{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11198/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11198","id":"gutenberg_11198","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11198","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Christianity and other religions -- Islam","Islam","Islam -- Relations -- Christianity"],"text":"CHRISTIANITY\n\nAND\n\nISLAM\n\n\nBY\n\nC.H. BECKER, PH.D.\n\nPROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL HISTORY IN\nTHE COLONIAL INSTITUTE OF HAMBURG\n\nTRANSLATED BY\nREV. H.J. CHAYTOR, M.A.\n\nHEADMASTER OF PLYMOUTH COLLEGE\n\n\n\n1909\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nThe subject from different points of view: limits of treatment\n\nThe nature of the subject: the historical points of connection between\nChristianity and Islam\n\n  A. Christianity and the rise of Islam:\n\n     1. Muhammed and his contemporaries\n\n     2. The influence of Christianity upon the development of Muhammed\n\n     3. Muhammed's knowledge of Christianity\n\n     4. The position of Christians under Muhammedanism\n\n  B. The similarity of Christian and Muhammedan metaphysics during the\n     middle ages:\n\n     1. The means and direction by which Christian influence affected\n        Islam\n\n     2. The penetration of daily life by the spirit of religion;\n        asceticism, contradictions and influences affecting the\n        development of a clerical class and the theory of\n        marriage\n\n     3. The theory of life in general with reference to the doctrine\n        of immortality\n\n     4. The attitude of religion towards the State, economic life,\n        society, etc.\n\n     5. The permanent importance to Islam of these influences: the\n        doctrine of duties\n\n     6. Ritual\n\n     7. Mysticism and the worship of saints\n\n     8. Dogma and the development of scholasticism\n\n  C. The influence of Islam upon Christianity:\n\n     The manner in which this influence operated, and the explanation\n     of the superiority of Islam\n\n     The influence of Muhammedan philosophy\n\n     The new world of European Christendom and the modern East\n\n  Conclusion. The historical growth of religion\n\nBibliography\n\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM\n\n\nA comparison of Christianity with Muhammedanism or with any other\nreligion must be preceded by a statement of the objects with which\nsuch comparison is undertaken, for the possibilities which lie in this\ndirection are numerous. The missionary, for instance, may consider\nthat a knowledge of the similarities of these religions would increase\nthe efficacy of his proselytising work: his purpose would thus be\nwholly practical. The ecclesiastically minded Christian, already\nconvinced of the superiority of his own religion, will be chiefly\nanxious to secure scientific proof of the fact: the study of\ncomparative religion from this point of view was once a popular branch\nof apologetics and is by no means out of favour at the present day.\nAgain, the inquirer whose historical perspective is undisturbed by\necclesiastical considerations, will approach the subject with somewhat\ndifferent interests. He will expect the comparison to provide him with\na clear view of the influence which Christianity has exerted upon\nother religions or has itself received from them: or he may hope by\ncomparing the general development of special religious systems to gain\na clearer insight into the growth of Christianity. Hence the object of\nsuch comparisons is to trace the course of analogous developments and\nthe interaction of influence and so to increase the knowledge of\nreligion in general or of our own religion in particular.\n\nA world-religion, such as Christianity, is a highly complex structure\nand the evolution of such a system of belief is best understood by\nexamining a religion to which we have not been bound by a thousand\nties from the earliest days of our lives. If we take an alien religion\nas our subject of investigation, we shall not shrink from the\nconsequences of the historical method: whereas, when we criticise\nChristianity, we are often unable to see the falsity of the\npre-suppositions which we necessarily bring to the task of inquiry:\nour minds follow the doctrines of Christianity, even as our bodies\nperform their functions--in complete unconsciousness. At the same time\nwe possess a very considerable knowledge of the development of\nChristianity, and this we owe largely to the help of analogy.\nEspecially instructive is the comparison between Christianity and\nBuddhism. No less interesting are the discoveries to be attained by an\ninquiry into the development of Muhammedanism: here we can see the\ngrowth of tradition proceeding in the full light of historical\ncriticism. We see the plain man, Muhammed, expressly declaring in the\nQoran that he cannot perform miracles, yet gradually becoming a\nmiracle worker and indeed the greatest of his class: he professes to\nbe nothing more than a mortal man: he becomes the chief mediator\nbetween man and God. The scanty memorials of the man become voluminous\nbiographies of the saint and increase from generation to generation.\n\nYet more remarkable is the fact that his utterances, his _logia_, if\nwe may use the term, some few of which are certainly genuine, increase\nfrom year to year and form a large collection which is critically\nsifted and expounded. The aspirations of mankind attribute to him such\nwords of the New Testament and of Greek philosophers as were\nespecially popular or seemed worthy of Muhammed; the teaching also of\nthe new ecclesiastical schools was invariably expressed in the form of\nproverbial utterances attributed to Muhammed, and these are now\nwithout exception regarded as authentic by the modern Moslem. In this\nway opinions often contradictory are covered by Muhummed's authority.\n\nThe traditions concerning Jesus offer an analogy. Our Gospels, for\ninstance, relate the beautiful story of the plucking of the ears of\ncorn on the Sabbath, with its famous moral application, \"The Sabbath\nwas made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.\" A Christian papyrus\nhas been discovered which represents Jesus as explaining the sanctity\nof the Sabbath from the Judaeo-Christian point of view. \"If ye keep\nnot the Sabbath holy, ye shall not see the Father,\" is the statement\nin an uncanonical Gospel. In early Christian literature, contradictory\nsayings of Jesus are also to be found. Doubtless here, as in\nMuhammedan tradition, the problem originally was, what is to be my\naction in this or that question of practical life: answer is given in\naccordance with the religious attitude of the inquirer and Jesus and\nMuhammed are made to lend their authority to the teaching. Traditional\nliterary form is then regarded as historical by later believers.\n\nExamples of this kind might be multiplied, but enough has been said to\nshow that much and, to some extent, new light may be thrown upon the\ndevelopment of Christian tradition, by an examination of Muhammedanism\nwhich rose from similar soil but a few centuries later, while its\ntraditional developments have been much more completely preserved.\n\nSuch analogies as these can be found, however, in any of the\nworld-religions, and we propose to devote our attention more\nparticularly to the influences which Christianity and Islam exerted\ndirectly upon one another. While Muhammedanism has borrowed from its\nhereditary foe, it has also repaid part of the debt. By the very fact\nof its historical position Islam was at first indebted to\nChristianity; but in the department of Christian philosophy, it has\nalso exerted its own influence. This influence cannot be compared with\nthat of Greek or Jewish thought upon Christian speculation: Christian\nphilosophy, as a metaphysical theory of existence, was however\nstrongly influenced by Arabian thought before the outset of the\nReformation. On the other hand the influence of Christianity upon\nIslam--and also upon Muhammed, though he owed more to Jewish\nthought--was so extensive that the coincidence of ideas upon the most\nimportant metaphysical questions is positively amazing.\n\nThere is a widespread belief even at the present day that Islam was a\ncomplete novelty and that the religion and culture of the Muhammedan\nworld were wholly alien to Western medievalism. Such views are\nentirely false; during the Middle Ages Muhammedanism and Western\nculture were inspired by the same spirit. The fact has been obscured\nby the contrast between the two religions whose differences have been\nconstantly exaggerated and by dissimilarities of language and\nnationality. To retrace in full detail the close connection which\nunites Christianity and Islam would be the work of years. Within the\nscope of the present volume, all that can be done is to explain the\npoints of contact between Christian and Muhammedan theories of life\nand religion. Such is the object of the following pages. We shall\nfirst treat of Muhammed personally, because his rise as a religious\nforce will explain the possibility of later developments.\n\nThis statement also explains the sense in which we shall use the term\nChristianity. Muhammedanism has no connection with post-Reformation\nChristianity and meets it only in the mission field. Practical\nquestions there arise which lie beyond the limits of our subject, as\nwe have already indicated. Our interests are concerned with the\nmediaeval Church, when Christianity first imposed its ideas upon\nMuhammedanism at the time of its rise in the East, and afterwards\nreceived a material extension of its own horizon through the rapid\nprogress of its prot\u00e9g\u00e9. Our task is to analyse and explain these\nspecial relations between the two systems of thought.\n\nThe religion now known as Islam is as near to the preaching of\nMuhammed or as remote from it, as modern Catholicism or Protestant\nChristianity is at variance or in harmony with the teaching of Jesus.\nThe simple beliefs of the prophet and his contemporaries are separated\nby a long course of development from the complicated religious system\nin its unity and diversity which Islam now presents to us. The course\nof this development was greatly influenced by Christianity, but\nChristian ideas had been operative upon Muhammed's eager intellectual\nlife at an even earlier date. We must attempt to realise the working\nof his mind, if we are to gain a comprehension of the original\nposition of Islam with regard to Christianity. The task is not so\ndifficult in Muhammed's case as in that of others who have founded\nreligious systems: we have records of his philosophical views,\nimportant even though fragmentary, while vivid descriptions of his\nexperiences have been transmitted to us in his own words, which have\nescaped the modifying influence of tradition at second hand. Muhammed\nhad an indefinite idea of the word of God as known to him from other\nreligions. He was unable to realise this idea effectively except as an\nimmediate revelation; hence throughout the Qoran he represents God as\nspeaking in the first person and himself appears as the interlocutor.\nEven direct commands to the congregation are introduced by the\nstereotyped \"speak\"; it was of primary importance that the Qoran\nshould be regarded as God's word and not as man's. This fact largely\ncontributed to secure an uncontaminated transmission of the text,\nwhich seems also to have been left by Muhammed himself in definite\nform. Its intentional obscurity of expression does not facilitate the\ntask of the inquirer, but it provides, none the less, considerable\ninformation concerning the religious progress of its author. Here we\nare upon firmer ground than when we attempt to describe Muhammed's\noutward life, the first half of which is wrapped in obscurity no less\nprofound than that which veils the youth of the Founder of\nChristianity.\n\nMuhammed's contemporaries lived amid religious indifference. The\nmajority of the Arabs were heathen and their religious aspirations\nwere satisfied by local cults of the Old Semitic character. They may\nhave preserved the religious institutions of the great South Arabian\ncivilisation, which was then in a state of decadence; the beginnings\nof Islam may also have been influenced by the ideas of this\ncivilisation, which research is only now revealing to us: but these\npoints must remain undecided for the time being. South Arabian\ncivilisation was certainly not confined to the South, nor could an\norganised township such as Mecca remain outside its sphere of\ninfluence: but the scanty information which has reached us concerning\nthe religious life of the Arabs anterior to Islam might also be\nexplained by supposing them to have followed a similar course of\ndevelopment. In any case, it is advisable to reserve judgment until\ndocumentary proof can replace ingenious conjecture. The difficulty of\nthe problem is increased by the fact that Jewish and especially\nChristian ideas penetrated from the South and that their influence\ncannot be estimated. The important point for us to consider is the\nexistence of Christianity in Southern Arabia before the Muhammedan\nperiod. Nor was the South its only starting-point: Christian doctrine\ncame to Arabia from the North, from Syria and Babylonia, and numerous\nconversions, for the most part of whole tribes, were made. On the\nfrontiers also Arabian merchants came into continual contact with\nChristianity and foreign merchants of the Christian faith could be\nfound throughout Arabia. But for the Arabian migration and the\nsimultaneous foundation of a new Arabian religion, there is no doubt\nthat the whole peninsula would have been speedily converted to\nChristianity.