{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_59135/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_59135","id":"gutenberg_59135","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59135","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Constitutional law (Islamic law)","Islam -- Doctrines -- History","Islam and state -- History","Islamic law -- History"],"text":"Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n The Semitic Series\n\n DEVELOPMENT OF\n MUSLIM THEOLOGY, JURISPRUDENCE\n AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY\n\n BY DUNCAN B. MACDONALD, M.A., B.D.\n\n\n\n\nSERIES OF HAND-BOOKS IN SEMITICS\n\nEDITED BY JAMES ALEXANDER CRAIG\n\nPROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES AND HELLENISTIC GREEK IN\nTHE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN\n\nRecent scientific research has stimulated an increasing interest in\nSemitic studies among scholars, students, and the serious reading public\ngenerally. It has provided us with a picture of a hitherto unknown\ncivilization, and a history of one of the great branches of the human\nfamily.\n\nThe object of the present Series is to state its results in popularly\nscientific form. Each work is complete in itself, and the Series, taken\nas a whole, neglects no phase of the general subject. Each contributor is\na specialist in the subject assigned him, and has been chosen from the\nbody of eminent Semitic scholars in Europe and in this country.\n\nThis Series will be composed of the following volumes:\n\n I. HEBREWS. _History and Government._ By Professor J. F.\n McCurdy, University of Toronto, Canada.\n\n II. HEBREWS. _Ethics and Religion._ By Professor Archibald\n Duff, Airedale College, Bradford, England. [_Now Ready._\n\n III. HEBREWS. _The Social Life._ By the Rev. Edward Day,\n Springfield, Mass. [_Now Ready._\n\n IV. BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS, with introductory chapter on\n the Sumerians. _History to the Fall of Babylon._ By Dr. Hugo\n Winckler, University of Berlin. [_In Press._\n\n V. BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS. _Religion._ By Professor J. A.\n Craig, University of Michigan.\n\n VI. BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS. _Life and Customs._ By Professor\n A. H. Sayce, University of Oxford, England. [_Now Ready._\n\n VII. BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS. Excavations and Account of\n Decipherment of Inscriptions.\n\n VIII. SYRIA AND PALESTINE. _Early History._ By Professor Lewis\n Bayles Paton, Hartford Theological Seminary. [_Now Ready._\n\n IX. DEVELOPMENT OF MUSLIM THEOLOGY, JURISPRUDENCE AND\n CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY. By Professor D. B. Macdonald, Hartford\n Theological Seminary. [_Now Ready._\n\nThe following volumes are to be included in the Series, and others may be\nadded:\n\n X. PH\u0152NICIA. _History and Government_, including Colonies,\n Trade, and Religion.\n\n XI. ARABIA, _Discoveries in, and History and Religion until\n Muhammad_.\n\n XII. ARABIC LITERATURE AND SCIENCE SINCE MUHAMMAD.\n\n XIII. THE INFLUENCE OF SEMITIC ART AND MYTHOLOGY ON WESTERN\n NATIONS.\n\n\n\n\n The Semitic Series\n\n DEVELOPMENT OF\n Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence\n and Constitutional Theory\n\n BY\n DUNCAN B. MACDONALD, M.A., B.D.\n\n SOMETIME SCHOLAR AND FELLOW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF\n GLASGOW; PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN\n HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY\n\n NEW YORK\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n 1903\n\n COPYRIGHT, 1903, BY\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n\n Published; March, 1903\n\n TROW DIRECTORY\n PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY\n NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\nMEMORI\u00c6 MATRIS SACRVM\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIt is with very great diffidence that I send out this book. Of the lack\nand need of some text-book of the kind there can be little doubt. From\nthe educated man who wishes to read with intelligence his \u201cArabian\nNights\u201d to the student of history or of law or of theology who wishes\nto know how it has gone in such matters with the great Muslim world,\nthere is demand enough and to spare. Still graver is the difficulty for\nthe growing body of young men who are taking up the study of Arabic. In\nEnglish or German or French there is no book to which a teacher may send\nhis pupils for brief guidance on the development of these institutions;\non the development of law there are only scattered and fragmentary\npapers, and on the development of theology there is practically nothing.\nBut of the difficulty of supplying this need there can be even less\ndoubt. Goldziher could do it fully and completely; no other Arabist alive\ncould approach the task other than with trepidation. The following pages\ntherefore form a kind of forlorn attempt, a rushing in on the part of\none who is sure he is not an angel and is in grave doubt on the question\nof folly, but who also sees a gap and no great alacrity on the part of\nhis betters toward filling it. One thing, however, I would premise\nwith emphasis. All the results given here have been reached or verified\nfrom the Arabic sources. These sources are seldom stated either in the\ntext or in the bibliography, as the book is intended to be useful to\nnon-Arabists, but, throughout, they lie behind it and are its basis.\nBy this it is not meant that the results of this book are claimed as\noriginal. Every Arabist will recognize at once from whose wells I have\ndrawn and who have been my masters. Among these I would do homage in the\nfirst instance to Goldziher; what Arabist is not deep in his debt? With\nGoldziher\u2019s influence through books I would join the kindred influence\nof the living voice of my teacher Sachau. To him I render thanks and\nreverence now for his kindly sympathy and guidance. Others in whose debt\nI am are N\u00f6ldeke, Snouck Hurgronje, von Kremer, Lane\u2014many more. Those who\nare left of these will know their own in my pages and will be merciful to\nmy attempts to tread in their steps and to develop their results. What is\nmy own, too, they will know; into questions of priority I have no desire\nto enter. Foot-notes which might have given to each scholar his due have\nbeen left unwritten. For the readers of this book such references in so\nvast a subject would be useless. Such references, too, would have in the\nend to be made to Arabic sources.\n\nMore direct help I have to acknowledge on several sides. To the\natmosphere and scholarly ideals of Hartford Seminary I am indebted for\nthe possibility of writing such a book as this, so far from the ordinary\ntheological ruts. Among my colleagues Professor Gillett has especially\naided me with criticism and suggestions on the terminology of scholastic\ntheology. Dr. Talcott Williams, of Philadelphia, illumined for me the\nIdrisid movement in North Africa. One complete sentence on p. 85 I have\nconveyed from a kindly notice in _The Nation_ of my inaugural lecture on\nthe development of Muslim Jurisprudence. Finally, and above all, I am\nindebted to my wife for much patient labor in copying and for keen and\nluminous criticism in planning and correcting. With thanks to her this\npreface may fitly close.\n\n DUNCAN B. MACDONALD.\n\nHARTFORD, December, 1902.\n\n \u2042 As it has proved impracticable to give in the body of the\n book a full transliteration of names and technical terms, the\n learner is referred for such exact forms to the chronological\n table and the index. In these _hamza_ and _ayn_, the long\n vowels and the emphatic consonants are uniformly represented,\n the last by italic.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTION 3\n\n PART I\n\n _CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT_\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n FROM DEATH OF MUHAMMAD TO RISE OF ABBASIDS 7\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n TO RISE OF AYYUBIDS 34\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n TO PRESENT SITUATION 50\n\n PART II\n\n _DEVELOPMENT OF JURISPRUDENCE_\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n TO CLOSE OF UMAYYAD PERIOD 65\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n TO PRESENT SITUATION 91\n\n PART III\n\n _DEVELOPMENT OF THEOLOGY_\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n TO CLOSE OF UMAYYAD PERIOD 119\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n TO FOUNDATION OF FATIMID KHALIFATE 153\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n TO TRIUMPH OF ASH\u2018ARITES IN EAST 186\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n AL-GHAZZALI 215\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n TO IBN SAB\u2018IN AND END OF MUWAHHIDS 243\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n TO PRESENT SITUATION 266\n\n APPENDICES\n\n I. ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS IN TRANSLATION 291\n\n II. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 358\n\n III. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 368\n\n INDEX 373\n\n\n\n\nERRATA\n\n\n Page 30, line 5, for al-Mukanna read al-Muqanna.\n \u201d 86, l. 19, for first Khalifa read second Khalifa.\n \u201d 201, l. 26, for _tasalsal_ read _tasalsul_.\n \u201d 237, for Mansell read Mansel.\n \u201d 267, l. 30, for Haqqari read Hakkari.\n \u201d 299, l. 10, for _Mushriqs_ read _Mushriks_.\n \u201d 300, l. 4, for kalimatan ash-shahada read kalimata-sh-shabada.\n \u201d 325, l. 23, for _wihdaniya_ read _wahdaniya_.\n \u201d 339, l. 11, for _ihtiyaz_ read _ihtiyaj_.\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note: The errata have been corrected.\n\n\n\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF MUSLIM THEOLOGY, JURISPRUDENCE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nIn human progress unity and complexity are the two correlatives forming\ntogether the great paradox. Life is manifold, but it is also one. So\nit is seldom possible, and still more seldom advisable, to divide a\ncivilization into departments and to attempt to trace their separate\ndevelopments; life nowhere can be cut in two with a hatchet. And this is\nemphatically true of the civilization of Islam. Its intellectual unity,\nfor good and for evil, is its outstanding quality. It may have solved\nthe problem of faith and science, as some hold; it may have crushed all\nthought which is not of faith, as many others hold. However that may be,\nits life and thought are a unity.\n\nSo, also, with its institutions. It might be possible to trace the\ndevelopments of the European states out of the dying Roman Empire, even\nto watch the patrimony of the Church grow and again vanish, and yet take\nbut little if any account of the Catholic theology. It might be possible\nto deal adequately with the growth of that system of theology and yet\nnever touch either the Roman or the civil law, even to leave out of our\nview the canon law itself. In Europe the State may rule the Church, or\nthe Church may rule the State; or they may stand side by side in somewhat\ndubious amity, supposedly taking no account each of the other. But\nin Muslim countries, Church and State are one indissolubly, and until\nthe very essence of Islam passes away, that unity cannot be relaxed.\nThe law of the land, too, is, in theory, the law of the Church. In the\nearlier days at least, canon and civil law were one. Thus we can never\nsay in Islam, \u201che is a great lawyer; he, a great theologian; he, a great\nstatesman.\u201d One man may be all three, almost he must be all three, if he\nis to be any one. The statesman may not practice theology or law, but his\ntraining, in great part, will be that of a theologian and a legist. The\ntheologian-legist may not be a man of action, but he will be a court of\nultimate appeal on the theory of the state. He will pass upon treaties;\ndecide disputed successions; assign to each his due rank and title. He\nwill tell the Commander of the Faithful himself what he may do and what,\nby law, lies beyond his reach.\n\nIt was, then, under the pressure of necessity only that the following\nsketch of the development of Muslim thought was divided into three parts.\nBy no possible arrangement did it seem feasible to treat the whole at\nonce. Intolerable confusions and unintelligible complications would, to\nall appearance, be the result. As the most concrete and simple side,\nthe development of the state is taken first. Second, on account of the\nshortness of the course which it ran, comes the development of the legal\nideas and schools. Third comes the long and thrice complicated thread\nof theological thought. It is for the student to hold firmly in mind\nthat this division is purely mechanical and for convenience only; that\nit corresponds to little or nothing in the real nature of the case.\nThis will undoubtedly become clear to him as he proceeds. He will meet\nwith the same names in all three divisions; he will meet with the same\ntechnicalities and the same scholastic system. A treatise on canon law\nis certainly different from one on theology, but each touches the other\nat innumerable points; their authors may easily be the same; each will\nbe in great part unintelligible without the other. He must then labor to\nmerge these three sections again into one another. His principal helps\nin this, along with diligent parallel reading, will be the chronological\ntable and the index. In the table he will watch the succession of men and\nevents grouped from all the three sections; from the index he will trace\nthe activities of each man in these different spheres. The index, too,\nwill give him the technical terms and he will observe their recurrence in\nhistorical, legal, and theological theory. Further, it will serve him as\na vocabulary when he comes to read technical texts.\n\nBut, again, another warning is necessary. The sketch given here is\nincomplete, not only in details but in the ground that it covers.\nImportant phases of Muslim law, theology, and state theory are of\nnecessity passed over entirely. Thus Babism is not touched at all and\nthe Shi\u2018ite theology and law hardly at all. The Ibadite systems have the\nmerest mention and Turkish and Persian mysticism are equally neglected.\nFor such weighty organizations the Darwish Fraternities are most\ninadequately dealt with, and Muslim missionary enterprise might well be\ntreated at length. Guidance on these and other points the student will\nseek in the bibliography. It, too, makes no pretence to completeness\nand consists of selected titles only. But it will serve at least as an\nintroduction and clew to an exceedingly wide field. And it may be well\nto state here, in so many words, that no work can be done in this field\nwithout a reading knowledge of French and German, and no satisfactory\nwork without some knowledge of Arabic.\n\nAnd, again, this sketch is incomplete because the development of Islam is\nnot yet over. If, as some say, the faith of Muhammad is a _cul-de-sac_,\nit is certainly a very long one; off it many courts and doors open; down\nit many peoples are still wandering. It is a faith, too, which brings\nus into touching distance with the great controversies of our own day.\nWe see in it, as in a somewhat distorted mirror, the history of our own\npast. But we do not yet see its end, even as the end of Christianity is\nnot yet in sight. It is for the student, then, to remember that Islam is\na present reality and the Muslim faith a living organism, a knowledge\nof whose laws may be of life or death for us who are in another camp.\nFor there can be little doubt that the three antagonistic and militant\ncivilizations of the world are those of Christendom, Islam, and China.\nWhen these are unified, or come to a mutual understanding, then, and only\nthen, will the cause of civilization be secure. To aid some little to the\nunderstanding of Islam among us is the object of this book.\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\nConstitutional Development\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n The death of Muhammad and the problem of the succession; the\n parties; families of Hashimids, Umayyads and Abbasids; election\n of Abu Bakr; nomination of Umar; his constitution; election\n of Uthman; Umayyads in power; murder of Uthman; origin of\n Shi\u2018ites; election of Ali; civil war; Mu\u2018awiya first Umayyad;\n origin of Kharijites; their revolts; Ibadites; development\n of Shi\u2018ites; al-Husayn at Karbala; different Shi\u2018ite\n constitutional theories; doctrine of the hidden Imam; revolts\n against Umayyads; rise of Abbasids; Umayyads of Cordova.\n\n\nWith the death of Muhammad at al-Madina in the year 11 of the Hijra\n(A.D. 632), the community of Islam stood face to face with three great\nquestions. Of the existence of one they were conscious, at least in\nits immediate form; the others lay still for their consciousness in\nthe future. The necessity was upon them to choose a leader to take the\nplace of the Prophet of God, and thus to fix for all time what was to\nbe the nature of the Muslim state. Muhammad had appointed no Joshua;\nunlike Moses he had died and given no guidance as to the man who should\ntake up and carry on his work. If we can imagine the people of Israel\nleft thus helpless on the other side of the Jordan with the course of\nconquest that they must pursue opening before them, we shall have a\ntolerably exact idea of the situation in Islam when Muhammad dropped\nthe reins. Certainly, the people of Islam had little conception of what\nwas involved in the great precedent that they were about to establish,\nbut, nevertheless, there lies here, in the first elective council\nwhich they called, the beginning of all the confusions, rivalries, and\nuncertainties that were to limit and finally to destroy the succession of\nthe Commanders of the Faithful.\n\n[Sidenote: EARLY PARTIES]\n\nMuhammad had ruled as an absolute monarch\u2014a Prophet of God in his\nown right. He had no son; though had he left such issue it is not\nprobable that it would have affected the direct result. Of Moses\u2019s son\nwe hear nothing till long afterward, and then under very suspicious\ncircumstances. The old free spirit of the Arabs was too strong, and as\nin the Ignorance (_al-jahiliya_), as they called the pre-Muslim age, the\ntribes had chosen from time to time their chiefs, so it was now fixed\nthat in Islam the leader was to be elected by the people. But wherever\nthere is an election, there are parties; and this was no exception. Of\nsuch parties we may reckon roughly four. There were the Early Believers,\nwho had suffered with Muhammad at Mecca, accompanied him to al-Madina\nand had fought at his side through all the Muslim campaigns. These were\ncalled _Muhajirs_, because they had made with him the Hijra or migration\nto al-Madina. Then there was the party of the citizens of al-Madina,\nwho had invited him to come to them and had promised him allegiance.\nThese were called _Ansar_ or Helpers. Eventually we shall find these two\nfactions growing together and forming the one party of the old original\nbelievers and Companions of Muhammad (_sahibs_, _i.e._, all those who\ncame in contact with the Prophet as believers and who died in Islam),\nbut at the first they stood apart and there was much jealousy between\nthem. Then, in the third place, there was the party of recent converts\nwho had only embraced Islam at the latest moment when Mecca was captured\nby Muhammad, and no other way of escape for them was open. They were the\naristocratic party of Mecca and had fought the new faith to the last.\nThus they were but indifferent believers and were regarded by the others\nwith more than suspicion. Their principal family was descended from a\ncertain Umayya, and was therefore called Umayyad. There will be much\nabout this family in the sequel. Then, fourth, there was growing up a\nparty that might be best described as legitimists; their theory was that\nthe leadership belonged to the leader, not because he was elected to it\nby the Muslim community, but because it was his right. He was appointed\nto it by God as completely as Muhammad had been. This idea developed, it\nis true, somewhat later, but it developed very rapidly. The times were\nsuch as to force it on.\n\nThose, then, were the parties of which account must be taken, but before\nproceeding to individuals in these parties, it will be well to fix\nsome genealogical relationships, so as to be able to trace the family\nand tribal jealousies and intrigues that were so soon to transfer\nthemselves from the little circle of Mecca and al-Madina and to fight\nthemselves out on the broad field of Muslim history. For, in truth, in\nthe development of no other state have little causes produced such great\neffects as here. For example, it may be said, broadly and yet truly,\nthat the seclusion of Muslim women, with all its disastrous effects at\nthe present day for a population of two hundred millions, runs back to\nthe fact that A\u2019isha, the fourteen-year-old wife of Muhammad, once lost\na necklace under what the gossips of the time thought were suspicious\ncircumstances. As to the point now in hand, it is quite certain that\nMuslim history for several hundred years was conditioned and motived by\nthe quarrels of Meccan families. The accompanying genealogy will give\nthe necessary starting-point. The mythical ancestor is Quraysh; hence\n\u201cthe Quraysh,\u201d or \u201cQuraysh\u201d as a name for the tribe. Within the tribe,\nthe two most important families are those of Hashim and Umayya; their\nrivalries for the succession of the Prophet fill the first century and a\nhalf of Muslim history, and the immediately pre-Islamic history of Mecca\nis similarly filled with a contest between them as to the guardianship of\nthe Ka\u2018ba and the care of the pilgrims to that sanctuary. Whether this\nearlier history is real, or a reflection from the later Muslim times, we\nneed not here consider. The next important division is that between the\nfamilies of al-Abbas and Abu Talib, the uncles of the Prophet. From the\none were descended the Abbasids, as whose heir-at-law the Sultan of the\nOttoman Empire now claims the Khalifate, and from the other the different\nconflicting lines of Shi\u2018ites, whose intricacies we shall soon have to\nface.\n\n[Illustration: GENEALOGICAL CHART FOR EARLIEST HISTORY OF ISLAM.\n\nNames of Khalifas are in black letters; their order in Khalifate is\nindicated by prefixed Roman numerals; all dates after A.D. 622 are A.H.]\n\n[Illustration: CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ALIDS.]\n\n[Sidenote: ABU BAKR; UMAR]\n\nTo return: in this first elective council the choice fell upon Abu\nBakr. He was a man distinguished by his piety and his affection for and\nclose intimacy with Muhammad. He was the father of Muhammad\u2019s favorite\nwife, A\u2019isha, and was some two years younger than his son-in-law. He\nwas, also, one of the earliest believers and it is evident that this,\nwith his advanced age, always respected in Arabia, went far to secure\nhis election. Yet his election did not pass off without a struggle in\nwhich the elements that later came to absolute schism and revolution\nare plainly visible. The scene, as it can be put together from Arabic\nhistorians, is curiously suggestive of the methods of modern politics. As\nsoon as it was assured that the Prophet, the hand which had held together\nall those clashing interests, was really dead, a convention was called\nof the leaders of the people. There the strife ran so high between the\nAnsar, the Muhajirs and the Muslim aristocrats of the house of Umayya,\nthat they almost came to blows. Suddenly in the tumult, Umar, a man of\ncharacter and decision, \u201crushed the convention\u201d by solemnly giving to Abu\nBakr the hand-grasp of fealty. The accomplished fact was recognized\u2014as\nit has always been in Islam\u2014and on the next day the general mass of the\npeople swore allegiance to the first Khalifa, literally Successor, of\nMuhammad.\n\nOn his death, in A.H. 13 (A.D. 634), there followed Umar. His election\npassed off quietly. He had been nominated by Abu Bakr and nothing\nremained but for the people to confirm that nomination. There thus\nentered a second principle\u2014or rather precedent\u2014beside that of simple\nelection. A certain right was recognized in the Khalifa to nominate his\nsuccessor, provided he chose one suitable and eligible in other respects.\nUnlike Cromwell in a similar case, Abu Bakr did not nominate one of his\nown sons, but the man who had been his right hand and who, he knew, could\nbest build up the state. His foresight was proved by the event, and Umar\nproved the second founder of Islam by his genius as a ruler and organizer\nand his self-devotion as a man. Through his generals, Damascus and\nJerusalem were taken, Persia crushed in the great battles of al-Qadisiya\nand Nahawand, and Egypt conquered. He was also the organizer of the\nMuslim state, and it will be advisable to describe part of his system,\nboth for its own sake and in order to point the contrast with that of\nhis successors. He saw clearly what were the conditions under which the\nMuslims must work, and devised a plan, evidently based on Persian methods\nof government, which, for the time at least, was perfect in its way.