This man had maintained his ground against the power of the Khalífahs for twenty years, and had cruelly put to death above two hundred and fifty thousand people, it being his custom never to spare man, woman, or child, either of the Muhammadans or their allies.1 The sectaries of Bábik which remained after his death seem to have been entirely dispersed, there being little or no mention made of them by historians.
Mahmúd Ibn Faraj.
About the year 235, one Mahmúd Ibn Faraj pretended to be Moses resuscitated, and played his part so well that several people believed on him, and attended him when he was brought before the Khalífah al Mutawaqqil. That prince, having been an ear-witness of his extravagant discourses, condemned him to receive ten buffets from every one of his followers, and then to be drubbed to deata; which was accordingly executed; and his disciples were imprisoned till they came to their right minds.1
The Karmatians and their founder
Doctrines and practices.
The Karmatians, a sect which bore an inveterate malice against the Muhammadans, began first to raise disturbances in the year of the Hijra 278, and the latter end of the reign of al Mútamid. Their origin is not well known, out the common tradition is that a poor fellow, whom some call Karmata, came from Khuzistan to the villages near Kúfa, and there feigned great sanctity and strictness of life and that God had enjoined him to pray fifty times a day, pretending also to invite people to the obedience of a certain Imam of the family of Muhammad; and this way of life he continued till he had made a very great party out ot whom he chose twelve, as his apostles to govern the rest and to propagate his doctrines. But the governor of the province, finding men neglected their work, and their husbandry in particular, to say those fifty prayers a day, seized the fellow, and having put him into prison swore that he should die; which being overheard by a girl belonging to the governor, she, pitying the man at night took the key of the dungeon from under her master’s head as he slept, and having let the prisoner out, returned the key to the place whence she had it The next morning the governor found the bird flown, and the accident being publicly known, raised great admiration, his adherents giving it out that God had taken him into heaven. Afterwards he appeared in another province, and declared to a great number of people he had got about him that it was not in the power of any to do him hurt; notwithstanding which, his courage failing him, he retired into Syria, and was not heard of any more. His sect, however, continued and increased, pretending that their master had manifested himself to be a true prophet, and had left them a new law, wherein he had changed the ceremonies and form of prayer used by the Muslims, and introduced a new kind of fast, and that he had also allowed them to drink wine, and dispensed with several things commanded in the Qurán. They also turned the precepts of that book into allegory, teaching that prayer was the symbol of obedience to their Imám, and fasting that of silence, or concealing their dogmas from strangers: they also believed fornication to be the sin of infidelity, and the guilt thereof to be incurred by those who revealed the mysteries of their religion or paid not a blind obedience to their chief. They are said to have produced a book wherein was written (among other things), “In the name of the most merciful God. Al Faraj Ibn Othmán of the town of Nasrana saith that Christ appeared unto him in a human form and said, ‘Thou art the invitation: thou art the demonstration: thou art the camel: thou art the beast: thou art John the son of Zacharias: thou art the Holy Ghost.’ ”1 From the year above mentioned the Karmatians, under several leaders, gave almost continual disturbance to the Khalífahs and their Muhammadan subjects for several years, committing great disorders and outrages in Chaldea, Arabia, Syria, and Mesopotamia, and at length establishing a considerable principality, the power whereof was in its meridian in the reign of Abu Dháhir famous for his taking of Makkah, and the indignities by him offered to the temple there, but which declined soon after his time and came to nothing.1
To the Karmatians the Ismaílians of Asia were very near of kin, if they were not a branch of them. For these, who were also called al Muláhidah, or the Impious, and by the writers of the history of the holy wars, Assassins, agreed with the former in many respects; such as their inveterate malice against those of other religions, and especially the Muhammadans, their unlimited obedience to their prince, at whose command they were ready for assassinations, or any other bloody and dangerous enterprise, their pretended attachment to a certain Imám of the house of Ali, &c. These Ismaílians in the year 483 possessed themselves of al Jabál, in the Persian Iráq, under the conduct of Hasan Sabah, and that prince and his descendants enjoyed the same for a hundred and seventy-one years, till the whole race of them was destroyed by Holagu the Tartar.2
The Bátinites, which name is also given to the Ismaílians by some authors, and likewise to the Karmatians,3 were a sect which professed the same abominable principles, and were dispersed over several parts of the East.4 The word signifies Esoterics, or people of inward or hidden light or knowledge.
Abu’l Tayyab Ahmad prophetical career.
Abu’l Tayyab Ahmad, surnamed al Mutanabbi, of the tribe of Jóufa, is too famous on another account not to claim a place here. He was one of the most excellent poets among the Arabians, there being none besides Abu Tamám who can dispute the prize with him. His poetical inspiration was so warm and exalted that he either mistook it, or thought he could persuade others to believe it, to be prophetical, and therefore gave himself out to be a prophet indeed, and thence acquired his surname, by which he is generally known. His accomplishments were too great not to have some success; for several tribes of the Arabs of the deserts, particularly that of Qaláb, acknowledged him to be what he pretended. But Lúlú, governor in those parts for Akhshíd, king of Egypt and Syria, soon put a stop to the further progress of this new sect by imprisoning their prophet and obliging him to renounce his chimerical dignity; which having done, he regained his liberty, and applied himself solely to his poetry, by means whereof he got very considerable riches, being in high esteem at the courts of several princes. Al Mutanabbi lost his life, together with his son, on the bank of the Tigris, in defending the money which had been given him by Adad-ud-Daula sultan of Persia, against some Arabian robbers who demanded it of him, with which money he was returning to Kúfa, his native city. This accident happened in the year 354.1
Bába and his sect.
The last pretender to prophecy I shall now take notice of is one who appeared in the city of Amasia, in Natolia, in the year 638, and by his wonderful feats sed ced a great multitude of people there. He was by nation a Turkmán, and called himself Bába, and had a disciple called Isaac, whom he sent about to invite those of his own nation to join him. Isaac accordingly, coming to the territory of Sumaisat, published his commission, and prevailed on many to embrace his master’s sect, especially among the Turkmáns; so that at last he had six thousand horse at his heels, besides foot. With these Bába and his disciple made open war on all who would not cry out with them, “There is no God but God; Bába is the apostle of God;” and they put great numbers of Muhammadans as well as Christians to the sword in those parts, till at length both Muhammadans and Christians, joining together, gave them battle, and having entirely routed them put them all to the sword, except their two chiefs, who being taken alive, had their heads struck off by the execntioner.1
I could mention several other impostors of the same kind which have arisen among the Muhammadans since their prophet’s time, and very near enough to complete the number foretold by him; but I apprehend the reader is by this time tired as well as myself, and shall therefore, here conclude this discourse, which may be thought already too long for an introduction.*
[* ]Whilst regarding this Preliminary Discourse as a most masterly, and on the whole reliable, presentation of the peculiar doctrines, rites, ceremonies, customs, and institutions of Islám, we recognise the fact that more modern research has brought to light many things concerning the history of the ancient Arabs which greatly modify the statements made in the early paragraphs of this chapter. We therefore refer the reader to the most valuable works of M. C. de Perceval. Hist. des Arabes, a masterly digest of which may be found in the Introduction to Muir’s Life of Mahomet, chap. iii.; also to the works of Dr. Sprenger, Biography of the Prophet, &c. e. m. w.
[1 ]Pocock, Specim. Hist. Arab., p. 33.
[1 ]Gen. x. 30.
[2 ]See Pocock, Specim., 33, 34.
[3 ]Golius ad Alfragan, 78, 79
[4 ]Strabo says Arabia Felix was in his time divided into five kingdoms, l 16, p. 1129.
[5 ]Gol. ad Alfragan, 79.
[1 ]La Roque, Vovage de l’Arab. Heur., 121.
[2 ]Gol. ad Alfragan, 79, 87.
[* ]“Or this was the name of its builder; see Kamoos” (Lane). e. m. w.
[3 ]Voyage de l’Arab. Heur, 232.
[4 ]Vide Dionys. Perieges., v. 927, &c.
[5 ]Strabo, l. 10, p. 1132; Arrian, 161.
[1 ]Voyage de l’Arab. Heur., 121, 123, 153.
[2 ]Vide Gol. ad Alfrag., 98; Abulfeda, Descr. Arab., p. 5.
[3 ]R. Saadias in version. Arab. Pentat. Sefer Juchasin., 135 b.
[4 ]Gen. x. 30.
[5 ]Gol. ad Alfrag., 82; see Gen. xxv. 15.
[6 ]Gol., ib. 198. See Pitts’ Account of the Religion and Manners of the Muhammadans, p. 96.
[1 ]Sharíf al Edrisi apud Poc. Spec., p. 122.
[3 ]Gol. ad Alfragan, 99.
[4 ]Sharíf al Edrísi, ubi supra, 124.
[* ]Lane adds the following note:—“Sale here adds ‘being brackish,’ but Burckhardt says the water of the Zemzem ‘is heavy to the taste, and sometimes in its colour resembles milk; but,’ he adds, ‘it is perfectly sweet, and differs very much from that of the brackish wells dispersed over the town. When first drawn up, it is slightly tepid, resembling in this respect many other fountains of the Hejáz.’—Travels in Arabia, p. 144. I have also drunk the water of Zemzem brought in a china bottle to Cairo, and found it perfectly sweet.” e. m. w.
[5 ]Ibid. and Pitts, ubi supra, p. 107.
[6 ]Gol. ad Alfragan, 99.
[8 ]Sharif al Edrísi, ubi supra.
[1 ]Sharíf al Edrísi, ubi supra.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., p. 51.
[* ]Burckhardt says seventy-two miles. Travels in Arabia, p. 69. e. m. w.
[3 ]Sharíf al Edrísi, ubi supra, 125.
[4 ]Id., Vulgò Geogr. Nubiensis 5.
[1 ]Though the notion of Muhammad’s being buried at Makkah has been so long exploded, yet several modern writers, whether through ignorance or negligence I will not determine, have fallen into it I shall here take notice only of two; one is Dr. Smith, who having lived some time in Turkey, seems to be inexcusable: that gentleman in his Epistles De Moribus ac Institutis Turcarum, no less than thrice mentions the Muhammadans visiting the tomb of their prophet at Makkah, and once his being born at Madína—the reverse of which is true (see Epist. 1, p 22, Epist. 2. pp. 63, 64). The other is the publisher of the last edition of Sir J. Mandeville’s Travels, who on his author’s saying very truly (p. 50) that the said tomb was at Methone, i.e., Madina, undertakes to correct the name of the town, which is something corrupted, by putting at the bottom of the page, Makkah. The Abbot de Vertot, in his History of the Order of Malta (vol i. p. 410, ed. 8vo), seems also to have confounded these two cities together, though he had before mentioned Muhammad’s sepulchre at Madína. However, he is certainly mistaken, when he says that one point of the religion, both of the Christians and Muhammadans, was to visit, at least once in their lives, the tomb of the author of their respective faith. Whatever may be the opinion of some Christians, I am well assured the Muhammadans think themselves under no manner of obligation in that respect.
[2 ]Gol. ad Alfragan, 97; Abulfeda, Descr. Arab., p. 40.
[3 ]Gol., ubi supra, 95.
[4 ]Ibid., 94.
[5 ]Ibid., 95.
[1 ]Albufarag. p. 159.
[2 ]Or Uz. Gen. x. 22, 23.
[3 ]Vide Qurán, c. 89, v. 6. Some make Ad the son of Amalek, the son of Ham; but the other is the received opinion. See D’Herbel., 51.
[* ]This genealogy is given on the authority of Muslim tradition, or rather of Muslim adaptation of Jewish tradition to gratify Arab pride. As to its utter worthlessness, see note on p. 24. e. m. w.
[4 ]Vide Eund., 498
[5 ]Cap. 89.
[1 ]D’Herbei., 51.
[* ]For a full account of his adventure, see Lane’s translation of the Thousand and One Nights.e. m. w.
[2 ]The Jews acknowledge Heber to have been a great prophet. Seder Olam., p. 2.
[† ]I can find no authority for this “general belief,” excepting that of Muslim conjecture. The guesses of D’Herbelot and Bochart seem to be inspired by Muslim tradition, which has been shown to be for the most part, so far as genealogy is concerned, a forgery. Muir suggests that Húd may have been a Jewish emissary or Christian evangelist. Life of Mohamet, Introd., p. 139. e. m. w.
[3 ]Al Baidháwi.
[4 ]Poc. Spec., p. 35, &c.
[1 ]Poc. Spec., p. 36.
[2 ]Jaláluddin et Zamakhshari.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 7, v. 70.
[4 ]Or Gether, vide Gen. x. 23.
[5 ]D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., 740.
[6 ]Bochart, Georg. Sac.
[7 ]See D’Herbel., 366.
[8 ]Ibn Shohnah.
[1 ]Poc. Spec., p. 57.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 15, v. 82.
[3 ]Abu Musa al Ashari.
[4 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 37.
[6 ]A like custom is said to have been in some manors in England, and also in Scotland, where it was called “culliage,” or “cullage,” having been established by K. Ewen, and abolished by Malcolm III. See Bayle’s Dict. Art. Sixte IV. Rem. H.
[7 ]Poc. Spec., p. 60.
[8 ]Ibid., p. 37, &c.
[9 ]Ibid., p 38.
[1 ]Ibn Shohnah.
[2 ]Gen. xxxvi. 12.
[3 ]Vide D’Herbelot, p. 110.
[4 ]Ibn Shohnah.
[5 ]Vide Numb. xxiv. 20.
[6 ]Mirát Caïnát.
[7 ]Vide Joseph, cont. Apion., l. i.
[8 ]Vide Exod. xvii. 18, &c.; 1 Sam. xv. 2, &c.; ibid., xxvii. 8, 9; 1 Chron. iv. 43.
[* ]Muir, in his Life of Mahomet (Introd., p. cl.), proves conclusively that this identification of the Arab Qahtán with the Joctan of Scripture is an extravagant fiction, and shows that the age of Qahtán must be fixed at a period somewhere between 800 and 500 He says: “The identification (alluded to above) is one of those extravagant fictions which the followers of Islám, in their zeal to accommodate Arab legend to Jewish scripture, has made in defiance of the most violent improbability, and the grossest anachronisms.” e. m. w
[9 ]R. Saad. in vers. Arab. Pentat. Gen. x. 25. Some writers make Qahtán a descendant of Ismaíl, but against the current of Oriental historians. See Poc. Spec., p. 39.
[10 ]An expression something like that of St. Paul, who calls himself “an Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Phil. iii. 5).
[1 ]Poc. Spec., p. 40.
[* ]On this subject we give the following extract from Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. i. p. cvii.:—
[1 ]Vide Hyde, Hist. Rel. vet. Pers., p. 37, &c.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., pp. 65, 66.
[* ]This event did not occur till about the beginning of the second century of the Christian era. See Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. i., Introd., p. clvii., and authorities cited there. e. m. w.
[1 ]Vide Gol. ad Alfrag., p. 232.
[2 ]Poc. Spec, p. 57.
[† ]This immigration was probably due chiefly to “the drying up of the Yemen commerce, and stoppage of the carrying trade,” owing to the Romans having opened up commercial intercourse between India and Egypt by way of the Red Sea. Muir’s Introd., Life of Mahomet. p. cxxxvii. e. m. w.
[3 ]Geogr. Nubiens, p. 52.
[1 ]See Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 61.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., pp. 63, 64.
[4 ]Al Jannábi and Ahmed Ibn Yusef.
[5 ]Poc. Spec., p. 76.
[1 ]2 Cor. xi. 32; Acts ix. 24.