\n\nThe chief rival of Christianity was Judaism, which was represented in\nNorthern as in Southern Arabia by strong colonies of Jews, who made\nproselytes, although their strict ritualism was uncongenial to the\nArab temperament which preferred conversion to Christianity (naturally\nonly as a matter of form). In addition to Jewish, Christian, and Old\nSemitic influences, Zoroastrian ideas and customs were also known in\nArabia, as is likely enough in view of the proximity of the Persian\nempire.\n\nThese various elements aroused in Muhammed's mind a vague idea of\nreligion. His experience was that of the eighteenth-century\ntheologians who suddenly observed that Christianity was but one of\nmany very similar and intelligible religions, and thus inevitably\nconceived the idea of a pure and natural religious system fundamental\nto all others. Judaism and Christianity were the only religions which\nforced themselves upon Muhammed's consciousness and with the general\ncharacteristics of which he was acquainted. He never read any part of\nthe Old or New Testament: his references to Christianity show that his\nknowledge of the Bible was derived from hearsay and that his\ninformants were not representative of the great religious sects:\nMuhammed's account of Jesus and His work, as given in the Qoran, is\nbased upon the apocryphal accretions which grew round the Christian\ndoctrine.\n\nWhen Muhammed proceeded to compare the great religions of the Old and\nNew Testaments with the superficial pietism of his own compatriots, he\nwas especially impressed with the seriousness of the Hebrews and\nChristians which contrasted strongly with the indifference of the\nheathen Arabs. The Arab was familiar with the conception of an\nalmighty God, and this idea had not been obscured by the worship of\ntrees, stones, fire and the heavenly bodies: but his reverence for\nthis God was somewhat impersonal and he felt no instinct to approach\nHim, unless he had some hopes or fears to satisfy. The idea of a\nreckoning between man and God was alien to the Arab mind. Christian\nand Jewish influence became operative upon Muhammed with reference\nto this special point. The idea of the day of judgment, when an\naccount of earthly deeds and misdeeds will be required, when the joys\nof Paradise will be opened to the good and the bad will be cast into\nthe fiery abyss, such was the great idea, which suddenly filled\nMuhammed's mind and dispelled the indifference begotten of routine and\nstirred his mental powers.\n\nPolytheism was incompatible with the idea of God as a judge supreme\nand righteous, but yet merciful. Thus monotheism was indissolubly\nconnected with Muhammed's first religious impulses, though the dogma\nhad not assumed the polemical form in which it afterwards confronted\nthe old Arabian and Christian beliefs. But a mind stirred by religious\nemotion only rose to the height of prophetic power after a long course\nof development which human knowledge can but dimly surmise.\nChristianity and Judaism had their sacred books which the founders of\nthese religions had produced. In them were the words of God,\ntransmitted through Moses to the Jews and through Jesus to the\nChristians. Jesus and Moses had been God's ambassadors to their\npeoples. Who then could bring to the Arabs the glad tidings which\nshould guide them to the happy fields of Paradise? Among primitive\npeoples God is regarded as very near to man. The Arabs had, their\nfortune-tellers and augurs who cast lots before God and explained His\nwill in mysterious rhythmical utterances. Muhammed was at first more\nintimately connected with this class of Arab fortune-tellers than is\nusually supposed. The best proof of the fact is the vehemence with\nwhich he repudiates all comparison between these fortune-tellers and\nhimself, even as early Christian apologetics and polemics attacked the\nrival cults of the later classical world, which possessed forms of\nritual akin to those observed by Christianity. The existence of a\nfortune-telling class among the Arabs shows that Muhammed may well\nhave been endowed with psychological tendencies which only awaited the\nvivifying influence of Judaism and Christianity to emerge as the\nprophetic impulse forcing him to stand forth in public and to stir the\npeople from their indifference: \"Be ye converted, for the day of\njudgment is at hand: God has declared it unto me, as he declared it\nunto Moses and Jesus. I am the apostle of God to you, Arabs. Salvation\nis yours only if ye submit to the will of God preached by me.\" This\nact of submission Muhammed calls Islam. Thus at the hour of Islam's\nbirth, before its founder had proclaimed his ideas, the influence of\nChristianity is indisputable. It was this influence which made of the\nArab seer and inspired prophet, the apostle of God.\n\nMuhammed regarded Judaism and Christianity as religious movements\npurely national in character. God in His mercy had announced His will\nto different nations through His prophets. As God's word had been\ninterpreted for the Jews and for the Christians, so there was to be a\nspecial interpretation for the benefit of the Arabs. These\ninterpretations were naturally identical in manner and differed only\nas regards place and time. Muhammed had heard of the Jewish Messiah\nand of the Christian Paraclete, whom, however, he failed to identify\nwith the Holy Ghost and he applied to himself the allusions to one who\nshould come after Moses and Jesus. Thus in the Qoran 61.6 we read,\n\"Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: Children of Israel, I am God's apostle\nto you. I confirm in your hands the Thora (the law) and I announce the\ncoming of another apostle after me whose name is Ahmed.\" Ahmed is the\nequivalent of Muhammed. The verse has been variously interpreted and\neven rejected as an interpolation: but its authenticity is attested by\nits perfect correspondence with what we know of Muhammed's\npretensions.\n\nTo trace in detail the development of his attitude towards\nChristianity is a more difficult task than to discover the growth of\nhis views upon Judaism; probably he pursued a similar course in either\ncase. At first he assumed the identity of the two religions with one\nanother and with his own doctrine; afterwards he regarded them as\nadvancing by gradations. Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed,\nthese in his opinion were the chief stages in the divine scheme of\nsalvation. Each was respectively confirmed or abolished by the\nrevelation which followed it, nor is this theory of Muhammed's shaken\nby the fact that each revelation was given to a different nation. He\nregards all preceding prophets in the light of his own personality.\nThey were all sent to people who refused them a hearing at the moment.\nPunishment follows and the prophet finds a body of believers\nelsewhere. These temporary punishments are confused with the final\nJudgment; in fact Muhammed's system was not clearly thought out. The\nseveral prophets were but men, whose earthly careers were necessarily\ncrowned with triumph: hence the crucifixion of Jesus is a malicious\ninvention of the Jews, who in reality crucified some other sufferer,\nwhile Jesus entered the divine glory. Thus Muhammed has no idea of the\nimportance of the Crucifixion to the Christian Church, as is shown by\nhis treatment of it as a Jewish falsehood. In fact, he develops the\nhabit of characterising as false any statement in contradiction with\nhis ideas, and this tendency is especially obvious in his dealings\nwith Judaism, of which he gained a more intimate knowledge. At first\nhe would refer sceptics to Christian and Jewish doctrine for\nconfirmation of his own teaching. The fact that with no knowledge of\nthe Old or New Testament, he had proclaimed doctrines materially\nsimilar and the fact that these Scriptures referred to himself, were\nproofs of his inspired power, let doubters say what they would. A\ncloser acquaintance with these Scriptures showed him that the\ndivergencies which he stigmatised as falsifications denoted in reality\nvast doctrinal differences.\n\nIn order to understand Muhammed's attitude towards Christianity, we\nwill examine in greater detail his view of this religion, the portions\nof it which he accepted or which he rejected as unauthentic. In the\nfirst place he must have regarded the Trinity as repugnant to reason:\nhe considered the Christian Trinity as consisting of God the Father,\nMary the Mother of God, and Jesus the Son of God. In the Qoran, God\nsays, \"Hast thou, Jesus, said to men, Regard me and my mother as Gods\nby the side of God?\" Jesus replies, \"I will say nothing but the truth.\nI have but preached, Pray to God, who is my Lord and your Lord\"\n(5.116, f). Hence it has been inferred that Muhammed's knowledge of\nChristianity was derived from some particular Christian sect, such as\nthe Tritheists or the Arab female sect of the Collyridians who\nworshipped the Virgin Mary with exaggerated reverence and assigned\ndivine honours to her. It is also possible that we have here a\ndevelopment of some Gnostic conception which regarded the Holy Ghost\nas of feminine gender, as Semites would do;[A] instances of this\nchange are to be found in the well-known Hymn of the Soul in the Acts\nof Thomas, in the Gospel to the Egyptians and elsewhere. I am\ninclined, however, to think it more probable that Muhammed had heard\nof Mariolatry and of the \"mother of God,\" a title which then was a\nhighly popular catchword, and that the apotheosis of Jesus was known\nto him and also the doctrine of the Trinity by name. Further than this\nhis knowledge did not extend; although he knows the Holy Ghost and\nidentifies him with Jesus, none the less his primitive reasoning,\nunder the influence of many old beliefs, explained the mysterious\ntriad of the Trinity as husband, wife, and son. This fact is enough to\nprove that his theory of Christianity was formed by combining isolated\nscraps of information and that he cannot have had any direct\ninstruction from a Christian knowing the outlines of his faith.\n\n[Footnote A: The word for \"Spirit\" is of the feminine gender in the\nSemitic languages.]\n\nMuhammed must also have denied the divinity of Christ: this is an\nobvious result of the course of mental development which we have\ndescribed and of his characteristically Semitic theory of the nature\nof God. To him, God is one, never begetting and never begotten.\nDenying the divinity of Jesus, Muhammed naturally denies the\nredemption through the Cross and also the fact of the Crucifixion.\nYet, strangely enough he accepted the miraculous birth; nor did he\nhesitate to provide this purely human Jesus with all miraculous\nattributes; these were a proof of his divine commission, and\nmarvellous details of this nature aroused the interest of his hearers.\n\nMary the sister of Ahron--an obvious confusion with the Old Testament\nMiriam--had been devoted to the service of God by her mother's vow, and\nlives in the temple under the guardianship of Zacharias, to whom a\nlater heir is born in answer to his prayers, namely John, the\nforerunner of the Holy Ghost. The birth is announced to Mary and she\nbrings forth Jesus under a palm-tree, near which is a running spring\nand by the dates of which she is fed. On her return home she is\nreceived with reproaches by her family but merely points in reply to\nthe new-born babe, who suddenly speaks from his cradle, asserting that\nhe is the prophet of God. Afterwards Jesus performs all kinds of\nmiracles, forms birds out of clay and makes them fly, heals the blind\nand lepers, raises the dead, etc., and even brings down from heaven a\ntable ready spread. The Jews will not believe him, but the youth\nfollow him. He is not killed, but translated to God. Christians are\nnot agreed upon the manner of his death and the Jews have invented the\nstory of the Crucifixion.\n\nMuhammed's knowledge of Christianity thus consists of certain isolated\ndetails, partly apocryphal, partly canonical, together with a hazy\nidea of the fundamental dogmas. Thus the influence of Christianity\nupon him was entirely indirect. The Muhammedan movement at its outset\nwas influenced not by the real Christianity of the time but by a\nChristianity which Muhammed criticised in certain details and forced\ninto harmony with his preconceived ideas. His imagination was\nprofoundly impressed by the existence of Christianity as a revealed\nreligion with a founder of its own. Certain features of Christianity\nand of Judaism, prayer, purification, solemn festivals, scriptures,\nprophets and so forth were regarded by him as essential to any\nreligious community, because they happened to belong both to Judaism\nand to Christianity. He therefore adopted or wished to adopt these\ninstitutions.\n\nDuring the period of his life at Medina, Muhammed abandoned his\noriginal idea of preaching the doctrines which Moses and Jesus had\nproclaimed. This new development was the outcome of a struggle with\nJudaism following upon an unsuccessful attempt at compromise. In point\nof fact Judaism and Christianity were as widely different from one\nanother as they were from his own teaching and he was more than ever\ninclined to regard as his special forerunner, Abraham, who had\npreceded both Moses and Jesus, and was revered by both religions as\nthe man of God. He then brought Abraham into connection with the\nancient Meccan Ka'ba worship: the Ka'ba or die was a sacred stone\nedifice, in one corner of which the \"black stone\" had been built in:\nthis stone was an object of reverence to the ancient Arabs, as it\nstill is to the Muhammedans. Thus Islam gradually assumed the form of\nan Arab religion, developing universalist tendencies in the ultimate\ncourse of events. Muhammed, therefore, as he was the last in the ranks\nof the prophets, must also be the greatest. He epitomised all prophecy\nand Islam superseded every revealed religion of earlier date.