\n\n[Sidenote: CONSTITUTION OF UMAR]\n\nThe elements in the problem were simple. There was the flood of Arabs\npouring out of Arabia and bearing everything down in their course.\nThese must be retained as a conquering instrument if Islam were to\nexist. Thus they must be prevented from settling down on the rich lands\nthey had seized,\u2014from becoming agriculturists, merchants, and so on,\nand so losing their identity among other peoples. The whole Arab stock\nmust be preserved as a warrior caste to fight the battles of God.\nThis was secured by a regulation that no new lands should be held by a\nMuslim. When a country was conquered, the land was left to its previous\npossessors with the duty of paying a high rent to the Muslim state\nand, besides, of furnishing fodder and food, clothing and everything\nnecessary to the Muslim camp that guarded them. These camps, or rather\ncamp-cities, were scattered over the conquered countries and were\npractically settlements of Muslims _in partibus infidelium_. The duty\nof these Muslims was to be soldiers only. They were fed and clothed by\nthe state, and the money paid into the public treasury, consisting of\nplunder or rents of conquered lands (_kharaj_), or the head-tax on all\nnon-Muslims (_jizya_), was regularly divided among them and the other\nbelievers. If a non-Muslim embraced Islam, then he no longer paid the\nhead-tax, but the land which he had previously held was divided among his\nformer co-religionists, and they became responsible to the state. He,\non the other hand, received his share of the public moneys as regularly\ndistributed. Within Arabia itself, no non-Muslim was permitted to live.\nIt was preserved, if we may use the expression, as a breeding-ground\nfor defenders of the faith and as a sacred soil not to be polluted by\nthe foot of an unbeliever. It will readily be seen what the results of\nsuch a system must have been. The entire Muslim people was retained as\na gigantic fighting machine, and the conquered peoples were machines\nagain to furnish it with what was needed. The system was communistic, but\nin favor of one special caste. The others\u2014the conquered peoples\u2014were\ncrushed to the ground beneath their burdens. Yet they could not sell\ntheir land and leave the country; there was no one to buy it. The Muslims\nwould not, and their fellow-co-religionists could not, for with it went\nthe land-tax.\n\n[Sidenote: UTHMAN]\n\nSuch was, in its essence, the constitution of Umar, forever famous in\nMuslim tradition. It stood for a short time, and could not have stood\nfor a long time; but the cause of its overthrow was political and not\nsocial-economic. With the next Khalifa and the changes which came with\nhim, it went, in great part, to the ground. The choice of Umar to the\nKhalifate had evidently been dictated by a consideration of his position\nas one of the earliest believers and as son-in-law of the Prophet. The\nparty of Early Believers had thus succeeded twice in electing their\ncandidate. But with the death of Umar in A.H. 23 (A.D. 644) the Meccan\naristocratic party of the family of Umayya that had so long struggled\nagainst Muhammad and had only accepted Islam when their cause was\nhopelessly lost, had at last a chance. Umar left no directions as to his\nsuccessor. He seems to have felt no certainty as to the man best fitted\nto take up the burden, and when his son sought to urge him to name a\nKhalifa, he is reported to have said, \u201cIf I appoint a Khalifa, Abu Bakr\nappointed a Khalifa; and if I leave the people without guidance, so did\nthe Apostle of God.\u201d But there is also a story that after a vain attempt\nto persuade one of the Companions to permit himself to be nominated,\nhe appointed an elective council of six to make the choice after his\ndeath under stringent conditions, which went all to wreck through\nthe pressure of circumstances. The Umayyads succeeded in carrying the\nelection of Uthman, one of their family, an old man and also a son-in-law\nof Muhammad, who by rare luck for them was an Early Believer. After his\nelection it was soon evident that he was going to rule as an Umayyad\nand not as a Muslim. For generations back in Mecca, as has already been\nsaid, there had been, according to tradition, a continual struggle\nfor pre-eminence between the families of Umayya and of Hashim. In the\nvictory of Muhammad and the election of the first two Khalifas, the\nhouse of Hashim had conquered, but it had been the constant labor of the\nconquerors to remove all tribal and family distinctions and frictions and\nto bring the whole body of the Arabs to regard one another as brother\nMuslims. Now, with a Khalifa of the house of Umayya, all that was swept\naway, and it was evident that Uthman\u2014a pious, weak man, in the hands of\nhis energetic kinsfolk\u2014was drifting to a point where the state would\nnot exist for the Muslims but for the Umayyads. His evil spirit was\nhis cousin Marwan ibn al-Hakam, whom he had appointed as his secretary\nand who eventually became fourth Umayyad Khalifa. The father of this\nman, al-Hakam ibn al-As, accepted Islam at the last moment when Mecca\nwas captured, and, thereafter, was banished by Muhammad for treachery.\nNot till the reign of Uthman was he permitted to return, and his son,\nborn after the Hijra, was the most active assertor of Umayyad claims.\nUnder steady family pressure, Uthman removed the governors of provinces\nwho had suffered with Muhammad and fought in the Path of God (_sabil\nAllah_), and put in their places his own relations, late embracers of the\nfaith. He broke through the Constitution of Umar and gifted away great\ntracts of state lands. The feeling spread abroad that in the eyes of the\nKhalifa an Umayyad could do no wrong, and the Umayyads themselves were\nnot backward in affording examples. To the Muhajirs and Ansar they were\ngodless heathen, and probably the Muhajirs and Ansar were right. Finally,\nthe indignation could no longer be restrained. Insurrections broke out\nin the camp-cities of al-Kufa and al-Basra, and in those of Egypt and\nat last in al-Madina itself. There, in A.H. 35 (A.D. 655), Uthman fell\nunder the daggers of conspirators led by a Muhammad, a son of Abu Bakr,\nbut a religious fanatic strangely different from his father, and the\ntrain was laid for a long civil war. In the confusion that followed the\ndeed the chance of the legitimist party had come, and Ali, the cousin and\nson-in-law of the Prophet, was chosen.\n\n[Sidenote: SHI\u2018ITES AND SUNNITES]\n\nFortunately this is not a history of Islam, but of Muslim political\ninstitutions, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the manifold\nand contradictory stories told of the events of this time. These have\nevidently been carefully redacted in the interests of later orthodoxy,\nand to protect the character of men whose descendants later came to\npower. The Alids built up in favor of Ali a highly ingenious but flatly\nfictitious narrative, embracing the whole early history and exhibiting\nhim as the true Khalifa kept from his rights by one after the other\nof the first three, and suffering it all with angelic patience. This\nvaries from the extreme Shi\u2018ite position, which damns all the three at\na sweep as usurpers, through a more moderate one which contents itself\nwith cursing Umar and Uthman, to a rejection of Uthman only, and even,\nat the other extreme, satisfies itself with anathematizing the later\nUmayyads. At this point the Shi\u2018ites join hands with the body of orthodox\nbelievers, who are all sectaries of Ali to a certain degree. Yet this\ntendency has been counteracted to some extent by a strongly catholic\nand irenic spirit which manifests itself in Islam. After a controversy\nis over and the figures in it have faded into the past, Islam casts a\nstill deeper veil over the controversy itself and glorifies the actors on\nboth sides into fathers and doctors of the Church. An attempt is made to\nforget that they had fought one another so bitterly, and to hold to the\nfact only that they were brother Muslims. The Shi\u2018ites well so-called,\nfor _Shi\u2018a_ means sect, have never accepted this; but it is the usage\nof orthodox, commonly called Sunnite, Islam. A concrete expression of\nany result reached by the body of the believers then often takes the\nform of a tradition assigned to Muhammad. In this case, it is a saying\nof his that ten men, specified by name and prominent leaders in these\nearly squabbles, were certain of Paradise. It has further become an\narticle in Muslim creeds, that the Companions of the Prophet are not to\nbe mentioned save with praise; and one school of theologians, in their\nzeal for the historic Khalifate, even forbade the cursing of Yazid, the\nslayer of al-Husayn (p. 28 below), and reckoned as the worst of all the\nUmayyads, because he had been a Khalifa in full and regular standing.\nThis catholic recognition of the unity of Islam we shall meet again and\nagain.\n\n[Sidenote: ALI; CIVIL WAR]\n\nAbandoning, then, any attempt to trace the details and to adjust the\nrights and wrongs of this story, we return to the fixed fact of the\nelection of Ali and the accession to power of the legitimist party. This\nlegitimist party, or parties, had been gradually developing, and their\npeculiar and mutually discordant views deserve attention. These views all\nglorified Ali, the full cousin of Muhammad and husband of his daughter\nFatima, but upon very different grounds. There could not but exist the\nfeeling that a descendant of the Prophet should be his successor, and the\nchildren of Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn were his only grandchildren and\nonly surviving male descendants. This, of course, reflected a dignity\nupon Ali, their father, and gave him a claim to the Khalifate. Again, Ali\nhimself seems to have made a great and hardly comprehensible impression\nupon his contemporaries. The proverb ran with the people, \u201cThere is no\nsword save _Dhu-l-faqar_, and no youth save Ali.\u201d He was not, perhaps, so\ngreat a general as one or two others of his time, but he stood alone as a\nwarrior in single combat; he was a poet and an orator, but no statesman.\nAs one of the earliest of the Early Believers, it might be expected that\nthe Muhajirs would support him, and so they did; but the matter went much\nfarther, and he seems to have excited a feeling of personal attachment\nand devotion different from that rendered to the preceding Khalifas.\nStrange and mystical doctrines were afloat as to his claim. The idea of\nelection was thrown aside, and his adherents proclaimed his right by the\nwill and appointment of God to the successorship of the Prophet. As God\nhad appointed Muhammad as Prophet, so He had appointed Ali as his helper\nin life and his successor in death. This was preached in Egypt as early\nas the year 32.\n\nIt will easily be seen that with such a following, uniting so many\nelements, his election could be brought about. Thus it was; but an evil\nsuspicion rested upon him. Men thought, and probably rightly, that he\ncould have saved the aged Uthman if he had willed, and they even went\nthe length of accusing him of being art and part in the murder itself.\nThe ground was hollow beneath his feet. Further, there were two other\nold Companions of the Prophet, Talha and az-Zubayr, who thought they had\na still better claim to the Khalifate; and they were joined by A\u2019isha,\nthe favorite wife of Muhammad, now, as a finished _intrigante_, the evil\ngenius of Islam. Ali had reaped all the advantage of the conspiracy\nand murder, and it was easy to raise against him the cry of revenge\nfor Uthman. Then the civil war began. In the struggle with Talha and\naz-Zubayr, Ali was victorious. Both fell at the battle of the Camel\n(A.H. 36), so called from the presence of A\u2019isha mounted on a camel\nlike a chieftainess of the old days. But a new element was to enter.\nThe governorship of Syria had been held for a long time by Mu\u2018awiya,\nan Umayyad, and there the Umayyad influence was supreme. There, too,\nhad grown up a spirit of religious indifference, combined with a\npreservation of all the forms of the faith. Mu\u2018awiya was a statesman by\nnature, and had moulded his province into an almost independent kingdom.\nThe Syrian army was devoted to him, and could be depended upon to have\nno other interests than his. From the beginning of Ali\u2019s reign, he had\nbeen biding his time; had not given his allegiance, but had waited for\nthe hour to strike for revenge for Uthman and power for himself. The time\ncame and Mu\u2018awiya won. We here pass over lightly a long and contradictory\nstory. It is enough to note how the irony of history wrought itself out,\nand a son of the Abu Sufyan who had done so much to persecute and oppose\nMuhammad in his early and dark days and had been the last to acknowledge\nhis mission, became his successor and the ruler of his people. But with\nAli ends the revered series of the four \u201cKhalifas who followed a right\ncourse\u201d (_al-khulafa ar-rashidun_), reverenced now by all orthodox\nMuslims, and there begins the division of Islam into sects, religious and\npolitical\u2014it comes to the same thing.\n\n[Sidenote: KHARIJITES]\n\nThe Umayyads themselves clearly recognized that with their accession\nto power a change had come in the nature of the Muslim state. Mu\u2018awiya\nsaid openly that he was the first king in Islam, though he retained and\nused officially the title of Khalifa and Commander of the Faithful. Yet\nsuch a change could not be complete nor could it carry with it the whole\npeople\u2014that is clear of itself. For more than one hundred years the house\nof Umayya held its own. Syria was solid with it and it was supported by\nmany statesmen and soldiers; but outside of Syria and north Arabia it\ncould count on no part of the population. An anti-Khalifa, Abd Allah,\nson of the az-Zubayr of whom we have already heard, long held the sacred\ncities against them. Only in A.H. 75 (A.D. 692) was he killed after\nMecca had been stormed and taken by their armies. Southern Arabia and\nMesopotamia, with its camp-cities al-Kufa and al-Basra, Persia and Egypt,\nwere, from time to time, more or less in revolt. These risings went in\none or other of two directions. There were two great anti-Umayyad sects.\nAt one time in Mu\u2018awiya\u2019s contest with Ali, he trapped Ali into the\nfatal step of arbitrating his claim to the Khalifate. It was fatal, for\nby it Ali alienated some of his own party and gained less than nothing\non the other side. Part of Ali\u2019s army seceded in protest and rebellion,\nbecause he\u2014the duly elected Khalifa\u2014submitted his claim to any shadow\nof doubt. On the other hand, they could not accept Mu\u2018awiya, for him\nthey regarded as unduly elected and a mere usurper. Thus they drifted\nand split into innumerable sub-sects. They were called Kharijites\u2014goers\nout\u2014because they went out from among the other Muslims, refused to regard\nthem as Muslims and held themselves apart. For centuries they continued\na thorn in the side of all established authority. Their principles were\nabsolutely democratic. Their idea of the Khalifate was the old one of the\ntime of Abu Bakr and Umar. The Khalifa was to be elected by the whole\nMuslim community and could be deposed again at need. He need be of no\nspecial family or tribe; he might be a slave, provided he was a good\nMuslim ruler. Some admitted that a woman might be Khalifa, and others\ndenied the need of any Khalifa at all; the Muslim congregation could rule\nitself. Their religious views were of a similarly unyielding and antique\ncast, but with that we have nothing now to do.\n\n[Sidenote: IBADITES]\n\nIt cannot be doubted that these men were the true representatives of\nthe old Islam. They claimed for themselves the heirship to Abu Bakr and\nUmar, and their claim was just. Islam had been secularized; worldly\nambition, fratricidal strife, luxury, and sin had destroyed the old bond\nof brotherhood. So they drew themselves apart and went their own way, a\nway which their descendants still follow in Uman, in east Africa, and in\nAlgeria. To them the orthodox Muslims\u2014meaning by that the general body\nof Muslims\u2014were antipathetic more than even Christians or Jews. These\nwere \u201cpeople of a book\u201d (_ahl kitab_), i.e., followers of a revealed\nreligion, and kindly treatment of them was commanded in the Qur\u2019an. They\nhad never embraced Islam, and were to be judged and treated on their own\nmerits. The non-Kharijite Muslims, on the other hand, were renegades\n(_murtadds_) and were to be killed at sight. It is easy to understand\nto what such a view as this led. Numberless revolts, assassinations,\nplunderings marked their history. Crushed to the ground again and again,\nagain and again they recovered. They were Arabs of the desert; and the\ndesert was always there as a refuge. It is probable, but as yet unproved,\nthat mingled with the political reasons for their existence as a sect\nwent tribal jealousies and frictions; of such there have ever been enough\nand to spare in Arabia. Naturally, under varying conditions, their\nviews and attitudes varied. In the wild mountains of Khuzistan, one of\ntheir centres and strongholds, the primitive barbarism of their faith\nhad full sway. It drew its legitimate consequence, lived out its life,\nand vanished from the scene. The more moderate section of the Kharijites\ncentred round al-Basra. Their leader there was Abd Allah ibn Ibad, and\nfrom about the year 60 on the schism between his followers and the more\nabsolute of these \u201ccome-outers\u201d can be traced. It is characteristic of\nthe latter that they aided for a time Abd Allah ibn az-Zubayr when he was\nbesieged in Mecca by the Umayyads, but deserted him finally because he\nrefused to join the names of Talha and his own father, az-Zubayr, with\nthose of Uthman and Ali in a general commination. The Kharijites were\nall good at cursing, and the later history of this section of them shows\na process of disintegration by successive secessions, each departing\nin protest and cursing those left behind as heathen and unbelievers.\nCharacteristic, too, for the difference between the two sections, were\ntheir respective attitudes toward the children of their opponents. The\nmore absolute party held that the children of unbelievers were to be\nkilled with their parents; the followers of Abd Allah ibn Ibad, that they\nwere to be allowed to grow up and then given their choice. Again, there\nwas a difference of opinion as to the standing of those who held with the\nKharijites but remained at home and did not actually fight in the Path of\nGod. These the one party rejected and the other accepted. Again, were\nthe non-Kharijites Muslims to the extent that the Kharijites might live\namongst them and mix with them? This the severely logical party denied,\nbut Abd Allah ibn Ibad affirmed.\n\nFrom this it will be abundantly clear that the only party with a possible\nfuture was that of Ibn Ibad. His sect survives to the present day under\nthe name of Ibadites. Very early it spread to Uman, and, according to\ntheir traditions, their first Imam, or president, was elected about A.H.\n134. He was of a family which had reigned there before Islam, and from\nthe time of his election on, the Ibadites have succeeded in holding Uman\nagainst the rest of the Muslim world. Naturally, the election of the\nImam by the community has turned into the rule of a series of dynasties;\nbut the theory of election has always held fast. They were sailors,\nmerchants, and colonizers already by the tenth century A.D., and carried\ntheir state with its theology and law to Zanzibar and the coast of East\nAfrica generally. Still earlier Ibadite fugitives passed into North\nAfrica, and there they still maintain the simplicity of their republican\nideal and their primitive theological and legal views. Their home is in\nthe Mzab in the south of Algeria, and, though as traders and capitalists\nthey may travel far, yet they always return thither. Any mingling in\nmarriage with other Muslims is forbidden them.\n\n[Sidenote: SHI\u2018ITES]\n\nAt the opposite extreme from these in political matters stands the sect\nthat is called the Shi\u2018a. It, as we have seen, is the name given to the\nparty that glorifies Ali and his descendants and regards the Khalifate as\nbelonging to them by right divine. How early this feeling arose we have\nalready seen, but the extremes to which in time the idea was carried, the\ninnumerable differing views that developed, the maze of conspiracies,\ntortuous and underground in their methods, some in good faith and some\nin bad, to which it gave rise, render the history of the Shi\u2018a the most\ndifficult side of a knowledge of the Muslim East. Yet some attempt at it\nmust be made. If there was ever a romance in history, it is the story\nof the founding of the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt; if there was ever the\nsurvival of a petrifaction in history, it is the survival to the present\nday of the Assassins and the Druses; if there was ever the persistence\nof an idea, it is in the present Shi\u2018ite government in Persia and in the\nfaith in that Mahdi for whom the whole world of Islam still looks to\nappear and bring in the reign of justice and the truth upon the earth.\nAll these have sprung from the devotion to Ali and his children on the\npart of their followers twelve centuries ago.\n\nIn A.H. 40 (A.D. 660) Ali fell by the dagger of a Kharijite. These being\nat the opposite pole from the Shi\u2018ites, are the only Muslim sect that\ncurses and abhors Ali, his family and all their works. Orthodox Islam\nreveres Ali and accepts his Khalifate; his family it also reverences,\nbut rejects their pretensions. The instinct of Islam is to respect the\naccomplished fact, and so even the Umayyads, one and all, stand in the\nlist of the successors of the Prophet, much as Alexander VI and his\nimmediate predecessors do in that of the Popes.\n\nTo Ali succeeded his son, al-Hasan, but his name does not stand on the\nroll of the Khalifate as usually reckoned. It shows some Shi\u2018ite tinge\nwhen the historian says, \u201cIn the Khalifate of al-Hasan,\u201d and, thereafter,\nproceeds with, \u201cIn the days of Mu\u2018awiya,\u201d the Umayyad Khalifa who\nfollowed him. Mu\u2018awiya had received the allegiance of the Syrian Muslims\nand when he advanced on al-Kufa, where al-Hasan was, al-Hasan met him\nand gave over into his hands all his supposed rights. That was in A.H.\n41; in A.H. 49 he was dead by poison. Twelve years later al-Husayn, his\nbrother, and many of his house fell at Karbala in battle against hopeless\nodds. It is this last tragedy that has left the deepest mark of all on\nthe Muslim imagination. Yearly when the fatal day, the day of Ashura, the\ntenth of the month Muharram, comes round, the story is rehearsed again\nat Karbala and throughout, indeed, all the Shi\u2018ite world in what is a\nveritable Passion Play. No Muslim, especially no Persian, can read of the\ndeath of al-Husayn, or see it acted before his eyes, without quivering\nand invoking the curse of God upon all those who had aught to do with\nit or gained aught by it. That curse has clung fast through all the\ncenturies to the name of Yazid, the Umayyad Khalifa of the time, and only\nthe stiffest theologians of the traditional school have labored to save\nhis memory through the merits of the historical Khalifate. But even after\nthis tragedy it was not out with the blood of Muhammad. Many descendants\nwere left and their party lived on in strange, half underground fashion,\nas sects do in the East, occasionally coming to the surface and bursting\nout in wild and, for long, useless rebellion.\n\n[Sidenote: SHI\u2018ITE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES]\n\nIn these revolts the Shi\u2018a was worthy of its name, and split into many\nseparate divisions, according to the individuals of the house of Ali to\nwhom allegiance was rendered and who were regarded as leaders, titular or\nreal. These subdivisions differed, also, in the principle governing the\nchoice of a leader and in the attitude of the people toward him. Shi\u2018ism,\nfrom being a political question, became theological. The position of\nthe Shi\u2018ite was and is that there must be a law (_nass_) regulating the\nchoice of the Imam, or leader of the Muslim community; that that law is\none of the most important dogmas of the faith and cannot have been left\nby the Prophet to develop itself under the pressure of circumstances;\nthat there is such an Imam clearly pointed out and that it is the duty\nof the Muslim to seek him out and follow him. Thus there was a party who\nregarded the leadership as belonging to Ali himself, and then to any of\nhis descendants by any of his wives. These attached themselves especially\nto his son Muhammad, known from his mother as Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya,\nwho died in 81, and to his descendants and successors. It was in this\nsect that the most characteristic Shi\u2018ite views first developed. This\nMuhammad seems to have been the first concerning whom it was taught,\nafter his death, that he was being preserved by God alive in retirement\nand would come forth at his appointed time to bring in the rule of\nrighteousness upon the earth. In some of the innumerable sub-sects the\ndoctrine of the deity, even, of Ali was early held, in others a doctrine\nof metempsychosis, generally among men and especially from one Imam to\nhis successor; others, again, advanced the duty of seeking the rightful\nImam and rendering allegiance to him till it covered the whole field of\nfaith and morals\u2014no more was required of the believer. To one of these\nsects, al-Muqanna, \u201cthe Veiled Prophet of Khorasan,\u201d adhered before he\nstarted on his own account.