[* ]This was true only of the last kings of the tribe, the conversion having probably taken place through political influence about the middle of the fourth century of our era. Muir’s Introd., Life of Mahomet, p. clxxxv. e. m. w.
[2 ]Vide Ockley’s History of the Saracens, vol. i. p. 174.
[3 ]Poc. Spec., p. 66.
[4 ]Ibid., p. 74.
[5 ]Ibid. and Procop. in Pers. apud Photium., p. 71, &c.
[6 ]Poc. Spec., p. 45.
[7 ]Ibid., p. 79.
[1 ]Poc. Spec., p. 55 sed.
[2 ]Vide ibid., p. 41, and Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 2.
[3 ]Vide Poe. Spec., p. 79, &c.
[4 ]Vide Elmacin. in Vita al Rádi.
[1 ]Voyage de l’Arab. Heur., p. 255.
[* ]There is no one family now ruling over the whole of Yaman. At present the Turks have at least nominal dominion in the northern part to about 17° 30′ north latitude. In Southern Yaman there is no paramount sovereign, the Záidí family having been deposed from the throne of Sanáa some years ago. The Sultán of Gáara, in Lower Jafiá, who is recognised as a sort of hierarch in those regions, exercises considerable authority under the title of Afífí. He is said to pronounce judgment by fire ordeals. His principal rival is the Sultán of Maár, in the district of Abíán, but he has thus far been able to maintain his position as the most respected judge in Southern Yaman. In addition to these there is the so-called six-finger dynasty (said to have twelve fingers and twelve toes) of the Osmám rulers in the region near Aden, who are subsidised by the English. These are also rivals of the Afífí. e. m. w.
[2 ]Ibid., pp. 153, 273.
[3 ]Ibid., p. 254.
[4 ]Ibid., p. 143.
[† ]The present Grand Sharíf of Makkah is Abdal Muttalib, who was deposed in 1858 by the Sultán of Turkey, and kept at Constantinople as a state prisoner for more than twenty years. His successor in office was assassinated at Jidda in 1880 by a fanatic, because, as is believed by some, he refused to recognise the Sultán of Turkey as the Khalífah (caliph or vicegerent of Muhammad). Strange to say, the Sultán reinstated the exiled Grand Sharíf. He is said to be a mortal enemy of the English. Yet he does not appear to be popular in Arabia, as an unsuccessful attempt was made on his life soon after his arrival at Makkah. e. m. w.
[1 ]Voyage de l’Arab. Heur., p. 145.
[2 ]Ibid., pp. 143, 148.
[3 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 477.
[* ]The defeat of the Wahábis by Ibrahím Pásha in 1818 brought a considerable portion of Arabia, comprising about two hundred thousand square miles, under Turkish suzerainty. The rule of the Turk, however, is for the most part merely nominal, and this becomes more so each year as the power of the Ottoman empire decreases. So far, however, as recognised, it extends over almost the whole of Hijáz, with Makkah, Madína, and Jidda, under semi-independent rulers, the northern part of Yaman, and about half of Ahra (with Palgrave’s Hofhoof) on the east coast. Madína is subject to the Grand Sharíf of Makkah.
[1 ]Voy. de l’Arab. Heur., p. 148.
[* ]See note above.
[2 ]Diodor. Sic., l. 2, p. 131.
[3 ]Herodot., l. 3, c. 97.
[4 ]Idem ib. c. 91. Diodor., ubi sup.
[5 ]Herodot., l. 3, c. 8 and 98.
[6 ]Strabo, l. 16, pp. 1076, 1132.
[7 ]Vide Diodor. Sic., ubi supra.
[8 ]Strabo, l. 16, p. 1092.
[9 ]Dion Cassius, l. 53, p m. 516.
[10 ]Huet, Hist. du Commerce et de la Navigation des Anciens, c. 50.
[1 ]See the whole expedition described at large by Strabo, l. 16, p. 1126, &c.
[2 ]Xiphilin., epit.
[3 ]Connect. of the Hist. of the Old and New Test., p. 1, bk. 3.
[4 ]Some say seven. See D’Herbelot, p. 726, and Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 128.
[5 ]Others say they use no incurvations or prostrations at all; vide Hyde, ibid.
[1 ]Abulfarag, Hist. Dynast., p. 281, &c
[2 ]Idem ibid.
[3 ]Hyde, ubi supra, p. 124, &c.
[4 ]D’Herbelot, ubi supra.
[5 ]See Greaves Pyramidog., pp. 6, 7.
[6 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 138.
[7 ]Thábit Ibn Kurrah, a famous astronomer, and himself a Sabian, wrote a treatise in Syriac concerning the doctrines, rites, and ceremonies of this sect; from which, it it could be recovered, we might expect much better information than any taken from the Arabian writers; vide Abulfarag, ubi supra.
[* ]For a better account of these Sabians, see note on chap. ii. v. 61. e. m. w.
[1 ]Vide Herodot., l. 3, c. 8; Arrian, pp. 161, 162; and Strabo, l. 16.
[2 ]Al Shahristáni.
[1 ]Nodhm al dorr.
[2 ]Al Baidháwi.
[* ]So far as the Qurán and the religion of Muhammad are concerned, a charge of idolatry would be a sign of ignorance. But when we take into account the reverence of Muslims for the Black Stone at Makkah, their worship of Walis or saints, and notably of Hasan and Husain, the charge is just. However, when this inconsistency of Muslims is made to appear as an argument against Islám, it is as absurd as the attempt of Muslims to establish the charge of idolatry against Christians by pointing to Roman Catholic image-worship. e. m. w.
[3 ]Vide post.
[4 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 163.
[2 ]Al Jannábi.
[4 ]This name seems to be corrupted, there being no such among the Arab tribes. Poc. Spec., p. 130.
[5 ]Abulfarag, p. 160.
[6 ]Poc. Spec., p. 132.
[7 ]Cap. 53, v. 1.
[8 ]Ibid., va. 19-28.
[1 ]Dr. Prideaux mentions this expedition, but names only Abu Sofián, and mistaking the name of the idol for an appellative, supposes he went only to disarm the Tayifians of their weapons and instruments of war. See his Life of Mahomet, p. 98.
[2 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Muham., p. 127.
[3 ]Poc. Spec., p. 90.
[4 ]Al Jauhari, apud eund., p. 91.
[5 ]Al Shah., ib.
[6 ]Al Firauz., ib.
[1 ]Al Jauhari.
[2 ]Al Shahristáni, Abulfeda, &c.
[3 ]Al Baidháwi, al Zamakhshari.
[4 ]Poc. Spec., p. 91, &c.
[6 ]Qurán, c. 71, v. 22; Comment. Persic.; vide Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 133.
[7 ]Al Jauhari, al Shahristáni.
[8 ]Idem, al Firauzábádi, and Safiu’ddin.
[9 ]Al Firauzáb.
[2 ]Al Jauhari.
[3 ]Al Firauzáb.
[4 ]Poc. Spec., p. 94.
[5 ]See Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 132.
[* ]Somnáth is the name of the idol, and is applied to the god Mahadev. This idol may have been called Lát or al Lát by the Muslim plunderer, Mahmúd, and his followers, but that it was ever so called by the Hindus is a mistake. e. m. w.
[1 ]D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient., p. 512.
[2 ]Al Mustatraf.
[3 ]Al Jannab.
[4 ]Abulfed., Shahrist., &c.
[5 ]Poc. Spen., p. 95.
[7 ]Poc. Spec., p. 97.
[9 ]Ibn al Ashir., al Jannáb., &c.
[* ]Safá and Marwa “are two slightly elevated spots adjacent to theTemple of Mekkeh.”—Lane’s Kurán, p. 33. e. m. w.
[1 ]Poc. Spec., p. 98.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 159.
[5 ]Al Mustatraf, al Jauhari.
[4 ]Al Mustatraf, al Jannábi.
[5 ]Abulfarag, p. 160.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 135.
[2 ]Al Mustatraf.
[3 ]In his Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers.
[4 ]Dr. Prideaux’s Connect of the Hist. of the Old and New Test., part i. book 4.
[5 ]Al Mustatraf.
[1 ]Chap. 50.
[* ]Here is another instance of the error into which the writers of last century were led by Muslim authors. This Abu Qaríb Asad flourished about the beginning of the third century of our era, and hence about four hundred years before Muhammad. See Introd. Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. i. p. clvi. e. m. w.
[2 ]See before, p 28, and Baronii, Annal. ad sec. vi.
[3 ]Chap. 85, vv. 4, 5.
[4 ]See Galat. i. 17.
[5 ]Abulfarag, p. 149.
[6 ]Al Mustatraf.
[7 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 137.
[8 ]Al Jannábi, apud Poc. Spec., p. 63.
[1 ]Vule Gregentii disput, cam Herbano Judæo
[* ]We can but wonder at the apparent credulity which could admit a story like this as anything more than a fabrication. The whole account of the persecution of Christians by Dhu Nuwás shows that Christianity had been introduced before his time e. m. w.
[1 ]Al Maidáni and Ahmad Ibn Yusaf, apud Poc. Spec., p. 72
[2 ]Abulfeda, apud eund., p. 74.
[3 ]Safiu’ddin, apud. Poc. Spec., p. 137.
[* ]Lane says “the Copts call their metropolitan Matran.”—Kurán, p. 39, note. e. m. w.
[4 ]A Bulfarag in Chross. Syriac, MS.
[5 ]Abulfeda in Descr. Iracæ.
[6 ]Vide Assemani, Bibl. Orient., tom. 2, in Dissert. de Monophysitis, and p. 245.
[7 ]Al Mustatraf, apud Poc. Spec., p. 136.
[1 ]Vide Reland, De Relig. Moham., p. 270; and Millium de Mohammedismo ante Moham., p. 311.
[2 ]These seem to be the same whom M. La Roque calls Moors. Voy. dans la Palestine, p. 110.
[3 ]See Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 6.
[4 ]Strabo, l. 16, p. 1129.
[5 ]Idem ibid., p. 1084.
[6 ]La Roque. Voy. dans la Palestine, p. 109, &c.
[1 ]Job xix. 23, 24.
[1 ]See Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, pp. 29, 30
[2 ]A specimen of the Cufic character may be seen in Sir J. Chardin’s Travels, vol. iii. p. 119.
[3 ]Ibn Khaliqán. Yet others attribute the honour of the invention of this character to Ibn Muklah’s brother, Abdallah al Hassan, and the perfecting of it to Ibn Amíd al Kátib, after it had been reduced to near the present form by Abd’alhamid. Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., pp. 590, 108, and 194.
[1 ]Poc. Orat. ante Carmen Tograi, p. 10.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., p. 161.
[1 ]Ibn Rashik, apud Poc. Spec., p. 160.
[2 ]Poc. Orat. præfix. Carm. Tograi, ubi supra.
[3 ]Idem, Spec., p. 159.
[4 ]Geogr. Nub., p. 51.
[5 ]Poc. Spec., p. 159.
[6 ]Ibid., and p. 381. Et in calce Notar. in Carmen Tograi, p. 233.
[1 ]Jaláluddin al Soyú., apud Poc. Spec., p. 159, &c.
[2 ]Ibid., p. 160.
[3 ]Ibid., 161. Al Safadi confirms this by a story of a grammarian named Abu Jaafar, who sitting by the Mikyas or Nilometer in Egypt, in a year when the Nile did not rise to its usual height, so that a famine was apprenended, and dividing a piece of poetry into its parts or feet, to examine them by the rules of art, some who passed by not understanding him, imagined he was uttering a charm to hinder the rise of the river, and pushed him into the water, where he lost his life.
[4 ]Vide Clericum de Prosod. Arab., p. 2.
[5 ]Pocock, in calce Notar. ad Carmen Tograi.
[6 ]Vide Gentii Notas in Gulistan Sheikh Sadi, p. 486, &c.
[7 ]Poc. Spec., p. 48.
[1 ]Ibn al Hubaírah, apud Poc. in Not. ad Carmen Tograi, p. 107.
[2 ]Several may be found in D’Herbelot’s Bibl. Orient., particularly in the articles of Hasan the son of Ali, Maan Fadhal, and Ibn Yahya.
[1 ]Herodot., l. 3, c. 8.
[2 ]Strabo, l. 16, p. 1129.
[3 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 121.
[* ]On the authority of Lane I give the following from Burckhardt’s Notes on the Bedouins and Wahhabys, vol. i. p. 185:—“The Turk is cruel, the Arab of a more kind temper; he pities and supports the wretched, and never forgets the generosity shewn to him even by an enemy. Not accustomed to the sanguinary scenes that harden and corrupt an Osmanly’s heart, the Bedouin learns at an early period of life to abstain and to suffer, and to know from experience the healing power of pity and consolation.”—Kurán, p. 48, note. e. m. w.
[* ]This, again, according to Burckhardt, is a mistake, for he says that the slaughter of a camel rarely happens. (See his Notes on the Bedouins and Wahhabys, vol. i. p. 63; Lane’s Kurán, p. 48.) But the testimony of tradition to the fact that the Quraish, during their expedition against Muhammad which resulted in the battle of Badr, slaughtered nine camels daily, would seem to indicate that, whatever modern custom may be, the Arabs of Muhammad’s time indulged very freely in camels’ flesh. e. m. w.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 87; Bochart, Hierozoic., l. 2, c. 1.
[2 ]Voyage dans la Palest., p. 220, &c.
[* ]That this statement is incorrect is evident from the following remarks in Burckhardt’s Notes on the Bedouins and Wahhabys, vol. i. pp. 157, 158:—“The Arabs may be styled a nation of robbers, whose principal occupation is plunder, the constant subject of their thoughts. But we must not attach to this practice the same notions of criminality that we entertain respecting highwaymen, housebreakers, and thieves in Europe. The Arabian robber considers his profession as honourable, and the term haramy (robber) is one of the most flattering titles that could be conferred on a youthful hero. The Arab robs his enemies, his friends, and his neighbours, provided that they are not actually in his own tent, where their property is sacred. To rob in the camp or among friendly tribes is not reckoned creditable to a man, yet no stain remains upon him for such an action, which, in fact, is of daily occurrence. But the Arab chiefly prides himself on robbing his enemies, and on bringing away by stealth what he could not have taken by open force. The Bedouins have reduced robbery in all its branches to a complete and regular system, which offers many interesting details.”
[1 ]Voyage dans la Palest., p. 213, &c.
[2 ]Al Shahristáni, apud Poc. Orat., ubi sup., p. 9, and Spec., p. 164.
[3 ]Abulfarag, p. 161.
[1 ]Vide Hyde in not. ad Tabulas stellar fixar, Ulugh Beigh, p. 5.
[2 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 103. &c.
[* ]R. Bosworth Smith, in his Lectures on Muhammad and Muhammadanism, p. 216, makes the following statement on this subject:—
[1 ]Vide Hyde, ubi sup., p. 4.
[1 ]Ricaut’s State of the Ottoman Empire, p. 187.
[2 ]Prideaux’s Preface to his Life of Mahomet.
[1 ]Vide La Vie de Mahommed, par Boulainvilliers, p. 219, &c.
[2 ]Vide Simon, Hist. Crit de la Créance, &c., des Nations du Levant.
[3 ]Ammian Maroellin., l. 21. Vide etiam Euseb., Hist. Eccles., l. 8, c. 1. Sozom., l. 1, c. 14, &c. Hilar. et Sulpic. Sever. in Hist. Sacr., p. 112, &c.
[1 ]Ammian. Marcellin., lib. 27.
[2 ]Idem, l. 21.
[3 ]Procop. in Anecd., p. 60.