\n\nMuhammed's original view that earlier religions had been founded by\nGod's will and through divine revelation, led both him and his\nsuccessors to make an important concession: adherents of other\nreligions were not compelled to adopt Islam. They were allowed to\nobserve their own faith unhindered, if they surrendered without\nfighting, and were even protected against their enemies, in return for\nwhich they had to pay tribute to their Muslim masters; this was levied\nas a kind of poll-tax. Thus we read in the Qoran (ix. 29) that \"those\nwho possess Scriptures,\" i.e. the Jews and Christians, who did not\naccept Islam were to be attacked until they paid the _gizja_ or\ntribute. Thus the object of a religious war upon the Christians is not\nexpressed by the cry \"Death or Islam\"; such attacks were intended\nmerely to extort an acknowledgment of Muhammedan supremacy, not to\nabolish freedom of religious observance. It would be incorrect for the\nmost part to regard the warrior bands which started from Arabia as\ninspired by religious enthusiasm or to attribute to them the\nfanaticism which was first aroused by the crusades and in an even\ngreater degree by the later Turkish wars. The Muhammedan fanatics of\nthe wars of conquest, whose reputation was famous among later\ngenerations, felt but a very scanty interest in religion and\noccasionally displayed an ignorance of its fundamental tenets which we\ncan hardly exaggerate. The fact is fully consistent with the impulses\nto which the Arab migrations were due. These impulses were economic\nand the new religion was nothing more than a party cry of unifying\npower, though there is no reason to suppose that it was not a real\nmoral force in the life of Muhammed and his immediate contemporaries.\n\nAnti-Christian fanaticism there was therefore none. Even in early\nyears Muhammedans never refused to worship in the same buildings as\nChristians. The various insulting regulations which tradition\nrepresents Christians as forced to endure were directed not so much\nagainst the adherents of another faith as against the barely tolerated\ninhabitants of a subjugated state. It is true that the distinction is\noften difficult to observe, as religion and nationality were one and\nthe same thing to Muhammedans. In any case religious animosity was a\nvery subordinate phenomenon. It was a gradual development and seems to\nme to have made a spasmodic beginning in the first century under the\ninfluence of ideas adopted from Christianity. It may seem paradoxical\nto assert that it was Christian influence which first stirred Islam to\nreligious animosity and armed it with the sword against Christianity,\nbut the hypothesis becomes highly probable when we have realised the\nindifferentism of the Muhammedan conquerors.\n\nWe shall constantly see hereafter how much they owed in every\ndepartment of intellectual life to the teaching of the races which\nthey subjugated. Their attitude towards other beliefs was never so\nintolerant as was that of Christendom at that period. Christianity may\nwell have been the teaching influence in this department of life as in\nothers. Moreover at all times and especially in the first century the\nposition of Christians has been very tolerable, even though the\nMuslims regarded them as an inferior class, Christians were able to\nrise to the highest offices of state, even to the post of vizier,\nwithout any compulsion to renounce their faith. Even during the period\nof the crusades when the religious opposition was greatly intensified,\nagain through Christian policy, Christian officials cannot have been\nuncommon: otherwise Muslim theorists would never have uttered their\nconstant invectives against the employment of Christians in\nadministrative duties. Naturally zealots appeared at all times on the\nMuhammedan as well as on the Christian side and occasionally isolated\nacts of oppression took place: these were, however, exceptional. So\nlate as the eleventh century, church funeral processions were able to\npass through the streets of Bagdad with all the emblems of\nChristianity and disturbances were recorded by the chroniclers as\nexceptional. In Egypt, Christian festivals were also regarded to some\nextent as holidays by the Muhammedan population. We have but to\nimagine these conditions reversed in a Christian kingdom of the early\nmiddle ages and the probability of my theory will become obvious.\n\nThe Christians of the East, who had broken for the most part with the\northodox Church, also regarded Islam as a lesser evil than the\nByzantine established Church. Moreover Islam, as being both a\npolitical and ecclesiastical organisation, regarded the Christian\nchurch as a state within a state and permitted it to preserve its own\njuridical and at first its own governmental rights. Application was\nmade to the bishops when anything was required from the community and\nthe churches were used as taxation offices. This was all in the\ninterests of the clergy who thus found their traditional claims\nrealised. These relations were naturally modified in the course of\ncenturies; the crusades, the Turkish wars and the great expansion of\nEurope widened the breach between Christianity and Islam, while as the\nEast was gradually brought under ecclesiastical influence, the\ncontrast grew deeper: the theory, however, that the Muhammedan\nconquerors and their successors were inspired by a fanatical hatred of\nChristianity is a fiction invented by Christians.\n\nWe have now to examine this early development of Islam in somewhat\ngreater detail: indeed, to secure a more general appreciation of this\npoint is the object of the present work.\n\nThe relationship of the Qoran to Christianity has been already noted:\nit was a book which preached rather than taught and enounced isolated\nlaws but no connected system. Islam was a clear and simple war-cry\nbetokening merely a recognition of Arab supremacy, of the unity of God\nand of Muhammed's prophetic mission. But in a few centuries Islam\nbecame a complex religious structure, a confusion of Greek philosophy\nand Roman law, accurately regulating every department of human life\nfrom the deepest problems of morality to the daily use of the\ntoothpick, and the fashions of dress and hair. This change from the\nsimplicity of the founder's religious teaching to a system of\npractical morality often wholly divergent from primitive doctrine, is\na transformation which all the great religions of the world have\nundergone. Religious founders have succeeded in rousing the sense of\ntrue religion in the human heart. Religious systems result from the\ninteraction of this impulse with pre-existing capacities for\ncivilisation. The highest attainments of human life are dependent upon\ncircumstances of time and place, and environment often exerts a more\npowerful influence than creative power. The teaching of Jesus was\nalmost overpowered by the Graeco-Oriental culture of later Hellenism.\nDissensions persist even now because millions of people are unable to\ndistinguish pure religion from the forms of expression belonging to an\nextinct civilisation. Islam went through a similar course of\ndevelopment and assumed the spiritual panoply which was ready to hand.\nHere, as elsewhere, this defence was a necessity during the period of\nstruggle, but became a crushing burden during the peace which followed\nvictory, for the reason that it was regarded as inseparable from the\nwearer of it. From this point of view the analogy with Christianity\nwill appear extremely striking, but it is something more than an\nanalogy: the Oriental Hellenism of antiquity was to Christianity that\nwhich the Christian Oriental Hellenism of a few centuries later was to\nIslam.\n\nWe must now attempt to realise the nature of this event so important\nin the history of the world. A nomadic people, recently united, not\ndevoid of culture, but with a very limited range of ideas, suddenly\ngains supremacy over a wide and populous district with an ancient\ncivilisation. These nomads are as yet hardly conscious of their\npolitical unity and the individualism of the several tribes composing\nit is still a disruptive force: yet they can secure domination over\ncountries such as Egypt and Babylonia, with complex constitutional\nsystems, where climatic conditions, the nature of the soil and\ncenturies of work have combined to develop an intricate administrative\nsystem, which newcomers could not be expected to understand, much less\nto recreate or to remodel. Yet the theory has long been held that the\nArabs entirely reorganised the constitutions of these countries.\nExcessive importance has been attached to the statements of Arab\nauthors, who naturally regarded Islam as the beginning of all things.\nIn every detail of practical life they regarded the prophet and his\ncontemporaries as their ruling ideal, and therefore naturally assumed\nthat the constitutional practices of the prophet were his own\ninvention. The organisation of the conquering race with its tribal\nsubordination was certainly purely Arab in origin. In fact the\nconquerors seemed so unable to adapt themselves to the conditions with\nwhich they met, that foreigners who joined their ranks were admitted\nto the Muhammedan confederacy only as clients of the various Arab\ntribes. This was, however, a mere question of outward form: the\ninternal organisation continued unchanged, as it was bound to continue\nunless chaos were to be the consequence. In fact, pre-existing\nadministrative regulations were so far retained that the old customs\nduties on the former frontiers were levied as before, though they\nrepresented an institution wholly alien to the spirit of the\nMuhammedan empire. Those Muhammedan authors, who describe the\nadministrative organisation, recognise only the taxes which Islam\nregarded as lawful and characterise others as malpractices which had\ncrept in at a later date. It is remarkable that these so-called\nsubsequent malpractices correspond with Byzantine and Persian usage\nbefore the conquest: but tradition will not admit the fact that these\nremained unchanged. The same fact is obvious when we consider the\nprogress of civilisation in general. In every case the Arabs merely\ndevelop the social and economic achievements of the conquered races to\nfurther issues. Such progress could indeed only be modified by a\ngeneral upheaval of existing conditions and no such movement ever took\nplace. The Germanic tribes destroyed the civilisations with which they\nmet; they adopted many of the institutions of Christian antiquity, but\nfound them an impediment to the development of their own genius. The\nArabs simply continued to develop the civilisation of post-classical\nantiquity, with which they had come in contact.\n\nThis procedure may seem entirely natural in the department of economic\nlife, but by no means inevitable where intellectual progress is\nconcerned. Yet a similar course was followed in either case, as may be\nproved by dispassionate examination. Islam was a rising force, a faith\nrather of experience than of theory or dogma, when it raised its\nclaims against Christianity, which represented all pre-existing\nintellectual culture. A settlement of these claims was necessary and\nthe military triumphs are but the prelude to a great accommodation of\nintellectual interests. In this Christianity played the chief part,\nthough Judaism is also represented: I am inclined, however, to think\nthat Jewish ideas as they are expressed in the Qoran were often\ntransmitted through the medium of Christianity. There is no doubt that\nin Medina Muhammed was under direct Jewish influence of extraordinary\npower. Even at that time Jewish ideas may have been in circulation,\nnot only in the Qoran but also in oral tradition, which afterwards\nbecame stereotyped: at the same time Muhammed's utterances against the\nJews eventually became so strong during the Medina period, for\npolitical reasons, that I can hardly imagine the traditions in their\nfinal form to have been adopted directly from the Jews. The case of\nJewish converts is a different matter. But in Christianity also much\nJewish wisdom was to be found at that time and it is well known that\neven the Eastern churches regarded numerous precepts of the Old\nTestament, including those that dealt with ritual, as binding upon\nthem. In any case the spirit of Judaism is present, either directly or\nworking through Christianity, as an influence wherever Islam\naccommodated itself to the new intellectual and spiritual life which\nit had encountered. It was a compromise which affected the most\ntrivial details of life, and in these matters religious scrupulosity\nwas carried to a ridiculous point: here we may see the outcome of that\nJudaism which, as has been said, was then a definite element in\nEastern Christianity. Together with Jewish, Greek and classical ideas\nwere also naturally operative, while Persian and other ancient\nOriental conceptions were transmitted to Islam by Christianity: these\ninstances I have collectively termed Christian because Christianity\nthen represented the whole of later classical intellectualism, which\ninfluenced Islam for the most part through Christianity.