\n\nWe have seen already that so early as 32 the doctrine had been preached\nin Egypt that Ali was the God-appointed successor of the Prophet. Here\nwe have its legitimate development, which was all the quicker as it had,\nor assumed, a theological basis, and did not simply urge the claims\nto leadership of the family of the Prophet after the fashion in which\ninheritance runs among earthly kings. That was the position at first of\nthe other and far more important Shi\u2018ite wing. It regarded the leadership\nas being in the blood of Muhammad and therefore limited to the children\nof Ali by his wife Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad. Again, the attitude\ntoward the person of the leader varied, as we have already seen. One\nparty held that the leadership was by the right of the appointment of\nGod, but that the leader himself was simply a man as other men. These\nwould add to \u201cthe two words\u201d (_al-kalimatani_) of the creed, \u201cThere is\nno god but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God,\u201d a third clause,\n\u201cand Ali is the representative of God.\u201d Others regarded him as an\nincarnation of divinity; a continuing divine revelation in human form.\nHis soul passed, when he died, to his next successor. He was, therefore,\ninfallible and sinless, and was to be treated with absolute, blind\nobedience. Here there is a mingling of the most strangely varied ideas.\nIn Persia the people had been too long accustomed to looking upon their\nrulers as divine for them to be capable of taking up any other position.\nA story is told of the governor of a Persian province who wrote to the\nKhalifa of his time that he was not able to prevent his people from\ngiving him the style and treatment of a god; they did not understand any\nother kind of ruler; it was as much as his authority was worth to attempt\nto make them desist. From this attitude, combined with the idea of the\ntransmigration of souls, the extreme Shi\u2018ite doctrine was derived.\n\n[Sidenote: THE HIDDEN IMAM]\n\nBut though the party of Ali might regard the descendants of Ali\nas semi-divine, yet their conspiracies and revolts were uniformly\nunsuccessful, and it became a very dangerous thing to head one. The\nparty was willing to get up a rising at any time, but the leader was apt\nto hang back. In fact, one of the most curious features of the whole\nmovement was the uselessness of the family of Ali and the extent to which\nthey were utilized by others. They have been, in a sense, the cat\u2019s-paws\nof history. Gradually they themselves drew back into retirement and\nvanished from the stage, and, with their vanishing, a new doctrine\narose. It was that of the hidden Imam. We have already seen the case\nof Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya, whom Muslims reckon as the first of these\nconcealed ones. Another descendant of Ali, on another line of descent,\nvanished in the same way in the latter part of the second century of the\nHijra, and another about A.H. 260. Their respective followers held that\nthey were being kept in concealment by God and would be brought back at\nthe appointed time to rule over the world and bring in a kind of Muslim\nmillennium. This is the oriental version of the story of Arthur in Avalon\nand of Frederick Barbarossa in Kyffha\u00fcser.\n\nBut that has led us far away and we must go back to the fall of the\nUmayyads and the again disappointed hopes of the Alids. By the time\nof the last Khalifa of the Umayyad house, Marwan II, A.H. 127-132\n(A.D. 744-750), the whole empire was more or less in rebellion, partly\nShi\u2018ite and partly Kharijite. The Shi\u2018ites themselves had, as usual, no\nman strong enough to act as leader; that part was taken by as-Saffah,\na descendant of al-Abbas, an uncle of Muhammad. The rebellion was\nostensibly to bring again into power the family of the Prophet, but\nunder that the Abbasids understood the family of Hashim, while the\nAlids took it in the more exact sense of themselves. They were made a\ncat\u2019s-paw, the Abbasid dynasty was founded, and they were thrown over.\nThus, the Khalifate remained persistently in the hands of those who, up\nto the last, had been hostile to the Prophet. This al-Abbas had embraced\nthe faith only when Mecca was taken by the Muslims. Later historians,\njealous for the good name of the ancestor of the longest line of all\nthe Successors, have labored to build up a legend that al-Abbas stayed\nin Mecca only because he could there be more useful in the cause of his\nnephew. This is one of the perversions of early history of which the\nMuslim chronicles are full.\n\n[Sidenote: UMAYYADS OF SPAIN]\n\nBut the story of the Umayyads is not yet out. From the ruin that\noverwhelmed them, one escaped and fled to North Africa. There, he vainly\ntried to draw together a power. At last, seeing in Spain some better\nprospect of success, he crossed thither, and by courage, statesmanship,\nand patience, carved out a new Umayyad empire that lasted for 300 years.\nOne of his descendants in A.H. 317 (A.D. 929) took the title of Khalifa\nand claimed the homage due to the Commander of the Faithful. There is a\nstory that al-Mansur, the second Abbasid, once asked his courtiers, \u201cWho\nis the Falcon of Quraysh?\u201d They named one after another of the great men\nof the tribe, beginning, naturally, with his majesty himself, but to no\npurpose. \u201cNo,\u201d he said, \u201cthe Falcon of Quraysh is Abd ar-Rahman, the\nUmayyad, who found his way over deserts and seas, flung himself alone\ninto a strange country, and there, without any helper but himself, built\nup a realm. There has been none like him of the blood of Quraysh.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n Shi\u2018ite revolts against Abbasids; Idrisids; Zaydites; Imamites;\n the Twelvers; constitutional theory of modern Persia; origin\n of Fatimids; Maymun the oculist; plan of the conspiracy; the\n Seveners; the Qarmatians; Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi and founding of\n Fatimid dynasty in North Africa; their spread to Egypt and to\n Syria; al-Hakim Bi\u2019amrillah; the Druses; the Assassins; Saladin\n and the Ayyubids.\n\n\n[Sidenote: IDRISIDS]\n\nIt is not in place here to deal with all the numberless little Shi\u2018ite\nrevolts against the Abbasids which now followed. Those only are of\ninterest to us which had more or less permanent effect on the Muslim\nstate and states. Earliest among such comes the revolt which founded\nthe dynasty of the Idrisids. About the middle of the second century the\nAbbasids were hard pressed. The heavens themselves seemed to mingle in\nthe conflict. The early years of their rule had been marked by great\nshowers of shooting stars, and the end of the age was reckoned near by\nboth parties. Messianic hope was alive, and a Mahdi, a Guided of God,\nwas looked for. This had long been the attitude of the Alids, and the\nAbbasids began to feel a necessity to gain for their _de facto_ rule\nthe sanction of theocratic hopes. In 143 Halley\u2019s comet was visible for\ntwenty days, and in 147 there were again showers of shooting stars. On\nthe part of the Abbasids, homage was solemnly rendered to the eldest\nson of al-Mansur, the Khalifa of the time, as successor of his father,\nunder the title al-Mahdi, and several sayings were forged and ascribed\nto the Prophet which told who and what manner of man the Mahdi would\nbe, in terms which clearly pointed to this heir-apparent. The Alids, on\ntheir side, were urged on to fresh revolts. These risings were still\npolitical in character and hardly at all theological; they expressed the\nclaims to sovereignty of the house of the Prophet. On the suppression\nof one of them at al-Madina in 169, Idris ibn Abd Allah, a grandson\nof al-Hasan, escaped to North Africa\u2014that refuge of the politically\ndisaffected\u2014and there at the far-off Volubilis of the Romans, in the\nmodern Morocco, founded a state. It lasted till 375, and planted firmly\nthe authority of the family of Muhammad in the western half of North\nAfrica. Other Alid states rose in its place, and in 961 the dynasty of\nthe Sharifs of Morocco was established by a Muhammad, a descendant of\na Muhammad, brother of the same Abd Allah, grandson of al-Hasan. This\nfamily still rules in Morocco and claims the title of Khalifa of the\nProphet and Commander of the Faithful. Strictly, they are Shi\u2018ites, but\ntheir sectarianism sits lightly upon them; it is political only and they\nhave no touch of the violent religious antagonism to the Sunnite Muslims\nthat is to be found in Persian Shi\u2018ism. As adherents of the legal school\nof Malik ibn Anas, their Sunna is the same as that of orthodox Islam.\nThe _Sahih_ of al-Bukhari (see below, p. 79) is held in especially high\nreverence, and one division of the Moorish army always carries a copy of\nit as a talisman. They are really a bit of the second century of the\nHijra crystallized and surviving into our time.\n\nAnother Shi\u2018ite line which lasts more or less down to the present day,\nis that of the Zaydites of al-Yaman. They were so called from their\nadherence to Zayd, a grandson of al-Husayn, and their sect spread in\nnorth Persia and south Arabia. The north Persian branch is of little\nhistoric importance for our purpose. For some sixty-four years, from\n250 on, it held Tabaristan, struck coins and exercised all sovereign\nrights; then it fell before the Samanids. The other branch has had a\nmuch longer history. It was founded about 280, at Sa\u2018da in al-Yaman and\nthere, and later at San\u2018a, Zaydite Imams have ruled off and on till our\nday. The Turkish hold upon south Arabia has always been of the slightest.\nSometimes they have been absolutely expelled from the country, and their\ncontrol has never extended beyond the limits of their garrisoned posts.\nThe position of these Zaydites was much less extreme than that of the\nother Shi\u2018ites. They were strictly Fatimites, that is, they held that any\ndescendant of Fatima could be Imam. Further, circumstances might justify\nthe passing over, for a time, of such a legitimate Imam and the election\nas leader of someone who had no equally good claim. Thus, they reverenced\nAbu Bakr and Umar and regarded their Khalifate as just, even though Ali\nwas there with a better claim. The election of these two Khalifas had\nbeen to the advantage of the Muslim state. Some of them even accepted\nthe Khalifate of Uthman and only denounced his evil deeds. Further, they\nregarded it as possible that there might be two Imams at the same time,\nespecially when they were in countries widely apart. This, apparently,\nsprang from the sect being divided between north Persia and south Arabia.\nTheologically, or philosophically\u2014it is hard to hold the two apart in\nIslam\u2014the Zaydites were accused of rationalism. Their founder, Zayd, the\ngrandson of al-Husayn, had studied under the great Mu\u2018tazilite, Wasil ibn\nAta, of whom much more hereafter.\n\n[Sidenote: IMAMITES]\n\nBut if the Zaydites were lax both in their theology and in their theory\nof the state, that cannot be said of another division of the Shi\u2018ites,\ncalled the Imamites on account of the stress which they laid on the\ndoctrine of the person of the Imam. For them the Imam of the time was\nexplicitly and personally indicated, Ali by Muhammad and each of the\nothers in turn by his predecessor. But it was hard to reconcile with this\n_a priori_ position that an Imam must have been indicated, the fact that\nthere was no agreement as to the Imam who had been indicated. Down all\npossible lines of descent the sacred succession was traced until, of the\nseventy-two sects that the Prophet had foretold for his people, seventy,\nat least, were occupied by the Imamites alone. Further, the number of\nHidden Imams was constantly running up; with every generation, Alids\nfound it convenient to withdraw into retirement and have reports given\nout of their own deaths. Then two sects would come into existence\u2014one\nwhich stopped at the Alid in question, and said that he was being\nkept in concealment by God to be brought back at His pleasure; and\nanother which passed the Imamship on to the next generation. Out of\nthis chaos two sects, adhering to two series of Imams, stand clear\nthrough their historical importance. The one is that of the Twelvers\n(_Ithna\u2018ashariya_); theirs is the official creed of modern Persia.\nAbout A.H. 260 a certain Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, twelfth in descent from\nAli, vanished in the way just described. The sect which looked for his\nreturn increased and flourished until, at length, with the conquest of\nPersia in A.H. 907 (A.D. 1502) by the Safawids\u2014a family of Alid descent\nwhich joined arms to sainthood\u2014Persia became Shi\u2018ite, and the series of\nthe Shahs of Persia was begun. The position of the Shah is therefore\nessentially different from that of the Khalifa of the Sunnites. The\nKhalifa is the successor of Muhammad, with a dignity and authority which\ninheres in himself; he is both king and pontiff; the Shah is a mere\n_locum tenens_, and reigns only until God is pleased to restore to men\nthe true Imam. That Imam is still in existence, though hidden from human\neyes. The Shah, therefore, has strictly no legal authority; he is only\na guardian of the public order. True legal authority lies, rather, with\nthe learned doctors of religion and law. As a consequence of this, the\nShi\u2018ites still have _Mujtahids_, divines and legists who have a right to\nform opinions of their own, can expound the original sources at first\nhand, and can claim the unquestioning assent of their disciples. Such men\nhave not existed among the Sunnites since the middle of the third century\nof the Hijra; from that time on all Sunnites have been compelled to\nswear to the words of some master or other, long dead.\n\n[Sidenote: FATIMIDS]\n\nThis division of the Shi\u2018ites is the only one that exists in great\nnumbers down to the present day. The second of the two mentioned above\ncame to power earlier, ran a shorter course, and has now vanished from\nthe stage, leaving nothing but an historical mystery and two or three\nfossilized, half-secret sects\u2014strange survivals which, like the survivals\nof geology, tell us what were the living and dominant forces in the older\nworld. It will be worth while to enter upon some detail in reciting its\nhistory, both for its own romantic interest and as an example of the\nmethods of Shi\u2018ite propaganda. Its success shows how the Abbasid empire\nwas gradually undermined and brought to its fall. It itself was the most\nmagnificent conspiracy, or rather fraud, in all history. To understand\nits possibility and its results, we must hold in mind the nature of the\nPersian race and the condition of that race at this time. Herodotus was\ntold by his Persian friends that one of the three things Persian youth\nwas taught was to tell the truth. That may have been the case in the time\nof Herodotus, but certainly this teaching has had no effect whatever on\nan innate tendency in the opposite direction; and it is just possible\nthat Herodotus\u2019s friends, in giving him that information, were giving\nalso an example of this tendency. Travellers have been told curious\nthings before now, but certainly none more curious than this. As we know\nthe Persian in history, he is a born liar. He is, therefore, a born\nconspirator. He has great quickness of mind, adaptability, and, apart\nfrom religious emotion, no conscience. In the third century of the Hijra\n(the ninth A.D.), the Persians were either devoted Shi\u2018ites or simple\nunbelievers. The one class would do anything for the descendants of Ali;\nthe other, anything for themselves. This second class, further, would by\npreference combine doing something for themselves with doing something\nagainst Islam and the Arabs, the conquerors of their country. So much by\nway of premise.\n\nIn the early part of this third century, there lived at Jerusalem\na Persian oculist named Maymun. He was a man of high education,\nprofessional and otherwise; had no beliefs to speak of, and understood\nthe times. He had a son, Abd Allah, and trained him carefully for a\ncareer. Abd Allah, however\u2014known as Abd Allah ibn Maymun\u2014though he had\nthought of starting as a prophet himself, saw that the time was not\nripe, and planned a larger and more magnificent scheme. This was to be\nno ordinary conspiracy to burst after a few years or months, but one\nrequiring generations to develop. It was to bring universal dominion to\nhis descendants, and overthrow Islam and the Arab rule. It succeeded in\ngreat part, very nearly absolutely.\n\n[Sidenote: A UNIQUE CONSPIRACY]\n\nHis plan was to unite all classes and parties in a conspiracy under one\nhead, promising to each individual the things which he considered most\ndesirable. For the Shi\u2018ites, it was to be a Shi\u2018ite conspiracy; for\nthe Kharijites, it took a Kharijite tinge; for Persian nationalists,\nit was anti-Arab; for free-thinkers, it was frankly nihilistic. Abd\nAllah himself seems to have been a sceptic of the most refined stamp.\nThe working of this plan was achieved by a system of grades like those\nin freemasonry. His emissaries went out, settled each in a village and\ngradually won the confidence of its inhabitants. A marked characteristic\nof the time was unrest and general hostility to the government. Thus,\nthere was an excellent field for work. To the enormous majority of\nthose involved in it the conspiracy was Shi\u2018ite only, and it has been\nregarded as such by many of its historians; but it is now tolerably\nplain how simply nihilistic were its ultimate principles. The first\nobject of the missionary was to excite religious doubt in the mind of\nhis subject, by pointing out curious difficulties and subtle questions\nin theology. At the same time he hinted that there were those who could\nanswer these questions. If his subject proved tractable and desired\nto learn further, an oath of secrecy and absolute obedience and a fee\nwere demanded\u2014all quite after the modern fashion. Then he was led up\nthrough several grades, gradually shaking his faith in orthodox Islam\nand its teachers and bringing him to believe in the idea of an Imam,\nor guide in religious things, till the fourth grade was reached. There\nthe theological system was developed, and Islam, for the first time,\nabsolutely deserted. We have dealt already with the doctrine of the\nHidden Imam and with the present-day creed of Persia, that the twelfth in\ndescent from Ali is in hiding and will return when his time comes. But\ndown the same line of descent seven Imams had been reckoned to a certain\nvanished Isma\u2018il, and this Isma\u2018il was adopted by Abd Allah ibn Maymun\nas his Imam and as titular head of his conspiracy. Hence, his followers\nare called Isma\u2018ilians and Seveners (_Sab\u2018iya_). The story which is told\nof the split between the Seveners and the Twelvers, which were to be,\nis characteristic of the whole movement and of the wider divergence of\nthe Seveners from ordinary Islam and its laws. The sixth Imam was Ja\u2018far\nas-Sadiq (d. A.H. 148); he appointed his son Isma\u2018il as his successor.\nBut Isma\u2018il was found drunk on one occasion, and his father in wrath\npassed the Imamship on to his brother, Musa al-Qazam, who is accordingly\nreckoned as seventh Imam by the Twelvers. One party, however, refused to\nrecognize this transfer. Isma\u2018il\u2019s drunkenness, they held, was a proof\nof his greater spirituality of mind; he did not follow the face-value\n(_zahr_) of the law, but its hidden meaning (_batn_). This is an example\nof a tendency, strong in Shi\u2018ism, to find a higher spiritual meaning\nlying within the external or verbal form of the law; and in proportion as\na sect exalted Ali, so it diverged from literal acceptance of the Qur\u2019an.\nThe most extreme Shi\u2018ites, who tended to deify their Imam, were known on\nthat account as Batinites or Innerites. On this more hereafter.\n\n[Sidenote: THE SYSTEM OF SEVENS]\n\nBut to return to the Seveners: in the fourth grade a further refinement\nwas added. Everything went in sevens, the Prophets as well as the Imams.\nThe Prophets had been Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and\nIsma\u2018il, or rather his son Muhammad, for Isma\u2018il himself had died in his\nfather\u2019s lifetime. Each of these Prophets had had a helper. The helper\nof Adam had been Seth; of Noah, Shem; and the helper of Muhammad, the\nson of Isma\u2018il, was Abd Allah ibn Maymun himself. Between each pair of\nProphets there came six Imams\u2014it must be remembered that the world was\nnever left without an Imam\u2014but these Imams had had no revelation to make;\nwere only guides to already revealed truth. Thus, we have a series of\nseven times seven Imams, the first, and thereafter each seventh, having\nthe superior dignity of Prophet. The last of the forty-nine Imams,\nthis Muhammad ibn Isma\u2018il, is the greatest and last of the Prophets,\nand Abd Allah ibn Maymun has to prepare the way for him and to aid him\ngenerally. It is at this point that the adherent of this system ceases\nto be a Muslim. The idea of a series of Prophets is genuinely Islamic,\nbut Muhammad, in Muslim theology, is the last of the Prophets and the\ngreatest, and after him there will come no more.\n\nSuch, then, was the system that those who passed the fourth degree\nlearned and accepted. The great majority did not pass beyond; but those\nwho were judged worthy were admitted to three further degrees. In these\ndegrees, their respect for religious teaching of every kind, doctrinal,\nmoral, ritual, was gradually undermined; the Prophets and their works\nwere depreciated and philosophy and philosophers put in their place. The\nend was to lead the very few who were admitted to the inmost secrets of\nthe conspiracy to the same position as its founder. It is clear what\na tremendous weapon, or rather machine, was thus created. Each man\nwas given the amount of light he could bear and which was suited to\nhis prejudices, and he was made to believe that the end of the whole\nwork would be the attaining of what he regarded as most desirable. The\nmissionaries were all things to all men, in the broadest sense, and could\nwork with a Kharijite fanatic, who longed for the days of Umar; a Bedawi\nArab, whose only idea was plunder; a Persian driven to wild cries and\ntears by the thought of the fate of Ali, the well-beloved, and of his\nsons; a peasant, who did not care for any family or religion but only\nwished to live in peace and be let alone by the tax-gatherers; a Syrian\nmystic, who did not know very well what he thought, but lived in a world\nof dreams; or a materialist, whose desire was to clear all religions out\nof the way and give humanity a chance. All was fish that came to their\nnet. So the long seed-planting went on. Abd Allah ibn Maymun had to flee\nto Salamiya in Syria, died there and went to his own place\u2014if he got\nhis deserts, no desirable one\u2014and Ahmad, his son or grandson, took up\nthe work in his stead. With him the movement tends to the surface, and\nwe begin to touch hard facts and dates. In southern Mesopotamia\u2014what is\ncalled the Arab Iraq\u2014we find a sect appearing, nicknamed Qarmatians, from\none of their leaders. In A.H. 277 (A.D. 890-1) they were sufficiently\nnumerous and knew their strength enough to hold a fortress and thus enter\nupon open rebellion. They were peasants, we must remember, Nabateans\nand no Arabs, only Muslims by compulsion, and thus what we have here is\nreally a _Jacquerie_, or Peasants\u2019 War. But a disturbance of any kind\nsuited the Isma\u2018ilians. From there the rising spread into Bahrayn and\non to south Arabia, varying in its character with the character of the\npeople.