[4 ]See an instance of the wickedness of the Christian army, even when they were under the terror of the Saracens, in Ockley’s Hist. of the Sarac., vol. i. p. 239.
[5 ]Vide Boulainvil., Vie de Mahom., ubi sup.
[6 ]Vide Sozomen., Hist. Eccles., l. 1, c. 16, 17. Sulpic. Sever., ubi supra.
[7 ]Euseb., Hist. Eccles., l. 6, c. 33.
[8 ]Idem ibid., c. 37.
[9 ]Epiphan. de Hæres., l. 2; Hær. 40.
[10 ]Idem ibid., l. 3; Hæres., 75, 79.
[1 ]Elmacin. Eutych.
[2 ]Cap. 5, v. 77.
[* ]A careful study of the Qurán will show that this is the only conception of a Trinity which found a place in Muhammad’s mind. e. m. w.
[1 ]Machiavelli, Princ., c. 6, p. 19.
[1 ]Ockley’s Hist. of the Saracens, vol. i. p. 19, &c.
[2 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 70.
[1 ]Vide Teixeira, Relaciones de los Reyes de Persia, p. 195, &c.
[1 ]He was not his eldest son, as Dr. Prideaux tells us, whose reflections built on that foundation must necessarily fail (see his Life of Mahomet, p. 9); nor yet his youngest son, as M. de Boulainvilliers (Vie de Mahommed, p. 182, &c.) supposes; for Hamza and al Abbás were both younger than Abdallah.
[2 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Moham., p. 2.
[1 ]See Qurán, c 2
[2 ]Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 76.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 10. v. 37
[2 ]See Casaub. of Enthusiasm, p. 148.
[* ]For a most able and satisfactory exposition of the character of Muhammad, we refer the reader to Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. chap. xxxvii. e. m. w.
[1 ]Ammian Marcell., l. 14, c. 4.
[1 ]Vide Abulfeda Vit. Moham., p. 144, &c.
[1 ]Vide Prid. Life of Mahomet, p. 105.
[2 ]Vide Abulfeda, ubi supra.
[1 ]See Qurán, c. 29, v. 47. Prid. Life of Mahomet. p 28, &c.
[2 ]Chap. 7.
[3 ]This passage is generally agreed to be the first five verses of the 96th chapter.
[4 ]I do not remember to have read in any Eastern author that Khadíjah ever rejected her husband’s pretences as delusions, or suspected him of any imposture. Yet see Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 11, &c.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 157.
[2 ]Vide Abulfeda, Vit. Moham., p. 16, where the learned translator has mistaken the meaning of this passage.
[3 ]For he was his purchased slave, as Abulfeda expressly tells us, and not his cousin-german, as M. de Boulainvilliers asserts (Vie de Mah. p. 273).
[* ]Lane calls attention to the fact that “the conversion of a person after he has been made a slave does not entitle him to, and seldom obtains for him, his freedom.” The “followers” of Muhammad referred to in the text probably designates only those who were his contemporaries Certainly the “rule” is not observed by the holders of slaves, black and white, in Turkey, Egypt, and other regions under Muslim government. e. m. w.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 74. See the notes thereon.
[* ]The statement that Ali “vehemently threatened those who should oppose” Muhammad is a mistake, which, says Lane (Kurán, p. 62), “originated with Gagnier, who, in his edition of Abu-l-Fida’s Life of Mohammed, has given the original words of this speech with several errors, and thus rendered them—‘Egomet ita faciam; ego ipse dentes illio excutiam, aculos eruam, ventrem dissecabo, crura mutilabo, &c.’ (p. 19).” e. m. w.
[1 ]Abulfeda, ubi supra.
[1 ]Idem, Ibn Shohnah.
[2 ]Dr. Prideaux seems to take this word for a proper name, but it is only the title the Arabs give to every king of this country. See his Life of Mahomet, p. 55.
[3 ]Ibn Shohnah
[4 ]Al Jannábi
[1 ]Abulfeda, p. 28. Ibn Shohuah.
[1 ]Ibn Shohnah.
[2 ]See the notes on the 17th chapter of the Qurán.
[3 ]Life of Mahomet, pp. 41, 51. &c.
[1 ]Cap. 60, v. 12.
[2 ]Vide Qurán, c. 6, v. 151
[1 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Moham., p. 40, &c.
[2 ]Ibn Ishák.
[* ]No sentiment could be further from the truth than this. Jesus and Buddha have more followers than any other “prophets” to-day. Even Islám has not depended on the sword for all its successes, e.g., the conversion of multitudes of Tartars, Hindus, Africans, &c. Judaism was never a religion of the sword, and Christianity has ever prospered amidst the fires of persecution, and in spite of the sword. But see next paragraph. e. m. w.
[1 ]Machiavelli, Princ., e. 6.
[2 ]See Prideaux’s Letter to the Deists, p. 220, &c.
[1 ]See Bayle’s Dict. Hist, Art. Mahomet, Rem. O.
[* ]A deputation was sent at this time to Muhammad, but its object was not to assassinate him. This has been satisfactorily established by Muir in his Life of Mahomet, vol. ii. chap. vi. p. 251. He says, “What was the decision as to their future course of action (i.e., of the Coreish), what the object even of the present deputation, it is impossible, amid the hostile and marvellous tales of tradition, to conclude. There is little reason to believe that it was assassination, although the traditionists assert that this was determined upon at the instigation of Abu Jahi, supported by the devil, who, in the person of an old man from Najd, shrouded in a mantle, joined the council. Mahomet himself, speaking in the Corân of the designs of his enemies, refers to them in these indecisive terms—‘And call to mind when the unbelievers plotted against thee, that they might detain thee, or slay thee, or expel thee; yea, they plotted, but God plotted likewise, and God is the best of plotters’ (Sura viii. ver. 30). Assuredly had assassination been the sentence, and its immediate execution (as pretended by tradition) ordered by the council, Mahomet would have indicated the fact in clearer language than these alternative expressions. A resolution so fatal would unquestionably have been dwelt on at length, both in the Coran and traditions, and produced as a justification (for such, indeed, it would have been) of all subsequent hostilities.” e. m. w.
[1 ]See the notes to chap. 8 and 36.
[* ]Burckhardt says “south” (Travels in Arabia, p. 176). So Lane in Kurán, p. 74. e. m. w.
[1 ]It is observable that the Jews have a like tradition concerning David, when he fled from Saul into the cave;and the Targum paraphrases these words of the second verse of Psalm lvii., which was composed on occasion of that deliverance: “I will pray before the Most High God that performeth all things for me, in this manner; I will pray before the Most High God, who called a spider to weave a web for my sake in the mouth of the cave.”
[2 ]Al Baidhawi in Qurán, c. 9. Vide D’Herbelo. Bibl. Orient., p. 445.
[* ]“The verses in Sura viii. 30, about God plotting so as to deceive the Meceans, and in Sura ix. 40, about God assisting the two refugees in the cave, have probably given rise to these tales.” Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. ii. p. 257, note. e. m. w.
[3 ]Cap. 9, v. 40.
[4 ]Abulfeda; Vit. Moh., p. 50, &c. Ebn Shohnah.
[† ]“It is the general opinion of our chronologers that the first day of the Muslim era of ‘the Flight’ (or, more properly, ‘the Emigration’) was Friday the 16th of July 622. . This era does not commence from the day on which the proph departed from Mekkeh (as is supposed by most of our authors who have mentioned this subject), but from the first day of the moon or month of Moharram preceding that event. . . . The flight itself . . . commenced on the 22d of September.”—Lanc in “Kuran,” p. 75. e. m. w.
[5 ]Abulfeda, ib. pp. 52, 53.
[1 ]Disputatio Christiani contra Saracen., cap. 4.
[2 ]Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 58.
[3 ]Al Bokhari in Sonna.
[4 ]Al Jannabi.
[5 ]Ahmad Ibn Yusaf.
[6 ]Vide Gagnier, not, in Abulfed. de Vit. Moh., pp. 52, 53.
[7 ]See the notes on the Qurán, chap. 3, v. 13.
[1 ]Vide Abulfeda, Vit. Moh., p. 158.
[1 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Moh., p. 85.
[* ]These statements are manifest fabrications of a later period. Muir says. “There is no reason to believe that there was any such abject worship of Mahomet during his lifetime.”—Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. p. 30. e. m. w.
[2 ]See before, p. 28.
[1 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Moh., p. 92, &c.
[* ]This whole story of the conversion of Badhán, with all its miraculous surroundings, is a clear fabrication. The only element of truth allowable is that Badhán, taking advantage of a revolution in Persia, threw off his allegiance to that power, and, finding Muhammad the leader of a powerful and growing faction in Arabia, was glad to gain his support by signifying his allegiance to him. e. m. w.
[2 ]Al Jannábi.
[† ]This absurd pretension of the traditionists is described in full in Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. chap. 20. e. m. w.
[3 ]It is, however a different name from that of the Virgin Mary, which the Orientals always write Maryam or Miriam, whereas this is written Máriya.
[4 ]This prince is omitted in Dr. Pocock’s list of the kings of Ghassán, Spec., p. 77.
[1 ]Abulfeda ubi sup., p. 94. &c.
[* ]For a full and reliable account of the matters treated in this paragraph, see Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. chap. 20, already referred to above. e. m. w.
[2 ]Idem ib., pp. 99, 100, &c.
[† ]“Some accounts pretend that Khâled rallied the army, and either turned the day against the Romans or made it a drawn battle. But besides that the brevity of all the accounts is proof enough of a reverse, the reception of the army on its return to Medina admits of only one conclusion, viz., a complete, ignominious, and unretrieved discomfiture. —Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. p. 100, note. e. m. w.
[1 ]Al Bokhári in Sonna.
[2 ]This circumstance is a plain proof that the Quraish had actually broken the truce, and that it was not a mere pretence of Muhammad’s, as Dr. Prideaux insinuates. Life of Mahomet, p. 94.
[1 ]Vide Abulfeda, ubi sup., c. 51, 52.
[2 ]Vide Gagnier, not ad Abulfeda, p. 121.
[3 ]Abulfeda, ubi sup., p. 128.
[* ]The arguments used to persuade the Yamanites were the swords of his Muslim followers. e. m. w.
[4 ]Ibid., p. 129.
[1 ]This name was at first given to the Pentateuch only, Nehem. viii. Vide Simon. Hist. Crit. du Vieux. Test., l. 1, c. 9.
[2 ]Vide Erpen. not. ad Hist. Joseph., p. 3.
[3 ]Marrac. de Alcor., p. 41.
[1 ]Vide Gol. in append. ad Gram. Arab. Erpen., 175. A chapter or subdivision of the Massictoth of the Mishna is also called Perek. Maimon., Præf. in Seder Zeraim, p. 57.
[2 ]Vide Gol., ubi. sup., 177. Each of the six grand divisions of the Mishna is also called Seder. Maimon., ubi sup., p. 55.
[* ]In this edition the verses are numbered according to the division of Shaikh Abdul Qádir of Delhi, so as to correspond with those of the Roman Urdú edition published at Lodiana, 1876. e. m. w.
[1 ]Or as others reckon them, 99,464 Reland., De Rel. Moh. p. 25
[2 ]Or according to another computation, 330,113. Ibid. Vide Gol. ubi.sup., p 178 D’Herbelot. Bibl Orient. p. 87.
[* ]Hughes in his introduction to the Roman Urdu Qurán, makes the number of verses to be 6616; of words, 77,934; and of letters, 323,671. e. m. w.
[3 ]Yide Reland. De Relig. Moh., p. 25.
[4 ]Vide Gol., ubi sup., p. 178. Maimon., Præf in Seder Zeraim, p. 57.
[1 ]Vide Smith, De Moribus et Instit. Turcar., p. 58.
[* ]In this edition these parts are called sipáras, from two Persian words: si, thirty, and pára, parts; and they are indicated as first sipára, second sipára, &c. e. m. w.
[2 ]Hyde, His. Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 14.
[1 ]Vide Buxtorf, Lexicon Rabbin.
[2 ]Vide Ibid. See also Schickardi Bechinat happerushim, p. 62, &c.
[1 ]Golius in Append. ad Gram. Erp., p. 182.
[* ]See Rodwell’s Koran, p. 17, note. Rodwell conjectures that they may have been the initial letters or marks of the persons to whom the manuscripts of the respective Súras belonged from which Zaid compiled the present text. e. m. w.
[2 ]See post.
[3 ]Ahmed Abd’alhalim, apud Marrace, de Alc., p. 43.
[4 ]A noble writer therefore mistakes the question when he says these Eastern religionists leave their sacred writ the sole standard of literate performance by extinguishing all true learning. For though they were destitute of what we call learning, yet they were far from being ignorant, or unable to compose elegantly in their own tongue. See Lord Shaftesbury’s Characteristics, vol. iii. p 235
[1 ]Al Ghazáli, apud Poc. Spec., 191. See Qurán, c. 17. v. 90, and also c. 2, p. 3, v. 23, and c. II, v. 14, &c.
[* ]Arnold (Islam and Christianity, p. 324) has pointed out that, while the beauty of the Qurán was acknowledged by some of Muhammad’s contemporaries, yet there is proof from the Qurán itself that this was rather the exception than the rule, e.g., chap. viii. 31, also chap. xxi. 5. e. m. w.
[2 ]D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 512, &c.
[3 ]Poc. Spec., p. 80.
[4 ]See supra, p. 53
[† ]This Amri al Qais died in 540, on his return from Constantinople. See Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. i. p. ccxxii. This was just thirty years before Muhammad was born!
[1 ]See Casaubon, of Enthusiasm, c. 4.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 15, v. 6; c. 21, v. 3, &c.
[2 ]Golius. in appen. ad Gram. Erp., p. 176.
[1 ]Vide Qurán, c. 16, v. 105, and c. 25, v. 5.
[2 ]See the notes on those passages.
[3 ]Life of Mahomet, p. 31, &c.
[1 ]Vide Quran, c. 97, and note ibid.
[2 ]Therefore it is a mistake of Dr. Prideaux to say it was brought him chapter by chapter. Life of Mahomet, p. 6. The Jews also say the Law was given to Moses by parcels. Vide Millium, de Mohammedismo ante Moham., p. 365.
[3 ]Not the whole chapter, as Golius says. Append. ad Gr. Erp., p. 108.
[* ]Muir says, “This statement does not seem to be borne out by any good authority.”—Introduction, Life of Mahomet, p. 4. e. m. w.
[1 ]Elmacin. in Vita Abu Becr, Abulfeda.
[1 ]Abulfeda, in Vitis Abu Becr and Othman
[2 ]The characters or marks of the Arabic vowels were not used till several years after Muhammad. Some ascribè the invention of them to Yahya Ibn Yámir, some to Nasr Ibn Asam, surnamed al Laithi, and others to Abu al Aswad al Díli—all, three of whom were doctors of Basra, and immediately succeeded the companions. See D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 87.
[1 ]Abu Hashem Hebatallah, apud Marracc. de Alc., p. 42.
[1 ]See post, Sect. VIII.
[2 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 219, &c.
[3 ]Anno Hij., 218. Abulfarag, p. 245, v. etiam Elmacin. in Vita al Mamûn.
[4 ]In the time of al Mutasim, a doctor named Abu Harún Ibn al Baqa found out a distinction to screen himself, by affirming that the Qurán was ordained, because it is said in that book, “And I have ordained thee the Qurán.” He went still further to allow that what was ordained was created, and yet he denied it thence followed that the Qurán was created. Abulfarag, p. 253.
[5 ]Ibid., p. 257.
[6 ]Anno Hij., p. 242.
[7 ]Abulfarag, p. 262.