\n\nIt seems that the communication of these ideas to Muhammedanism was\nimpeded by the necessity of translating them not only into a kindred\nlanguage, but into one of wholly different linguistic structure. For\nMuhammedanism the difficulty was lessened by the fact that it had\nlearned Christianity in Syria and Persia through the Semitic dialect\nknown as Aramaic, by which Greek and Persian culture had been\ntransmitted to the Arabs before the rise of Islam. In this case, as in\nmany others, the history of language runs on parallel lines with the\nhistory of civilisation. The necessities of increasing civilisation\nhad introduced many Aramaic words to the Arabic vocabulary before\nMuhammed's day: these importations increased considerably when the\nArabs entered a wider and more complex civilisation and were\nespecially considerable where intellectual culture was concerned. Even\nGreek terms made their way into Arabic through Aramaic. This natural\ndependency of Arabic upon Aramaic, which in turn was connected with\nGreek as the rival Christian vernacular in these regions, is alone\nsufficient evidence that Christianity exerted a direct influence upon\nMuhammedanism. Moreover, as we have seen, the Qoran itself regarded\nChristians as being in possession of divine wisdom, and some reference\nboth to Christianity and to Judaism was necessary to explain the many\nunintelligible passages of the Qoran. Allusions were made to texts and\nstatements in the Thora and the Gospels, and God was represented as\nconstantly appealing to earlier revelations of Himself. Thus it was\nonly natural that interpreters should study these scriptures and ask\ncounsel of their possessors. Of primary importance was the fact that\nboth Christians and Jews, and the former in particular, accepted\nMuhammedanism by thousands, and formed a new intellectual class of\nability infinitely superior to that of the original Muslims and able\nto attract the best elements of the Arab nationality to their\nteaching. It was as impossible for these apostate Christians to\nabandon their old habits of thought as it was hopeless to expect any\nsudden change in the economic conditions under which they lived.\nChristian theories of God and the world naturally assumed a Muhammedan\ncolouring and thus the great process of accommodating Christianity to\nMuhammedanism was achieved. The Christian contribution to this end was\nmade partly directly and partly by teaching, and in the intellectual\nas well as in the economic sphere the ultimate ideal was inevitably\ndictated by the superior culture of Christianity. The Muhammedans were\nthus obliged to accept Christian hypotheses on theological points and\nthe fundaments of Christian and Muhammedan culture thus become\nidentical.\n\nI use the term hypotheses, for the reason that the final determination\nof the points at issue was by no means identical, wherever the Qoran\ndefinitely contradicted Christian views of morality or social laws.\nBut in these cases also, Christian ideas were able to impose\nthemselves upon tradition and to issue in practice, even when opposed\nby the actual text of the Qoran. They did not always pass unquestioned\nand even on trivial points were obliged to encounter some resistance.\nThe theory of the Sunday was accepted, but that day was not chosen and\nFriday was preferred: meetings for worship were held in imitation of\nChristian practice, but attempts to sanctify the day and to proclaim\nit a day of rest were forbidden: except for the performance of divine\nservice, Friday was an ordinary week-day. When, however, the Qoran was\nin any sort of harmony with Christianity, the Christian ideas of the\nage were textually accepted in any further development of the\nquestion. The fact is obvious, not only as regards details, but also\nin the general theory of man's position upon earth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMuhammed, the preacher of repentance, had become a temporal prince in\nMedina; his civil and political administration was ecclesiastical in\ncharacter, an inevitable result of his position as the apostle of God,\nwhose congregation was at the same time a state. This theory of the\nstate led later theorists unconsciously to follow the lead of\nChristianity, which regarded the church as supreme in every department\nof life, and so induced Muhammedanism to adopt views of life and\nsocial order which are now styled mediaeval. The theological\ndevelopment of this system is to be attributed chiefly to groups of\npious thinkers in Medina: they were excluded from political life when\nthe capital was transferred from Medina to Damascus and were left in\npeace to elaborate their theory of the Muhammedan divine polity. The\ninfluence of these groups was paramount: but of almost equal\nimportance was the influence of the proselytes in the conquered lands\nwho were Christians for the most part and for that reason far above\ntheir Arab contemporaries in respect of intellectual training and\nculture. We find that the details of jurisprudence, dogma, and\nmysticism can only be explained by reference to Christian stimulus,\nnor is it any exaggeration to ascribe the further development of\nMuhammed's views to the influence of thinkers who regarded the\nreligious polity of Islam as the realisation of an ideal which\nChristianity had hitherto vainly striven to attain. This ideal was the\nsupremacy of religion over life and all its activities, over the state\nand the individual alike. But it was a religion primarily concerned\nwith the next world, where alone real worth was to be found. Earthly\nlife was a pilgrimage to be performed and earthly intentions had no\nplace with heavenly. The joy of life which the ancient world had\nknown, art, music and culture, all were rejected or valued only as\naids to religion. Human action was judged with reference only to its\nappraisement in the life to come. That ascetic spirit was paramount,\nwhich had enchained the Christian world, that renunciation of secular\naffairs which explains the peculiar methods by which mediaeval views\nof life found expression.\n\nAsceticism did not disturb the course of life as a whole. It might\ncondemn but it could not suppress the natural impulse of man to\npropagate his race: it might hamper economic forces, but it could not\ndestroy them. It eventually led to a compromise in every department of\nlife, but for centuries it retained its domination over men's minds\nand to some material extent over their actions.\n\nSuch was the environment in which Islam was planted: its deepest roots\nhad been fertilised with Christian theory, and in spite of Muhammed's\ncall to repentance, its most characteristic manifestations were\nsomewhat worldly and non-ascetic. \"Islam knows not monasticism\" says\nthe tradition which this tendency produced. The most important\ncompromise of all, that with life, which Christianity only secured by\ngradual steps, had been already attained for Islam by Muhammed himself\nand was included in the course of his development. As Islam now\nentered the Christian world, it was forced to pass through this\nprocess of development once more. At the outset it was permeated with\nthe idea of Christian asceticism, to which an inevitable opposition\narose, and found expression in such statements as that already quoted.\nBut Muhammed's preaching had obviously striven to honour the future\nlife by painting the actual world in the gloomiest colours, and the\nmaterial optimism of the secular-minded was unable to check the\nadvance of Christian asceticism among the classes which felt a real\ninterest in religion. Hence that surprising similarity of views upon\nthe problem of existence, which we have now to outline. In details of\noutward form great divergency is apparent. Christianity possessed a\nclergy while Islam did not: yet the force of Christian influence\nproduced a priestly class in Islam. It was a class acting not as\nmediator between God and man through sacraments and mysteries, but as\nmoral leaders and legal experts; as such it was no less important than\nthe scribes under Judaism. Unanimity among these scholars could\nproduce decisions no less binding than those of the Christian clergy\nassembled in church councils. They are representatives of the\ncongregation which \"has no unanimity, for such would be an error.\"\nIslam naturally preferred to adopt unanimous conclusions in silence\nrather than to vote in assemblies. As a matter of fact a body of\northodox opinion was developed by this means with no less success than\nin Christendom. Any agreement which the quiet work of the scholars had\nsecured upon any question was ratified by God and was thus irrevocably\nand eternally binding. For instance, the proclamation to the faithful\nof new ideas upon the exposition of the Qoran or of tradition was\nabsolutely forbidden; the scholars, in other words the clergy, had\nconvinced themselves, by the fact of their unanimity upon the point,\nthat the customary and traditional mode of exposition was the one\npleasing to God. Ideas of this kind naturally remind us of Roman\nCatholic practice. The influence of Eastern Christianity upon Islam is\nundoubtedly visible here. This influence could not in the face of\nMuhammedan tradition and custom, create an organised clergy, but it\nproduced a clerical class to guard religious thought, and as religion\nspread, to supervise thought of every kind.\n\nChristianity again condemned marriage, though it eventually agreed to\na compromise sanctifying this tie; Islam, on the contrary, found in\nthe Qoran the text \"Ye that are unmarried shall marry\" (24, 32). In\nthe face of so clear a statement, the condemnation of marriage, which\nin any case was contrary to the whole spirit of the Qoran, could not\nbe maintained. Thus the Muhammedan tradition contains numerous sayings\nin support of marriage. \"A childless house contains no blessing\": \"the\nbreath of a son is as the breath of Paradise\"; \"when a man looks upon\nhis wife (in love) and she upon him, God looks down in mercy upon them\nboth.\" \"Two prayers of a married man are more precious in the sight of\nGod than seventy of a bachelor.\" With many similar variations upon the\ntheme, Muhammed is said to have urged marriage upon his followers. On\nthe other hand an almost equally numerous body of warnings against\nmarriage exists, also issued by Muhammed. I know no instance of direct\nprohibition, but serious admonitions are found which usually take the\nform of denunciation of the female sex and were early interpreted as\nwarnings by tradition. \"Fear the world and women\": \"thy worst enemies\nare the wife at thy side and thy concubine\": \"the least in Paradise\nare the women\": \"women are the faggots of hell\"; \"pious women are rare\nas ravens with white or red legs and white beaks\"; \"but for women men\nmight enter Paradise.\" Here we come upon a strain of thought\nespecially Christian. Muhammed regarded the satisfaction of the sexual\ninstincts as natural and right and made no attempt to put restraint\nupon it: Christian asceticism regarded this impulse as the greatest\ndanger which could threaten the spiritual life of its adherents, and\nthe sentences above quoted may be regarded as the expression of this\nview. Naturally the social position of the woman suffered in\nconsequence and is so much worse in the traditional Muhammedanism as\ncompared with the Qoran that the change can only be ascribed to the\ninfluence of the civilisation which the Muhammedans encountered. The\nidea of woman as a creature of no account is certainly rooted in the\nancient East, but it reached Islam in Christian dress and with the\nauthority of Christian hostility to marriage.\n\nWith this hostility to marriage are probably connected the regulations\nconcerning the covering of the body: in the ancient church only the\nface, the hands and the feet were to be exposed to view, the object\nbeing to prevent the suggestion of sinful thoughts: it is also likely\nthat objections to the ancient habit of leaving the body uncovered\nfound expression in this ordinance. Similar objections may be found in\nMuhammedan tradition; we may regard these as further developments of\ncommands given in the Qoran, but it is also likely that Muhammed's\napocryphal statements upon the point were dictated by Christian\nreligious theory. They often appear in connection with warnings\nagainst frequenting the public baths, which fact is strong evidence of\ntheir Christian origin. \"A bad house is the bath: much turmoil is\ntherein and men show their nakedness.\" \"Fear that house that is called\nthe bathhouse and if any enter therein, let him veil himself.\" \"He who\nbelieves in God and the last Judgment, let him enter the bath only in\nbathing dress.\" \"Nakedness is forbidden to us.\" There is a story of\nthe prophet, to the effect that he was at work unclothed when a voice\nfrom heaven ordered him to cover his nakedness!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe thus see, that an astonishing similarity is apparent in the\ntreatment even of questions where divergency is fundamental.\nDivergency, it is true, existed, but pales before the general affinity\nof the two theories of life. Our judgment upon Christian medievalism\nin this respect can be applied directly and literally to\nMuhammedanism. Either religion regards man as no more than a sojourner\nin this world. It is not worth while to arrange for a permanent\nhabitation, and luxurious living is but pride. Hence the simplicity of\nprivate dwellings in mediaeval times both in the East and West.