\n\n[Sidenote: UBAYD ALLAH AL-MAHDI]\n\nBut there was another still more important development in progress. A\nmissionary had gone to North Africa and there worked with success among\nthe Berber tribes about Constantine, in what is now Algeria. These have\nalways been ready for any change. He gave himself out as forerunner\nof the Mahdi, promised them the good of both worlds, and called them\nto arms. The actual rising was in A.H. 289 (A.D. 902). Then there\nappeared among them Sa\u2018id, the son of Ahmad, the son of Abd Allah, the\nson of Maymun the oculist; but it was not under that name. He was now\nUbayd Allah al-Mahdi himself, a descendant of Ali and of Muhammad ibn\nIsma\u2018il, for whom his ancestors were supposed to have worked and built\nup this conspiracy. In A.H. 296 (A.D. 909) he was saluted as Commander\nof the Faithful, with the title of al-Mahdi. So far the conspiracy had\nsucceeded. This Fatimid dynasty, so they called themselves from Fatima,\ntheir alleged ancestress, the daughter of Muhammad, conquered Egypt and\nSyria half a century later and held them till A.H. 567 (A.D. 1171). When\nin A.H. 317 the Umayyads of Cordova also claimed the Khalifate and used\nthe title, there were three Commanders of the Faithful at one time in the\nMuslim world. Yet it should be noticed that the constitutional position\nof these Umayyads was essentially different from that of the Fatimids.\nTo the Fatimids, the Abbasids were usurpers. The Umayyads of Cordova,\non the other hand, held, like the Zaydites and some jurisconsults of\nthe highest rank, that, when Muslim countries were so far apart that\nthe authority of the ruler of the one could not make itself felt in the\nother, it was lawful to have two Imams, each a true Successor of the\nProphet. The good of the people of Muhammad demanded it. Still, the unity\nof the Khalifate is the more regular doctrine.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-HAKIM]\n\nBut only half of the work was done. Islam stood as firmly as ever and\nthe conspiracy had only produced a schism in the faith and had not\ndestroyed it. Ubayd Allah was in the awkward position, on the one hand,\nof ruling a people who were in great bulk fanatical Muslims and did not\nunderstand any jesting with their religion, and, on the other hand, of\nbeing head of a conspiracy to destroy that very religion. The Syrians\nand Arabs had apparently taken more degrees than the Egyptians and North\nAfricans, and Ubayd Allah found himself between the devil and the deep\nsea. The Qarmatians in Arabia plundered the pilgrim caravans, stormed\nthe holy city Mecca, and, most terrible of all, carried off the sacred\nblack stone. When an enormous ransom was offered for the stone, they\ndeclined\u2014they had orders not to send it back. Everyone understood that\nthe orders were from Africa. So Ubayd Allah found it advisable to address\nthem in a public letter, exhorting them to be better Muslims. The writing\nand reading of this letter must have been accompanied by mirth, at any\nrate no attention was paid to it by the Qarmatians. It was not till\nthe time of the third Fatimid Khalifa that they were permitted to do\nbusiness with that stone. Then they sent it back with the explanatory\nor apologetic remark that they had carried it off under orders and now\nsent it back under orders. Meanwhile the Fatimid dynasty was running its\ncourse in Egypt but without turning the people of Egypt from Islam. Yet\nit produced one strange personality and two sects, stranger even than\nthe sect to which it itself owed its origin. The personality is that of\nal-Hakim Bi\u2019amrillah, who still remains one of the greatest mysteries\nthat are to be met with in history. In many ways he reminds us curiously\nof the madness of the Julian house; and, in truth, such a secret movement\nas that of which he was a part, carried on through generations from\nfather to son, could not but leave a trace on the brain. We must remember\nthat the Khalifa of the time was not always of necessity the head of the\nconspiracy, or even fully initiated into it. In the latter part of the\nFatimid rule we find distinct traces of such a power behind the throne,\nconsisting, as we may imagine, of descendants and pupils of those who\nhad been fully initiated from the first and had passed through all the\ngrades. In the case of al-Hakim, it is possible, even, to trace, to a\ncertain extent, the development of his initiation. During the first\npart of his reign he was fanatically Muslim and Shi\u2018ite. He persecuted\nalternately the Christians and the Jews, and then the orthodox and the\nShi\u2018ites. In the latter part, there was a change. He had, apparently,\nreached a point of philosophical indifference, for the persecutions of\nChristians and Jews ceased, and those who had been forced to embrace\nIslam were permitted to relapse. This last was without parallel, till\nin 1844 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe wrung from the Porte the concession\nthat a Muslim who apostatized to Christianity should not be put to death.\nBut, mingled with this indifference, there appeared a strange but regular\ndevelopment of Shi\u2018ite doctrine. Some of his followers began to proclaim\nopenly that the deity was incarnate in him, and it was evident that he\nhimself accepted and believed this. But the Egyptian populace would have\nnone of it, and the too rash innovators had to flee. Some went to the\nLebanon and there preached to the native mountain tribes. The results of\ntheir labors are the Druses of to-day, who worship al-Hakim still and\nexpect his return to introduce the end of all things. Finally, al-Hakim\nvanished on the night of February 12, A.D. 1021, and left a mystery\nunread to this day. Whether he was murdered, and if so why, or vanished\nof free-will, and if so again why, we have no means of telling. Our\nguess will depend upon our reading of his character. So much is certain,\nthat he was a ruler of the autocratic type, who introduced many reforms,\nmost of which the people of his time could not in the least understand\nand therefore misrepresented as the mere whims of a tyrant, and many of\nwhich, from our ignorance, are still obscure to us. If we can imagine\nsuch a man of strong personality and desire for the good of his people\nbut with a touch of madness in the brain, cast thus in the midst between\nhis orthodox subjects and a wholly unbelieving inner government, we shall\nperhaps have the clew to the strange stories told of him.\n\n[Sidenote: THE ASSASSINS]\n\nAnother product of this conspiracy, and the last to which we shall\nrefer, is the sect known as the Assassins, whose Grand Master was a name\nof terror to the Crusaders as the Old Man of the Mountain. It, too,\nwas founded, and apparently for a purpose of personal vengeance, by a\nPersian who began as a Shi\u2018ite and ended as nothing. He came to Egypt,\nstudied under the Fatimids\u2014they had established at Cairo a great school\nof science\u2014and returned to Persia as their agent to carry on their\npropaganda. His methods were the same as theirs, with a difference.\nThat was the reduction of assassination to a fine art. From his eagle\u2019s\nnest of Alamut\u2014such is the meaning of the name\u2014and later from Masyaf in\nthe Lebanon and other mountain fortresses, he and his successors spread\nterror through Persia and Syria and were only finally stamped out by the\nMongol flood under Hulagu in the middle of the seventh century of the\nHijra (the 13th A.D.). Of the sect there are still scattered remnants\nin Syria and India, and as late as 1866 an English judge at Bombay had\nto decide a case of disputed succession according to the law of the\nAssassins. Finally, the Fatimid dynasty itself fell before the Kurd,\nSalah ad-Din, the Saladin of our annals, and Egypt was again orthodox.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n The problem of the Abbasids; the House of Barmak; the crumbling\n of the empire; the Pr\u00e6torians of Baghdad; the Buwayhids;\n the situation of the Khalifa under them; the Saljuqs; the\n possibilities of development under them; the Mongols and the\n Abbasid end; the Egyptian Abbasids; the Ottoman Sultans, their\n heirs; theory of the Khalifate; the modern situation; the signs\n of sovereignty for Muslims; five grounds of the claim of the\n Ottoman Sultan; the consequences for the Sultan; other Muslim\n constitutions; the Shi\u2018ites; the Ibadites; the Wahhabites; the\n Brotherhood of as-Sanusi.\n\n\n[Sidenote: CRUMBLING OF THE EMPIRE]\n\nWe must now return to the Abbasids, whose empire we left crumbling away.\nIt was a shrewd stroke of policy on the part of its founder to put the\nnew capital, Baghdad, on the Tigris, right between Persia, Syria and\nArabia. For the only hope of permanence to the empire lay in welding\nthese into a unity. For a short time, in the hands of the first vigorous\nrulers, and, especially, during fifty years of guidance by the House of\nBarmak\u2014Persians who flung in their lot with the Abbasids and were their\nstay till the madness of Harun ar-Rashid cast them down\u2014this seemed to be\nsucceeding; but, just as the empire of Charlemagne melted under his sons,\nso did the empire of al-Mansur and al-Ma\u2019mun. The Bedawi tribes fell\nback into the desert and to the free chaos of the old pre-Islamic life.\nAs the great philosophical historian, Ibn Khaldun, has remarked, the\nArabs by their nature are incapable of founding an empire except when\nunited by religious enthusiasm, and are of all peoples least capable of\ngoverning an empire when founded. After the first Abbasids, it is a fatal\nerror to view the Muslim dynasties as Arab or to speak of the Muslim\ncivilization as Arabian. The conquered peoples overcame their conquerors.\nPersian nationalism reasserted itself and in native independent dynasties\nflung off the Arab yoke. These dynasties were mostly Shi\u2018ite; Shi\u2018ism,\nin great part, is the revolt of the Aryan against Semitic monotheism.\nThe process in all this was gradual but certain. Governors of provinces\nrevolted and became semi-independent. Sometimes they acknowledged a\nshadowy sovereignty of the Khalifa, by having his name on their coins\nand in the Friday prayers; sometimes they did not. At other times they\nwere, or claimed to be, Alids, and when Alids revolted, they revolted\nabsolutely. With them, it was a question of conscience. At last, not even\nin his own City of Peace or in his own palace was the Khalifa master.\nAs in Rome, so in Baghdad, a body-guard of mercenaries assumed control\nand their leader was _de facto_ ruler. Later, from A.H. 320 to 447 (A.D.\n932-1055), the Sunnite Khalifa found himself the ward and puppet of\nthe Shi\u2018ite Buwayhids. Baghdad itself they held from 334. But still,\na curious spiritual value\u2014we cannot call it authority\u2014was left to the\nshadowy successors of Muhammad. Muslim princes even in far-off India did\nnot feel quite safe upon their thrones unless they had been solemnly\ninvested by the Khalifa and given their fitting title. Those very rulers\nin whose power the Khalifa\u2019s life lay sought sanction from him for their\nrule. At one time there seemed to be some hope that the fatal unity\nof theocratical Islam would be broken and that a dualism with promise\nof development through conflict\u2014such as the rivalry between Pope and\nEmperor which kept Europe alive and prevented both State and Church from\nfalling into decrepit decay\u2014might grow up; that the Khalifa might become\na purely spiritual ruler with functions of his own, ruling with mutual\nsubordination and co-ordinate jurisdiction beside a temporal Sultan. The\nBuwayhids were Shi\u2018ites and merely tolerated, for state reasons, the\nimpieties of the Sunnite Khalifas. But in 447 (A.D. 1055), Tughril Beg,\nthe Saljuq, entered Baghdad, was proclaimed Sultan of the Muslims and\nfreed the Khalifa from the Shi\u2018ite yoke. By 470, all western Asia, from\nthe borders of Afghanistan to those of Egypt and the Greek Empire, were\nSaljuq. With the Saljuq Sultan as Emperor and the Khalifa as Pope, there\nwas a chance that the Muslim State might enter on a stage of healthy\ngrowth through conflict. But that was not to be. Neither State nor\nChurch rose to the great opportunity and the experiment was finally and\nforever cut off by the Mongol flood. When the next great Sultanate\u2014that\nof the Ottoman Turks\u2014arose, it gathered into its hands the reins of the\nKhalifate as well. This is what might have been in Islam, built on actual\nhistory in Europe. The situation that did arise in Islam may become more\nclear to us if we can imagine that in Europe the vast plans of Gregory\nVII. had been carried out and the Pope had become the temporal as well as\nthe spiritual head of the Christian world. Such a situation would have\nbeen similar to that in the world of Islam at its earliest time during\nsome few years under the dynasty of the Umayyads, when the one temporal\nand spiritual sovereign ruled from Samarqand to Spain. Then we can\nimagine how the vast fabric of such an imperial system broke down by its\nown weight. Under conflicting claims of legitimacy, an anti-Pope arose\nand the great schism began. Thereafter the process of disintegration was\nstill more rapid. Provinces rose in insurrection and dropped away from\neach rival Pope. Kingdoms grew up and the sovereigns over them professed\nthemselves to be the lieutenants of the supreme Pontiff and sought\ninvestiture from him. Last, the States of the Church itself\u2014all that was\nleft to it\u2014came under the rule of some one of these princes and the Pope\nwas, to all intents, a prisoner in his own palace. Yet the sovereignty\nof the Khalifa was not simply a legal fiction, any more than that of the\nPope would have been in the parallel just sketched. The Muslim princes\nthought it well to seek spiritual recognition from him, just as Napoleon\nI. found it prudent to have himself crowned by Pius VII.\n\n[Sidenote: SOVEREIGNTY OF KHALIFATE]\n\nBut a wave was soon to break in and sweep away all these forms. It came\nwith the Mongols under Hulagu, who passed from the destruction of the\nAssassins to the destruction of Baghdad and the Khalifate. In A.H. 656\n(A.D. 1258), the city was taken and the end of the Abbasids had come. An\nuncle of the reigning Khalifa escaped and fled to Egypt, where the Mamluk\nSultan received him and gave him a spiritual court and ecclesiastical\nrecognition. He found it good to have a Khalifa of his own to use in\nany question of legitimacy. The name had yet so much value. Finally, in\n1517, the Mamluk rule went down before the Ottoman Turks, and the story\ntold by them is that the last Abbasid, when he died in 1538, gave over\nhis rights to their Sultan, Sulayman the Great. Since then, the Ottoman\nSultan of Constantinople has claimed to be the Khalifa of Muhammad and\nthe spiritual head of the Muslim world.\n\nSuch were the fates of the Commanders of the Faithful. We have traced\nthem through a long and devious course, full of confusions and\ncomplications. Leaving aside the legitimist party, the whole may be\nsummed in a word. The theoretical position was that the Imam, or leader,\nmust be elected by the Muslim community, and that position has never,\ntheoretically, been abandoned. Each new Ottoman sovereign is solemnly\nelected by the Ulama, or canon lawyers and divines of Constantinople.\nHis temporal sovereignty comes by blood; in bestowing this spiritual\nsovereignty the Ulama act as representatives of the People of Muhammad.\nThus the theoretical position was liable to much modification in\npractice. The Muslim community resolves itself into the people of the\ncapital; still further, into the body-guard of the dead Khalifa; and,\nfinally, as now, into the peculiar custodians of the Faith. Among the\nIbadites the position from the first seems to have been that only those\nlearned in the law should act as electors. Along with this, the doctrine\ndeveloped that it was the duty of the people to recognize _un fait\naccompli_ and to do homage to a successful usurper\u2014until another more\nsuccessful should appear. They had learned that it was better to have\na bad ruler than no ruler at all. This was the end of the democracy of\nIslam.\n\n[Sidenote: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF TO-DAY]\n\nFinally, it may be well to give some account of the constitutional\nquestion as it exists at the present day. The greatest of the Sultans\nof Islam is undoubtedly the Emperor of India. Under his rule are far\nmore Muslims than fall to any other. But the theory of the Muslim State\nnever contemplated the possibility of Muslims living under the rule of\nan unbeliever. For them, the world is divided into two parts, the one is\n_Dar al-Islam_, abode of Islam; and the other is _Dar al-harb_, abode of\nwar. In the end, _Dar al-harb_ must disappear into _Dar al-Islam_ and the\nwhole world be Muslim. These names indicate with sufficient clearness\nwhat the Muslim attitude is toward non-Muslims. It is still a moot point\namong canon lawyers, however, whether _Jihad_, or holy war, may be made,\nunprovoked, upon any _Dar al-harb_. One thing is certain, there must be\na reasonable prospect of success to justify any such movement; the lives\nof Muslims must not be thrown away. Further, the necessity of the case\u2014in\nIndia, especially\u2014has brought up the doctrine that any country in which\nthe peculiar usages of Islam are protected and its injunctions\u2014even some\nof them\u2014followed, must be regarded as _Dar al-Islam_ and that _Jihad_\nwithin its borders is forbidden. We may doubt, however, if this doctrine\nwould hold back the Indian Muslims to any extent if a good opportunity\nfor a _Jihad_ really presented itself. The Shi\u2018ites, it may be remarked,\ncannot enter upon a _Jihad_ at all until the Hidden Imam returns and\nleads their armies.\n\n[Sidenote: THEORIES OF THE KHALIFATE]\n\nAgain the two signs of sovereignty for Muslims are that the name of the\nsovereign should be on the coinage and that he should be prayed for in\nthe Friday sermon (_khutba_). In India, the custom seems to be to pray\nfor \u201cthe ruler of the age\u201d without name; then each worshipper can apply\nit as he chooses. But there has crept in a custom in a few mosques of\npraying for the Ottoman Sultan as the Khalifa; the English government\nbusies itself little with these things until compelled, and the custom\nwill doubtless spread. The Ottoman Sultan is certainly next greatest to\nthe Emperor of India and would seem, as a Muslim ruling Muslims, to have\nan unassailable position. But in his case also difficult and ambiguous\nconstitutional questions can be raised. He has claimed the Khalifate, as\nwe have seen, since 1538, but the claim is a shaky one and brings awkward\nresponsibilities. As stated at the present day, it has five grounds.\nFirst, _de facto_ right; the Ottoman Sultan won his title by the sword\nand holds it by the sword. Second, election; this form has been already\ndescribed. Third, nomination by the last Abbasid Khalifa of Egypt; so\nAbu Bakr nominated Umar to succeed him, and precedent is everything\nin Islam. Fourth, possession and guardianship of the two Harams, or\nSacred Cities, Mecca and al-Madina. Fifth, possession of some relics\nof the Prophet saved from the sack of Baghdad and delivered to Sultan\nSalim, on his conquest of Egypt, by the last Abbasid. But these all\nshatter against the fixed fact that absolutely accepted traditions from\nthe Prophet assert that the Khalifa must be of the family of Quraysh;\nso long as there are two left of that tribe, one must be Khalifa and\nthe other his helper. Still, here, as everywhere, the principal of\nIjma, Agreement of the Muslim people, (see p. 105) comes in and must\nbe reckoned with. These very traditions are probably an expression in\nconcrete form of popular agreement. The Khalifate itself is confessedly\nbased upon agreement. The canon lawyers state the case thus: The Imamites\nand Isma\u2018ilians hold that the appointment of a leader is incumbent\nupon God. There is only the difference that the Imamites say that a\nleader is necessary in order to maintain the laws unimpaired, while the\nIsma\u2018ilians regard him as essential in order to give instruction about\nGod. The Kharijites, on the other hand, recognize no fundamental need\nof an Imam; he is only allowable. Some of them held that he should be\nappointed in time of public trouble to do away with the trouble, thus a\nkind of dictator; others, in time of peace, because only then can the\npeople agree. The Mu\u2018tazilites and the Zaydites held that it was for man\nto appoint, but that the necessity was based on reason; men needed such\na leader. Yet some Mu\u2018tazilites taught that the basis was partly reason\nand partly obedience to tradition. On the other hand, the Sunnites hold\nthat the appointment of an Imam is incumbent upon men and that the basis\nis obedience to the tradition of the Agreement of the Muslim world from\nthe earliest times. The community of Islam may have disputed over the\nindividual to be appointed, but they never doubted that the maintenance\nof the faith in its purity required a leader, and that it was, therefore,\nincumbent on men to appoint one. The basis is Ijma, Agreement, not\nScripture or tradition from Muhammad or analogy based on these two.\n\nIt will be seen from this that the _de facto_ ground to the claim of the\nOttoman Sultan is the best. The Muslim community must have a leader;\nthis is the greatest Muslim ruling Muslims; he claims the leadership and\nholds it. If the English rule were to become Muslim, the Muslims would\nrally to it. The ground of election amounts to nothing, the nomination\nto little more, except for antiquarians; the possession of the Prophetic\nrelics is a sentiment that would have weight with the crowd only; no\ncanon lawyer would seriously urge it. The guardianship of the two Harams\nis precarious. A Turkish reverse in Syria would withdraw every Turkish\nsoldier from Arabia and the great Sharif families of Mecca, all of the\nblood of the Prophet, would proclaim a Khalifa from among themselves. At\npresent, only the Turkish garrison holds them in check.\n\n[Sidenote: PAN-ISLAMISM]\n\nBut a Khalifa has responsibilities. He absolutely cannot become a\nconstitutional monarch in our sense. He rules under law\u2014divine law\u2014and\nthe people can depose him if he breaks it; but he cannot set up beside\nhimself a constitutional assembly and give it rights against himself. He\nis the successor of Muhammad and must rule, within limitations, as an\nabsolute monarch. So impossible is the modern Khalifate, and so gigantic\nare its responsibilities. The millions of Chinese Muslims look to him and\nall Muslims of central Asia; the Muslims of India who are not Shi\u2018ite\nalso look to him. So, too, in Africa and wherever in the world the People\nof Muhammad have gone, their eyes turn to the Bosphorus and the Great\nSultan. This is what has been called the modern Pan-Islamic movement; it\nis a modern fact.\n\nThe position of the other Muslim sects we have already seen. Of Shi\u2018ite\nrulers, there are the Imamites in Persia; scattered Zaydites still\nin south Arabia and fugitive in Africa; strange secret bodies of\nIsma\u2018ilians\u2014Druses, Nusayrites, Assassins\u2014still holding their own in\nmountain recesses, forgotten by the world; oldest of all, the Sharifs\nof Morocco, who are Sunnites and antedate all theological differences,\nholding only by the blood of the Prophet. At Zanzibar, Uman and the Mzab\nin Algeria are the descendants of the Kharijites. Probably, somewhere\nor other, there are some fossilized descendants of every sect that has\never arisen, either to trouble the peace of Islam or to save it from\nscholastic decrepitude and death. Insurrections and heresies have their\nown uses.\n\nIt only remains to make mention of two modern movements which have\ndeeply affected the Islam of to-day. The Pan-Islamic movement, noticed\nabove, strives as much as anything to bring the Muslim world into closer\ntouch with the science and thought of the Christian world, rallying all\nthe Muslim peoples at the same time round the Ottoman Sultan as their\nspiritual head and holding fast by the kernel of Islam. It is a reform\nmovement whose trend is forward. The other two, to which we now come, are\nreform movements also, but their trend is backward. They look to the good\nold days of early Islam and try to restore them.\n\nThe first is that of the Wahhabites, so called from Muhammad ibn Abd\nal-Wahhab (Slave of the Bountiful), its founder, a native of Najd in\ncentral Arabia, who died in 1787. His aim was to bring Islam back to its\nprimitive purity and to do away with all the usages and beliefs which\nhad arisen to cloud its absolute monotheism. But attempts at reformation\nin Islam have never led to anything but the founding of new dynasties.\nThey may begin with a saintly reformer, but in the first or the second\ngeneration there is sure to come the conquering disciple; religion and\nrule go together, and he who meddles with the one must next grasp at\nthe other. The third stage is the extinction of the new dynasty and the\nvanishing of its party into a more or less secret sect, the vitality of\nwhich is again directed into religious channels. The Wahhabites were\nno exception. Their rule extended from the Persian Gulf to the Red\nSea, touched al-Yaman and Hadramawt and included some districts of the\nPashalik of Baghdad. That was early in the nineteenth century; but now,\nafter many dynastic changes, the rule of the Wahhabites proper has almost\nceased, although the Turks have not gained any new footing in Najd.