[8 ]Al Ghazáli, in prof. fid.
[1 ]The Khalífah al Walíd Ibn Yazíd, who was the eleventh of the race of Ommeya, and is looked on by the Muhammadans as a reprobate and one of no religion, seems to have treated this book as a rational creature; for, dipping into it one day, the first words he met with were these: “Every rebellious, perverse person shall not prosper.” Whereupon he stuck it on a lance, and shot it to pieces with arrows, repeating these verses: “Dost thou rebuke every rebellious, perverse person? Behold, I am that rebellious, perverse person. When thou appearest before thy Lord on the day of resurrection, say, O Lord, al Walíd has torn me thus.” Ibn Shohnah. v. Poc. Spec., p. 223.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., p. 222.
[3 ]Herbelot, p. 87.
[4 ]Abulfeda, Shahristáni, &c., apud Poc Spec., p. 222, et Marracc., De Qur., p. 44.
[5 ]Al Zamakhahari. Vide Quran, c. 3, v. 7, note.
[1 ]Ahmad Ibn Muh. al Thalabi, in Princip. Expos. Alc.
[2 ]Yahya Ibn al Salám al Basri, in Princep. Expos. Alc.
[3 ]The Jews have the same veneration for their law, not daring to touch it with unwashed hands, nor then neither without a cover. Vide Millium, De Mohammedismo ante Moh., p. 366.
[4 ]This they do by dipping into it, and taking an omen from the words which they first light on, which practice they also learned of the Jews, who do the same with the Scriptures. Vide Millium, ubi sup. [See also Lane’s Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, vol. i. chap. xi., near the end. e. m. w.]
[5 ]Sionita, De Urb. Orient., p. 41, et Marrace., De Aic., p. 33.
[1 ]Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 265.
[* ]In addition to those mentioned in the text, we would note two popular translations of the Qurán in the Urdú language current in India. They are interlined with the Arabic text in all Muslim editions. e. m. w.
[1 ]The root Salama, from whence Islám is formed, in the first and fourth conjugations, signifies also to be saved, or to enter into a state of salvation; according to which, Islám may be translated the religion or state of salvation; but the other sense is more approved by the Muhammadans, and alluded to in the Qurán itself. See c. 2. v. 111, and c. 3, v. 19, notes.
[* ]To these should be added the duty of Jihád, or war against infidels, which our author places under the head of Civil Laws, see chap. vi. All Muslims regard this as a religious duty, which they enumerate along with the four mentioned in the text. e. m. w.
[1 ]Marrac in Alc., p. 102.
[* ]The God of Islám is undoubtedly the only true God, inasmuch as he is represented as a personal God, the Creator and Preserver of all things, as a prayer-hearing God, and as possessing many other characteristics of the God of the Bible.
[2 ]Sect VIII.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, vv 31-34.
[2 ]Ibid., c. 7, v. 12, and c. 38, v. 77.
[3 ]Ibid., c. 2, v. 97.
[4 ]See the notes, ibid., vv. 97, &c.
[5 ]Vide Hyde, Hist. Rel. Vet. Pers, p. 262.
[6 ]Vide ibid., p. 271, and note in Qurán, c. 2, vv 97, &c.
[* ]Muslims pronounce these names Jibráíl, Míkáíl, and Izráíl. e. m. w.
[7 ]Vide note, ibid., c. 2, v. 30.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 6, 13, and 86. The offices of these four angels are described almost in the same manner in the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, where it is said that Gabriel reveals the secrets of God, Michael combats against his enemies, Raphael receives the souls of those who die, and Uriel is to call every one to judgment on the last day. See the Menagiana, tom. iv. p. 333.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 50. v. 16.
[3 ]Talmud Hieros. in Rosh hashan.
[4 ]Vide Hide, ubi sup., c. 19 and 20.
[5 ]Gemar. in Hagig. and Bereshit rabbah, &c. Vide Psalm civ. 4.
[6 ]Yalkut hadash.
[7 ]Gemar. in Shebet, and Bava Bathra, &c.
[8 ]Midrash, Yalkut Shemúni.
[9 ]Gemar. Berachoth.
[10 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 189, &c.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, vv. 31-34. See also c. 7, v. 12; c. 38, v. 77, &c.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 55, v. 14. See the notes there.
[3 ]Jaláluddin, in Qurán, c. 2, v. 101, and c. 18, v. 48.
[4 ]Vide Qurán, c. 55, v. 31; c. 72, vv. 1-14; and c. 74.
[5 ]See D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient pp. 369, 820, &c.
[6 ]In libro Zohar.
[1 ]Gemara, in Hagiga
[2 ]Igrat Baale hayyim., c. 15.
[* ]A careful study of the passages alluded to here will show that the alterations and “corruptions charged against Jews and Christians in the Quran do not refer to the text of their Scriptures. Muir in his treatise on The Testimony Borne by the Coran to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, clearly proves that—“The strongest and most unequivocal testimony is borne by the Coran to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as current in the time of Mahomet that the evidence extends equally to their genuineness and authority; and that there is not a hint any where to be found of their concealment or interpolation.”—Life of Mahomet, vol. ii. p. 207. e. m. w.
[1 ]Terry’s Voyage to the East Indies, p 277.
[2 ]De Rel. Moham., p. 23.
[3 ]A copy of this kind, he tells us, is in the library of the Duke of Tuscany, Bibl. Orient.. p. 924
[* ]See page 10 Preface to Preliminary Discourse.
[1 ]Reland, ubi supra.
[2 ]Menagian, tom. iv. p. 321, &c.
[3 ]John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, and xvi. 7, compared with Luke xxiv. 49.
[4 ]See Toland’s Nazarenus, the first eight chapters.
[5 ]Cap. 61, v. 6.
[6 ]Qurán, c. 15, v. 9.
[7 ]Reland ubi supra, pp. 24, 27.
[1 ]Reland, ubi supra, p. 41.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 253, &c.
[3 ]Thus Heber is said to have been a prophet by the Jews (Seder Olam., p. 2), and Adam by Epiphanius (Adv. Hæres., p. 6). See also Joseph., Ant., l. 1, c. 2.
[1 ]Qurán, c 2, vv. 41, 78; c. 3, 11.
[2 ]Some of these texts are produced by Dr. Prideaux at the end of his Life of Mahomet, and more by Marracci in Alcor., p. 20, &c.
[* ]For example, Deut. xviii. 15-18, where the Lord promises to raise up a prophet for the children of Israel from among their brethren. Muslims argue that the Israelites had no brethren excepting the Ismaílites, from whom Muhammad was descended. This argument is strengthened, they say, by the further statement that this prophet should be like unto Moses. Again, Deut. xxxiv. 10, declares that “there arose no prophet in Israel like unto Moses;” Habakkuk iii. 3 says, “The Holy One came from Mount Paran.” Mount Paran is declared by the Muslims to be Makkah!
[1 ]Al Ghazáli. Vide Poc., not. in Port Mosis, p. 241, &c.
[2 ]Cap. 8, v. 52, and c. 47, v. 29, &c.
[3 ]Smith, De Morib. et Instit. Turcar. Ep. 2, p. 57.
[4 ]Vide Hyde, in Noris ad Bobov. de Visit. Ægrot., p. 10.
[1 ]R. Elias, in Tishbi See also Buxtorf, Synag. Judaic., and Lexic. Talmud.
[2 ]Wide Poc., ubi sup.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 79, v. 1. The Jews my the same, in Nishurat bayim., f 77.
[4 ]Vide Qurán, c. 23, v. 101, and not. ib.
[1 ]Poc., ubi sup., 247.
[2 ]Ibid., p. 248. Consonant hereto are the Jewish notions of the souls of the just being on high, under the throne of glory. Vide ibid., p. 156.
[3 ]Ibid., p. 250.
[4 ]Al Baidháwi. Vide Poc., ubi sup., p 252.
[1 ]Or, as we corruptly name him, Avicenna.
[2 ]Kenzal aírár.
[3 ]Vide Poc., ubi sup., p. 254.
[4 ]Idem, ibid., p. 255, &c.
[6 ]Bereshit. rabbah, &c. Vide Poc., ubi sup., p. 117, &c.
[1 ]Vide Poc., ubi sup., p. 258, &c.
[2 ]See Luke xviii. 8.
[3 ]See Whiston’s Theory of the Earth, bk. ii. p. 98, &c.
[1 ]Chap. xiii.
[1 ]Al Thalábi, in Quràn, c. 4.
[2 ]See Isaiah xi. 6, &c.
[3 ]Cap. 18, v. 96, and 21, v. 96.
[4 ]See Ezek. xxxix. 9; Rev. xx. 8.
[5 ]See Qurán, c. 44, v. 10, and the notes thereon. Compare also Joel ii. 20, and Rev. ix. 2.
[1 ]See post, in this section.
[* ]An account of a remarkable movement among Indian Muslims, aroused during the eleventh century (a.h.) by the expected advent of the Imám Mahdí, is given in F. Talboys Wheeler’s History of India, vol. iv. part i. pp. 151-153. e. m. w.
[1 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 531.
[2 ]Cap. 81, v. 5.
[1 ]Several writers, however, make no distinction between this blast and the first, supposing the trumpet will sound but twice. See the notes to Qurán, c. 39, v. 68.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 30, v. 14.
[3 ]To these some add the spirit who bears the waters on which the throne is placed, the preserved table wherein the decrees of God are registered, and the pen wherewith they are written; all which things the Muhammadans imagine were created before the world.
[4 ]In this circumstance the Muhammadans follow the Jews, who also agree that the trumpet will sound more than once. Vide R. Bechai in Biur hattorah, and Otioth ahel R. Akiba.
[1 ]Elsewhere (see supra p. 130) this rain is said to continue only forty days; but it rather seems that it is to fall during the whole interval between the second and third blasts.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 32, v. 4.
[3 ]Ibid., c. 70. v. 4.
[1 ]See the notes to Qurán, c. 81, v. 5, and supra, page 136.
[2 ]In this also they follow their old guides, the Jews, who say that if the wheat which is sown naked rise clothed, it is no wonder the pious who are buried in their clothes should rise with them. Gemar. Sanhedr., fol. 90.
[1 ]See supra, Sect. I., p. 43.
[1 ]Cap. 14, v. 49.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 6, v. 37. Vide Maimonid., More Nev., part iii. c. 17.
[3 ]This opinion the learned Greaves supposed to have taken its rise from the following words of Ezekiel, wrongly understood: “And as for ye, O my flock, thus saith the Lord God Behold I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle, and between the lean cattle; because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad, therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey, and I will judge between cattle and cattle,” &c. (Ezek. xxxiv. 17. 20-22). Much might be said concerning, brutes deserving future reward and punishment. See Bayle Dict. Hist. Art. Rorarius, Rem. D., &c.
[1 ]Al Ghazáli
[1 ]Vide Pocock, not. in Port. Mosis, p. 277.
[2 ]See supra, p. 120.
[1 ]Gemara, Sanhedr. c. 11; B Jos. Albo, Serm. iv. c. 33. See also Epiphan. in Ancorat., sect. 89.
[1 ]The Arabs use, after they have drawn some milk from the camel, to wait a while and let her young one suck a little, that she may give down her milk more plentifully at the second milking.
[2 ]Pocock, not. in Port. Mosis, pp. 278-282. See also Qurán, c. 2, v. 201.
[3 ]Qurán, c 17, v. 16; c. 18, v. 47; c. 69, v. 25; and c. 84, vv. 7, 8.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 23, v. 103; c. 7, v. 8, &c.
[2 ]Midrash, Yalkut Shemuni, f. 153, c. 3.
[3 ]Gemar. Sanhedr., f. 91, &c.
[4 ]Exod. xxxii. 32, 33; Dan. vii. 10; Rev. xx. 12, &c., and Dan. v. 27.
[5 ]Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., pp. 245, 401, &c.
[1 ]Yet they say the dog of the even sleepers and Ezra’s ass, which was raised to life, will, by peculiar favour, be admitted into paradise. See Qurán, c. 18, vv. 8-24, and c. 3
[1 ]Vide Qurán, c. 18, v. 48.
[2 ]Pocock, ubi sup., pp. 282-289.
[1 ]Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., pp. 245, 402, &c.
[2 ]Midrash, Yalkut Reubeni, § Gehinnom.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 15, v. 14.
[4 ]Others fill these apartments with different company. Some place in the second the idolaters; in the third. Gog and Magog, &c.; in the fourth,the devils; in the fifth, those who neglect alms and prayers; and crowd the Jews, Christians, and Magians together in the sixth. Some, again, will have the first to be prepared for the Dahrians, or those who deny the creation and believe the eternity of the world; the second, for the Dualists, or Manichees, and the idolatrous Arabs; the third, for the Brahmins of the Indies; the fourth, for the Jews; the fifth, for the Christians; and the sixth, for the Magians. But all agree in assigning the seventh to the hypocrites. Vide Millium, De Mohamedismo ante Moham., p. 412; D’Herbel., Bibl Orient., p. 368, &c.
[5 ]Qurán, c. 40, v. 52; c. 43, v. 77; c. 74, v. 30, &c.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 74, v. 30.
[2 ]Ibid., c. 40, v. 52; c. 43, v. 77.
[1 ]Poc., not. in Port. Mosis, pp. 289-291.
[2 ]Nishmat hayim, f. 32; Gemar. in Arubin, f. 19; Zohar, ad Exod. xxvi. 2, &c.; and Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 245.
[1 ]Midrash, Yalkut Shemuni, part 11, f. 116.
[2 ]Zohar, ad Exod. xix.
[3 ]Yalkut Shemuni, ubi sup., f. 86.
[4 ]Nishmat hayim, f. 82; Gemar. Arabin, f. 19. Vide Qurán, c. 2. v. 79, and c. 3, v. 2d. and notes there.
[5 ]Hyde, De Ref. Vet. Pers., p. 182.
[6 ]Vide eundem, ibid., p. 399, &c.
[1 ]Luke xvi. 26.
[2 ]Jaláluddin. Vide Qurán, c. 7, vv. 47-50.
[3 ]Al Baidháwi.
[4 ]Qurán, ubi sup. Vide D’Herbel, Bibl. Orient., p. 121, &c.
[1 ]Midrash, Yalkut Sioni, f. 11.
[2 ]Al Ghazáli.
[1 ]Yabya, in Qurán, c. 13.
[2 ]Jaláluddin, ibid.
[1 ]Al Ghazáli, Kanz al Afrár.
[1 ]See supra, p. 142.
[1 ]Isa lxiv. 4; I Cor. ii. 9.
[2 ]Cap. 10, v. 9, &c.
[3 ]Vide Poc., in not. ad Port. Moais, p. 305.
[1 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., l. 2, § 17.
[* ]We find no authority for such spiritual blessing in the Qurán. But see post, p. 162. e. m. w.
[2 ]Vide Gemar Tánith, f. 25, Beracoth, f. 34, and Midrash sabboth, f. 37.
[3 ]Megillah, Amkoth, p. 78.
[4 ]Midrash, Yalkut Shemuni.
[5 ]Gen. ii. 10, &c.
[6 ]Midrash, Yalkut Shemuni.
[7 ]Gemar. Bava Bathra, f. 78; Rashi, in Job i.
[8 ]Vide Poc., not. in Port. Mosis, p. 298.
[9 ]Nishmat hayim, f. 32.
[10 ]Midrash, Tehillim, f. 11.
[11 ]Sadder, porta 5.
[12 ]Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p.225.