\nArchitectural expense is confined to churches and mosques, which were\nintended for the service of God. These Christian ideas are reflected\nin the inexhaustible storehouse of Muhammedan theory, the great\ncollections of tradition, as follows. \"The worst use which a believer\ncan make of his money is to build.\" \"Every building, except a mosque,\nwill stand to the discredit of its architect on the day of\nresurrection.\" These polemics which Islam inherited from Christianity\nare directed not only against building in general, but also against\nthe erection and decoration of lofty edifices: \"Should a man build a\nhouse nine ells high, a voice will call to him from heaven, Whither\nwilt thou rise, most profane of the profane?\" \"No prophet enters a\nhouse adorned with fair decoration.\" With these prohibitions should be\nconnected the somewhat unintelligible fact that the most pious Caliphs\nsat upon thrones (_mimbar_, \"president's chair\") of clay. The simplest\nand most transitory material thus serves to form the symbol of\ntemporal power. A house is adorned not by outward show, but by the\nfact that prayer is offered and the Qoran recited within its walls.\nThese theories were out of harmony with the worldly tendencies of the\nconquerors, who built themselves castles, such as Qusair Amra: they\nbelong to the spirit of Christianity rather than to Islam.\n\nUpon similar principles we may explain the demand for the utmost\nsimplicity and reserve in regard to the other enjoyments of life. To\neat whenever one may wish is excess and two meals a day are more than\nenough. The portion set apart for one may also suffice for two. Ideas\nof this kind are of constant recurrence in the Muhammedan traditions:\nindispensable needs alone are to be satisfied, as indeed Thomas\nAquinas teaches. Similar observations apply to dress: \"he who walks in\ncostly garments to be seen of men is not seen of the Lord.\" Gold and\nsilver ornaments, and garments of purple and silk are forbidden by\nboth religions. Princes live as simply as beggars and possess only one\ngarment, so that they are unable to appear in public when it is being\nwashed: they live upon a handful of dates and are careful to save\npaper and artificial light. Such incidents are common in the oldest\nrecords of the first Caliphs. These princes did not, of course, live\nin such beggary, and the fact is correspondingly important that after\nthe lapse of one or two generations the Muhammedan historians should\ndescribe their heroes as possessing only the typical garment of the\nChristian saint. This one fact speaks volumes.\n\nEvery action was performed in God or with reference to God--an\noft-repeated idea in either religion. There is a continual hatred of\nthe world and a continual fear that it may imperil a man's soul. Hence\nthe sense of vast responsibility felt by the officials, a sense which\nfinds expression even in the ordinary official correspondence of the\nauthorities which papyri have preserved for us. The phraseology is\noften stereotyped, but as such, expresses a special theory of life.\nThis responsibility is represented as weighing with especial severity\nupon a pious Caliph. Upon election to the throne he accepts office\nwith great reluctance protesting his unworthiness with tears. The West\ncan relate similar stories of Gregory the Great and of Justinian.\n\nExhortations are frequent ever to remember the fact of death and to\nrepent and bewail past sins. When a mention of the last Judgment\noccurs in the reading of passages from the Bible or Qoran, the\nauditors burst into tears. Upon one occasion a man was praying upon\nthe roof of his house and wept so bitterly over his sins, that the\ntears ran down the waterspout and flooded the rooms below. This\nhyperbolical statement in a typical life of a saint shows the high\nvalue attributed to tears in the East. It is, however, equally a\nChristian characteristic. The gracious gift of tears was regarded by\nmediaeval Christianity as the sign of a deeply religious nature.\nGregory VII is said to have wept daily at the sacrifice of the Mass\nand similar accounts are given to the credit of other famous\nChristians.\n\nWhile a man should weep for his own sins, he is not to bewail any\nmisfortune or misery which may befall him. In the latter case it is\nhis duty to collect his strength, to resign himself and to praise God\neven amid his sufferings. Should he lose a dear relative by death, he\nis not to break out with cries and lamentations like the heathen.\nLamentation for the dead is most strictly forbidden in Islam. \"We are\nGod's people and to God we return\" says the pious Muslim on receiving\nthe unexpected news of a death. Resignation and patience in these\nmatters is certainly made the subject of eloquent exhortation in the\nQoran, but the special developments of tradition betray Christian\ninfluence.\n\nGenerally speaking, the whole ethical system of the two religions is\nbased upon the contrast between God and the world, though Muhammedan\nphilosophy will recognize no principle beside that of God. As a\ntypical example we may take a sentence from the Spanish bishop Isidor\nwho died in 636: \"Good are the intentions directed towards God and bad\nare those directed to earthly gain or transitory fame.\" Any Muhammedan\ntheologian would have subscribed to this statement. On the one hand\nstress is laid upon motive as giving its value to action. The first\nsentence in the most famous collection of traditions runs, \"Deeds\nshall be judged by their intentions.\" On the other hand is the\ncontrast between God and the world, or as Islam puts it, between the\npresent and the future life. The Christian gains eternal life by\nfollowing Christ. Imitation of the Master in all things even to the\nstigmata, is the characteristic feature of mediaeval Christianity. Nor\nis the whole of the so-called Sunna obedience anything more than the\nimitation of Muhammed which seeks to repeat the smallest details of\nhis life. The infinite importance attached by Islam to the Sunna seems\nto me to have originated in Christian influence. The development of it\nbetrays original features, but the fundamental principle is Christian,\nas all the leading ideas of Islam are Christian, in the sense of the\nterm as paraphrased above. Imitation of Christ in the first instance,\nattempts to repeat his poverty and renunciation of personal property:\nthis is the great Christian ideal. Muhammed was neither poor nor\nwithout possessions: at the end of his life he had become a prince and\nhad directly stated that property was a gift from God. In spite of\nthat his successors praise poverty and their praises were the best of\nevidence that they were influenced not by the prophet himself but by\nChristianity. While the traditions are full of the praises of poverty\nand the dangers of wealth, assertions in praise of wealth also\noccur, for the reason that the pure Muhammedan ideas opposed to\nChristianity retained a certain influence. J. Goldziher has published\nan interesting study showing how many words borrowed from this source\noccur in the written Muhammedan traditions: an almost complete\nversion of the Lord's Prayer is quoted. Even the idea of love towards\nenemies, which would have been unintelligible to Muhammed, made its\nway into the traditions: \"the most virtuous of acts is to seek out him\nwho rejects thee, to give to him that despises thee and to pardon him\nthat oppresses thee.\" The Gospel precept to do unto others as we would\nthey should do unto us (Matt. vii. 12, Luke vi. 31) is to be found in\nthe Arab traditions, and many similar points of contact may be\nnoticed. A man's \"neighbour\" has ever been, despite the teaching of\nJesus, to the Christian and to the Muhammedan, his co-religionist. The\nwhole department of Muhammedan ethics has thus been subjected to\nstrong Christian influence.\n\nNaturally this ecclesiasticism which dominated the whole of life, was\nbound to assert itself in state organisation. An abhorrence of the\nstate, so far as it was independent of religion, a feeling unknown in\nthe ancient world, pervades both Christianity and Muhammedanism,\nChristianity first struggled to secure recognition in the state and\nafterwards fought with the state for predominance. Islam and the state\nwere at first identical: in its spiritual leaders it was soon\nseparated from the state. Its idea of a divine polity was elaborated\nto the smallest details, but remained a theory which never became\npractice. Yet this ideal retained such strength that every Muhammedan\nusurper was careful to secure his investiture by the Caliph, the\nnominal leader of this ecclesiastical state, even if force were\nnecessary to attain his object. For instance, Saladin was absolutely\nindependent of the nominal Caliph in Bagdad, but could not feel that\nhis position was secure until he had obtained his sultan's patent from\nthe Caliph. Only then did his supremacy rest upon a religious basis\nand he was not regarded by popular opinion as a legitimate monarch\nuntil this ceremony had been performed. This theory corresponds with\nconstitutional ideals essentially Christian. \"The tyranny,\" wrote\nInnocent IV to the Emperor Frederick II, \"which was once generally\nexercised throughout the world, was resigned into the hands of the\nChurch by Constantine, who then received as an honourable gift from\nthe proper source that which he had formerly held and exercised\nunrighteously.\" The long struggle between Church and State in this\nmatter is well known. In this struggle the rising power of Islam had\nadopted a similar attitude. The great abhorrence of a secular\n\"monarchy\" in opposition to a religious caliphate, as expressed both\nby the dicta of tradition and by the Abbassid historians, was\ninspired, in my opinion, by Christian dislike of a divorce between\nChurch and State. The phenomenon might be explained without reference\nto external influence, but if the whole process be considered in\nconnection, Christian influence seems more than probable.\n\nA similar attitude was also assumed by either religion towards the\nfacts of economic life. In either case the religious point of view is\ncharacteristic. The reaction against the tendency to condemn secular\nlife is certainly stronger in Islam, but is also apparent in\nChristianity. Thomas Aquinas directly stigmatises trade as a\ndisgraceful means of gain, because the exchange of wares does not\nnecessitate labour or the satisfaction of necessary wants: Muhammedan\ntradition says, \"The pious merchant is a pioneer on the road of God.\"\n\"The first to enter Paradise is the honourable merchant.\" Here the\nsolution given to the problem differs in either case, but in Christian\npractice, opposition was also obvious. Common to both religions is the\ncondemnation of the exaction of interest and monetary speculation,\nwhich the middle ages regarded as usury. Islam, as usual, gives this\nChristian idea the form of a saying enounced by Muhammed: \"He who\nspeculates in grain for forty days, grinds and bakes it and gives it\nto the poor, makes an offering unacceptable to God.\" \"He who raises\nprices to Muslims (by speculation) will be cast head downwards by God\ninto the hottest fire of hell.\" Many similar traditions fulminate\nagainst usury in the widest sense of the word. These prohibitions were\ncircumvented in practice by deed of gift and exchange, but none the\nless the free development of commercial enterprise was hampered by\nthese fetters which modern civilisation first broke. Enterprise was\nthus confined to agriculture under these circumstances both for\nChristianity and Islam, and economic life in either case became\n\"mediaeval\" in outward appearance.\n\nMethods of making profit without a proportional expenditure of labour\nwere the particular objects of this aversion. Manual labour was highly\nesteemed both in the East and West. A man's first duty was to support\nhimself by the work of his own hands, a duty proclaimed, as we know,\nfrom the apostolic age onwards. So far as Islam is concerned, this\nview may be illustrated by the following utterances: \"The best of\ndeeds is the gain of that which is lawful\": \"the best gain is made by\nsale within lawful limits and by manual labour.\" \"The most precious\ngain is that made by manual labour; that which a man thus earns and\ngives to himself, his people, his sons and his servants, is as\nmeritorious as alms.\" Thus practical work is made incumbent upon the\nbeliever, and the extent to which manufacture flourished in East and\nWest during the middle ages is well known.\n\nA similar affinity is apparent as regards ideas upon social position\nand occupation. Before God man is but a slave: even the mighty Caliphs\nthemselves, even those who were stigmatised by posterity as secular\nmonarchs, included in their official titles the designation, \"slave of\nGod.\" This theory was carried out into the smallest details of life,\neven into those which modern observers would consider as unconcerned\nwith religion. Thus at meals the Muslim was not allowed to recline at\ntable, an ancient custom which the upper classes had followed for\ncenturies: he must sit, \"as a slave,\" according to the letter of the\nlaw. All are alike slaves, for the reason that they are believers:\nhence the humiliation of those whom chance has exalted is thought\ndesirable. This idealism is undoubtedly more deeply rooted in the\npopular consciousness of the East than of the West. In the East great\nsocial distinctions occur; but while religion recognises them, it\nforbids insistence upon them.