\nThere, a native Arab dynasty has sprung up which is free from Turkish\ncontrol in every respect, and has its seat in Ha\u2019il. But the zeal of the\nWahhabites gave an impulse to reform in the general body of Muslims\nwhich is not yet, by any means, extinct. Especially in India, their views\nhave been widely spread by missionaries, and at one time there was grave\nfear of a Wahhabite insurrection. But dead parties in Islam seldom rise\nagain, and the life of Wahhabism has passed into the Muslim Church as a\nwhole. Politically it has failed, but the spirit of reform remains and\nhas undoubtedly influenced the second reform movement to which we now\ncome.\n\n[Sidenote: BROTHERHOOD OF AS-SANUSI]\n\nThat is the Brotherhood of as-Sanusi, founded in 1837 by Muhammad ibn\nAli as-Sanusi in order to reform and spread the faith. The tendency\nto organize has always been strong among Orientals, and in Islam\nitself there have risen, as we have seen, from the earliest times,\nsecret societies for conspiracy and insurrection. But apart from these\ndubious organizations, religious feeling has also expressed itself in\nbrotherhoods closely corresponding to the monastic orders of Europe,\nexcept that they were, and are, self-governing and under no relations\nbut those of sentiment to the head of the Muslim Faith. Rather, these\norders of darwishes have been inclined toward heresies of a mystical\nand pantheistic type more than toward the development and support of\nthe severely scholastic theology of orthodox Islam. This is a side of\nMuhammadanism with which we shall have to deal in some detail hereafter.\nIn the meantime, it is enough to say that the Brotherhood of as-Sanusi\nis one of the orders of darwishes, but distinguished from all its\npredecessors in its severely reforming and puritanic character. It\nhas taken up the task of the Wahhabites and is working out the same\nproblem in a rather different way. Its principles are of the strictest\nmonotheism; all usages and ideas that do not accord with their views of\nthe exact letter of the Qur\u2019an are prohibited. The present head of the\nBrotherhood, the son of the founder, who himself died in 1859, claims to\nbe the Mahdi and has established a theocratic state at Jarabub, in the\neastern Sahara, between Egypt and Tripolis. The mother house of the order\nis there, and from it missionaries have gone out and established other\nhouses throughout all north Africa and Morocco and far into the interior.\nThe Head himself has of late retreated farther into the desert. There is\nalso an important centre at Mecca, where the pilgrims and the Bedawis\nare initiated into the order in great numbers. From Mecca these brethren\nreturn to their homes all over the Muslim world, and the order is said to\nbe especially popular in the Malay Archipelago.\n\n[Sidenote: THE PROBLEM OF THE FUTURE]\n\nSo there has sprung up in Islam, in tremendous ramifications, an\n_imperium in imperio_. All the brethren in all the degrees\u2014for, just\nas in the monastic orders of Europe, there are active members and lay\nmembers\u2014reverence and pay blind obedience to the Head in his inaccessible\noasis in the African desert. There he works toward the end, and there\ncan be little doubt what that end will be. Sooner or later Europe\u2014in\nthe first instance, England in Egypt and France in Algeria\u2014will have to\nface the bursting of this storm. For this Mahdi is different from him of\nKhartum and the southern Sudan in that he knows how to rule and wait; for\nyears he has gathered arms and munitions, and trained men for the great\n_Jihad_. When his plans are ready and his time is come, a new chapter\nwill be opened in the history of Islam, a chapter which will cast into\nforgetfulness even the recent volcanic outburst in China. It will then\nbe for the Ottoman Sultan of the time to show what he and his Khalifate\nare worth. He will have to decide whether he will throw in his lot with\na Mahdi of the old Islam and the dream of a Muslim millennium, or boldly\nturn to new things and carry the Successorship and the People of Muhammad\nto join the civilized world.\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nDevelopment of Jurisprudence\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n The scope of jurisprudence among Muslims; the earliest elements\n in it, Arab custom, Jewish law, personality of Muhammad; his\n attitude toward law; elements after death of Muhammad; Qur\u2019an,\n Usage of the Prophet, common law of al-Madina; conception\n of _Sunna_ before Muhammad and after; traditions and their\n transmission; traditions in book form; influence of Umayyads;\n forgery of traditions; the _Muwatta_ of Malik ibn Anas; the\n _Musnad_ of Ahmad ibn Hanbal; the _musannafs_; al-Bukhari;\n Muslim; Ibn Maja; at-Tirmidhi; an-Nasa\u2019i; al-Baghawi; the\n problem of the Muslim lawyers; their sources; Roman law; the\n influence of the doctrine of the _Responsa prudentium_; Opinion\n in Islam; the Law of Nature or Equity in Islam; _istihsan_;\n _istislah_; Analogy; the patriarchal period in Islam; the\n Umayyad period; the growth of the canon law.\n\n\nIn tracing the development of Muslim jurisprudence few of the\ndifficulties are encountered which surrounded Sir Henry Maine when he\nfirst examined the origins and history of European law. We do not need\nto push our researches back to the primitive family, nor to work our way\nthrough periods of centuries guided by the merest fragments of documents\nand hints of usage. Our subject was born in the light of history; it ran\nits course in a couple of hundred years and has left at every important\npoint authoritative evidences of its whence, its how, and its whither.\nOur difficulties are different, but sufficiently great. Shortly, they are\ntwo. The mass of material is overpowering; the strangeness of the ideas\ninvolved is perplexing. The wealth of material will become plain, to some\nextent at least, as the history is traced; but for the strangeness of\nthe contents, of the arrangement and the atmosphere of these codes some\npreparation must be given from the outset. How, indeed, can we meet a\nlegal code which knows no distinction of personal or public, of civil or\ncriminal law; which prescribes and describes the use of the toothpick and\ndecides when a wedding invitation may be declined, which enters into the\nminutest and most unsavory details of family life and lays down rules of\nreligious retreat? Is it by some subtle connection of thought that the\nchapter on oaths and vows follows immediately that on horse-racing, and\na section on the building line on a street is inserted in a chapter on\nbankruptcy and composition? One thing, at least, is abundantly clear.\nMuslim law, in the most absolute sense, fits the old definition, and is\nthe science of all things, human and divine. It tells what we must render\nto C\u00e6sar and what to God, what to ourselves, and what to our fellows.\nThe bounds of the Platonic definition of rendering to each man his due\nit utterly shatters. While Muslim theology defines everything that a\nman shall _believe_ of things in heaven and in earth and beneath the\nearth\u2014and this is no flat rhetoric\u2014Muslim law prescribes everything that\na man shall _do_ to God, to his neighbor, and to himself. It takes all\nduty for its portion and defines all action in terms of duty. Nothing\ncan escape the narrow meshes of its net. One of the greatest legists of\nIslam never ate a watermelon because he could not find that the usage of\nthe Prophet had laid down and sanctioned a canonical method of doing so.\n\n[Sidenote: SCOPE OF MUSLIM LAW]\n\nIt will, therefore, be well for the student to work through the sketch\nof a code of Muslim law which is inserted in Appendix I. One has been\nchosen which belongs to the school of ash-Shafi\u2018i because of its general\naccessibility. It should be remembered that what is given is the merest\ntable of contents. The standard Arabic commentary on the book extends\nto eight hundred and eleven closely printed quarto pages. Even a mere\nreading of this table of contents, however, will show in how different\na sphere of thought from ours Muslim law moves and lives. But we must\nreturn to the beginning of things, to the egg from which this tremendous\nsystem was hatched.\n\nThe mother-city of Islam was the little town of Yathrib, called Madinat\nan-Nabi, the City of the Prophet, or, shortly, al-Madina, ever since the\nHijra or Migration of Muhammad to it in the year 622 of the Christian\nera. Here the first Muslim state was founded, and the germinal principles\nof Muslim jurisprudence fixed. Both state and jurisprudence were the\nresult of the inter-working of the same highly complicated causes. The\nferments in the case may be classified and described as follows: First,\nin the town itself before the appearance of Muhammad on its little\nstage\u2014little, but so momentous for the future\u2014there were two parties,\noften at war, oftener at peace. There was a genuine Arab element and\nthere was a large settlement of Jews. To the Arabs any conception of\nlaw was utterly foreign. An Arab tribe has no constitution; its system\nis one of individualism; the single man is a sovereign and no writ can\nlie against him; the tribe can cast him forth from its midst; it cannot\notherwise coerce him. So stands the case now in the desert, and so it\nwas then. Some slight hold there might be on the tribe through the\nfear of the tribal God, but on the individual Arab, always a somewhat\ncynical sceptic, that hold was of the slightest. Further, the avenging\nof a broken oath was left to the God that had witnessed the oath; if he\ndid not care to right his client, no one else would interfere. There\nwas customary law, undoubtedly, but it was protected by no sanction and\nenforced by no authority. If both parties chose to invoke it, well;\nif not, neither had anything to fear but the anger of his opponent.\nThat law of custom we shall find again appearing in the system of\nIslam, but there it will be backed by the sanction of the wrath of God\nworking through the authority of the state. The Jewish element was in\na different case. They may have been Jewish immigrants, they may have\nbeen Jewish proselytes\u2014many Arab tribes, we know, had gone over bodily\nto Judaism\u2014but their lives were ruled and guided by Jewish law. To the\nprimitive and divine legislation on Sinai there was an immense accretion\nby legal fiction and by usage; the Roman codes had left their mark and\nthe customary law of the desert as well. All this was working in the\nlife of the town when Muhammad and his little band of fugitives from\nMecca entered it. Being Meccans, they must have brought with them the\nmore developed legal ideas of that trading centre; but these were of\ncomparatively little account in the scale. The new and dominating element\nwas the personality of Muhammad himself. His contribution was legislation\npure and simple, the only legislation that has ever been in Islam.\nTill his death, ten years later, he ruled his community as an absolute\nmonarch, as a prophet in his own right. He sat in the gate and judged\nthe people. He had no need of a code, for his own will was enough. He\nfollowed the customary law of the town, as it has been described above,\nwhen it suited him, and when he judged that it was best. If not, he left\nit and there was a revelation. So the legislative part of the Qur\u2019an\ngrew out of such scraps sent down out of heaven to meet the needs of the\nsquabbles and questions of the townsfolk of al-Madina. The system was\none of pure opportunism; but of what body of legislation can that not\nbe said? Of course, on the one hand, not all decisions were backed by a\nrevelation, and Muhammad seems, on the other, to have made a few attempts\nto deal systematically with certain standing and constantly recurring\nproblems\u2014such, for example, as the conflicting claims of heirs in an\nestate, and the whole complicated question of divorce\u2014but in general,\nthe position holds that Muhammad as a lawyer lived from hand to mouth.\nHe did not draw up any twelve tables or ten commandments, or code, or\ndigest; he was there and the people could come and ask him questions when\nthey chose, and that was enough. The conception of a rounded and complete\nsystem which will meet any case and to which all cases must be adjusted\nby legal fiction or equity, the conception which we owe to the genius and\nexperience of the Roman lawyers, was foreign to his thought. From time\nto time he got into difficulties. A revelation proved too wide or too\nnarrow, or left out some important possibility. Then there came another\nto supplement or correct, or even to set the first quite aside\u2014Muhammad\nhad no scruples about progressive revelation as applied to himself.\nThus, through these interpretive acts, as we may call them, many flat\ncontradictions have come into the Qur\u2019an and have proved the delight of\ngenerations of Muslim jurisconsults.\n\n[Sidenote: MUHAMMAD AS A LEGISLATOR]\n\nSuch, then, was the state of things legal in al-Madina during the ten\nyears of Muhammad\u2019s rule there until his death in A.D. 632. Of law there\nwas, strictly speaking, none. In his decisions, Muhammad could follow\ncertainly the customary law of the town; but to do so there was no\nnecessity upon him other than prudence, for his authority was absolute.\nYet even with such authority and such freedom, his task was a hard one.\nThe Jews, the native Arabs of al-Madina, and his fellow fugitives from\nMecca lived in more or less of friction. He had to see to it that his\ndecisions did not bring that friction to the point of throwing the whole\ncommunity into a flame. The Jews, it is true, were soon eliminated, but\nthe influence of their law lasted in the customary law of the town long\nafter they themselves had become insignificant. Still, with all this, the\nsuitor before Muhammad had no certainty on what basis his claims would be\njudged; whether it would be the old law of the town, or a rough equity\nbased on Muhammad\u2019s own ideas, or a special revelation _ad hoc_. So far,\nthen, we may be said to have the three elements\u2014common law, equity,\nlegislation. Legal fiction we shall meet later; Muhammad had no need of\nit.\n\n[Sidenote: QUR\u2019AN; USAGE OF MUHAMMAD]\n\nBut with the death of Muhammad in A.D. 632 the situation was completely\nchanged. We can now speak of Muslim law; legislation plays no longer any\npart; the process of collecting, arranging, correlating, and developing\nhas begun. Consider the situation as it must have presented itself to\none of the immediate successors of Muhammad, as he sat in his place and\njudged the people. When a case came up for decision, there were several\nsources from which a law in point might be drawn. First among them was\nthe Qur\u2019an. It had been collected from the fragmentary state in which\nMuhammad had left it by Abu Bakr, his second Khalifa, some two years\nafter his death. Again, some ten years later, it was revised and given\nforth in a final public recension by Uthman, the third Khalifa. This\nwas the absolute word of God\u2014thoughts and language\u2014and stood and, in\ntheory, still stands first of all sources for theology and law. If it\ncontained a law clearly applying to the case in hand, there was no more\nto be said; divine legislation had settled the matter. If not, recourse\nwas next had to the decisions of the Prophet. Had a similar one come\nbefore him, and how had he ruled? If the memories of the Companions of\nthe Prophet, the _Sahibs_, could adduce nothing similar from one of his\ndecisions, then the judge had to look further for an authority. But the\ndecisions of Muhammad had been many, the memories of his Companions\nwere capacious, and possessed further, as we must recognize with regret,\na constructive power that helped the early judges of Islam out of many\nclose corners. But if tradition even\u2014true or false\u2014finally failed, then\nthe judge fell back on the common law of al-Madina, that customary law\nalready mentioned. When that, too, failed, the last recourse was had\nto the common-sense of the judge\u2014roughly, what we would call equity.\nAt the beginning, therefore, of Muslim law, it had the following\nsources\u2014legislation, the usage of Muhammad, the usage of al-Madina,\nequity. Naturally, as time went on and the figure of the founder drew\nback and became more obscure and more venerated, equity fell gradually\ninto disuse; a closer search was made for decisions of that founder\nwhich could in any way be pressed into service; a method of analogy,\nclosely allied to legal fiction, was built up to assist in this, and the\ndevelopment of Muslim jurisprudence as a system and a science was fairly\nbegun. Further, in later times, the decisions of the first four Khalifas\nand the agreement (_ijma_) of the immediate Companions of Muhammad came\nto assume an importance only second to that of Muhammad himself. Later\nstill, as a result of this, the opinion grew up that a general agreement\nof the jurisconsults of any particular time was to be regarded as a\nlegitimate source of law. But we must return to consider our subject more\nbroadly and in another field.\n\n[Sidenote: LEGAL CLASSES OF ACTIONS]\n\nThe fact has already been brought out that the sphere of law is\nmuch wider in Islam than it has ever been with us. By it all the\nminutest acts of a Muslim are guarded. Europe, also, passed through a\nstage similar to this in its sumptuary laws; and the tendency toward\ninquisitorial legislation still exists in America, but not even the\nmost medi\u00e6vally minded American Western State has ventured to put upon\nits statute-book regulations as to the use of the toothpick and the\nwash-cloth. Thus, the Muslim conception of law is so wide as to reach\nessential difference. A Muslim is told by his code not only what is\nrequired under penalty, but also what is either recommended or disliked\nthough without reward or penalty being involved. He may certainly consult\nhis lawyer, to learn how near the wind he can sail without unpleasant\nconsequences; but he may also consult him as his spiritual director with\nregard to the relative praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of classes of\nactions of which our law takes no cognizance. In consequence, actions\nare divided by Muslim canon lawyers (_faqihs_) into five classes. First,\nnecessary (_fard_ or _wajib_); a duty the omission of which is punished,\nthe doing rewarded. Secondly, recommended (_mandub_ or _mustahabb_);\nthe doing is rewarded, but the omission is not punished. Thirdly,\npermitted (_ja\u2019iz_ or _mubah_); legally indifferent. Fourthly, disliked\n(_makruh_); disapproved by the law, but not under penalty. Fifthly,\nforbidden (_haram_); an action punishable by law. All this being so, it\nwill be easily understood that the record of the manners and customs of\nthe Prophet, of the little details of his life and conversation, came\nto assume a high importance. Much of that was too petty ever to reach\nexpression in the great digests of law; not even the most zealous fixer\nof life by rule and line would condemn his fellow-religionist because he\npreferred to carry a different kind of walking-stick from that approved\nby the Prophet, or found it fitting to arrange his hair in a different\nway. But still, all pious Muslims paid attention to such things, and\nfenced their lives about with the strictest Prophetic precedent.\n\n[Sidenote: SUNNA; HADITH]\n\nIn consequence of this, there early arose in Islam a class of students\nwho made it their business to investigate and hand down the minutest\ndetails as to the habits of Muhammad. This was a separate thing from the\nstudy of law, although fated to be eventually connected with it. Even in\nthe time of the _Jahiliya_\u2014the period before Islam, variously explained\nas the ignorance or as the rudeness, uncivilizedness\u2014it had been a\nfixed trait of the Arab mind to hold closely to old paths. An inherent\nconservatism canonized the _sunna_\u2014custom, usage\u2014of the ancients; any\nstepping aside from it was a _bid\u2018a_\u2014innovation\u2014and had to win its way\nby its merits, in the teeth of strong prejudice. With the coming of\nMuhammad and the preaching of Islam, this ancestral _sunna_ had in great\npart to yield. But the temper of the Arab mind remained firm, and the\nsunna of Muhammad took its place. Pious Muslims did not say, \u201cSuch was\nthe usage of our fathers, and it is mine;\u201d but, \u201cI follow the usage of\nthe Prophet of God.\u201d Then, just as the old sunna of the heathen times\nhad expressed itself through the stories of great warriors, of their\nbattles and loves; through anecdotes of wise men, and their keen and\neloquent words; so it was with the sunna of the one man, Muhammad. What\nhe said, and what he did; what he refrained from doing; what he gave\nquasi-approval to by silence; all was passed on in rapidly increasing,\npregnant little narratives. First, his immediate Companions would note,\neither by committing to memory or to a written record, his utterances\nand table-talk generally. We have evidence of several such Boswells, who\nfixed his words as they fell. Later, probably, would come notes of his\ndoings and his customs, and of all the little and great happenings of\nthe town. Above all, a record was being gathered of all the cases judged\nby him, and of his decisions; of all the answers which he gave to formal\nquestions on religious life and faith. All this was jotted down by the\nCompanions on _sahifas_\u2014odd sheets\u2014just as they had done in the Ignorance\nwith the proverbs of the wise and their dark sayings. The records of\nsayings were called _hadiths_; the rest, as a whole, sunna\u2014custom, for\nits details was used the plural, _sunan_\u2014customs. At first, each man\nhad his own collection in memory or in writing. Then, after the death\nof the Prophet and when his first Companions were dropping off, these\ncollections were passed on to others of the second generation. And so\nthe chain ran on and in time a tradition came to consist formally of\ntwo things\u2014the text or matter (_matn_) so handed on, and the succession\n(_isnad_) over whose lips it had passed. A said, \u201cThere narrated to me\nB, saying, \u2018There narrated to me C, saying,\u2019\u201d so far the _isnad_, until\nthe last link came, and the _matn_, the Prophet of God said, \u201cSome of my\ninjunctions abrogate others,\u201d or \u201cThe Jann were created of a smokeless\nflame,\u201d or whatever it might be. What has just been said suggests that\nit was at first indifferent whether traditions were preserved orally\nor in writing. That is true of the first generation; but it must be\nremembered at the same time, that the actual passing on was oral; the\nwriting merely aided the memory to hold that which was already learned.\nBut with time, and certainly by the middle of the second century of\nthe Hijra, two opposing tendencies in this respect had developed. Many\ncontinued to put their trust in the written word, and even came to pass\ntraditions on without any oral communication. But for others there lay\ngrave dangers in this. One was evidently real. The unhappy character of\nthe Arabic script, especially when written without diacritical points,\noften made it hard, if not practically impossible, to understand such\nshort, contextless texts as the traditions. A guide was necessary to show\nhow the word should be read, and how understood. At the present time a\nEuropean scholar will sometimes be helpless before even a fully vocalized\ntext, and must take refuge in native commentaries or in that oral\ntradition, if it still exists and he has access to it, which supplies at\nleast a third of the meaning of an Arabic book. Strengthening this came\ntheological reasons. The words of the Prophet would be profaned if they\nwere in a book. Or, again, they would be too much honored and the Qur\u2019an\nitself might be neglected. This last fear has been justified to a certain\nextent by the event. On these grounds, and many more, the writing and\ntransmitting in writing of traditions came to be fiercely opposed; and\nthe opposition continued, as a theological exercise, long after many\nbooks of traditions were in existence, and after the oral transmission\nhad become the merest farce and had even frankly dropped out.\n\n[Sidenote: TRADITIONS IN LITERATURE]\n\nIt is to the formation of these books of traditions, or, as we might\nsay, traditions in literature, that we must now turn. For long, the\nfragmentary _sahifas_ and private collections made by separate scholars\nfor their own use sufficed. Books dealing with law (_fiqh_) were written\nbefore there were any in that department of literature called _hadith_.