[* ]As all the doctrines of Muhammad concerning the future state were proclaimed in Makkan suras before the tenth year of his mission, and as almost no reference had yet been made to Christianity, it seems quite certain that he was ignorant of the Christian Scriptures; and inasmuch as he everywhere evinces in the Qurán his almost entire ignorance of Christian doctrine, we may safely conclude that he owed little or nothing to Christianity for his ideas of heaven and hell. e. m. w.
[1 ]Rev. xxi. 10, &c., and xxii. 1, 2.
[2 ]Luke xxii. 29, 30. &c.
[3 ]I would not, however, undertake to defend all the Christian writers in this particular; witness that one passage of Irenæus, wherein be introduces a tradition of St. John that our Lord should say, “The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which shall have each ten thousand branches, and every one of those branches shall have ten thousand lesser branches, and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs, and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in every one of these clusters there shall be ten thousand grapes, and every one of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred and seventy-five gallons of wine; and when a man shall take hold of one of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out, I am a better bunch take me, and bless the Lord by me,” &c. Iren., l. 5, c. 33.
[1 ]Matt. xxii. 30.
[2 ]Vide Rabelais, Pantagr., l. 5, c. 7. A better authority than this might, however, be alleged in favour of Muhammad’s judgment in this respect; I mean that of Plato, who is said to have proposed, in his ideal commonwealth, as the reward of valiant men and consummate soldiers, the kisses of boys and beauteous damsels. Vide Gell. Noct. Att., l. 18, c. 2.
[3 ]Vide Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 266.
[4 ]Vide eund., in not. ad Bobov. Lit Turcar., p. 21.
[5 ]Poc. ad Port. Mosis, p. 305.
[1 ]Hornbek, Sum. Contr., p. 16. Grelot, Voyage de Constant., p. 275 Ricaut’s Present State of the Ottoman Empire, l. 2, c. 21.
[2 ]See Qurán, c. 3, v. 196; c. 4, v 126, &c.; and also c. 13. v. 23; c. 16, 40, 48, 57, &c. Vide etiam Reland, De Rel. Moh., l. 2, § 18; and Hyde, in not. ad Bobov. de. Visit. ægr., p. 21.
[3 ]See supra, p. 157.
[4 ]Vide Chardin, Voy., tom. 2, p. 328; and Bayle, Dict. Hist. Art. Mahomet, Rem. Q.
[5 ]See Qurán, c. 56, v. 36, and the notes there; and Gagnier, not. in Abulfeda, Vit. Moh., p. 145.
[1 ]See supra, p. 108.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 3, v. 144; c. 4. v. 77, &c.
[3 ]Ibid., c. 4, vv. 134-144; c. 2, vv. 6-20, &c., passim.
[1 ]Sect. VIII.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 42, and c. 5, v. 7. Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., l. 1,
[3 ]Poc., not. in Port. Mosis, p. 356. &c.
[4 ]Mark vii. 3, &c.
[5 ]Vide Herodot., l. 3, c. 198.
[1 ]Al Jannábi in Vita Abrah. Vide Poc. Spec., p. 303.
[2 ]Herewith agrees the spurious Gospel of St. Barnabas, the Spanish translation of which (cap. 29) has these words: Dixo Abraham, Que haré yo para servir al Dios de los sanctos y prophetas? Respondiò el angel, Ve e aquellu fuente y lavate, porque Dios quiere hablar contigo. Dixo Abraham, Cemo tengo de lavarme? Luego et angelise le appareciò como uno bello-mancebo, y se lavò en la fuente, y le dixo, Abraham, haz como yo. Y Abraham se lavò, &c.
[3 ]Al Kessáī. Vide Reland, De Rel. Moham., p. 81.
[4 ]Al Ghazáli Ibn al Athír.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 302, &c.
[2 ]Barthol. Edessen. Confut. Hagaren., p. 360. G. Sionita and J. Hesronita, in Tract. de Urb. and Morib. Orient. ad Calcem Geogr. Nubiens., c. 15. Du Ryer, dans le Sommaire de la Rel. des Turcs, mis à la tôte de sa version de l’Alcor. St. Olon, Descr. du Royaume de Maroc, c. 2. Hyde, in not. ad Bobov. de Prec. Moh., p. 1. Smith, de Morib. et Instit. Turcar., Ep. 1, p. 32.
[3 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., l. 2, c. 11.
[4 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 42, and c. 5, v. 7.
[5 ]Vide Smith, ubi sup.
[6 ]Gemar. Berachoth. c. 2. Vide Poc. not. ad Port. Mosis, p. 380. Sadder, porta 84.
[7 ]Cedren., p. 250.
[8 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 303.
[1 ]Vide Bobov. de Circumcis., p. 22.
[2 ]Philostorg., Hist. Eccl., l. 3.
[3 ]Joseph., Ant., l. 1, c. 23.
[4 ]Gen xvii. 25.
[5 ]Vide Bobov., ubi sup., and Poc. Spec., p. 319.
[6 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., l. 1, p. 75.
[7 ]This is the substance of the following passage of the Gospel of Barnabas (cap. 23), viz., Entonces dixo Jesus; Adam el primer hombre aviendo comide por engano del demonio la comida prohibida por Dios en el parayso, se le rebelò su carne à su expiritu; por lo qual jurò diziendo, Por Dios que yo te quiero cortar; y rompiende una piedra tomò su carne paru cortarla con el corte de la piedra. Por loqual fue reprehendido del angel Gabriel, y el le dixo; Yo he jurado por Dios que lo he de cortar, y men tiroso no lo serè jamas. Ala hora el angel le enseno la superfluided de su carne, y a quellà cortò. De manerà que ansi como todo hombre toma carne de Adam, ansi esta obligado a cumplir aquello que Adam con juramento promotiò
[1 ]Shalshel. hakkabala Vide Poc. Spec., p. 320; Gagnier, not. in Abulfed., Vit. Moh., p. 2.
[2 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 304.
[3 ]See supra, p. 39.
[4 ]Abulfed. Vit. Moh., p. 127
[5 ]Vide ibid., pp. 38, 39.
[1 ]Vide Hotting., Hist. Eccles., tom. 8, pp. 470-529; Bobov. in Liturg. Turcic., p. 1, &c.; Grelot, Voyage de Constant., pp. 253-264; Chardin, Voy. de. Perse, tom. 2, p. 382, &c.; and Smith, de Moribus ac Instit. Turcar., Ep. 1, p. 38, &c.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 142. See the notes there.
[3 ]Vide Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., pp. 8, 9, and 126
[4 ]Al Ghazáli.
[5 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 305.
[6 ]Vide Smith, ubi sup., p. 40.
[1 ]Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 96. See Qurán, c. 7, v. 32.
[2 ]A Moor, named Ahmad Ibn Abdalla, in a Latin epistle by him, written to Maurice, Prince of Orange, and Emanuel, Prince of Portugal, containing a censure of the Christian religion (a copy of which, once belonging to Mr. Selden, who has thence transcribed a considerable passage in his treatise, De Synedriis vett. Ebræor., l. 1, c. 12, is now in the Bodleian Library), finds great fault with the unedifying manner in which mass is said among the Roman Catholics, for this very reason among others. His words are: Ubicunque congregantur simul viri et fœminœ, ibi mens non est intenta et devota: nam inter celebrandum missam et sacrificia, fœminœ et viri mutuis aspectibus, signis, ac nutibus accendunt pravorum appetitum. et desideriorum suorum ignes: et quando hoc non fieret, saltem humana fragilitas delectatur mutuo et reciproco aspectu; et ita non potest esse mens quieta, attenta, et devota.
[3 ]The Sahíans, according to some, exceed the Muhammadans in this point, praying seven times a day. See supra, p. 34, note.
[4 ]Gemar. Berachoth.
[5 ]Gen. xix. 27.
[6 ]Gen. xxiv. 63.
[7 ]Gen. xxviii. 11, &c.
[8 ]Dan. vi. 10.
[1 ]Vide Millium, De Mohammedismo ante Moham., p. 427, &c., and Hyde, De Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 5, &c.
[2 ]Maimonid in Epist ad Proselyt. Relig. Vide Poc Spec., p. 306.
[3 ]Gemar. Bava Bathra, and Berachoth.
[4 ]1 Kings viii. 29, &c.
[5 ]Dan. vi. 10.
[6 ]Some say eighteen months Vide Abulfed, Vit. Moh., p. 54.
[7 ]Maimon. in Halachoth Tephilla, c. 9, § 8, 9. Menura hammeor, fol. 28, 2.
[8 ]Vide Millium, ubi sup p. 424, et seq.
[1 ]Al Baidháwi. See Qurán, c. 2, vv. 261-274.
[2 ]Idem. Compare this with what our Saviour says (Luke xi. 41), “Give alms of such things as ye have; and behold, all things are clean unto you”
[3 ]D’Herbel., Bibl Orient, p. 5
[4 ]Ibid., p. 422.
[5 ]Vide Busbeq, Epist. 3, p. 178 Smith, de Morib. Ture., Ep. 1, p. 66, &c. Compare Eccles. xi. 1 and Prov. xii. 10.
[* ]A few years’ residence among Muslims will serve to materially modify this statement. e. m. w.
[1 ]This measure is a Seá, and contains about six or seven pounds weight.
[2 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Mahommed, l. 1, p. 99, &c. Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom. 2, p. 415, &c.
[1 ]Hence alms are in the New Testament termed Δικαιοσυνη. Matt. vi. 1 (ed. Steph.), and 2 Cor. ix. 10.
[2 ]Gemar. in Bava Bathra.
[3 ]Ibid., in Gittin.
[4 ]Ibid., in Rosh hashana.
[5 ]Levit xix. 9, 10; Deut. xxiv. 19, &c.
[6 ]Vide Genmar. Hierosol. in Peah, and Maimon. in Halachoth matanoth Aniyyim., c. 6. Coni. Pirke Avoth, v. 9.
[7 ]Luke xix. 8.
[8 ]Vide Reland, Ant. Sacr. Vet. Hebr., p. 402.
[9 ]Vide ibid., p. 138.
[10 ]Al Ghazáli, Al Mustatraf.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, vv 185-195.
[2 ]Hence we read that the Virgin Mary, to avoid answering the reflections cast on her for bringing home a child, was advised by the Angel Gabriel to feign she had vowed a fast, and therefore she ought not to speak. See Qurán, c. 19, v. 27.
[3 ]The words of the Qurán (cap. 2, v. 187) are: “Until ye can distinguish a white thread from a black thread by the daybreak”—a form of speaking borrowed by Muhammad from the Jews, who determine the time when they are to begin their morning lesson to be so soon as a man can discern blue from white, i.e the blue threads from the white threads in the fringes of their garments. But this explication the commentators do not approve, pretending that by the white thread and the black thread are to be understood the light and dark streaks of the daybreak; and they say the passage was at first revealed without the words “of the daybreak;” but Muhammad’s followers, taking the expression in the first sense, regulated their practice accordingly, and continued eating and drinking till they could distinguish a white thread from a black thread, as they lay before them—to prevent which for the future, the words “of the daybreak” were added as explanatory of the former. Al Baídháwi. Vide Poceck, not. in Carmen Tograi, p. 89, &c. Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom. 2, p. 423.
[4 ]Vide Chardin, ibid., p. 421. &c. Reland, De Relig Moh., p. 109, &c.
[5 ]See post, Sect. VI.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 185. See also c. 97.
[2 ]Al Baidháwi, ex Trad. Mohammedis.
[3 ]See Qurán, c. 2, v. 185.
[4 ]Siphra, f. 252, 2.
[5 ]Tosephoth ad Gemar. Yoma, f. 34.
[6 ]Vide Gemar. Yoma, f. 40, and Maimon. in Halachoth Tanioth, c. 5. § 5.
[7 ]Vide Gemar. Tánith, f 12, and Yoma, f. 83, and Es Hayim. Tánith, c. 1.
[1 ]Al Ghazáli.
[2 ]Al Bárezí in Comment. ad Orat. Ibn Nobátæ.
[3 ]Levit. xvi. 29, and xxiii. 27.
[4 ]Ibn al Athir. Vide Poc Spec., p. 309
[1 ]Al Ghazáli.
[2 ]Cap. 3, v. 97. See also c. 22, 36 and c. 2, v. 125, &c
[3 ]Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t 2, p. 428, &c.; Bremond, Descrittioni dell’ Egitto, &c.; l. 1. c. 29; Pitts’ Account of the Rel., &c., of the Mohammedans, p. 98, &c.; and Boulainvilliers, Vie de Mah. p. 54, &c., which last author is the most particular.
[4 ]Ahmad Ibn Yusaf.
[5 ]Sharíf al Edrisí, and Kitab Masalik, apud Poc. Spec., p. 125, &c.
[6 ]Sharíf al Edrísí, ibid.
[* ]“The interior, of the Caaba censists of a single room, the roof of which is supported by two columns, and it has no other light than what is received by the door. The ceiling, the upper half of the two columns, and the side walls to within about five feet of the floor, are hung with a thick stuff of red silk, richly interwoven with flowers and inscriptions in large characters of silver. The lower part of each pillar is lined with sweet aloe wood; and that part of the walls below the silk hangings is lined with fine white marble, ornamented with inscriptions cut in relief, and with elegant arabesques; the whole being of exquisite workmanship. The floor, which is upon a level with the door, and therefore about seven feet above the level of the area of the mosque, is laid with marble of different colours. Between the pillars numerous lamps are suspended—donations of the faithful, and said to be of solid gold. In the north-west corner of the chamber is a small gate, which leads up to the flat roof of the building. The interior ornaments are coeval with the restoration of the Caaba, which took place 1627.”—Burckhardt’s Travels in Arabia quoted from Lane’s Kurán, p. 7. e. m. w.
[1 ]Sharif al Edrisi, ibid.
[2 ]Poc. Spec.; p. 116.
[3 ]Gol. not. in Alfrag., p. 99. [The present limits extend much farther. Burckhardt’s Travels in Arabia, p. 466]
[4 ]Gab. Sionita et Joh. Hesronita, de nonnullis Orient. urbib. ad calc. Geogr. Nub., p. 21. Al Mughultai in his Life of Muhammad, says the pigeons, of the temple of Makkah are of the best breed of those which laid their eggs at the mouth of the cave where the prophet and Abu Baqr hid themselves when they fled from that city. See ante. p. 86.
[1 ]See ante, p. 38.
[2 ]Some say that the Bait al Mámúr itself was the Kasbah of Adam, which, having been let down to him from heaven was, at the Flood, taken up again into heaven, and is there kept. Al Zamakh in Qurán, c. 2.
[3 ]Al Júzi, ex Trad. Ibn Abbás. It has been observed that the primitive Christian Church held a parallel opinion as to the situation of the celestial Jerusalem with respect to the terrestrial; for in the apocryphal book of the Revelations of St. Peter (cap. 27), after Jesus has mentioned unto Peter the creation of the seven heavens—whence, by the way, it appears that this number of heavens was not devised by Muhammad—and of the angels, begins the description of the heavenly Jerusalem in these words: “We have created the upper Jerusalem above the waters, which are above the third heaven, hanging directly over the lower Jerusalem,” &c. Vide Gagnier, not. ad Abulfed. Vit. Moh., p. 28
[4 ]Al Shahristáni.
[5 ]Vide Qurán. c. 2, v. 125.
[6 ]Al Jannábi, in Vita Abraham.
[7 ]Vide Abulfed. Vit. Moh., p. 13
[1 ]Abulfed. in Hist. Gen al Jannábi, &c.
[2 ]Al Jannábi.