\n\nAs especially distinctive of social work in either religion we might\nbe inclined to regard the unparalleled extent of organizations for the\ncare of the poor, for widows and orphans, for the old, infirm and\nsick, the public hospitals and almshouses and religious foundations in\nthe widest sense of the term; but the object of these activities was\nnot primarily social nor were they undertaken to make life easier for\nthe poor: religious selfishness was the leading motive, the desire to\npurify self by good works and to secure the right to pre-eminence in\nheaven. \"For the salvation of my soul and for everlasting reward\" is\nthe formula of many a Christian foundation deed. Very similar\nexpressions of hope for eternal reward occur in Muhammedan deeds of\ngift. A foundation inscription on a mosque, published by E. Littmann,\nis stated in terms the purport of which is unmistakable. \"This has\nbeen built by N or M: may a house be built for him in Paradise (in\nreturn).\" Here again, the idea of the house in Paradise is borrowed\nfrom Christian ideas.\n\nWe have already observed that in Islam the smallest trivialities of\ndaily life become matters of religious import. The fact is especially\napparent in a wide department of personal conduct. Islam certainly\nwent to further extremes than Christianity in this matter, but these\ncustoms are clearly only further developments of Christian\nregulations. The call to simplicity of food and dress has already been\nmentioned. But even the simplest food was never to be taken before\nthanks had been given to God: grace was never to be omitted either\nbefore or after meals. Divine ordinances also regulated the manner of\neating. The prophet said, \"With one finger the devils eat, with two\nthe Titans of antiquity and with three fingers the prophets.\" The\napplication of the saying is obvious. Similar sayings prescribe the\nmode of handling dishes and behaviour at a common meal, if the\nblessing of God is to be secured. There seems to be a Christian touch\nin one of these rules which runs, in the words of the prophet: \"He who\npicks up the crumbs fallen from the table and eats them, will be\nforgiven by God.\" \"He who licks the empty dishes and his fingers will\nbe filled by God here and in the world to come.\" \"When a man licks the\ndish from which he has eaten, the dish will plead for him before God.\"\nI regard these words as practical applications of the text, \"Gather up\nthe pieces that remain, that nothing be lost\" (Matt. xiv. 10: John vi.\n12). Even to-day South Italians kiss bread that has fallen to the\nground, in order to make apology to the gift of God. Volumes might be\nfilled with rules of polite manners in this style: hardly any detail\nis to be found in the whole business of daily life, even including\noccupations regarded as unclean, which was not invested with some\nreligious significance. These rules are almost entirely dictated by\nthe spirit of early Christianity and it is possible to reconstruct the\ndetails of life in those dark ages from these literary records which\nare now the only source of evidence upon such points. However, we must\nhere content ourselves with establishing the fact that Islam adopted\nChristian practice in this as in other departments of life.\n\nThe state, society, the individual, economics and morality were thus\ncollectively under Christian influence during the early period of\nMuhammedanism. Conditions very similar in general, affected those\nconceptions which we explain upon scientific grounds but which were\ninvariably regarded by ancient and mediaeval thought as supernatural,\nconceptions deduced from the phenomena of illness and dreams. Islam\nwas no less opposed than Christianity to the practice of magic in any\nform, but only so far as these practices seemed to preserve remnants\nof heathen beliefs. Such beliefs were, however, continued in both\nreligions in modified form. There is no doubt that ideas of high\nantiquity, doubtless of Babylonian origin, can be traced as\ncontributing to the formation of these beliefs, while scientific\nmedicine is connected with the earlier discoveries of Greece. Common\nto both religions was the belief in the reality of dreams, especially\nwhen these seemed to harmonise with religious ideas: dreams were\nregarded as revelations from God or from his apostles or from the\npious dead. The fact that man could dream and that he could appear to\nother men in dreams after his death was regarded as a sign of divine\nfavour and the biographies of the saints often contain chapters\ndevoted to this faculty. These are natural ideas which lie in the\nnational consciousness of any people, but owe their development in the\ncase of Islam to Christian influence. The same may be said of the\nbelief that the prayers of particular saints were of special efficacy,\nand of attempts by prayer, forms of worship and the like to procure\nrain, avert plague and so forth: such ideas are common throughout the\nmiddle ages. Thus in every department we meet with that particular\ntype of Christian theory which existed in the East during the seventh\nand eighth centuries.\n\nThis mediaeval theory of life was subjected, as is well known, to many\ncompromises in the West, and was materially modified by Teutonic\ninfluence and the revival of classicism. It might therefore be\nsupposed that in Islam Christian theory underwent similar modification\nor disappeared entirely. But the fact is not so. At the outset, we\nstated, as will be remembered, that Muhammedan scholars were\naccustomed to propound their dicta as utterances given by Muhammed\nhimself, and in this form Christian ideas also came into circulation\namong Muhammedans. When attempts were made to systematise these\nsayings, all were treated as alike authentic, and, as traditional,\nexerted their share of influence upon the formation of canon law. Thus\nquestions of temporary importance to mediaeval Christianity became\npermanent elements in Muhammedan theology.\n\nOne highly instructive instance may be given. During the century which\npreceded the Byzantine iconoclastic controversy, the whole of nearer\nAsia was disturbed by the question whether the erection and veneration\nof images was permissible. That Constantinople attempted to prohibit\nsuch veneration is well known: but after a long struggle the church\ngained its wishes. Islam was confronted with the problem and decided\nfor prohibition, doubtless under Jewish influence. Sayings of Muhammed\nforbid the erection of images. This prohibition became part of canon\nlaw and therefore binding for all time: it remains obligatory at the\npresent day, though in practice it is often transgressed. Thus the\nprocess of development which was continued in Christendom, came to a\nstandstill in Islam, and many similar cases might be quoted.\n\nHere begins the development of Muhammedan jurisprudence or, more\nexactly, of the doctrine of duty, which includes every kind of human\nactivity, duties to God and man, religion, civil law, the penal code,\nsocial morality and economics. This extraordinary system of moral\nobligations, as developed in Islam, though its origin is obscure, is\ndoubtless rooted in the ecclesiastical law of Christendom which was\nthen first evolved. I have no doubt that the development of Muhammedan\ntradition, which precedes the code proper, was dependent upon the\ngrowth of canon law in the old Church, and that this again, or at\nleast the purely legal part of it, is closely connected with the\npre-Justinian legislation. Roman law does not seem to me to have\ninfluenced Islam immediately in the form of Justinian's _Corpus\nJuris_, but indirectly from such ecclesiastical sources as the\nRomano-Syrian code. This view, however, I would distinctly state, is\nmerely my conjecture. For our present purpose it is more important to\nestablish the fact that the doctrine of duty canonised the manifold\nexpressions of the theory that life is a religion, with which we have\nmet throughout the traditional literature: all human acts are thus\nlegally considered as obligatory or forbidden when corresponding with\nreligious commands or prohibitions, as congenial or obnoxious to the\nlaw or as matters legally indifferent and therefore permissible. The\narrangement of the work of daily life in correspondence with these\nreligious points of view is the most important outcome of the\nMuhammedan doctrine of duties. The religious utterances which also\ncover the whole business of life were first made duties by this\ndoctrine: in practice their fulfilment is impossible, but the theory\nof their obligatory nature is a fundamental element in Muhammedanism.\n\nWhere the doctrine of duties deals with legal rights, its application\nwas in practice confined to marriage and the affairs of family life:\nthe theoretical demands of its penal clauses, for instance, raise\nimpossible difficulties. At the same time, it has been of great\nimportance to the whole spiritual life of Islam down to the present\nday, because it reflects Muhammedan ideals of life and of man's place\nin the world. Even to-day it remains the daily bread of the soul that\ndesires instruction, to quote the words of the greatest father of the\nMuhammedan church. It will thus be immediately obvious to what a vast\nextent Christian theory of the seventh and eighth centuries still\nremains operative upon Muhammedan thought throughout the world.\n\nConsiderable parts of the doctrine of duties are concerned with the\nforms of Muhammedan worship. It is becoming ever clearer that only\nslight tendencies to a form of worship were apparent under Muhammed.\nThe mosque, the building erected for the special purpose of divine\nservice, was unknown during the prophet's lifetime; nor was there any\ndefinite church organisation, of which the most important parts are\nthe common ritual and the preaching. Tendencies existed but no system,\nwas to be found: there was no clerical class to take an interest in\nthe development of an order of divine service. The Caliphs prayed\nbefore the faithful in the capital, as did the governors in the\nprovinces. The military commanders also led a simple service in their\nown stations.\n\nIt was contact with foreign influence which first provided the impulse\nto a systematic form of worship. Both Christians and Jews possessed\nsuch forms. Their example was followed and a ritual was evolved, at\nfirst of the very simplest kind. No detailed organisation, however,\nwas attempted, until Christian influence led to the formation of the\nclass which naturally took an interest in the matter, the professional\ntheologians. These soon replaced the military service leaders. This\nchange denoted the final stage in the development of ritual. The\nobject of the theologians was to subject the various occupations of\nlife to ritual as well as to religion. The mediatorial or sacramental\ntheories of the priestly office were unknown to Islam, but ritual\ncustoms of similar character were gradually evolved, and are\nespecially pronounced in the ceremonies of marriage and burial.\n\nMore important, however, was the development of the official service,\nthe arrangement of the day and the hour of obligatory attendance and\nthe introduction of preaching: under Muhammed and his early followers,\nand until late in the Omajjad period, preaching was confined to\naddresses, given as occasion demanded, but by degrees it became part\nof the regular ritual. With it was afterwards connected the\nintercession for the Caliphs, which became a highly significant part\nof the service, as symbolising their sovereignty. It seems to me very\nprobable that this practice was an adoption, at any rate in theory, of\nthe Christian custom of praying for the emperor. The pulpit was then\nintroduced under Christian influence, which thus completely\ntransformed the chair (_mimbar_) of the ancient Arab judges and rulers\nand made it a piece of church furniture; the Christian _cancelli_ or\nchoir screens were adopted and the mosque was thus developed. Before\nthe age of mosques, a lance had been planted in the ground and prayer\noffered behind it: so in the mosque a prayer niche was made, a\nsurvival of the pre-existing custom. There are many obscure points in\nthe development of the worship, but one fact may be asserted with\nconfidence: the developments of ritual were derived from pre-existing\npractices, which were for the most part Christian.\n\nBut the religious energy of Islam was not exclusively devoted to the\ndevelopment and practice of the doctrine of duties; at the same time\nthis ethical department, in spite of its dependency upon Christian and\nJewish ideas, remains its most original achievement: we have pursued\nthe subject at some length, because its importance is often overlooked\nin the course of attempts to estimate the connection between\nChristianity and Islam. On the other hand, affinities in the regions\nof mysticism and dogma have long been matter of common knowledge and a\nbrief sketch of them will therefore suffice. If not essential to our\npurpose within the limits of this book, they are none the less\nnecessary to complete our treatment of the subject.\n\nBy mysticism we understand the expression of religious emotion, as\ncontrasted with efforts to attain righteousness by full obedience to\nthe ethical doctrine of duties, and also in contrast to the\nhair-splitting of dogmatic speculation: mysticism strove to reach\nimmediate emotional unity with the Godhead. No trace of any such\ntendency was to be found in the Qoran: it entered Islam as a complete\nnovelty, and the affinities which enabled it to gain a footing have\nbeen difficult to trace.