\nThe cause of this is tolerably plain. Law and treatises of law were a\nnecessity for the public and thus were encouraged by the state. The\nstudy of traditions, on the other hand, was less essential and of a more\npersonal and private nature. Further, under the dynasty of the Umayyads,\nwho reigned from A.H. 41 to A.H. 132, theological literature was little\nencouraged. They were simple heathen in all but name, and belonged, and\nrecognized that they belonged, not to Islam but to the Jahiliya. For\nreasons of state, they encouraged and spread\u2014also freely forged and\nencouraged others to forge\u2014such traditions as were favorable to their\nplans and to their rule generally. This was necessary if they were to\ncarry the body of the people with them. But they regarded themselves as\nkings and not as the heads of the Muslim people. This same device has\nbeen used after them by all the contending factions of Islam. Each party\nhas sought sanction for its views by representing them in traditions\nfrom the Prophet, and the thing has gone so far that on almost every\ndisputed point there are absolutely conflicting prophetic utterances in\ncirculation. It has even been held, and with some justification, that the\nentire body of _normative_ tradition at present in existence was forged\nfor a purpose. With this attitude of the Umayyads we shall have to deal\nat greater length later. It is sufficient now to note that the first real\nappearance of _hadith_ in literature was in the _Muwatta_ of Malik ibn\nAnas who died in A.H. 179.\n\nYet even this appearance is not so much of _hadith_ for its own sake,\nas of usages bearing upon law and of the law that can be drawn from\nthese usages. The book is a _corpus iuris_ not a _corpus traditionum_.\nIts object was not so much to separate from the mass of traditions in\ncirculation those which could be regarded as sound of origin and to unite\nthem in a formal collection, as to build up a system of law based partly\non tradition. The previous works dealing with law proper had been of a\nspeculative character, had shown much subjective reliance on their own\nopinion on the part of the writers and had drawn little from the sacred\nusage of the Prophet and quoted few of his traditional sayings. Against\nthat the book of Malik was a protest and formed a link between such law\nbooks pure and the collections of traditions pure with which we now come\nto deal.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MUSNADS]\n\nTo Malik the _matn_, or text, of a tradition had been the only thing\nof importance. To the _isnad_, or chain of authority running back to\nthe Prophet, he had paid little attention. He, as we have seen, was a\nlawyer and gathered traditions, not for their own sake but to use them\nin law. To others, the tradition was the thing, and too much care could\nnot be given to its details and its authenticity. And the care was really\ncalled for. With the course of time and the growing demand, the supply\nof traditions had also grown until there was no doubt in the mind of\nanyone that an enormous proportion were simple forgeries. To weed out\nthe sound ones, attention had to be given to the _isnad_; the names upon\nit had to be examined; the fact of their having been in intercourse to\nbe determined; the possibility of the case in general to be tested. Thus\nthere were formed real collections of supposedly sound traditions, which\nwere called _Musnads_, because each tradition was _musnad_\u2014propped,\nsupported\u2014against the Companions from whom it proceeded. In accordance\nwith this also they were arranged according to the Companions. After\nthe name of the Companion were given all the traditions leading back to\nhim. One of the earliest and greatest of these books was the _Musnad_ of\nAhmad ibn Hanbal, who died A.H. 241; of him more hereafter. This book has\nbeen printed recently at Cairo in six quarto volumes of 2,885 pages and\nis said to contain about thirty thousand traditions going back to seven\nhundred Companions.\n\nBut another type of tradition-book was growing up, less mechanical\nin arrangement. It is the _Musannaf_, the arranged, classified\u2014and\nin it the traditions are arranged in chapters according to their\nsubject matter. The first _Musannaf_ to make a permanent mark was the\n_Sahih_\u2014sound\u2014of al-Bukhari, who died in A.H. 257. It is still extant\nand is the most respected of all the collections of traditions. The\nprinciple of arrangement in it is legal; that is, the traditions are\nclassified in these chapters so as to afford bases for a complete system\nof jurisprudence. Al-Bukhari was a strong opponent of speculative law and\nhis book was thus a protest against a tendency which, as we shall see\nlater, was strong in his time. Another point in which al-Bukhari made\nhis influence felt and with greater effect, was increased severity in\nthe testing of traditions. He established very strict laws, though of a\nsomewhat mechanical kind, and was most scrupulous in applying them. His\nbook contains about seven thousand traditions, and he chose those, so\nat least runs the story, out of six hundred thousand which he found in\ncirculation. The rest were rejected _as failing to meet his tests_. How\nfar the forgery of traditions had gone may be seen from the example of\nIbn Abi Awja, who was executed in A.H. 155, and who confessed that he had\nhimself put into circulation four thousand that were false. Another and\na similar _Sahih_ is that of Muslim, who died in A.H. 261. He was not so\nmarkedly juristic as al-Bukhari. His object was rather to purify the mass\nof existing tradition from illegitimate accretions than to construct a\nbasis for a complete law code. He has prefixed a valuable introduction on\nthe science of tradition generally. In some slight details his principle\nof criticism differed from that of al-Bukhari.\n\nThese two collections, called the two _Sahihs\u2014as-Sahihan_\u2014are technically\n_jami\u2018s, i.e._ they contain all the different classes of traditions,\nhistorical, ethical, dogmatic and legal. They have also come to be, by\ncommon agreement, the two most honored authorities in the Muslim world. A\nbeliever finds it hard, if not impossible, to reject a tradition that is\nfound in both.\n\n[Sidenote: THE SUNAN]\n\nBut there are four other collections which are called _Sunan_\u2014Usages\u2014and\nwhich stand only second to the two _Sahihs_. These are by Ibn Maja\n(d. 303), Abu Da\u2019ud as-Sijistani (d. 275), at-Tirmidhi (d. 279) and\nan-Nasa\u2019i (d. 303). They deal almost entirely with legal traditions,\nthose that tell what is permitted and what is forbidden, and do not\nconvey information on religious and theological subjects. They are also\nmuch more lenient in their criticisms of dubious traditions. To work\nexclusion with them, the rejection needed to be tolerably unanimous. This\nwas required by their stand-point and endeavor, which was to find a basis\nfor all the minutest developments and details of jurisprudence, civil and\nreligious.\n\nThese six books, the two _Sahihs_ and the four _Sunans_, came to\nbe regarded in time as the principal and all-important sources for\ntraditional science. This had already come about by the end of the fifth\ncentury, although even after that voices of uncertainty continued to make\nthemselves heard. Ibn Maja seems to have been the last to secure firm\nfooting, but even he is included by al-Baghawi (d. 516) in his _Masabih\nas-sunna_, an attempted epitome into one book of what was valuable in\nall. Still, long after that, Ibn Khaldun, the great historian (d. 808),\nspeaks of five fundamental works; and others speak of seven, adding the\n_Muwatta_ of Malik to the six above. Others, again, especially in the\nWest, extended the number of canonical works to ten, though with varying\nmembers; but all these must be regarded as more or less local, temporary,\nand individual eccentricities. The position of the six stands tolerably\nfirm.\n\nSo much it has been necessary to interpolate and anticipate with regard\nto the students of tradition whose interest lay in gathering up and\npreserving, not in using and applying. From the earliest time, then,\nthere existed these two classes in the bosom of Islam, students of\ntradition proper and of law proper. For long they did not clash; but a\ncollision was inevitable sooner or later.\n\nYet, if the circle of the Muslim horizon had not widened beyond the\nlittle market-town of al-Madina, that collision might have been long in\ncoming. Its immediate causes were from without, and are to be found in\nthe wave of conquest that carried Islam, within the century, to Samarqand\nbeyond the Oxus and to Tours in central France. Consider what that wave\nof conquest was and meant. Within fourteen years of the Hijra, Damascus\nwas taken, and within seventeen years, all Syria and Mesopotamia. By the\nyear 21, the Muslims held Persia; in 41 they were at Herat, and in 56\nthey reached Samarqand. In the West, Egypt was taken in the year 20; but\nthe way through northern Africa was long and hard. Carthage did not fall\ntill 74, but Spain was conquered with the fall of Toledo in 93. It was in\nA.D. 732, the year of the Hijra 114, that the wave at last was turned\nand the mercy of Tours was wrought by Charles the Hammer; but the Muslims\nstill held Narbonne and raided in Burgundy and the Dauphin\u00e9. The wealth\nthat flowed into Arabia from these expeditions was enormous; money and\nslaves and luxuries of every kind went far to transform the old life of\nhardness and simplicity. Great estates grew up: fortunes were made and\nlost; the intricacies of the Syrian and Persian civilizations overcame\ntheir conquerors. All this meant new legal conditions and problems. The\nsystem that had sufficed to guard the right to a few sheep or camels\nhad to be transformed before it would suffice to adjust the rights and\nclaims of a tribe of millionnaires. But it must not be thought that\nthese expeditions were only campaigns of plunder. With the Muslim armies\neverywhere went law and justice, such as it was. Jurists accompanied\neach army and were settled in the great camp cities which were built to\nhold the conquered lands. Al-Basra and al-Kufa and Fustat, the parent\nof Cairo, owe their origin to this, and it was in these new seats of\nmilitant Islam that speculative jurisprudence arose and moulded the\nMuslim system.\n\n[Sidenote: RISE OF SPECULATIVE JURISPRUDENCE]\n\nThe early lawyers had much to do and much to learn, and it is to their\ncredit that they recognized both necessities. Muslim law is no product\nof the desert or of the mind of Muhammad, as some have said; but rather\nof the labor of these men, struggling with a gigantic problem. They\nmight have taken their task much more easily than they did; they might\nhave lived as Muhammad had done, from hand to mouth, and have concealed\ntheir own sloth by force and free invention of authorities. But they\nrecognized their responsibility to God and man and the necessity of\nbuilding up a stable and complete means of rendering justice. These\narmies of Muslims, we must remember, were not like the hordes of Attila\nor Chingis Khan, destroyers only. The lands they conquered were put to\nhard tribute, but it was under a reign of law. They recognized frankly\nthat it was for them that this mighty empire existed; but they recognized\nalso that it could continue to exist only with order and duty imposed\nupon all. They saw, too, how deficient was their own knowledge and\nlearned willingly of the people among whom they had come. And here, a\nsecond time, Roman law\u2014the parent-law of the world\u2014made itself felt.\nThere were schools of that law in Syria at C\u00e6sarea and Beyrout, but we\nneed not imagine that the Muslim jurists studied there. Rather, it was\nthe practical school of the courts as they actually existed which they\nattended. These courts were permitted to continue in existence till Islam\nhad learned from them all that was needed. We can still recognize certain\nprinciples that were so carried over. That the duty of proof lies upon\nthe plaintiff, and the right of defending himself with an oath upon the\ndefendant; the doctrine of invariable custom and that of the different\nkinds of legal presumption. These, as expressed in Arabic, are almost\nverbal renderings of the pregnant utterances of Latin law.\n\n[Sidenote: RESPONSA PRUDENTIUM; OPINION]\n\nBut most important of all was a liberty suggested by that system to the\nMuslim jurisconsults. This was through the part played in the older\nschool by the _Responsa Prudentium_, answers by prominent lawyers to\nquestions put to them by their clients, in which the older law of the\nTwelve Tables was expounded, expanded, and often practically set aside by\ntheir comments. Sir Henry Maine thus states the situation: \u201cThe authors\nof the new jurisprudence, during the whole progress of its formation,\nprofessed the most sedulous respect for the letter of the code. They were\nmerely explaining it, deciphering it, bringing out its full meaning; but\nthen, in the result, by placing texts together, by adjusting the law to\nstates of fact which actually presented themselves, and by speculating\non its possible application to others which might occur, by introducing\nprinciples of interpretation derived from the exegesis of other written\ndocuments which fell under their observation, they educed a vast variety\nof canons which had never been dreamt of by the compilers of the Twelve\nTables, and which were in truth rarely or never to be found there.\u201d All\nthis precisely applies to the development of law in Islam.\n\n[Sidenote: EQUITY; LEGAL FICTION]\n\nThe part of the Twelve Tables was taken by the statute law of the Qur\u2019an\nand the case law derived from the Usage of Muhammad; that of the Roman\n_Iurisprudentes_ by those speculative jurists who worked mostly outside\nof al-Madina in the camp cities of Mesopotamia and Syria\u2014the very name\nfor lawyer in Arabic, _faqih_, plural _fuqaha_, is a translation of\n_prudens_, _prudentes_; and that of the _Responsa_, the answers, by the\n\u201cOpinion\u201d which they claimed as a legitimate legal method and source.\nFurther, the validity of a general agreement of jurisconsults \u201creminds\nus of the rescript of Hadrian, which ordains that, if the opinions\nof the licensed _prudentes_ all agreed, such common opinion had the\nforce of statute; but if they disagreed, the judge might follow which\nhe chose.\u201d The Arabic term, _ra\u2019y_, here rendered Opinion, has passed\nthrough marked vicissitudes of usage. In old Arabic, before it, in the\nview of some, began to keep bad company, it meant an opinion that was\nthoughtful, weighed and reasonable, as opposed to a hasty dictate of\nill-regulated passion. In that sense it is used in a tradition\u2014probably\nforged\u2014handed down from Muhammad. He was sending a judge to take charge\nof legal affairs in al-Yaman, and asked him on what he would base his\nlegal decisions. \u201cOn the Qur\u2019an,\u201d he replied. \u201cBut if that contains\nnothing to the purpose?\u201d \u201cThen upon your usage.\u201d \u201cBut if that also fails\nyou?\u201d \u201cThen I will follow my own opinion.\u201d And the Prophet approved his\npurpose. A similar tradition goes back to Umar, the first Khalifa, and\nit, too, is probably a later forgery, written to defend this source of\nlaw. But, with the revolt against the use of Opinion, to which we shall\nsoon come, the term itself fell into grave disrepute and came to signify\nan unfounded conclusion. In its extremest development it went beyond the\n_Responsa_, which professed always to be in exact accord with the letter\nof the older law, and attained to be Equity in the strict sense; that\nis, the rejection of the letter of the law for a view supposed to be\nmore in accordance with the spirit of justice itself. Thus, Equity, in\nthe English sense, is the law administered by the Court of Chancery and\nclaims, in the words again of Sir Henry Maine, to \u201coverride the older\njurisprudence of the country on the strength of an intrinsic ethical\nsuperiority.\u201d In Roman law, as introduced by the edict of the Pr\u00e6tor, it\nwas the law of Nature, \u201cthe part of law \u2018which natural reason appoints\nfor all mankind.\u2019\u201d This is represented in Islam under two forms, covered\nby two technical terms. The one is that the legist, in spite of the\nfact that the analogy of the fixed code clearly points to one course,\n\u201cconsiders it better\u201d (_istihsan_) to follow a different one; and the\nother is that, under the same conditions, he chooses a free course \u201cfor\nthe sake of general benefit to the community\u201d (_istislah_). Further scope\nof Equity Muslim law never reached, and the legitimacy of these two\ndevelopments was, as we shall see, bitterly contested. The freedom of\nopinion, with its possibility of a system of Equity, had eventually to\nbe given up, and all that was left in its place was a permissibility of\nanalogical deduction (_qiyas_), the nearest thing to which in Western law\nis Legal Fiction. In a word, the possibility of development by Equity was\nlost, and Legal Fiction entered in its place. But this anticipates, and\nwe must return to the strictly historical movement.\n\nDuring the first thirty years after the death of Muhammad\u2014the period\ncovered by the reigns of the four theocratic rulers whom Islam still\ncalls \u201cthe Four Just, or Rightly Guided Khalifas\u201d (_al-Khulafa\nar-rashidun_)\u2014the two twin studies of tradition (_hadith_) and of law\n(_fiqh_) were fostered and encouraged by the state. The centre of that\nstate was still in al-Madina, on ground sacred with the memories of the\nProphet, amid the scenes where he had himself been lord and judge, and\nunder the conditions in which his life as ruler had been cast. All the\nsources, except that of divine revelation, which had been open to him,\nwere open to his successors and they made full use of all. Round that\nmother-hearth of Islam was still gathered the great body of the immediate\nCompanions of Muhammad, and they formed a deliberative or consulting\ncouncil to aid the Khalifa in his task. The gathering of tradition and\nthe developing of law were vital functions; they were the basis of the\npublic life of the state. This patriarchal period in Muslim history is\nthe golden age of Islam. It ended with the death of Ali, in the year 40\nof the Hijra, and the succession of Mu\u2018awiya in the following year. \u201cFor\nthirty years,\u201d runs a tradition from the Prophet, \u201cmy People will tread\nin my Path (_sunna_); then will come kings and princes.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: GROWTH OF CANON LAW]\n\nAnd so it was; Mu\u2018awiya was the first of the Umayyad dynasty and with him\nand them Islam, in all but the name, was at an end. He and they were Arab\nkings of the old type that had reigned before Muhammad at al-Hira and\nGhassan, whose will had been their law. The capital of the new kingdom\nwas Damascus; al-Madina became a place of refuge, a Cave of Adullam, for\nthe old Muslim party. There they might spin theories of state and of\nlaw, and lament the good old days; so long as there was no rebellion,\nthe Umayyads cared little for those things or for the men who dreamt\nthem. Once, the Umayyads were driven to capture and sack the holy city,\na horror in Islam to this day. After that there was peace, the peace of\nthe accomplished fact. This is the genuinely Arab period in the history\nof Islam. It is a period full of color and light and life; of love and\nsong, battle and feasting. Thought was free and conduct too. The great\ntheologian of the Greek Church, John of Damascus, held high office at the\nUmayyad court, and al-Akhtal, a Christian at least in name, was their\npoet laureate. It is true that the stated services of religion were\nkept up and on every Friday the Khalifa had to entertain the people by\na display of eloquence and wit in the weekly sermon. But the old world\nwas dead and the days of its unity would never come again. So all knew,\nexcept the irreconcilable party, the last of the true Muslims who still\nhaunted the sacred soil of al-Madina and labored in the old paths. They\ngathered the traditions of the Prophet; they regulated their lives more\nand more strictly by his usage; they gave ghostly council to the pious\nwho sought their help; they labored to build up elaborate systems of law.\nBut it was all elaboration and hypothetical purely. There was in it no\nvitalizing force from practical life.\n\nFrom this time on Muslim law has been more or less in the position held\nby the canon law of the Roman Church in a country that will not recognize\nit yet dares not utterly reject it. The Umayyads were statesmen and\nopportunists; they lived, in legal things, as much from hand to mouth as\nMuhammad had done. He cut all knots with divine legislation; they cut\nthem with the edge of their will. Under them, as under him, a system\nof law was impossible. But at the same time, in quiet and in secret,\nthis canon law of Islam was slowly growing up, slowly rounding into\nfull perfection of detailed correlation. It was governing absolutely\nthe private lives of all the good Muslims that were left, and even the\ngodless Umayyads, as they had to preach on Fridays to the People of\nMuhammad, so they had to deal with it cautiously and respectfully. Of\nthe names and lives of these obscure jurists little has reached us and\nit is needless to give that little here. Only with the final fall of the\nUmayyads, in the year of the Hijra 132, do we come into the light and see\nthe different schools forming under clear and definite leaders.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n The Abbasid revolution; the compromise; the problem of the\n Abbasids; the two classes of canon lawyers and theologians;\n the rise of legal schools; Abu Hanifa; his application of\n Legal Fiction; _istihsan_; the Qadi Abu Yusuf; Muhammad ibn\n al-Hasan; Sufyan ath-Thawri; al-Awza\u2018i; Malik ibn Anas; the\n Usage of al-Madina; _istislah_; the doctrine of Agreement; the\n beginning of controversy; traditionalists or historical lawyers\n versus rationalists or philosophical lawyers; ash-Shafi\u2018i, a\n mediator and systematizer; the Agreement of the Muslim people\n a formal source; \u201cMy People will never agree in an error;\u201d the\n resultant four sources, Qur\u2019an, Usage, Analogy, Agreement; the\n traditionalist revolt; Da\u2019ud az-Zahiri and literalism; Ahmad\n ibn Hanbal; the four abiding schools; the Agreement of Islam;\n the Disagreement of Islam; _iurare in verba magistri_; the\n degrees of authority; the canon and the civil codes in Islam;\n their respective spheres; distribution of schools at present\n day; Shi\u2018ite law; Ibadite law.\n\n\nThat great revolution which brought the Abbasid dynasty to power seemed\nat first to the pious theologians and lawyers to be a return of the old\ndays. They dreamt of entering again into their rights; that the canon law\nwould be the full law of the land. It was only slowly that their eyes\nwere opened, and many gave up the vain contest and contented themselves\nwith compromise. This had been rare under the Umayyads; the one or two\ncanon lawyers who had thrown in their lot with them had been marked men.\nAz-Zuhri (d. 124), a man of the highest moral and theological reputation\nwho played a very important part in the first codifying of traditions,\nwas one of these, and the later pious historians have had hard work to\nsmooth over his connection with the impious Umayyads. Probably\u2014it may\nbe well to say here\u2014the stories against the Umayyads have been much\nheightened in color by their later tellers and also az-Zuhri, being a man\nof insight and statesmanship, may have recognized that their rule was\nthe best chance for peace in the country. Muslims have come generally to\naccept the position that unbelief on the part of the government, if the\ngovernment is strong and just, is better than true belief and anarchy.\nThis has found expression, as all such things do, in traditions put in\nthe mouth of the Prophet.\n\n[Sidenote: THE PROBLEM OF THE ABBASIDS]\n\nBut while only a few canonists had taken the part of the Umayyads, far\nmore accepted the favors of the Abbasids, took office under them and\nworked in their cause. The Abbasids, too, had need of such men. It was\npractically the religious sentiment of the people that had overthrown\nthe Umayyads and raised them to power; and that religious sentiment,\nthough it could never be fully satisfied, must yet be respected and,\nmore important still, used. There is a striking parallel between the\nsituation then, and that of Scotland at the Revolution Settlement of\n1688. The power of the Stuarts\u2014that is, of the worldly Umayyads\u2014had been\noverthrown. The oppressed Church of the Covenant\u2014that is, the old Muslim\nparty\u2014had been freed. The state was to be settled upon a new basis. What\nwas that basis to be? The Covenanting party demanded the recognition of\nthe Headship of Christ\u2014that the Kirk should rule the state, or should\nbe the state, and that all other religious views should be put under\npenalty. The old Muslim party looked for similar things. That religious\nlife should be purified; that the canon law should be again the law of\nthe state; that the constitution of Umar should be restored. How the\nCovenanters were disappointed, how much they got and how much they failed\nto get, needs no telling here.\n\nExactly in the same way it befell the old Muslims. The theological\nreformation was sweeping and complete. The first Abbasids were pious,\nat least outwardly; the state was put upon a pious footing. The canon\nlaw also was formally restored, but with large practical modifications.