[3 ]Idem, Ahmad Ibn Yusaf. Vide Poc. Spec., p. 115, &c
[* ]“At the (north) east corner of the Kaaba, near the door, is the famous ‘black stone;’ it forms a part of the sharp angle of the building, at four or five feet above the ground. It is an irregular oval, about seven inches in diameter, with an undulated surface, composed of about a dozen smaller stones of different sizes and shapes, well joined together with a small quantity of cement, and periectly smoothed; it looks as if the whole had been broken into many pieces by a violent blow, and then united again. It is very difficult to determine accurately the quality of his stone, which has been worn to its present surface by the million of touches and kisses it has received. It appears to me like a lava, containing several small extraneous particles of a whitish and a yellowish substance. Its colour is now a deep reddish brown, approaching to black: it is surrounded on all sides by a border, composed of a substance which I took to be a close cement of pitch and gravel, of a similar, but not quite the same, brownish colour. This border serves to support its detached pieces; it is two or three inches in breadth and rises a little above the surface of the stone.”—Burckhardt, pp. 137, 138, quoted in Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. ii. chap. ii.
[1 ]Al Zamakh, &c., in Qurán. Ahmad Ibn Yusaf.
[2 ]Poc. Spec., p. 117, &c.
[3 ]These Karmatians were a sect which arose in the year of the Hijra 278, and whose opinions overturned the fundamental points of Muhammadism. See D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., Art. Carmath, and hercafter § viii.
[4 ]D’Herbel., p. 40.
[5 ]Ahmad Ibn Yusaf, Abulfeda. Vide Poc. Spec., p. 119.
[2 ]Vide Hyde, De Rel. Vet Pers., p. 35.
[3 ]Ahmad Ibn Yusal Satiu’ddin.
[4 ]Ahmad Ibn Yusaf
[5 ]Cap. 2, v. 125.
[6 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 120, &c
[7 ]Gen xxi. 19.
[8 ]G. Sionit et J. Hesr. de non. urb. Orient, p. 19.
[9 ]D’Herbel., p. 5.
[10 ]See Qurán, c. 3. v. 97, and the notes thereon.
[1 ]Vide Bobov. de Peregr Mecc., p. 12, &c.
[2 ]Qurán, c 5, vv. 95-97.
[4 ]Al Baid.
[5 ]Bobov. de Peregr. Mecc., p 11. &c.; Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 440, &c. See also Pitts’ Account of the Rel., &c., of the Muhammadans, p. 92, &c.; Gagnier, Vie de Moh., t. 2, p. 258, &c.; Abulfed., Vit. Muh., p. 130,&c., and Reland De Rel. Moh., p. 113, &c.
[1 ]Ibn al Athír.
[2 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 314.
[3 ]See ante, p. 42.
[4 ]Al Ghazáli.
[5 ]Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 121.
[6 ]Ibn al Athír.
[7 ]See Qurán, c. 2, v. 198, and note there.
[1 ]See Qurán, c. 2, v. 188. M. Gagnier has been guilty of a mistake in coniounding this monument with the sacred enclosure of the Kaabah. Vide Gagn. not. ad Abulfed. Vit. Moh., p. 131, and Vie do Moh., t. 2, p. 262.
[2 ]Dr Pocock from al Ghazáli, says seventy, at different times and places. Poc. Spec., p. 315.
[3 ]Al Ghazáli, Ahmad Ibn Yusaf.
[4 ]Ibn al Athír.
[5 ]Vide Reland, ubi sup., p. 117
[6 ]See Qurán, c. 2, v. 196.
[7 ]Qurán, c. 7, v 27, 32.
[1 ]Al Faik, de Tempore Ignor. Arábum, apud Mill. de Mohammed ante Moh., p. 322 Comp. Isa. lxiv. 6.
[2 ]Jalál. al Baid This notion comes very near if it be not the same with that of the Adamites.
[3 ]Al Ghazáli. Vide Abulfar. Hist. Dyn., p. 171
[4 ]Abu Jáafar Ibn Tufail. in Vita Hai Ibn Yukdhán, p. 151. See Mr. Ockley’s English translation thereof, p. 117.
[5 ]De Rel. Moh., p. 123.
[6 ]Piutarch, in Numa.
[7 ]Maimonides (in Epist. ad Prosel. Rel.) pretends that the worship of Mercury was performed by throwing of stones, and that of Chemosh by making bare the head and putting on unsewn garidents.
[1 ]According to the maxim, Tutius est mutate mulare quam unum magnum.
[2 ]Al Shahrietáni.
[3 ]See Qurán. c. 2, v. 147, &c.
[4 ]Fzek. xx. 25 Vide Spencer de Urim et Thummim, c. 4, § 7.
[* ]For a clear and accurate description of the rites and ceremonies of the Muslim raligion, the reader is referred to Hughes’ Notes on Muhammadanism.e. m. w.
[1 ]See c. 2, v. 218, and c. 5. v. 92
[2 ]Cap. 2, v. 218, and c. 16, v. 69. Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., p. 696.
[3 ]Vide Smith, De Morib. et Instit. Turcar Ep. 2, p. 28, &c.
[4 ]Vide Chardin, ubi supra, p. 212.
[1 ]Chardin, ubi sup., p. 344.
[2 ]Abd al Qádír Muhammad al Ansári has written a treatise concerning coffee, wherein he argues for its lawfulness. Vide D’Herbel., art. Cahvah.
[3 ]Vide Le Traité Historique de l’Origine et du Progrés du Café, à la fin du Voy. de l’Arabie Heur. de la Roque.
[4 ]Reland, Dissert Miscall., t. 2, p. 280. Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t, 2, pp. 14 and 66.
[* ]Opium is very commonly used by Muslims in India. e. m. w.
[1 ]Vide Chardin, ibid., p. 68, &c., and D’Herbel., p. 200.
[2 ]Vide Prid., Life of Mah., p. 82, &c.; Busbeq., Epist. 3, p. 255; and Mandeville’s Travels, p 170.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 218: c. 5, v. 92; and c. 4, v 42 and note. See Prov. xxiii. 29, &c
[4 ]Levit. x. 9.
[5 ]Numb. vi. 2.
[6 ]Jerem xxxv. 5, &c.
[7 ]This was the heresy of those called Encratitæ, and Aquarij. Khuáf, a Magian heretic, also declared wine unlawful; but this was after Muhammad’s time. Hyde, De Rel. Vet Pers., p. 300.
[8 ]Vide Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 271.
[9 ]Cap. 2, v 218; c. 5, v. 92.
[1 ]Some writers, as al Zamakh, and al Shirázi, mention but three blank arrows.
[2 ]Auctores Nodhm al dorr, et Nothr al dorr, al Zamakh, al Firauzábádi, al Shirázi in Orat. al Hariri, al Baidháwi. &c. Vide Poc. Spec., p. 324, &c.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 5, v. 4.
[4 ]Vide Hyde, De Ludis Oriental. in Proleg. ad Shahiludium.
[1 ]Vide Hyde, De Ludis Oriental. in Proleg. ad Shahiludium.
[2 ]Vide eundem, ibid., and in Hist. Shahiludij, p. 135, &c.
[3 ]Cap. 5, v. 92.
[4 ]Sukaikar al Dimishki, and Auctor libri al Mustatraf, apud Hyde, ubi sup., p. 8.
[5 ]Khondemir. apud eund. ibid., p. 41.
[6 ]Vide Hyde, ubi sup., p. 9.
[* ]This statement is more than doubtful. e. m. w.
[7 ]Vide eundem, in Proleg., and Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 46.
[8 ]Lib. iv. ad Nicom.
[9 ]Vide Horat., l. 3. Carm. Od. 24
[1 ]ft. de Aleatoridus. Novell Just. 123, &c. Vide Hyde. ubi sup. in Hist. Aleæ, p. 119.
[2 ]Authent. interdichous, c. de episcopal.
[3 ]In Com. ad Legem Præd.
[4 ]Du Fresne. in Glosa.
[5 ]Bava Mesia, 84. 1; Rosh hasbana and Sanhedr. 24, 2. Vide etiam Maimon. in Tract. Gezila. Among the modern civilians, Mascardus thought common gamesters were not to be admitted as witnesses, being infamous persons. Vide Hyde, ubi sup. in Proleg. et in Hist. Aleæ, § 3.
[6 ]Qurán, c. 5, v. 4.
[7 ]See ante, p. 42.
[1 ]Ibn al Athir, al Zamakh., and al Baid. in Qurán, c. 5, v. 4. Al Mustatraf. &c Vide Poc. Spec., p. 327, &c., and D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., art. Kodáh.
[2 ]Vide Potter, Antiq. of Greece, vol. i. p. 334.
[3 ]Ezek. xxi. 21.
[4 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 329, &c.
[5 ]Cap. 2, v. 174; c. 5. v. 4; c. 6, v. 146; and c 16, v. 116.
[6 ]Levit xi 4.
[7 ]See Qurán, c. 3. vv. 49 and 93, and c. 6, v. 146.
[1 ]Quran, c. 5, v. 2, &c., and in the other passages last quoted.
[2 ]Vide Maimon. in Halachoth Melachim, c. 8, § i., &c.
[3 ]Nothr al dorr, al F raus., al Zamakh., and al Baid.
[4 ]Poc. Spec., p. 320.
[5 ]Compare Acts xv. 29 with 1 Cor. viii. 4, &c.
[6 ]See the fifth chapter of the Qurán, v. 4, and the notes there.
[7 ]Solin. de Arab., c. 33.
[8 ]Hieronym. in Jovin. l. 2, c. 6.
[9 ]Idem, ibid.
[10 ]Solinus, ubi supra.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 275.
[2 ]Cap. 5, v. 102.
[3 ]Al Firauzábádi.
[1 ]Al Zamakh., al Baidbawi, al Mustatraf.
[2 ]Ibn al Athir.
[3 ]Al Firauzáb., al Zamakh.
[4 ]Al Jawhari, Ibn al Athír.
[5 ]Al Firauz.
[6 ]Idem, al Jawhari, &c.
[7 ]Nothr al dorr and Nodhm al dorr.
[8 ]Al Firauz.
[1 ]Al Firauz., al Zamakh.
[2 ]Al Jawbari.
[3 ]Al Mutarrezi.
[1 ]Al Firauz., al Jawbari.
[2 ]Jalál. in Qurán.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 5, v. 102, and c. 6, v. 142-145. Vide Poc. Spec., pp. 330-334.
[4 ]Al Baidháwi, al Zamakh., al Mustatraf.
[5 ]See Qurán, c. 16, vv. 60, 61.
[6 ]Al Maidáni
[7 ]Al Zamakh.
[1 ]Al Mustatraf.
[2 ]Cap. 5, v. 35
[3 ]Al Mustatraf. Vide Ibn Khaliqán, in Vita al Farazdak, and Poc. Spec., p. 334.
[4 ]Strabo, l. 17. Vide Diodor Sic., l. 1, c. 80.
[5 ]Vide Plutarch, in Lycurgo.
[6 ]Vide Pufendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent., l. 6, c. 7, § 6. The Crecians also treated daughters especially in this manner—whence that saying of Poeidippus:
See Potter’s Antiq. of Greece, vol. ii p. 333.
[* ]The same practice was common among several castes of the Hindus. It is worthy of note that the motives for the act were the same as those which influenced the heathen Arabs. e. m. w.
[1 ]Cap. 6, vv. 137 and 151; c. 16, vv. 60, 61; and c. 17, v. 33. See also chap. 81, v. 8.
[2 ]Al Zamakht, al Baid
[1 ]See Sect. VIII.
[2 ]See ante, Sect. II p. 72.
[3 ]Nic. Cusanus in Cribrat. Alcor., l 2, c. 19. olearius, in Itinerar. P. Greg. Tholosanus, in Synt Jnris. l. 9, c. 2. § 22. Septemcastrensis (De. Morib Turc., p. 24) says the Muhammadans may have twelve lawful wives and no more Ricaut falsely asserts the restraint of the number of their wives to be no precept of their religion, but a rule superinduced on a politic consideration. Press State of the Ottoman Empire, bk iii. c. 31.
[4 ]Marrace, in Prodr ad Refut, Alcor., part iv. pp 52 and 71. Prideaux late of Mah., p. 114. Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 1, p. 166. Du Ryer, Sommaire de la Rel. des Turcs, mie à la tête de sa version de l’Alcor. Ricaut ubi supra. Pufendorf, De Jure Nat. et Gent., l. 6, c. 1, § 18.
[1 ]Cap. 4, v. 3.
[2 ]Vide Gagnier, in Notis ad Abulfedæ Vit. Moh., p. 150. Reland, De Rel Moh., p. 243, &c., and Selden, Ux. Hebr., l. 1, c. 9.
[* ]Muir (Life of Mahomel, vol. iii. p. 303) says, “There is no limit, as supposed by Sale, to the number of slave-girls, with whom (irrespective of his four wives) a Moslem may, without any antecedent ceremony or any guarantee of continuance, cohabit. Female slavery, being a condition necessary to the legality of this illimitable indulgence, will never be put down, with a willing or hearty co-operation, by any Mussalman community.” e m. w.
[3 ]Vide Reland, ubi sup., p. 244.
[4 ]Quran, c. 4, v. 3.
[5 ]Sir J Mandeville (who, excepting a few silly stories be tells from hearsay, deserves more credit than some travellers of better reputation), speaking of the Qurán, observes, among several other truths, that Muhammad therein commanded a man should have two wives, or three, or four; though the Muhammadans then took nine wives, and lemans as many as they might sustain. Mandev. Travels, p. 164.
[† ]Surely the “peculiar privileges” of the prophet, whereby all limit as to the number of his wives and concubines was set aside, added to his example, wherein he appeared as the possessor of ten wives besides his concubines, must have gone far to weaken the force of his explicit precepts, given for the guidance of his followers. Would not the holy precepts of Jesus, as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, have lost much of their power over Christian hearts, had he claimed for himself the special privilege of total exemption from them, and, more so, had his example illustrated a lower grade of moral rectitude? e. m. w.
[1 ]Maimon, in Halachoth Ishoth., c. 14.
[2 ]Idem, ibid. Vide Selden, Uxor. Hebr., l. 1, c. 9.
[3 ]Deut. xxiv. 3, 4. Jerem. iii. 1. Vide Selden, ubi sup., l. 1, c. 11.
[4 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 230.
[5 ]Vide Selden, ubi sup., l. 3, c. 21, and Ricaut’s State of the Ottom. Empire, bk. ii. c. 21.
[* ]The large dowry, fixed on the bride by the groom before the marriage is consummated, to be paid in case of a divorce without proper cause, is more potent than the Qurán in preventing divorce. e. m. w.
[1 ]Deut. xxiv. 1. Leon. Modena, Hist de gli Riti. Hebr., part i. c. 6. Vide Selden, ubi sup.
[2 ]Vide Busbeq., Ep. 3, p. 184; Smith, De Morib, ac Instit. Turcar Ep. 2, p. 52; and Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 1, p. 169.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 18, &c.
[4 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 228, and c. 65, v. 1, &c.
[5 ]Ibid., c. 33, v. 48.
[6 ]Ibid., c. 2, v. 237.
[7 ]Ibid., c. 2, vv. 233-235, and v. 65, v. 1, &c.
[1 ]Mishna, tit. Yabimoth, c. 4. Gemar. Babyl. ad eund. tit. Maimen. in Halach Girushin, Shylhán Aruch, part iii.
[2 ]Mishna, and Gemara, and Maimon., ubi supra. Gem. Babyl. ad tit. Cetuboth, c. 5, and Jos Karo, in Shylhán Aruch, c. 50, § 2. Vide Selden, Ux. Hebr., l. 2, c. 11, and l 3, c. 10, in fin.