\n\nMuhammedan mysticism is certainly not exclusively Christian: its\norigins, like those of Christian mysticism, are to be found in the\npantheistic writings of the Neoplatonist school of Dionysius the\nAreopagite: but Islam apparently derived its mysticism from Christian\nsources. In it originated the idea, with all its capacity for\ndevelopment, of the mystical love of God: to this was added the theory\nand practice of asceticism which was especially developed by\nChristianity, and, in later times, the influence of Indian philosophy,\nwhich is unmistakable. Such are the fundamental elements of this\ntendency. When the idea of the Nirwana, the Arab _fan[=a]_, is\nattained, Muhammedanism proper comes to an end. But orthodoxy controls\nthe divergent elements: it opposes any open avowal of the logical\nconclusion, which would identify \"God\" and the \"ego,\" but in practice\nthis group of ideas, pantheistic in all but name, has been received\nand given a place side by side with the strict monotheism of the Qoran\nand with the dogmatic theology. Any form of mysticism which is pushed\nto its logical consequences must overthrow positive religion. By\nincorporating this dangerous tendency within itself, Islam has averted\nthe peril which it threatens. Creed is no longer endangered, and this\npurpose being secured, thought is free.\n\nUnion with God is gained by ecstasy and leads to enthusiasm. These\nterms will therefore show us in what quarter we must seek the\nstrongest impulses to mysticism. The concepts, if not the actual\nterms, are to be found in Islam: they were undoubtedly transmitted by\nChristianity and undergo the wide extension which results in the\ndervish and fakir developments. _Dervish_ and _fakir_ are the Persian\nand Arabic words for \"beggar\": the word _sufi_, a man in a woollen\nshirt, is also used in the same sense. The terms show that asceticism\nis a fundamental element in mysticism; asceticism was itself an\nimportation to Islam. Dervishes are divided into different classes or\norders, according to the methods by which they severally prefer to\nattain ecstasy: dancing and recitation are practised by the dancing\nand howling dervishes and other methods are in vogue. It is an\ninstitution very different from monasticism but the result of a course\nof development undoubtedly similar to that which produced the monk:\ndervishism and monasticism are independent developments of the same\noriginal idea.\n\nAmong these Muhammedan companies attempts to reach the point of\necstasy have developed to a rigid discipline of the soul; the believer\nmust subject himself to his master, resigning all power of will, and\nso gradually reaches higher stages of knowledge until he is eventually\nled to the consciousness of his absolute identity with God. It seems\nto me beyond question that this method is reflected in the _exercitiis\nspiritualibus_ of Ignatius Loyola, the chief instrument by which the\nJesuits secured dominion over souls. Any one who has realised the\nenormous influence which Arab thought exerted upon Spanish\nChristianity so late as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, will\nnot regard the conjecture as unfounded.\n\nWhen a man's profession or position prevented him from practising\nthese mystical exercises, he satisfied his religious needs by\nvenerating persons who were nearer to the deity and whose intercession\nwas effectual even after their death and sometimes not until they were\ndead: hence arose the veneration of saints, a practice as alien as\npantheistic dogma to primitive Islam. The adoption of Christian saint\nworship was not possible until the person of Muhammed himself had been\nexalted above the ordinary level of humanity. Early Muhammedans\nobserved that the founder of Christianity was regarded by popular\nopinion as a miracle worker of unrivalled power: it was impossible for\nthe founder of Islam to remain inferior in this respect. Thus the\nearly biographies of the prophet, which appeared in the first century\nof Muhammedanism, recount the typical miracles of the Gospels, the\nfeeding of multitudes, healing the sick, raising the dead and so\nforth. Two methods of adoption may be distinguished. Special features\nare directly borrowed, or the line of advance is followed which had\nintroduced the worship of saints and relics to Christianity a short\ntime before. The religious emotions natural to any people produced a\nseries of ideas which pass from one religion to another. Outward form\nand purport may be changed, but the essential points remain unaltered\nand are the living expression of that relation to God in which a\npeople conceives itself to stand. Higher forms of religion--a fact as\nsad as it is true--require a certain degree not only of moral but of\nintellectual capacity.\n\nThus we have traversed practically the whole circle of religious life\nand have everywhere found Islam following in the path of Christian\nthought. One department remains to be examined, which might be\nexpected to offer but scanty opportunity for borrowings of this kind;\nthis is dogma. Here, if anywhere, the contrast between the two\nreligions should be obvious. The initial divergencies were so\npronounced, that any adoption of Christian ideas would seem\nimpossible. Yet in those centuries, Christianity was chiefly agitated\nby dogmatic questions, which occupied men's minds as greatly as social\nproblems at the present day. Here we can observe most distinctly, how\nthe problems at least were taken over by Islam.\n\nMuhammedan dogmatic theology is concerned only with three main\nquestions, the problem of free-will, the being and attributes of God,\nand the eternal uncreated nature of God's word. The mere mention of\nthese problems will recall the great dogmatic struggles of early\nChristianity. At no time have the problems of free-will and the nature\nof God, been subjects of fiercer dispute than during the\nChristological and subsequent discussions. Upholders of freedom or of\ndeterminism could alike find much to support their theories in the\nQoran: Muhammed was no dogmatist and for him the ideas of man's\nresponsibility and of God's almighty and universal power were not\nmutually exclusive. The statement of the problem was adopted from\nChristianity as also was the dialectical subtlety by which a solution\nwas reached, and which, while admitting the almighty power of God,\nleft man responsible for his deeds by regarding him as free to accept\nor refuse the admonitions of God. Thus the thinkers and their demands\nfor justice and righteous dealing were reconciled to the blind\nfatalism of the masses, which again was not a native Muhammedan\nproduct, but is the outcome of the religious spirit of the East.\n\nThe problem of reconciling the attributes of God with the dogma of His\nunity was solved with no less subtlety. The mere idea that a\nmultiplicity of attributes was incompatible with absolute unity was\nonly possible in a school which had spent centuries in the desperate\nattempt to reconcile the inference of a divine Trinity with the\nconception of absolute divine unity.\n\nFinally, the third question, \"Was the Qoran, the word of God, created\nor not?\" is an obvious counterpart of the Logos problem, of the\nstruggle to secure recognition of the Logos as eternal and uncreated\ntogether with God. Islam solved the question by distinguishing the\neternal and uncreated Qoran from the revealed and created. The eternal\nnature of the Qoran was a dogma entirely alien to the strict\nmonotheism of Islam: but this fact was never realised, any more than\nthe fact that the acceptance of the dogma was a triumph for\nGraeco-Christian dialectic. There can be no more striking proof of the\nstrength of Christian influence: it was able to undermine the\nfundamental dogma of Islam, and the Muhammedans never realised the\nfact.\n\nIn our review of these dogmatic questions, we have met with a novel\ntendency, that to metaphysical speculation and dialectic. It was from\nChristendom, not directly from the Greek world, that this spirit\nreached Islam: the first attitude of Muhammedanism towards it was that\nwhich Christianity adopted towards all non-religious systems of\nthought. Islam took it up as a useful weapon for the struggle against\nheresy. But it soon became a favourite and trusted implement and\neventually its influence upon Muhammedan philosophy became paramount.\nHere we meet with a further Christian influence, which, when once\naccepted, very largely contributed to secure a similar development of\nmediaeval Christian and Muhammedan thought. This was Scholasticism,\nwhich was the natural and inevitable consequence of the study of Greek\ndialectic and philosophy. It is not necessary to sketch the growth of\nscholasticism, with its barrenness of results in spite of its keen\nintellectual power, upon ground already fertilised by ecclesiastical\npioneers. It will suffice to state the fact that these developments of\nthe Greek spirit were predominant here as in the West: in either case\nimportant philosophies rise upon this basis, for the most part\nprofessedly ecclesiastical, even when they occasionally struck at the\nroots of the religious system to which they belonged. In this\ndepartment, Islam repaid part of its debt to Christianity, for the\nArabs became the intellectual leaders of the middle ages.\n\nThus we come to the concluding section of this treatise; before we\nenter upon it, two preliminary questions remain for consideration. If\nIslam was ready to learn from Christianity in every department of\nreligious life, what was the cause of the sudden superiority of\nMuhammedanism to the rising force of Christianity a few centuries\nlater? And secondly, in view of the traditional antagonism between the\nChristian and Muhammedan worlds, how was Christianity able to adopt so\nlarge and essential a portion of Muhammedan thought?\n\nThe answer in the second case will be clear to any one who has\nfollowed our argument with attention. The intellectual and religious\noutlook was so similar in both religions and the problem requiring\nsolution so far identical that nothing existed to impede the adoption\nof ideas originally Christian which had been developed in the East.\nThe fact that the West could accept philosophical and theological\nideas from Islam and that an actual interchange of thought could\nproceed in this direction, is the best of proofs for the soundness of\nour argument that the roots of Muhammedanism are to be sought in\nChristianity. Islam was able to borrow from Christianity for the\nreason that Muhammed's ideas were derived from that source: similarly\nChristianity was able to turn Arab thought to its own purposes because\nthat thought was founded upon Christian principles. The sources of\nboth religions lie in the East and in Oriental thought.\n\nNo less is true of Judaism, a scholastic system which was excellently\nadapted by its international character, to become a medium of\ncommunication between Christianity and Muhammedanism during those\ncenturies. In this connection special mention must be made of the\nSpanish Jews; to their work, not only as transmitting but also as\noriginating ideas a bare reference must here suffice. But of greater\nimportance was the direct exchange of thought, which proceeded through\nliterary channels, by means of translations, especially by word of\nmouth among the Christians and Muhammedans who were living together in\nSouthern Italy, Sicily, and Spain, and by commercial intercourse.\n\nThe other question concerns the fundamental problem of European\nmedievalism. We see that the problems with which the middle ages in\nEurope were confronted and also that European ethics and metaphysics\nwere identical with the Muhammedan system: we are moreover assured\nthat the acceptance of Christian ideas by Islam can only have taken\nplace in the East: and the conclusion is obvious that mediaeval\nChristianity was also primarily rooted in the East. The transmission\nof this religious philosophy to the non-Oriental peoples of the West\nat first produced a cessation of progress but opened a new\nintellectual world when these peoples awoke to life in the thirteenth\nand fourteenth centuries. But throughout the intermediate period\nbetween the seventh and thirteenth centuries the East was gaining\npolitical strength and was naturally superior to the West where\npolitical organisation and culture had been shattered by the Germanic\ninvasions; in the East again there was an organic unity of national\nstrength and intellectual ideals, as the course of development had not\nbeen interrupted. Though special dogmatic points had been changed, the\ngeneral religious theory remained unaltered throughout the nearer\nEast. Thus the rising power of Islam, which had high faculties of\nself-accommodation to environment, was able to enter upon the heritage\nof the mixed Graeco-Oriental civilisation existing in the East; in\nconsequence it gained an immediate advantage over the West, where\nEastern ideas were acclimatised with difficulty.