\nCanon lawyers were received into the service of the state, provided they\nwere adaptable enough. Impossible men had no place under the Abbasids;\ntheir officials must be pliable and dexterous, for a new _modus vivendi_\nwas to be found. The rough and ready Umayyad cutting of the knot had\nfailed; the turn had now come for piety and dexterity in twisting law.\nThe court lawyers learned to drive a coach and four through any of the\nold statutes, and found their fortunes in their brains. So the issue was\nbridged. But a large party of malcontents was left, and from this time on\nin Islam the lawyers and the theologians have divided into two classes,\nthe one admitting, as a matter of expediency, the authority of the\npowers of the time and aiding them in their task as rulers; the other,\nirreconcilable and unreconciled, denouncing the state as sunk in unbelief\nand deadly sin and its lawyers as traitors to the cause of religion. To\npursue our parallel, they are represented in Scotland by a handful of\nCovenanting congregations and in America by the much more numerous and\npowerful Reformed Presbyterian Church.\n\nIt is a significant fact that with the lifting of the Umayyad pressure\nand the encouragement of legal studies\u2014such as it was\u2014by the Abbasids,\ndefinite and recognized schools of law began to form. What had so long\nbeen in process in secret became public, and its results crystallized\nunder certain prominent teachers. We will now take up these schools in\nthe order of the death dates of their founders; we will establish their\nprinciples and trace their histories. We shall find the same conceptions\nrecurring again and again which have already been brought out, Qur\u2019an,\ntradition (_hadith_), agreement (_ijma_), opinion (_ra\u2019y_), analogy\n(_qiyas_), local usage (_urf_), preference (_istihsan_), in the teeth of\nthe written law\u2014till at length, when the battle is over, the sources will\nhave limited themselves to the four which have survived to the present\nday\u2014Qur\u2019an, tradition, agreement, analogy. And, similarly, of the six\nschools to be mentioned, four only will remain to the present time, but\nthese of equal rank and validity in the eyes of the Believers.\n\n[Sidenote: ABU HANIFA]\n\nThe Abbasids came to power in the year of the Hijra 132, and in 150\ndied Abu Hanifa, the first student and teacher to leave behind him a\nsystematic body of teaching and a missionary school of pupils. He was\na Persian by race, and perhaps the most distinguished example of the\nrule that Muslim scientists and thinkers might write in Arabic but were\nseldom of Arab blood. He does not seem to have held office as a judge\nor to have practised law at all. He was, rather, an academic student, a\nspeculative or philosophical jurist we might call him. His system of law,\ntherefore, was not based upon the exigencies of experience; it did not\narise from an attempt to meet actual cases. We might say of it, rather,\nbut in a good sense, that it was a system of casuistry, an attempt to\nbuild up on scientific principles a set of rules which would answer every\nconceivable question of law. In the hands of some of his pupils, when\napplied to actual facts, it tended to develop into casuistry in a bad\nsense; but no charge of perverting justice for his own advantage seems to\nhave been brought against Abu Hanifa himself. His chief instruments in\nconstructing his system were opinion and analogy. He leaned little upon\ntraditions of the usage of Muhammad, but preferred to take the Qur\u2019anic\ntexts and develop from them his details. But the doing of this compelled\nhim to modify simple opinion\u2014equivalent to equity as we have seen\u2014and\nlimit it to analogy of some written statute (_nass_). He could hardly\nforsake a plain _res iudicata_ of Muhammad, and follow his own otherwise\nunsupported views, but he might choose to do so if he could base it on\nanalogy from the Qur\u2019an. Thus, he came to use what was practically legal\nfiction. It is the application of an old law in some sense or way that\nwas never dreamt of by the first imposer of the law, and which may, in\nfact, run directly counter to the purpose of the law. The fiction is\nthat it is the original law that is being observed, while, as a matter\nof fact, there has come in its place an entirely different law. So Abu\nHanifa would contend that he was following the divine legislation of the\nQur\u2019an, while his adversaries contended that he was only following his\nown opinion.\n\nBut if, on the one hand, he was thus limited from equity to legal\nfiction, on another he developed a new principle of even greater freedom.\nReference has already been made to the changes which were of necessity\ninvolved in the new conditions of the countries conquered by the Muslims.\nOften the law of the desert not only failed to apply to town and\nagricultural life; it was even directly mischievous. On account of this,\na consideration of local conditions was early accepted as a principle,\nbut in general terms. These were reduced to definiteness by Abu Hanifa\nunder the formula of \u201cholding for better\u201d (_istihsan_). He would say,\n\u201cThe analogy in the case points to such and such a rule, but under the\ncircumstances I hold it for better to rule thus and thus.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: THE QADI ABU YUSUF]\n\nThis method, as we shall see later, was vehemently attacked by his\nopponents, as was his system in general. Yet that system by its\nphilosophical perfection\u2014due to its theoretical origin\u2014and perfection in\ndetail\u2014due to generations of practical workers\u2014has survived all attack\nand can now be said to be the leading one of the four existing schools.\nNo legal writings of Abu Hanifa have reached us, nor does he seem to\nhave, himself, cast his system into a finished code. That was done by his\nimmediate pupils, and especially by two, the Qadi Abu Yusuf, who died in\n182, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, who died in 189. The first was consulting\nlawyer and chief Qadi to the great Khalifa Harun ar-Rashid, and, if\nstories can be believed, proved himself as complaisant of conscience as\na court casuist need be. Innumerable are the tales afloat of his minute\nknowledge of legal subtleties and his fertility of device in applying\nthem to meet the whims of his master, Harun. Some of them have found a\nresting place in that great mirror of medi\u00e6val Muslim life, _The Thousand\nand One Nights_; reference may be made to _Night 296_. Through his\ninfluence, the school of Abu Hanifa gained an official importance which\nit never thereafter lost. He wrote for Harun a book which we have still,\non the canon law as applied to the revenues of the state, a thorny and\nalmost impossible subject, for the canon law makes really no provision\nfor the necessary funds of even a simple form of government and much less\nfor such an array of palaces and officials as had grown up around the\nAbbasids. His book is marked by great piety in expression and by ability\nof the highest kind in reconciling the irreconcilable.\n\nBut all the canon lawyers did not fall in so easily with the new ways.\nMany found that only in asceticism, in renunciation of the world and\nengaging in pious exercises was there any chance of their maintaining\nthe old standards in a state that was for them based on oppression and\nrobbery. One of these was Sufyan ath-Thawri, a lawyer of high repute,\nwho narrowly missed founding a separate school of law and who died in\n161. There has come down to us a correspondence between him and Harun,\nwhich, though it cannot possibly be genuine, throws much light on the\ndisappointment of the sincerely religious section. Harun writes on his\naccession to the Khalifate (170), complaining that Sufyan had not visited\nhim, in spite of their bond of brotherhood, and offering him wealth\nfrom the public treasury. Sufyan replied, denouncing such use of public\nfunds and all the other uses of them by Harun\u2014many enough\u2014except those\nprecisely laid down in the codes. On the basis of these, Harun would have\nhad to work for his own living. There are also other denunciations for\ncrimes in the ruler which he punished in others. Harun is said to have\nkept the letter and wept over it at intervals, but no change of life on\nhis part is recorded. Apparently, with the accession of the Abbasids\nascetic and mystical Islam made a great development. It became plain to\nthe pious that no man could inherit both this world and the next.\n\nWhile Abu Hanifa was developing his system in Mesopotamia, al-Awza\u2018i\nwas working similarly in Syria. He was born at Baalbec, lived at\nDamascus, and at Beyrout where he died in 157. Of him and his teaching\nwe know comparatively little. But so far it is clear that he was not a\nspeculative jurist of the same type as Abu Hanifa, but paid especial\nattention to traditions. At one time his school was followed by the\nMuslims of Syria and the entire West to Morocco and Spain. But its day\nwas a short one. The school of Abu Hanifa, championed by Abu Yusuf with\nhis tremendous influence as chief Qadi of the Abbasid empire, pushed it\naside, and at the present day it has no place except in history. For us,\nits interest is that of another witness to the early rise and spread of\nsystems of jurisprudence outside of Arabia.\n\n[Sidenote: MALIK IBN ANAS]\n\nIn A.H. 179, three years before the death of Abu Yusuf and twenty-nine\nafter that of Abu Hanifa, there died at al-Madina the founder and head\nof an independent school of a very different type. This was Malik ibn\nAnas, under whose hands what we may call, for distinction, the historical\nschool of al-Madina took form. Al-Madina, it will be remembered, was the\nmother-city of Muslim law. It was the special home of the traditions\nof the Prophet and the scene of his legislative and judicial life. Its\npre-Islamic customary law had been sanctioned, in a sense, by his use. It\nhad been the capital of the state in its purest days. From the height of\nall these privileges its traditionists and lawyers looked down upon the\noutsiders and _parvenus_ who had begun to intermeddle in sacred things.\n\nBut it must not be thought that this school was of a rigid traditionism.\nThe case was quite the reverse, and in many respects it is hard to make a\ndistinction between it and that of Abu Hanifa. Its first source was, of\nnecessity, the Qur\u2019an. Then came the usage of the Prophet. This merged\ninto the usage of the Successors of the Prophet and the unwritten custom\nof the town. It will be seen that here the historical weight of the place\ncame to bear. No other place, no other community, could furnish that\nlater tradition with anything like the same authority. Further, Malik ibn\nAnas was a practical jurist, a working judge. He was occupied in meeting\nreal cases from day to day. When he sat in public and judged the people,\nor with his pupils around him and expounded and developed the law, he\ncould look back upon a line of canon lawyers who had sat in his place\nand done as he was doing. In that lies the great difference. He was in\npractical touch with actual life; that was one point; and, secondly, he\nwas in the direct line of the apostolic succession, and in the precise\nenvironment of the Prophet. So when he went beyond Qur\u2019an, prophetic\nusage, agreement, and gave out decisions on simple opinion, the feeling\nof the community justified him. It was a different thing for Malik ibn\nAnas, sitting there in state in al-Madina, to use his judgment, than\nfor some quick-brained vagabond of a Persian or Syrian proselyte, some\n_pauvre diable_ with neither kith nor kin in the country, to lay down\nprinciples of law. So the pride of the city of the Prophet distinguished\nbetween him and Abu Hanifa.\n\nBut though the speculative element in the school of Malik, apart from\nits local and historical environment, which gave it unifying weight, was\nessentially the same as in the school of Abu Hanifa, yet it is true that\nat al-Madina it played a less important part. Malik used tradition more\ncopiously and took refuge in opinion less frequently. Without opinion, he\ncould not have built his system; but for him it was not so much a primary\nprinciple as a means of escape. Yet one principle of great freedom he\ndid derive from it and lay down with clearness; it is the conception of\nthe public advantage (_istislah_). When a rule would work general injury\nit is to be set aside even in the teeth of a valid analogy. This, it\nwill be seen, is nearly the same as the preference of Abu Hanifa. The\ntechnical term _istislah_, chosen by Malik to express his idea, was\nprobably intended to distinguish it from that of Abu Hanifa, and also to\nsuggest in the public advantage (_maslaha_) a more valid basis than the\nmere preference of the legist.\n\n[Sidenote: THE DOCTRINE OF AGREEMENT]\n\nAnother conception which Malik and his school developed into greater\nexactitude and force was that of the agreement (_ijma_). It will be\nremembered that from the death of Muhammad all the surviving Companions\nresident in al-Madina formed a kind of consultive council to aid the\nKhalifa with their store of tradition and experience. Their agreement\non any point was final; it was the voice of the Church. This doctrine\nof the infallibility of the body of the believers developed in Islam\nuntil at its widest it was practically the same as the canon of catholic\ntruth formulated by Vincent of Lerins, _Quod ubique, quod semper, quod\nab omnibus_. But Malik, according to the usual view, had no intention of\ngranting any such deciding power to the outside world. The world for him\nwas al-Madina and the agreement of al-Madina established catholic verity.\nYet there are narratives which suggest that he approved the agreement and\nlocal usage of al-Madina for al-Madina because they suited al-Madina.\nOther places might also have their local usages which suited them better.\n\nIn the next school we shall find the principle of agreement put upon a\nbroader basis and granted greater weight. Finally, Malik is the first\nfounder of a system from whom a law book, the _Muwatta_ mentioned\nabove, has come down to us. It is not in the exact sense, a manual\nor code; rather a collection of materials for a code with remarks by\nthe collector. He gives the traditions which seem to him of juristic\nimportance\u2014about seventeen hundred in all\u2014arranged according to subject,\nand follows up each section, when necessary, with remarks upon the usage\nof al-Madina, and upon his own view of the matter. When he cannot find\neither tradition or usage, he evidently feels himself of sufficient\nauthority to follow his own opinion, and lay down on that basis a binding\nrule. This, however, as we have seen, is very different from allowing\nother people, outsiders to al-Madina, to do the same thing. The school\nfounded by Malik ibn Anas on these principles is one of the surviving\nfour. As that of Abu Hanifa spread eastward, so that of Malik spread\nwestward, and for a time crushed out all others. The firm grip which it\nhas especially gained in western North Africa may be due to the influence\nof the Idrisids whose founder had to flee from al-Madina when Malik was\nin the height of his reputation there, and also to hatred of the Abbasids\nwho championed the school of Abu Hanifa.\n\nBut now we pass from simple development to development through conflict.\nOpen conflict, so far as there had been any, had covered points of\ndetail; for example, the kind of opinion professed by Abu Hanifa, on the\none hand, and by Malik, on the other. One of the chiefest of the pupils\nof Abu Hanifa, the Muhammad ibn al-Hasan already mentioned, spent three\nyears in study with Malik at al-Madina and found no difficulty in thus\ncombining his schools. The conflict of the future was to be different\nand to touch the very basis of things. The muttering of the coming storm\nhad been heard for long, but it was now to burst. Exact dates we cannot\ngive, but the reaction must have been progressing in the latter part of\nthe life of Malik ibn Anas.\n\n[Sidenote: HISTORICAL _V._ PHILOSOPHICAL LAWYERS]\n\nThe distinction drawn above between traditionists and lawyers will\nbe remembered, and the promise of future collision which always has\ncome between historical or empirical, and speculative or philosophical\nstudents of systems of jurisprudence. The one side points to the\nabsurdities, crudities, and inadequacies of a system based upon tradition\nand developing by usage; the other says that we are not wise enough to\nrewrite the laws of our ancestors. These urge a necessity; those retort\nan inability. Add to this a belief on the part of the traditionists that\nthey were defending a divine institution and the situation is complete\nas it now lay in Islam. The extreme right said that law should be based\non Qur\u2019an and tradition only; the extreme left, that it was better to\nleave untrustworthy and obscure traditions and work out a system of rules\nby logic and the necessities of the case. To and fro between these two\nextremes swayed the conflict to which we now come.\n\nIn that conflict three names stand out: ash-Shafi\u2018i who died in 204,\nAhmad ibn Hanbal who died in 241 and Da\u2019ud az-Zahiri who died in 270.\nStrangely enough, the first of these, ash-Shafi\u2018i, struck the mediating\nnote and the other two diverged further and further from the via media\nthus shown toward a blank traditionism.\n\nAsh-Shafi\u2018i is without question one of the greatest figures in the\nhistory of law. Perhaps he had not the originality and keenness of Abu\nHanifa; but he had a balance of mind and temper, a clear vision and\nfull grasp of means and ends that enabled him to say what proved to be\nthe last word in the matter. After him came attempts to tear down; but\nthey failed. The fabric of the Muslim canon law stood firm. There is a\ntradition from the Prophet that he promised that with the end of every\ncentury would come a restorer of the faith of his people. At the end of\nthe first century was the pious Khalifa, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who by\nsome accident strayed in among the Umayyads. At the end of the second\ncame ash-Shafi\u2018i. His work was to mediate and systematize and bore\nespecially on the sources from which rules of law might be drawn. His\nposition on the positive side may be stated as one of great reverence\nfor tradition. \u201cIf you ever find a tradition from the Prophet saying\none thing,\u201d he is reported to have said, \u201cand a decision from me saying\nanother thing, follow the tradition.\u201d An absolutely authentic\u2014according\nto Muslim rules of evidence\u2014and clear tradition from the Prophet he\nregarded as of equally divine authority with a passage in the Qur\u2019an.\nBoth were inspired utterances, if slightly different in form; the Qur\u2019an\nwas verbally inspired; such traditions were inspired as to their content.\nAnd if such a tradition contradicted a Qur\u2019anic passage and came after it\nin time, then the written law of the Qur\u2019an was abrogated by the oral law\nof the tradition. But this involved grave difficulties. The speculative\njurists had defended their position from the beginning by pointing to\nthe many contradictory traditions which were afloat, and asking how the\nhouse of tradition could stand when so divided against itself. A means\nof reconciling traditions had to be found, and to this ash-Shafi\u2018i gave\nhimself. We need not go over his methods here; they were the same that\nhave always been used in such emergencies. The worship of the letter led\nto the straining of the letter, and to explaining away of the letter.\n\n[Sidenote: AGREEMENT AS A SOURCE]\n\nBut there lay a rock in his course more dangerous than any mere\ncontradiction in differing traditions. Usages had grown up and taken fast\nhold which were in the teeth of all traditions. These usages were in the\nindividual life, in the constitution of the state, and in the rules and\ndecisions of the law courts. The pious theologian and lawyer might rage\nagainst them as he chose; they were there, firmly rooted, immovable.\nThey were not arbitrary changes, but had come about in the process of\ntime through the revolutions of circumstances and varying conditions.\nAsh-Shafi\u2018i showed his greatness by recognizing the inevitable and\nproviding a remedy. This lay in an extension of the principle of\nagreement and the erection of it into a formal source. Whatever the\ncommunity of Islam has agreed upon at any time, is of God. We have met\nthis principle before, but never couched in so absolute and catholic a\nform. The agreement of the immediate Companions of Muhammad had weight\nwith his first Successors. The agreement of these first Companions and\nof the first generation after them, had determining weight in the early\nchurch. The agreement of al-Madina had weight with Malik ibn Anas. The\nagreement of many divines and legists always had weight of a kind. Among\nlawyers, a principle, to the contrary of which the memory of man ran not,\nhad been determining. But this was wider, and from this time on the unity\nof Islam was assured. The evident voice of the People of Muhammad was to\nbe the voice of God. Yet this principle, if full of hope and value for\nthe future, involved the canonists of the time in no small difficulties.\nWas it conceivable that the agreement could override the usage of the\nProphet? Evidently not. There must, then, they argued, once have existed\nsome tradition to the same effect as the agreement, although it had now\nbeen lost. Some such lost authority must be presupposed. This can remind\nus of nothing so much as of the theory of the inerrant but lost original\nof the Scriptures. And it had the fate of that theory. The weight of\nnecessity forced aside any such trifling and the position was frankly\nadmitted that the agreement of the community was a safer and more certain\nbasis than traditions from the Prophet. Traditions were alleged to that\neffect. \u201cMy People will never agree in an error,\u201d declared Muhammad, or,\nat least, the later church made him so declare.\n\n[Sidenote: ANALOGY; THE FOUR SOURCES]\n\nBut ash-Shafi\u2018i found that even the addition of agreement to Qur\u2019an and\nProphetic usage did not give him basis enough for his system. Opinion\nhe utterly rejected; the preference of Abu Hanifa and the conception of\nthe common welfare of Malik ibn Anas were alike to him. It is true also\nthat both had been practically saved under agreement. But he held fast\nby analogy, whether based on the Qur\u2019an or on the usage of the Prophet.\nIt was an essential instrument for his purpose. As was said, \u201cThe laws\nof the Qur\u2019an and of the usage are limited; the possible cases are\nunlimited; that which is unlimited can never be contained in that which\nis limited.\u201d But in ash-Shafi\u2018i\u2019s use of analogy there is a distinction\nto be observed. In seeking to establish a parallelism between a case\nthat has arisen and a rule in the Qur\u2019an or usage, which is similar\nin some points but not precisely parallel, are we to look to external\npoints of resemblance, or may we go further and seek to determine the\nreason (_illa_) lying behind the rule and from that draw our analogy?\nThe point seems simple enough and the early speculative jurists sought\nthe reason. For that they were promptly attacked by the traditionists.\nSuch a method was an attempt to look into the mysteries of God, they were\ntold; man has no business to inquire after reasons, all he has to do is\nto obey. The point thus raised was fought over for centuries and schools\nare classified according to their attitude toward it. The position of\nash-Shafi\u2018i seems to have been that the reason for a command was to be\nconsidered in drawing an analogy, but that there must be some clear\nguide, in the text itself, pointing to the reason. He thus left himself\nfree to consider the causes of the divine commands and yet produced the\nappearance of avoiding any irreverence or impiety in doing so.\n\nSuch then are the four sources or bases (_asls_) of jurisprudence as\naccepted and defined by ash-Shafi\u2018i\u2014Qur\u2019an, prophetic usage, analogy,\nagreement. The last has come to bear more and more weight. Every\nShafi\u2018ite law book begins each section with words to this effect, \u201cThe\nbasis of this rule, before the agreement (_qabla-l-ijma_), is\u201d Qur\u2019an or\nusage as the case may be. The agreement must put its stamp on every rule\nto make it valid. Further, all the now existing schools have practically\naccepted ash-Shafi\u2018i\u2019s classification of the sources and many have\ncontended that a lawyer, no matter what his school, who does not use all\nthese four sources, cannot be permitted to act as a judge. Ash-Shafi\u2018i\nhas accomplished his own definition of a true jurist, \u201cNot he is a jurist\nwho gathers statements and prefers one of them, but he who establishes a\nnew principle from which a hundred branches may spring.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: DA\u2019UD AZ-ZAHIRI]\n\nBut the extreme traditionists were little satisfied with this compromise.