[3 ]And the adulterer also, according to a passage once extant in the Qurán, and still in force, as some suppose. See the notes to Qurán, c. 3, v. 23, and the Prel. Disc., p. 111.
[4 ]Qurán, c. 4, vs. 14, 15. See the notes there.
[5 ]Ibid., v. 24
[6 ]Ibid., c. 4, v. 14.
[7 ]Ibid., c. 24, v. 4.
[8 ]Ibid., vs., 1-3. This law relates not to married people, as Selden supposes, Ux. Heb., l. 3, c. 12.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 24, vv. 6-9. See the notes there.
[2 ]Levit. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22. The kind of death to be inflicted on adulterers in common cases being not expressed, the Talmudists generally suppose it to be strangling, which they think is designed wherever the phrase “shall be put to death,” or “shall die the death,” is used, as they imagine stoning is by the expression, “his blood shall be upon him;” and hence it has been concluded by some that the woman taken in adultery mentioned in the Gospel (John viii.) was a betrothed maiden, because such a one and her accomplice were plainly ordered to be stoned (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). But the ancients seem to have been of a different opinion, and to have understood stening to be the punishment of adulterers in general. Vide Selden, Ux. Heb., l. 3, c. 11 and 12.
[3 ]Levit. xix. 20.
[4 ]Deut. xix. 15, xvii. 6, and Numb xxxv. 30.
[5 ]Deut. xxii. 13-19.
[6 ]Numb. v. 11, &c.
[7 ]Vide Selden, ubi sup., l. 3, c. 15; and Leon. Modena, de’ Riti Hebraici, parte iv. c. 6.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 2, v. 222.
[2 ]Ibid., c. 4, v. 24, &c.
[3 ]Ibid., vs. 20-22.
[4 ]See Levit. xv. 24, xviii. 19, and xx. 18; Exod. xxi. 8-11; Deut. xxi. 10-14; Levit. xviii. and xx.
[* ]They, however, did permit a son to inherit his deceased father’s widows, which custom Muhammad abolished. See Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. ii. p. 52, and vol. iii. p. 303. e. m. w.
[5 ]Abulfed., Hist. Gen. al Sharistáni, apud Poc. Spec., pp. 321, 338.
[6 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 337, &c.
[7 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 20.
[8 ]Ibid., c. 33, v. 49. See also c. 66, and the notes there.
[9 ]Ibid., c. 33, v. 51. See the notes there.
[10 ]Ibid., v. 53.
[1 ]Mishna, tit. Sanhedr., c. 2, and Gamar. in eund. tit. Maimoo. Halachoth Melachim, c. 2. Vide Selden, Ux. Heb., l. 1, c. 10. Prid., Life of Mah., p. 118.
[2 ]See c. 4, vs. 21, &c., and the notes there. Vide etiam Poc Spec., p. 337.
[3 ]Qurán, c 4, vs. 31, 32.
[4 ]Ibid., vs. 10 and 175 Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 293.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 10.
[2 ]Ibid., and v. 175.
[3 ]Ibid., c. 5, v. 105.
[4 ]Ibid., c. 4, v. 7.
[5 ]Ibid., c. 8 v. 73.
[6 ]Ibid., and c. 33, v. 6
[1 ]Quran, c. 5, v. 1; c. 17; c. 2, v. 282, &c.
[2 ]Ibid., c. 2, v. 282.
[3 ]The same seems to have been required by the Jewish law, even in cases where life was not concerned. See Deut. xix 15; Matt. xviii. 16; John viii. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
[4 ]Qurán, c. 2. v. 282.
[5 ]Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 294, &c., and the notes to Qurán, c. 5, v. 106.
[6 ]Qurán, c. 4, vs. 91, 92.
[7 ]Ibid., c. 2, v. 178; c. 17, v. 35. Vide Chardin, ubi sup., p. 299, &c.
[1 ]Numb. xxxv. 31.
[2 ]This is particularly forbidden in the Qurán, c. 17, v. 35.
[3 ]Quran, c. 4, v. 91.
[4 ]See the notes to c. 47.
[5 ]Qurán, c. 4, v. 91.
[1 ]See Numb. xxxv. 26-28.,
[2 ]Ibid., v. 32.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 5, v. 42.
[4 ]Novel’., 134, c. 13.
[5 ]Vide Pufendorf, De Jure Nat. et Gent., I. 8. c. 3, § 26.
[6 ]See the notes to c. 5, v. 42.
[7 ]Exod. xxi. 24, &c.; Levit. xxiv. 20; Deut, xix. 21.
[8 ]Cap. 5, v. 49.
[9 ]Vide Grotium, De Jure Belli et Pacis. I. 1. c. 2 § 8.
[10 ]Vide Chardin, t. 2, p 299. The talio, likewise established among the old Romans by the laws of the twelve tables, was not to be inflicted unless the delinquent could not agree with the person injured. Vide A. Gell. Noct. Attic. I. 20, c. 1, and Festum, in voce Talio.
[1 ]See Exod. xxi. 18, 19, and 22.
[2 ]Barbeyrac in Grot., ubi supra, Vide Cleric. in Exod. xxi 24, and ut. xix. 21.
[3 ]See Deut. xxv 2, 3.
[4 ]Vide Grelot, Voy. de Constant., p. 220, and Chardin, ubi supra, p. 302.
[1 ]Vide Chardin, ubi supra, p. 290, &c.
[2 ]Cap 22; c. 2, v. 190-193; c. 4, v. 83, &c., c. 8; c. 9; c. 47 and c. 61, &c.
[3 ]Cap. 2, v. 155; c. 3. v. 142; c. 47; c. 61.
[4 ]Reland, De Jure Milit. Moham p. 5, &c.
[5 ]Vide c. 9; c. 3, v. 143, &c.
[6 ]See ante, p. 83.
[7 ]Halach. Melachim, c. 7.
[1 ]Jer. xiv. 8.
[2 ]Job xiii. 14.
[3 ]Deut, xx. 8.
[4 ]Jer. xlviii. 10.
[5 ]1 Sam. xxv. 28, 29.
[6 ]Nicolaus, in Jure Canon., c. omnium 23, quæst. 5.
[1 ]Leo IV; op. cit., quæst. 8
[* ]Though Muhammad undoubtedly took Moses as his pattern, and supposed himself following in his footsteps when he gave the command to fight against the infidels, yet there is no comparison between them whatever so far as warring against infidels is concerned. The Israelites were commanded to slay the Canaanites as divinely ordained instruments of destruction but Muhammad inaugurated war as a means of proselytiam. The Israelite was not permitted to proselytise from among the Canaanites, Exod. xxiii. 27-33; but Muslims are required to proselytise by sword-power. e. m. w
[2 ]In his treatise De Jure Militari Mohammedanor, in the third vol. of his Dissertationes Miscellaneæ.
[1 ]See Qurán, c. 47, v. 5, and the notes there; and c. 4, v. 89: c. 5, v. 38.
[2 ]Deut. xx. 16-18.
[3 ]Ibid., c. xxv. 17-19
[4 ]Numb. xxxi. 17.
[5 ]See c. 9, and the notes there.
[6 ]See the notes to c. 37.
[7 ]Deut. xx. 10-15.
[* ]The difference seems to me to be very great. The Israelites might make peace with idolaters on condition of their becoming tributaries. The Muslims might not do so on any condition but that of conversion to Islam. With the Jew it was a case of policy—with the Muslim, of religion. e. m. w.
[1 ]Talmud Hierosol. apud Maimonid. Halach. Melachim, c. 6 § 5. R. Bechai, ex lib. Siphre. Vide Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. Sec. Hebr., l. 6, c. 13 and 14; and Schickardi, Jus Regium Heh., c. 5, Theor. 16.
[2 ]Josh. xi. 20. The Jews, however, say that the Girgashites, believing they could not escape the destruction with which they were threatened by God if they persisted in defending themselves, fled into Africa in great numbers. (Vide Talm. Hieros., ubi sup.) And this is assigned as the reason why the Girgashites are not mentioned among the other Canaanitish nations who assembled to fight against Joshua (Josh. ix. 1), and who were doomed to utter extirpation (Deut. xx. 17). But it is observable that the Girgashites are not omitted by the Septuagint in either of those texts, and that their name appears in the latter of them in the Samaritan Pentateuch: they are also joined with the other Canaanites as having fought against Israel in Josh. xxiv. 11.
[3 ]Qurán, c. 8
[1 ]Abulfed. in Vit. Moh., p. 118, &c. Vide Qurán, c. 9, and the notes there.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 59, v. 6, see the notes there.
[3 ]Vide Abulfed., ubi sup., p. 91.
[4 ]Vide Qurán, c 59, v. 6.
[5 ]Gemar. Babyl. ad tit. Sanhedr., c. 2. Vide Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. Sec. Heb., lib. 6, c. 16.
[6 ]Numb. xxxi. 27.
[7 ]Vide Maim. Halach. Melach., c 4
[8 ]Josh. xxii. 8.
[9 ]See Qurán, c. 8, and the notes there
[1 ]1 Sam. xxx. 21-25.
[2 ]Qurán, c. 8.
[3 ]Note. al Sháfíi himself was descended from this letter.
[4 ]Al Baid. Vide Reland, De Jure Milit. Moham., p. 42. &c.
[1 ]Reland, De Jure Milit. Moham., p. 42, &c.
[1 ]Al Kazwíni; apud Golium in notis ad Alfrag., p. 4. &c Al Shahristáni, apud Poc. Spec., p. 311. Al Jawhari, al Firauzab.
[2 ]Golius, ubi supra, p. 5.
[3 ]Al Shahristáni, ubi supra. See ante, p. 190.
[4 ]Al Mughultai.
[1 ]Abulfeda, Vit. Moh., p. 11.
[2 ]Al Kudái, al Firauz, apud Poc. Spec., p. 174. Al Mughultai mentions both opinions.
[3 ]Mr. Bayl. (Dict. Hist. et Crit. art. la Mecque, Rem. F.) accuses Dr. Prideaux of an inconsistency for saying in one place (Life of Mahomet, p. 64) that these sacred months were the first, the seventh, the eleventh, and the twelfth, and intimating in another place (ibid., p. 89) that three of them were contiguous. But this must be more absence of mind in Mr. Bayle; for are not the eleventh, the twelfth, and the first months contiguous? The two learned professors, Golius and Reland, have also made a small slip in speaking of these sacred months which they tell us are the two first and the two last in the year. Vide Golii, Lex Arab., col. 601. and Reland. De Jure Milit. Mohammedanor, 5.
[4 ]Vide Gol. in Alfrag., p. 9
[5 ]Vide ibid., p. 6.
[6 ]Al Makizi, apud Poc. ubi supra.
[7 ]Idem, and Auctor Neshk al Ashár, ibid.
[8 ]See Qurán, c. 106
[9 ]Al Edrisí, apud Poc. Spec., p. 127.
[1 ]Cap. 9; c. 2, v. 194; c. 5, v. 3; c 5, v. 98, &c.
[2 ]Cap 9; c 2, v. 194.
[3 ]See the notes to c. 9, ubi sup.
[4 ]Cap. 9, ibid.
[5 ]Life of Mahomet, p. 66
[6 ]In Alfrag., p. 12.
[7 ]See Prid., Preface to the first vol. of his Connect., p. 6. &c.
[8 ]Vide Gol., ubi supra.
[1 ]Qurán, c. 9. See also c. 2, v. 194.
[2 ]See c. 63, and the notes there.
[3 ]Al Baldháwi.
[4 ]Ibn al Athir et al Chazáli, apud Poc. Spec., p. 317.
[5 ]Vide ibid.
[6 ]Al Ghazáli, ibid.
[1 ]Cap. 63, ubi supra.
[2 ]Al Ghamli, ubi supra, p. 318.
[3 ]The word Bairám is Turkish, and properly signifies a feast-day or holiday.
[4 ]See c. 9, and ante, Sect. IV., p. 94.
[5 ]Vide Reland, De Relig. Moh., p. 109, and D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., art. Bairám.
[6 ]Hyde, in notis ad Robov., p 16; Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom 2, p. 450; Ricaut’s State of the Ottoman Empire, l. 2, c. 24, &c.
[7 ]Vide Chardin and Ricaut, ubi supra.
[* ]In India this feast is popularly known as the Baqr Id, or Feast of the Cow, and is celebrated with great ceremony by all Muslinis A goat or a sheep is sacrificed and its flesh eaten by the family making the offering. For a clear account of the manner of celebrating the various feasts of the Muslims, the reader is referred to the excellent work of the Rev. Edward Sell. entitled The Faith of Islám, chapter vi. e. m. w.
[1 ]Poc. Spec p. 196.
[2 ]Apud Ibn Sina, in Libello de Divisione Scientiar., et Nasiru’ddin al Tusi in Prætat ad Ethic.
[3 ]More Nevoch., l. 1, c. 71 and 73.
[4 ]Al Ghazáli, apud Poc. Spec., ubi supra
[1 ]Apud Poc. Spec., ubi supra.
[2 ]Ibid., p. 197.
[4 ]Ibn al Koasá, apud eund., ibid., p. 198.
[1 ]Al Ghazáli, Poc. Spec., pp. 198-204.
[2 ]Vide ibid. p. 204
[3 ]Vide Abulfarag Hist. Dynast., p. 166.
[4 ]Al Shahristani apúd Pec. Spec., ubi supra p. 204, &c.
[1 ]Al Shahristáni, apud Poc., ubi sup., p. 205.
[2 ]Idam, ibid., p. 206.
[3 ]Idem, ibid.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 298. Prid., Lite of Mahomet, p. 51, &c. Reland, De Rel. Moh., p. 68, &c Millium, De Mohammedismo ante Moh., pp. 368, 369
[2 ]See ante, p. 205.
[3 ]Vide Poc. Spec, p. 293.
[4 ]Ibn Khallikán
[5 ]This was the true cause of his imprisonment and death, and not his refusing to subscribe to the opinion of absolute predestination, as D’Herbelot writes (Bibl. Orient., p. 21), misled by the dubious acceptation of the word “qadá,” which signifies not only God’s decree in particular, but also the giving sentence as a judge in general; nor could Abu Hanífa have been reckoned orthodox had he denied one of the principal articles of faith.
[1 ]Poc. Spec., pp. 297, 298.
[2 ]Al Sharistáni, ibid.
[4 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., pp. 21 and 22.
[6 ]Ibn Khallikán.
[9 ]Ehnacinus, p. 114
[10 ]Ibn Khallikán. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 294.
[1 ]Ibn Khallikán, Poc. Spec., apud eund. ibid.
[2 ]Al Ghazali, ibid.
[3 ]Ibu Khallikán.
[4 ]Yet Abulfeda says he lived fifty-eight years.
[5 ]Ibn Khallikán.
[1 ]Al Záfaráni, apud Poc. Spec., p. 296.
[2 ]See ante, p. 118.
[3 ]Vide Poc. Spec., pp. 295-297.
[4 ]Ibn Khallikan.
[5 ]Ibn Khallikán.
[7 ]See ante, Sect. III., p. 111, &c.
[8 ]Ibn Khallikán, Abulfarag, Hist. Dyn., p. 252, &c.
[1 ]Ibn Khallikán.
[2 ]Abulfar., ubi supra, p. 301, &c.
[3 ]Al Shahristáni, apud Poc Spec., p. 194; Auctor Sharh al Mawákif, apud eund., p. 210.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec., ubi sup.
[2 ]Al Shahristáni, apud eund., p. 211.
[3 ]Idem, and Auctor Sharh al Mawákit, ubi sup.
[4 ]Idem, ibid., pp. 211, 212, and Ibn Khallikán in Vita Wásili.