\n\nThe preponderance of Muhammedan influence was increased by the fact\nthat Islam became the point of amalgamation for ancient Eastern\ncultures, in particular for those of Greece and Persia: in previous\ncenturies preparation had been made for this process by the steady\ntransformation of Hellenism to Orientalism. Persia, however, had been\nthe main source of Eastern civilisation, at any rate since the\nSassanid period: the debt of Byzantine culture to Persia is well\nknown. Unfortunately no thorough investigation has been made of these\nvarious and important changes, but it is clear that Persian\ncivilisation sent its influence far westward, at first directly and\nlater through the medium of Muhammedanism. The same facts hold good\nwith regard to the diffusion of intellectual culture from Persia. How\nfar Persian ideas may have influenced the development of Muhammedan\nand even of Christian eschatology, we need not here discuss: but the\ninfluence of the great Graeco-Christian schools of Persia was\nenormous: they made the Arabs acquainted with the most important works\nin Greek and Persian literature. To this fact was due the wide\ninfluence of Islam upon Christian civilisation, which is evidenced\neven to-day by the numerous words of Arab origin to be found in modern\nEuropean languages; it is in fact an influence the strength of which\ncan hardly be exaggerated. Not only the commercial products of the\nEast, but important economic methods, the ideals of our so-called\nEuropean chivalry and of its love poetry, the foundations of our\nnatural sciences, even theological and philosophical ideas of high\nvalue were then sent to us from the East. The consequences of the\ncrusades are the best proof of the enormous superiority of the\nMuhammedan world, a fact which is daily becoming more obvious. Here we\nare concerned only with the influence exerted by Muhammedan\nphilosophy. It would be more correct to speak of post-classical than\nof Muhammedan philosophy. But as above, the influence of Christianity\nupon Islam was considered, so now the reverse process must be\noutlined. In either case it was the heir to the late classical age, to\nthe mixed Graeco-Oriental culture, which influenced Islam at first in\nChristian guise. Islam is often able to supplement its borrowings from\nChristianity at the original sources, and when they have thus been\ndeepened and purified, these adaptations are returned to Christianity\nin Muhammedan form.\n\nChristian scholasticism was first based upon fragments of Aristotle\nand chiefly inspired by Neo-Platonism: through the Arabs it became\nacquainted with almost the whole of Aristotle and also with the\nspecial methods by which the Arabs approach the problem of this\nphilosophy. To give any detailed account of this influence would be to\nwrite a history of mediaeval philosophy in its relation to\necclesiastical doctrine, a task which I feel to be beyond my powers. I\nshall therefore confine myself to an abstract of the material points\nselected from the considerable detail which specialists upon the\nsubject have collected: I consider that Arab influence during the\nfirst period is best explained by the new wealth of Greek thought\nwhich the Arabs appropriated and transmitted to Europe. These new\ndiscoveries were the attainments of Greece in the natural sciences and\nin logic: they extended the scope of dialectic and stimulated the rise\nof metaphysical theory: the latter, in combination with ecclesiastical\ndogma and Greek science, became such a system of thought as that\nexpounded in the Summa of Thomas Aquinas. Philosophy remained the\nhandmaid of religion and Arab influence first served only to complete\nthe ecclesiastical philosophy of life.\n\nEventually, however, the methods of interpretation and criticism,\npeculiar to the Arabs when dealing with Aristotle became of no less\nimportance than the subject matter of their inquiries. This form of\ncriticism was developed from the emphasis which Islam had long laid\nupon the value of wisdom, or recognition of the claims of reason.\nMuhammedan tradition is full of the praises of wisdom, which it also\noriginally regarded as the basis of religion. Reason, however,\ngradually became an independent power: orthodoxy did not reject reason\nwhen it coincided with tradition, but under the influence of\nAristotelianism, especially as developed by Averro\u00ebs, reason became a\npower opposed to faith. The essential point of the doctrine was that\ntruth was twofold, according to faith and according to reason. Any one\nwho was subtle enough to recognise both kinds of truth could preserve\nhis orthodoxy: but the theory contained one great danger, which was\nimmediately obvious to the Christian church. The consequent struggle\nis marked by the constant connection of Arab ideas with the\ncharacteristic expressions of Christian feeling; these again are\nconnected with the outset of a new period, when the pioneers of the\nRenaissance liberate the West from the chains of Greek ecclesiastical\nclassicism, from Oriental metaphysical religion and slowly pave the\nway for the introduction of Germanic ideals directly derived from true\nclassicism. Not until that period does the West burst the bonds in\nwhich Orientalism had confined it.\n\nChristianity and Islam then stand upon an equal footing in respect\nboth of intellectual progress and material wealth. But as the West\nemerges from the shadow-land of the middle ages the more definite\nbecomes its superiority over the East. Western nations become\nconvinced that the fetters which bind them were forged in the East,\nand when they have shaken off their chains, they discover their own\nphysical and intellectual power. They go forth and create a new world,\nin which Orientalism finds but scanty room.\n\nThe East, however, cannot break away from the theories of life and\nmind which grew in it and around it. Even at the present day the\nOriental is swathed in mediaevalism. A journalist, for instance,\nhowever European his mode of life, will write leaders supported by\narguments drawn from tradition and will reason after the manner of the\nold scholasticism. But a change may well take place. Islam may\ngradually acquire the spirit as well as the form of modern Europe.\nCenturies were needed before mediaeval Christianity learned the need\nfor submission to the new spirit. Within Christendom itself, it was\nnon-Christian ideas which created the new movement, but these were\ncompletely amalgamated with pre-existing Christianity. Thus, too, a\nRenaissance is possible in the East, not merely by the importation and\nimitation of European progress, but primarily by intellectual\nadvancement at home even within the sphere of religion.\n\nOur task is drawing to its close. We have passed in review the\ninteraction of Christianity and Islam, so far as the two religions are\nconcerned. It has also been necessary to refer to the history of the\ntwo civilisations, for the reason that the two religions penetrate\nnational life, a feature characteristic both of their nature and of\nthe course of development which they respectively followed. This\nmethod of inquiry has enabled us to gain an idea of the rise and\nprogress of Muhammedanism as such.\n\nAn attempt to explain the points of contact and resemblance between\nthe two religions naturally tends to obscure the differences between\nthem. Had we devoted our attention to Islam alone, without special\nreference to Christianity, these differences, especially in the region\nof dogmatic theology, would have been more obvious. They are, however,\ngenerally well known. The points of connection are much more usually\ndisregarded: yet they alone can explain the interchange of thought\nbetween the two mediaeval civilisations. The surprising fact is the\namount of general similarity in religious theory between religions so\nfundamentally divergent upon points of dogma. Nor is the similarity\nconfined to religious theory: when we realise that material\ncivilisation, especially when European medievalism was at its height,\nwas practically identical in the Christian West and the Muhammedan\nEast, we are justified in any reference to the unity of Eastern and\nWestern civilisation.\n\nMy statements may tend to represent Islam as a religion of no special\noriginality; at the same time, Christianity was but one of other\ninfluences operative upon it; early Arabic, Zoroastrian, and Jewish\nbeliefs in particular have left traces on its development. May not as\nmuch be said of Christianity? Inquirers have seriously attempted to\ndistinguish Greek and Jewish influences as the component elements of\nChristianity: in any case, the extent of the elements original to the\nfinal orthodox system remains a matter of dispute. As we learn to\nappreciate historical connection and to probe beneath the surface of\nreligions in course of development, we discover points of relationship\nand interdependency of which the simple believer never even dreams.\nThe object of all this investigation is, in my opinion, one only: to\ndiscover how the religious experience of the founder of a faith\naccommodates itself to pre-existing civilisation, in the effort to\nmake its influence operative. The eventual triumph of the new religion\nis in every case and at every time nothing more than a compromise: nor\ncan more be expected, inasmuch as the religious instinct, though one\nof the most important influences in man, is not the sole determining\ninfluence upon his nature.\n\nRecognition of this fact can only be obtained at the price of a breach\nwith ecclesiastical mode of thought. Premonitions of some such breach\nare apparent in modern Muhammedanism: for ourselves, they are\naccomplished facts. If I correctly interpret the signs of the times, a\nretrograde movement in religious development has now begun. The\nreligion inspiring a single personality, has secured domination over\nthe whole of life: family, society, and state have bowed beneath its\npower. Then the reaction begins: slowly religion loses its\ncomprehensive force and as its history is learned, even at the price\nof sorrow, it slowly recedes within the true limits of its operation,\nthe individual, the personality, in which it is naturally rooted.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\nThe purpose of the present work has been to show not so much the\nidentity of Christian and Muhammedan theories of life during the\nmiddle ages, as the parallel course of development common to both, and\nto demonstrate the fact that ideas could be transferred from one\nsystem to the other. Detail has been sacrificed to this general\npurpose. The brief outline of Muhammedan dogmatics and mysticism was\nnecessary to complete the general survey of the question. Any one of\nthese subjects, and the same is true as regards a detailed life of\nMuhammed, would require at least another volume of equal size for\nsatisfactory treatment.\n\nThe Oriental scholar will easily see where I base my statements upon\nmy own researches and where I have followed Goldziher and Snouck. My\nchief source of information, apart from the six great books of\ntradition, has been the invaluable compilation of Soj[=u]t[=i], the\ngreat Kanz el-'Umm[=a]l (Hyderabad, 1314). To those who do not read\nArabic may be recommended the French translation of the Boch[=a]r[=i],\nof which two volumes are now published: _El-Bok\u00e2hri, les traditions\nislamiques traduites ... par_ O. Houdas and W. Mar\u00e7ais. Paris,\n1906.\n\nOf general works dealing with the questions I have touched, the\nfollowing, to which I owe a considerable debt, may be recommended:--\n\n  J. Goldziher. Muhammedanische Studien, Halle, 1889 and following\n    year.\n\n  Die Religion des Islams (Kult. d. Gegenw., I, iii. 1).\n\n  C. Snouck Hurgronje. De Islam (de Gids, 1886, us. 5 f.).\n    Mekka. The Hague, 1888.\n\n  Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed (Rev. Hist. Relig., 1894).\n\n  Leone Caetani di Teano. Annali dell' Islam. Milan, 1905 and\n    following years.\n\n  F. Buhl. Muhammed's Liv. Copenhagen, 1903.\n\n  H. Grimme. Muhammed. Munich, 1904.\n\n  J. Wellhausen. Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz. Berlin, 1902.\n\n  Th. N\u00f6ldeke. Geschichte des Qor\u00e4ns. Gottingen, 1860. (New edition by\n    F. Schwally in the press.)\n\n  C.H. Becker. Die Kanzel im Kultus des alten Islam. Giessen, 1906.\n\n  Papyri. Schott-Reinhardt, I. Heidelberg, 1906.\n\n  Th. W. Juynboll. Handleidung tot de kennis van de Mohammedaansche\n    Wet. Leyden, 1903.\n\n  T.J. de Boer. Geschichte der Philosophie in Islam. Stuttgart, 1901\n    (also an English edition).\n\n  D.B. Macdonald. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and\n    Constitutional Theory. New York, 1903.\n\n  A. Merx. Idee und Grundlinien einer allgemeinen Geschichte der\n    Mystik. Heidelberg, 1893.\n\n  A. M\u00fcller. Der Islam im Morgen- und Abendland (Oncken's collection).\n\n  W. Riedel. Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien.\n    Leipsic, 1900.\n\n  G. Bruns and E. Sachau. Syrisch-r\u00f6misches Rechtsbuch. Leipsic, 1880.\n\n  E. Sachau. Syrische Rechtsb\u00fccher, I. Berlin, 1907.\n\n  E. Zachariae v. Lingenthal. Geschichte des griechisch-r\u00f6mischen\n    Rechts. 3rd ed., Berlin, 1892.\n\n  H. v. Eicken. Geschichte und System der mittelalterlichen\n    Weltanschauung. Stuttgart, 1886.\n\n  W. Windelband. Lehrbuck der Geschichte der Philosophie. 4th ed.,\n    T\u00fcbingen, 1907.\n\n  C. Baeumker und G. v. Hertling. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der\n    Philosophie des Mittelalters (collected papers).\n\n  G. Gothein. Ignatius von Loyola und die Gegenreformation. Halle,\n    1895.\n\nIn conclusion, I may mention two works, which deal with the subject of\nthis volume, but from a different standpoint:--\n\n  H.P. Smith. The Bible and Islam (The Ely Lectures for 1897).\n\n  W.A. Shedd. Islam and the Oriental Churches (Philadelphia, 1904).","title":"Christianity and Islam","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17276}