[5 ]Al Shahristam, who also reduces them to four chief sects, puts the Qadarians in the place of the Mutazilites. Abulfaragins (Hist. Dyn., p. 166) reckons six principal sects, adding the Jabarians and the Murjians; and the author of “Sharh al Mawákif” sight, viz., the Mutazilites, the Shiites, the Khárijites, the Murjians, the Najarians the Jabarians, the Mushábbihites, and the sect which he calls al Nájia, because that alone will be saved, being according to him the sect of the Asharians. Vide Poc. Spec., p. 209
[1 ]Maímonides teaches the same, not as the doctrine of the Mutazilites, but his own. Vide More, Nev. l. 1, c. 57.
[2 ]Al Shahristáni, apud. Poc. Spec., p. 214; Abulfarag, p. 167
[3 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 224.
[4 ]Sharh al Mawákif, and al Shahrist., apud Poc., p. 216. Maimonides (in Proleg. ad Pirke Aboth., § 8) asserts the same thing.
[5 ]Vide Poc. Spec., ibid
[6 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., p. 215.
[7 ]Abulfarag and al Shahrist., ubi sup., p 217. See supra Sect. III, p. 112
[8 ]Vide Poc. Spec., p. 240.
[1 ]Al Shahrist and Sharh al Mawakif, apud Poc., ubi sup., p 214.
[2 ]Marrace, Prodr ad ref. Alcor., part 3, p 74.
[3 ]Idem, ibid.
[4 ]Vide Poc., Spec., p. 213, and D’Herbel., art. Mutazilah
[5 ]Auctor al Mawákif, apud Poc., ibid.
[6 ]Al Shahristáni apud Poc pp. 215, 216, 217.
[7 ]Idem, apud eund., p. 217, &c
[8 ]In Prodr., part 3, p. 74.
[9 ]Al Shahristáni.
[1 ]Al Shahristani, apud Poc. Spec., p. 215
[2 ]Idem, and Auctor al Mawákif, ibid., p. 218.
[3 ]Marracci, ubi sup., p 75, ex a Shahristáni.
[4 ]Idem, ibid.
[5 ]Al Shahrist., apud Poc p. 215.
[6 ]Idem. ibid., p. 242.
[1 ]Ibn Khallikán, in Vitis Eorem
[2 ]Al Shahrist., ubi supl, pp. 241, 242, Vide Marracc., Prod., part 3, p. 74.
[3 ]See supra, Sect. III., p. 113.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 218; Abulfarag, p. 167.
[5 ]Al Shahrist., al Mawákif et Ibn Kussá, apud Poc Spec., ubi sup. p. 219
[6 ]Vide Poc. Spec., ibid
[7 ]Marracc. et al Shahrist., ubi sup
[8 ]Marracc., ibid., p. 75.
[1 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., art. Giahedh
[2 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 260
[3 ]Marracc., ubi sup.
[4 ]Sect. III., p. 113
[5 ]Vide ibid., and p. 112.
[6 ]Al Shahrist., apud Poc., p. 241.
[7 ]Marracc., ubi sup., p. 75.
[8 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 220.
[9 ]Poc. Spec., p. 221
[1 ]Marracc., ubi sup.
[2 ]Idem, ibid.
[3 ]Al Shahrist.
[4 ]Al Firauráb. Vide Poc Spec., pp. 231, 232, and 214.
[5 ]Al Shahrist Vide Poc. Spec. pp. 235 and 240. &c.
[6 ]Vide Poc. Spec., ibid. p. 238.
[7 ]Al Mutarrizi al Shahrist Vide ibid., p. 232.
[1 ]Al Mutarrizi al Shahrist. &c., ibid.
[2 ]Idem ibid.
[2 ]Vide Poc., ibid, p. 233, &c.
[4 ]Vide ibid., p. 237.
[1 ]Ibn al Athír, al Bokhári, apud Poc. Spec, p. 236.
[2 ]Cap. 7, v. 89.
[3 ]Al Mutarrizl, apud eund., pp. 237, 238.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., Poc. Spec., p 223.
[1 ]Vide Poc. Spec. ibid., p. 224
[2 ]Vide eund. ibid
[1 ]Auctor al Mawákif, et al Safadi, apud Poc., ubi sup., p. 230, &c. Ibn Khallikán in Vita al Jobbái
[2 ]Al Shalirist., apud Poc. Spec., p. 230.
[3 ]Idém, apud eund.; p. 228, &c.
[1 ]Vide Poc Spec. ibid.
[2 ]Al Shahrist., apud eund p. 245, &c.
[3 ]Idem, ibid., p 246.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., apud Poc Spec., p 245, &c.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., apud Poc Spec., p 245, &c.
[1 ]Auctor Sharh al Mawákif, apud eund., p. 247.
[2 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., p. 248.
[3 ]Auctor Sharh al Tawáliya, apud eund. ibid., p. 248 &c.
[1 ]Auctor Sharh al Tawaliya, ibid. pp. 249, 250.
[2 ]Idem, ibid., pp. 250, 251. I trust the reader will not be offended if, as a further illustration of what has been said on this subject (in preducing of which I have purposely kept to the original Muhammadan expressions) I transcribe a passage or two from a postscript subjoined to the epistle I have quoted above (§ 4, p, 85), in which the point of free will is treated ex profeste. Therein the Moorish author, having mentioned the two opposite opinions of the Qadarjans, who allow free will, and the Jabarians, who make man a necessary agent (the former of which opinions, he says, seems to approach nearest to that of the greater part of Christians and of the Jews), declares the true opinion to be that of the Sunnis, who assert that man hath power and will to choose, good and evd. and can moreover know he shall be rewarded if he do well, and shall be punished if he do ill; but that he depends, notwithstanding, on God’s power, and willeth, if God willeth, but not otherwise Thenhe proceeds briefly to refute the two extreme opinions, and first to prove that of the Qadarians, though it be agreeable to God’s justice, inconsistent with his attributes of wisdom and power: “Sapientia enim Dei,” says he, “comprehendit quicquid fuit et futurum est ab seternitate in finem usque mundi et postea. Et Ita novit ab æterno omnia opera creaturarum, sive bona, sive mala. quæ fuerint creata cuin potentia Dei. et. èjus fibera et determinata veluntate, sicut ipsi visum fuit. Denique novit eum qui futurus erat maius. et tamen creavit eum, et similiter bonum, quem etiam creavit: neque negari potest quin, si ipsi libuisset, potuisset omnes creare bonos: placuit tamen Deo creare bonos et malos, cùm Deo soli sit absolata et libera voluntas, et perfecta electio, et non homini. Ita enim Salomon in suis proverbiis dixit, Vitam et mortem, bonum et malum, divitias et pauperlatem esse et venire à Deo. Christiani etiam dicunt S. Paulum dixisse in suis epistolis; Dicet etiam lutum figulo, quare facis unum vas ad honorem. et aliud vas ad contumeliam? Cum igitur miser homo fuerit creatus à voluntate Dei et potentis, nihil aliud potest tribui ipsi quam ipse sensus cognoscendi et sentiendi an bene vel male faciat. Quæ unica cause (id est. sensus cognoscandi) erit ejus gloriæ vel pœnæ causa: per talem enim sensum novit quid vel mah adversus Dei præcepta fecerit.” The opinion of the Jabarians, on the other hand, he rejects as contrary to man’s consciousness of his own power and choice, and inconsistent with God’s justice, and his having given mankind laws, to the observing or transgressing of which he has annexed rewards and punishments. After this be proceeds to explain the third opinion in the following words: “Tertia opinio Zunis (i.e., Sonnitarum) quæ vera est, affirmat homini potestatem esse, sed limitatem à sua causa, id est dependentem à Dei potentia et voluntate, et propter illam cognitionem qua deliberat benè vel malè facere, esse dignum prena vel præmio. Manifestum est in æternitate non fuisse alism poteutiam præter Dei nostri omnipotentis, e cums potentia pendebant omnia possibilla, id est, quæ poterant ease, cum ab ipso fuerint creata. Sapientia verò Dei novit etiam quæ non sunt futura: et potentia, ejus, etsi non creaverit capotuit tamen, si ita Deo placuisset. Ita novit sapientia Dei quæ orant impossibilia, id est, quæ non poterant esse; quæ tamen millo pacto pendent ab ejns potentia; ab ejus enim potentia nulla pendent nisi posaibilia. Dicimus enim a Dei potentia non pendere creare aliquid aliam ipsi similem, nec cresre aliquid quod moveatur et quiescat simul eodem tempore, cum hæc sint ex impossibilibus: comprehendit tamen suâ sapientiâ tale aliquid non pendere ab ejus potentiâ. A potentiâ igitur Dei pendet solúm quod potest esse, et possibile est esse: quæ semper parata est dare esse possibilibus. Et si hoc penitus cognoscamus, cognos cemus pariter omne quod est, seu futurum est. sive sint opera nostra, sive quidvis aliud, pendere à sola potentia Dei. Et hoc non privatim intelligitur, sed in genere de omni eo quod est et movetur, sive in cœlis sive in terrâ; et nec aliquà potentiâ potest impediri Dei potentia, cùm nulla alia potentia absolute sit, præ ter Dei; potentia verò nostra non est a se, nisi à Dei potentia: et cum potentia nostra dicitur esse a causa sua, ideo dicimus potential nostram esse atraminis comparatam cum potentia Dei: eo euim modo quo stramen movetur à motu maris. ita nestra potentia et voluntas à Dei potentia. Itaque Dei potentia semper est parata etiam ad occidendum ali quem; ut ai quis hominem occidat, non dicimus potentiâ hominis id factum. sed æterna potentia Dei: error enim est id tribuere potentiæ horsinis. Potentia enim Dei, cum semper sit parata, et ante ipsum hominem, ad occidendum: si solâ hominis potentiâ id factum esse diceremus, et moreretur, potentia sanè Dei (quæ antè erat) jam ibi esset frustra: quia post mortem non potest potentia Dei eum iterum occi dere; ex quo sequeretur potentiam Dei impediri à potentia hominis, et potentiam hominis anteire et antecellere potentiam Dei: quod est absurdum et impossibile. Igitur Deus est qui operatur æternâ suâ potentiâ: si verò homini injiciatur culpa, eive in tali homicidio, sive in aliis hoc est quantùm ad præcepta et legem. Homini tribuitur solùm opus externe, et ejùs electio, quæ est a voluntate ejus et potentia: non verò internè.—Hoc est punctum illud indivisibile et secretum. quod à paucissimis capitur, ut sapientissinuls Sidi Abo Hamet Elgaceli (i.e., Dominus Abu Hàmed al Ghazáli) affirmat (cujus spiritui Deus concedat gloriam, Amen !) sequentibus verbis: Ita abditum et profundum et abstrusum est intelligere punctum illud Liberi Arbitrii, ut neque characteres ad scribendum, neque ullæ rationes ad experimendum sufficiant, et omnes, quotquot de hac re locuti sunt, hæserunt confusi in ripa tanti et tain spaciosi marís.”
[1 ]Al Shahrist., apud Poc., p. 258.
[2 ]Vide Poc., ibid., p. 255, &c.; Abulfar., p. 167, &c.
[3 ]Al Mawákif, apud Poc., ibid
[1 ]Al Shahrist., apud eund., ibid., p. 226.
[2 ]Vide Marracc., Prodr., part 3, p. 76.
[3 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup.
[4 ]Idem, ibid., p. 225.
[5 ]Idem, ibid., pp. 226, 227.
[1 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., pp. 227, 228.
[2 ]Talm. Berachoth. c. 1. Vide Poc., ubi sup., p. 228.
[3 ]Vide Abulfarag, p. 168.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., al Mawákif, et Ibn al Kussá, apud Poc., ibid., p. 238, &c.
[1 ]Al Shahrist., al Mutarizzi, et Ibn al Kussá, apud eund., pp. 239, 243, &c.
[2 ]Idem, ibid., p. 260.
[3 ]Al Shahrist.
[4 ]Ibn al Kussá et al Mawákif
[5 ]Ibn al Kussá, apud Poc., ubi sup., p. 240.
[1 ]Al Shahriat., apud eund., p. 245.
[2 ]Idem, ibid.
[3 ]Abulfarag, p. 168, &c.
[4 ]Al Shahriatáni, ubi sup., p. 252, &c.
[5 ]Sharh al Tawáliya, ibid. To the same effect writes the Moorish author quoted above, from whom I will venture to transcribe the following passage, with which he concludes his Discourse on Freewill:—“Intellectus ferè lumine naturall novit Deum esse rectum judicem et justum, qui non aliter afficit creaturam quàm juste: etiam Deum esse absolutum Dominum, et hanc orbis machinam esse ejus, et ab eo creatam; Deum nullis debere rationem reddere, cùm quiexuid agat, agat jure proprio sibi: et ita absolute poterit afficere præmio vel pœna quem vult. cùm omnis creatura sit ejus, nec facit cuiquam injuriam, etsi eam tormentis et pœnis æternis afficiat: plus enim boni et commodi accepit creatura quando accepit ease a suo creatore, quàm incommodi et damni quando ab eo damnata est et aifecta tormentis et pœnis. Hoc autem intelligitur si Deus absolute id faceret Quando enim Deus, pietate et misericordia motus, eligit aliquos ut ipsa serviant, Dominus Deus gratiâ suâ id facit ex infiuitâ bonitate: et quando aliquos derelinouit, et pœnis et tormentis afficit, ex justitia et rectitudine. Et tandem dicimus omnés pœnas esse justas quæ a Deo veniunt, et nostrâ tantum culpâ, et omnia bona esse à pietate et misericordia ejus infinita.”
[6 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 256.
[1 ]Abulfarag, p. 169.
[2 ]Al Firaus.
[3 ]Ibn al Athír, al Mutarrizi.
[4 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 254, &c.
[5 ]Idem, ibid.
[6 ]See supra, Sect. IV., p. 147.
[7 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 257
[1 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 261.
[2 ]See Ockley’s Hist. of the Saracens, vol. i. p. 60, &c.
[3 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 270.
[4 ]Idem, ibid.
[5 ]Abulfeda, al Jannábi, Elmacinus, p. 40.
[1 ]Al Shahristáni. See Ockley’s Hist of the Saracens ubi sup., p. 63.
[2 ]Abulfar., p. 169; Al Shahrist., apud Poc Spec., p. 256
[3 ]Vide Poc., ibid., p. 257
[1 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., p. 261; Abulfarag, p. 169.
[2 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., p. 262.
[3 ]Idem. ibid. Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., art Schiab.
[4 ]Vide Poc., ibid.
[1 ]Al Shahrist., ibid., p. 263.
[2 ]Idem, et Ibn al Kussá, ibid., p. 260, &c.
[3 ]Idem, ibid.
[4 ]Idem, ibid., p. 264. Vide Marrac., Prodr., part 3, p. 80, &c.
[1 ]Al Shahristáni, ibid., p 265.
[2 ]Vide D’Herbel., Bibl. Orient., art. Hakem Beamrillah.
[3 ]Idem, ibid., Abulfar., p. 169.
[* ]Talboys Wheeler, in his History of India, vol. iv. part i. p. 86, attributes these notions to all Shíahs. He says, “They believe in God as the Supreme Spirit; in Muhammad and his family as emanations from the Supreme Spirit.” This statement is too sweeping; the views here attributed to all belong to the Súfi portion of the sect. e. m. w.
[4 ]See Prid., Life of Mah., p. 93.
[5 ]Al Shahrist., ubi sup., p. 266.
[1 ]Poc Spec., p. 267.