\nThey objected to analogy and they objected to agreement; nothing but the\npure law of God and the Prophet would satisfy them. And their numbers\nwere undoubtedly large. The common people always heard traditions gladly,\nand it was easy to turn to ridicule the subtleties of the professional\nlawyers. How much simpler, it struck the average mind, it would be\nto follow some clear and unambiguous saying of the Prophet; then one\ncould feel secure. This desire of the plain man to take traditions and\ninterpret them strictly and literally was met by the school of Da\u2019ud\naz-Zahiri, David the literalist. He was born three or four years before\nthe death of ash-Shafi\u2018i, which occurred in 204. He was trained as a\nShafi\u2018ite and that, too, of the narrower, more traditional type; but\nit was not traditional enough for him. So he had to cut himself loose\nand form a school of his own. He rejected utterly analogy; he limited\nagreement, as a source, to the agreement of the immediate Companions of\nMuhammad, and in this he has been followed by the Wahhabites alone among\nmoderns; he limited himself to Qur\u2019an and prophetic usage.\n\nIn another point also, he diverged. Ash-Shafi\u2018i had evidently exercised\na very great personal influence upon his followers. All looked up to him\nand were prepared to swear to his words. So there grew up a tendency\nfor a scholar to take a thing upon the word of his master. \u201cAsh-Shafi\u2018i\ntaught so; I am a Shafi\u2018ite and I hold so.\u201d This, too, Da\u2019ud utterly\nrejected. The scholar must examine the proofs for himself and form his\nown opinion. But he had another peculiarity, and one which gained him\nthe name of literalist. Everything, Qur\u2019an and tradition, must be taken\nin the most exact sense, however absurd it might be. Of course, to have\ngone an inch beyond the very first meaning of the words would have been\nto stray in the direction of analogy. Yet, as fate would have it, to\nanalogy, more or less, he had in the end to come. The inexorable law that\nthe limited cannot bound the unlimited was proved again. \u201cAnalogy is\nlike carrion,\u201d confessed a very much earlier traditionist, \u201cwhen there\nis nothing else you eat it.\u201d Da\u2019ud tried to make his meal more palatable\nby a change in name. He called it a proof (_dalil_) instead of a source\n(_asl_); but what difference of idea he involved in that it is hard to\ndetermine. This brought him to the doctrine of cause, already mentioned.\nWere we at liberty to seek the cause of a divine word or action and lead\nour \u201cproof\u201d from that? If the cause was directly stated, then Da\u2019ud held\nthat we must regard it as having been the cause in this case; but we were\nnot at liberty, he added, to look for it, or on it, as cause in any other\ncase.\n\nIt is evident that here we have to do with an impossible man and school,\nand so the Muslim world found. Most said roundly that it was illegal\nto permit a Zahirite to act as judge, on much the same grounds that\nobjection to circumstantial evidence will throw out a man now as juror.\nIf they had been using modern language, they would have said that it\nwas because he was a hopeless crank. Yet the Zahirite school lasted for\ncenturies and drew long consequences, historical and theological, for\nwhich there is no space here. It never held rank as an acknowledged\nschool of Muslim law.\n\nWe now come to the last of the four schools, and it, strange as its\norigin was, need not detain us long. The Zahirite reaction had failed\nthrough its very extremeness. It was left to a dead man and a devoted\nShafi\u2018ite to head the last attack upon the school of his master. Ahmad\nibn Hanbal was a theologian of the first rank; he made no claim to be a\nconstructive lawyer. His _Musnad_ has already been dealt with. It is an\nimmense collection of some thirty thousand traditions, but these are not\neven arranged for legal purposes. He suffered terribly for the orthodox\nfaith in the rationalist persecution under the Khalifa al-Ma\u2019mun, and his\nsufferings gained him the position of a saint. But he never dreamed of\nforming a school, least of all in opposition to his master, ash-Shafi\u2018i.\nHe died in 241, and after his death his disciples drew together and\nthe fourth school was founded. It was simply reactionary and did not\nmake progress in any way. It minimized agreement and analogy and tended\ntoward literal interpretation. As might be expected from its origin, its\nhistory has been one of violence, of persecution and counter-persecution,\nof insurrection and riot. Again and again the streets of Baghdad ran\nblood from its excesses. It has now the smallest following of the four\nsurviving schools.\n\n[Sidenote: PRINCIPLES OF UNITY AND VARIETY]\n\nThere is no need to pursue this history further. With ash-Shafi\u2018i the\ngreat development of Muslim jurisprudence closes. Legislation, equity,\nlegal fiction have done their parts; the hope for the future lay, and\nlies, in the principle of the agreement. The common-sense of the Muslim\ncommunity, working through that expression of catholicity, has set aside\nin the past even the undoubted letter of the Qur\u2019an, and in the future\nwill still further break the grasp of that dead hand. It is the principle\nof unity in Islam. But there is a principle of variety as well. The four\nschools of law whose origin has been traced are all equally valid and\ntheir decisions equally sacred in Muslim eyes. The believer may belong\nto any one of these which he chooses; he must belong to one; and when\nhe has chosen his school, he accepts it and its rules to the uttermost.\nYet he does not cast out as heretics the followers of the other schools.\nIn every chapter their codes differ more or less; but each school\nbears with the others; sometimes, it may be, with a superior tone,\nbut still bears. This liberty of variety in unity is again undoubtedly\ndue to the agreement. It has expressed itself, as it often does, in\napocryphal traditions from the Prophet, the last rag of respect left to\nthe traditionist school. Thus we are told that the Prophet said, \u201cThe\ndisagreement of My People is a Mercy from God.\u201d This supplements and\ncompletes the other equally apocryphal but equally important tradition:\n\u201cMy People will never agree upon an error.\u201d\n\nBut there is a third principle at work which we cannot view with the\nsame favor. As said above, every Muslim must attach himself to a legal\nschool, and may choose any one of these four. But once he has chosen his\nschool he is absolutely bound by the decisions and rules of that school.\nThis is the principle against which the Zahirites protested, but their\nprotest, the only bit of sense they ever showed, was in vain. The result\nof its working throughout centuries has been that now no one\u2014except\nfrom a spirit of historical curiosity\u2014ever dreams of going back from\nthe text-books of the present day to the works of the older masters.\nFurther, such an attempt to get behind the later commentaries would not\nbe permitted. We have comment upon comment upon comment, abstract of this\nand expansion of that; but each hangs by his predecessor and dares not go\nanother step backward. The great masters of the four schools settled the\nbroad principles; they were authorities of the first degree (_mujtahidun\nmutlaq_), second to Muhammad in virtue of his inspiration only. Second,\ncame the masters who had authority within the separate schools\n(_mujtahidun fi-l-madhahib_) to determine the questions that arose\nthere. Third, masters of still lesser rank for minor points (_mujtahidun\nbil-fatwa_). And so the chain runs on. The possibility of a new legal\nschool arising or of any considerable change among these existing schools\nis flatly denied. Every legist now has his place and degree of liberty\nfixed, and he must be content.\n\n[Sidenote: THE CANON AND CIVIL CODES]\n\nThese three principles, then, of catholic unity and its ability to\nmake and abrogate laws, of the liberty of diversity in that unity, and\nof blind subjection to the past within that diversity, these three\nprinciples must be our hope and fear for the Muslim peoples. What that\nfuture will be none can tell. The grasp of the dead hand of Islam is\nclose, but its grip at many points has been forced to relax. Very early,\nas has already been pointed out, the canon law had to give way to the\nwill of the sovereign, and ground once lost it has never regained. Now,\nin every Muslim country, except perhaps the Wahhabite state in central\nArabia, there are two codes of law administered by two separate courts.\nThe one judges by this canon law and has cognizance of what we may call\nprivate and family affairs, marriage, divorce, inheritance. Its judges,\nat whose head in Turkey stands the Shaykh al-Islam, a dignity first\ncreated by the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II in 1453, after the capture\nof Constantinople, also give advice to those who consult them on such\npersonal matters as details of the ritual law, the law of oaths and\nvows, etc. The other court knows no law except the custom of the country\n(_urf_, _ada_) and the will of the ruler, expressed often in what are\ncalled _Qanuns_, statutes. Thus, in Turkey at the present day, besides\nthe codices of canon law, there is an accepted and authoritative corpus\nof such _Qanuns_. It is based on the _Code Napol\u00e9on_ and administered\nby courts under the Minister of Justice. This is the nearest approach\nin Islam to the development by statute, which comes last in Sir Henry\nMaine\u2019s analysis of the growth of law. The court guided by these _Qanuns_\ndecides all matters of public and criminal law, all affairs between man\nand man. Such is the legal situation throughout the whole Muslim world,\nfrom Sulu to the Atlantic and from Africa to China. The canon lawyers, on\ntheir side, have never admitted this to be anything but flat usurpation.\nThere have not failed some even who branded as heretics and unbelievers\nthose who took any part in such courts of the world and the devil. They\nlook back to the good old days of the rightly guided Khalifas, when there\nwas but one law in Islam, and forward to the days of the Mahdi when that\nlaw will be restored. There, between a dead past and a hopeless future,\nwe may leave them. The real future is not theirs. Law is greater than\nlawyers, and it works in the end for justice and life.\n\n[Sidenote: DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS]\n\nFinally, it may be well to notice an important and necessary modification\nwhich holds as to the above statement that a Muslim may choose any\none of the four schools and may then follow its rules. As might be\nexpected, geographical influences weigh overwhelmingly in this choice.\nCertain countries are Hanifite or Shafi\u2018ite; in each, adherents of the\nother sects are rare. This geographical position may be given roughly\nas follows: central Asia, northern India, and the Turks everywhere are\nHanifite. Lower Egypt, Syria, southern India and the Malay Archipelago\nare Shafi\u2018ite. Upper Egypt and North Africa west of Egypt are Malikite.\nPractically, only the Wahhabites in central Arabia are Hanbalites.\nFurther, the position holds in Islam that the country, as a whole,\nfollows the legal creed of its ruler, just as it follows his religion.\nIt is not only _cuius regio eius religio_, but _cuius religio eius lex_.\nAgain and again, a revolution in the state has driven one legal school\nfrom power and installed another. Yet the situation occurs sometimes that\na sovereign finds his people divided into two parties, each following\na different rite, and he then recognizes both by appointing Qadis\nbelonging to both, and enforcing the decisions of these Qadis. Thus, at\nZanzibar, at present, there are eight Ibadite judges and two Shafi\u2018ite,\nall appointed by the Sultan and backed by his authority. On the other\nhand, the Turkish government, ever since it felt itself strong enough,\nhas thrown the full weight of its influence on the Hanifite side. In\nalmost all countries under its rule it appoints Hanifite judges only;\nvalid legal decisions can be pronounced only according to that rite. The\nprivate needs of non-Hanifites are met by the appointment of salaried\n_Muftis_\u2014givers of _fatwas_, or legal opinions\u2014of the other rites.\n\n[Sidenote: IBADITES]\n\nIn the above sketch there have been of necessity two considerable\nomissions. The one is of Shi\u2018ite and the other of Ibadite law. Neither\nseems of sufficient importance to call for separate treatment. The legal\nsystem of the Shi\u2018ites is derived from that of the so-called Sunnites\nand differs in details only. We have seen already (p. 38) that the\nShi\u2018ites still have Mujtahids who are not bound to the words of a master,\nbut can give decisions on their own responsibility. These seem to have\nin their hands the teaching power which strictly belongs only to the\nHidden Imam. They thus represent the principle of authority which is the\ngoverning conception of the Shi\u2018a. The Sunnites, on the other hand, have\nreached the point of recognizing that it is the People of Muhammad as a\nwhole which rules through its agreement. In another point the Shi\u2018ite\nconception of authority affects their legal system. They utterly reject\nthe idea of co-ordinate schools of law; to the doctrine of the varying\n(_ikhtilaf_) as it is called, and the liberty of diversity which lies in\nit, they oppose the authority of the Imam. There can be only one truth\nand there can be no trifling with it even in details. Among the Shi\u2018ites\nof the Zaydite sect this was affected also by their philosophical\nstudies and a philosophical doctrine of the unity of truth; but to the\nImamites it is an authoritative necessity and not one of thought. Thus\non two important points the Shi\u2018ites lack the possibility of freedom and\ndevelopment which is to be found with the Sunnites. Of the jurisprudence\nof the Ibadites we know comparatively little. A full examination of\nIbadite _fiqh_ would be of the highest interest, as the separation of its\nline of descent goes far back behind the formation of any of the orthodox\nsystems and it must have been codified to a greater or less extent by\nAbd Allah ibn Ibad himself. Its basis appears to be threefold, Qur\u2019an,\nprophetic usage, agreement\u2014naturally that of the Ibadite community. There\nis no mention of analogy, and traditions seem to have been used sparingly\nand critically. Qur\u2019an bore the principal emphasis. See above, (p. 26)\nfor the Ibadite position on the form of the state and on the nature of\nits headship.\n\n\n\n\nPART III\n\nTheology.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n The three principles in the development; first religious\n questionings; Murji\u2019ites, Kharijites, Qadarites; influence of\n Christianity; the Umayyads and Abbasids; the Mu\u2018tazilites; the\n Qualities of God; the Vision of God; the creation of the Qur\u2019an.\n\n\n[Sidenote: THE THREE PRINCIPLES]\n\nBefore entering upon a consideration of the development of the theology\nof Islam, it will be well to mark clearly the three principles which run\ncontinuously through that development, which conditioned it for evil and\nfor good and which are still working in it. In dealing with jurisprudence\nand with the theory of the state, we have already seen abundantly how\nfalse is the current idea that Islam has ceased to grow and has no hope\nof future development. The organism of Islam, like every other organism,\nhas periods of rest when it appears to have reached a _cul de sac_ and to\nhave outlived its life. But after these periods come others of renewed\nquickening and its vital energy pours itself forth again _alter et idem_.\nIn the state, we saw how the old realms passed into decrepitude and\ndecay, but new ones rose to take their places. The despotism by the grace\nof God of formal Islam was tempered by the sacred right of insurrection\nand revolution, and the People of Muhammad, in spite of kings and\nprinces, asserted, from time to time, its unquenchable vitality.\n\nIn theology the spirit breathes through single chosen men more than\nthrough the masses; and, in consequence, our treatment of it will take\nbiographical form wherever our knowledge renders that possible.\n\nBut whether we have men or naked movements, the begetters of which are\nnames to us or less, three threads are woven distinctly through the web\nof Muslim religious thought. There is tradition (_naql_); there is reason\n(_aql_); and there is the unveiling of the mystic (_kashf_). They were\nin the tissue of Muhammad\u2019s brain and they have been in his church since\nhe died. Now one would be most prominent, now another, according to the\nthinker of the time; but all were present to some degree. Tradition in\nits strictest form lives now only with the Wahhabites and the Brotherhood\nof as-Sanusi; reason has become a scholastic handmaid of theology except\namong the modern Indian Mu\u2018tazilites, whom orthodox Islam would no more\naccept as Muslims than a Trinitarian of the Westminster confession\nwould give the name of Christian to a Unitarian of the left wing; the\ninner light of the mystic has assumed many forms, running from plainest\npantheism to mere devout ecstasy. But in the church of Muhammad they are\nall working still; and the catholicity of Islam, in spite of zealots,\npersecutions and counter-persecutions, has attained here, too, as in law,\na liberty of variety in unity. Two of the principles we have met already\nin the students of _hadith_ and of speculative law. The Hanbalites\nmaintained in theology their devotion to tradition; they fought for\ncenturies all independent thinking which sought to rise above what the\nfathers had told; they fought even scholastic theology of the strictest\ntype and would be content with nothing but the rehearsal of the old\ndogmas in the old forms; they fought, too, the mystical life in all its\nphases. On the other hand, Abu Hanifa was tinged with rationalism and\nspeculation in theology as in law, and his followers have walked in his\npath. Even the mystical light has been touched in our view of the theory\nof the state. It has flourished most among the Shi\u2018ites, who are driven\nto seek and to find an inner meaning under the plain word of the Qur\u2019an,\nand whose devotion to Ali and his house and to their divine mission has\nkept alive the thought of a continuous speaking of God to mankind and of\nan exalting of mankind into the presence of God. It is for the student,\nthen, to watch and hold fast these three guiding threads.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe development of Muslim theology, like that of jurisprudence, could not\nbegin till after the death of Muhammad. So long as he lived and received\ninfallible revelations in solution of all questions of faith or usage\nthat might come up, it is obvious that no system of theology could be\nformed or even thought of. Traditions, too, which have reached us, even\nshow him setting his face against all discussions of dogma and repeating\nagain and again, in answer to metaphysical and theological questions, the\ncrude anthropomorphisms of the Qur\u2019an. But these questions and answers\nare probably forgeries of the later traditional school, shadows of future\nwarfare thrown back upon the screen of the patriarchal age. Again, in\nthe first twenty or thirty years after Muhammad\u2019s death, the Muslims\nwere too much occupied with the propagation of their faith to think\nwhat that faith exactly was. Thus, it seems that the questioning spirit\nin this direction was aroused comparatively late and remained for some\ntime on what might be called a private basis. Individual men had their\nindividual views, but sects did not quickly arise, and when they did were\nvague and hard to define in their positions. It may be said, broadly,\nthat everything which has reached us about the early Muslim heresies\nis uncertain, confused and unsatisfactory. Names, dates, influences\nand doctrines are all seen through a haze, and nothing more than an\napproximation to an outline can be attempted. Vague stories are handed\ndown of the early questionings and disputings of certain _ahl-al-ahwa_,\n\u201cpeople of wandering desires,\u201d a name singularly descriptive of the\nalways flighty and sceptical Arabs; of how they compared Scripture with\nScripture and got up theological debates, splitting points and defining\nissues, to great scandal and troubling of spirit among the simpler-minded\npious. These were not yet heretics; they were the first investigators and\nsystematizers.\n\n[Sidenote: MURJI\u2019ITES]\n\nYet two sects loom up through the mist and their existence can be\ntolerably conditioned through the historical facts and philosophical\nnecessities of the time. The one is that of the Murji\u2019ites, and the\nother of the Qadarites. A Murji\u2019ite is literally \u201cone who defers or\npostpones,\u201d in this case postpones judgment until it is pronounced by\nGod on the Day of Judgment. They arose as a sect during and out of the\ncivil war between the Shi\u2018ites, the Kharijites and the Umayyads. All\nthese parties claimed to be Muslims, and most of them claimed that they\nwere the only true Muslims and that the others were unbelievers. This\nwas especially the attitude of the Shi\u2018ites and Kharijites toward the\nUmayyads; to them, the Umayyads, as we have seen already, were godless\nheathen who professed Islam, but oppressed and slaughtered the true\nsaints of God. The Murji\u2019ites, on the other hand, worked out a view on\nwhich they could still support the Umayyads without homologating all\ntheir actions and condemning all their opponents. The Umayyads, they\nheld, were _de facto_ the rulers of the Muslim state; fealty had been\nsworn to them and they confessed the Unity of God and the apostleship\nof the Prophet. Thus, they were not polytheists, and there is no sin\nthat can possibly be compared with the sin of polytheism (_shirk_). It\nwas, therefore, the duty of all Muslims to acknowledge their sovereignty\nand to postpone until the secrets of the Last Day all judgment or\ncondemnation of any sins they might have committed. Sins less than\npolytheism could justify no one in rising in revolt against them and in\nbreaking the oath of fealty.\n\nSuch seems to have been the origin of the Murji\u2019ites, and it was the\norigin also of the theory of the accomplished fact in the state, of which\nwe have had to take account several times. Thus, between the fanatical\nvenerators of the canon law, to whom all the Khalifas, after the first\nfour, were an abomination, and the purely worldly lawyers of the court\nparty, there came a group of pious theologians who taught that the good\nof the Muslim community required obedience to the ruler of the time, even\nthough his personal unworthiness were plain. As a consequence, success\ncan legitimate anything in the Muslim state.\n\nBut with the passing away of the situation which gave rise to Murji\u2019ism,\nit itself changed from politics to theology. As a political party it\nhad opposed the political puritanism of the Kharijites; it now came to\noppose the uncompromising spirit in which these damned all who differed\nfrom them even in details and brandished the terrors of the wrath of God\nover their opponents. It is true that this came natural to Islam. The\nearlier Muslims seem in general to have been oppressed by a singularly\ngloomy fatalism. To use modern theological language, they labored under\na terrible consciousness of sin. They viewed the world as an evil\ntemptress, seducing men from heavenly things. Their lives were hedged\nabout with sins, great and little, and each deserved the eternal wrath of\nGod. The recollection of their latter end they kept ever before them and\nthe terrors that it would bring, for they felt that no amount of faith in\nGod and His Prophet could save them in the judgment to come. The roots\nof this run far back. Before the time of Muhammad and at his time there\nwere among the Arab tribes, scattered here and there, many men who felt\na profound dissatisfaction with heathenism, its doctrines and religious\nrites. The conception of God and the burden of life pressed heavily\nupon them. They saw men pass away and descend into the grave, and they\nasked whither they had gone and what had become of them. The thought\nof this fleeting, transitory life and of the ocean of darkness and\nmystery that lies around it, drove them away to seek truth in solitude\nand the deserts. They were called _Hanifs_\u2014the word is of very doubtful\nderivation\u2014and Muhammad himself, in the early part of his career,\nreckoned himself one of them. But we have evidence from heathen Arab\npoetry that these _Hanifs_ were regarded as much the same as Christian\nmonks, and that the term _hanif_ was used as a synonym for _rahib_, monk.\n\n[Sidenote: THE WRATH OF GOD IN ISLAM]\n\nAnd, in truth, the very soul of Islam sprang from these solitary hermits,\nscattered here and there throughout the desert, consecrating their lives\nto God, and fleeing from the wrath to come. Even in pre-Islamic Arabic\npoetry we feel how strong was the impression made on the Arab mind by the\ngaunt, weird men with their endless watchings and night prayers. Again\nand again there is allusion to the lamp of the hermit shining through\nthe darkness, and we have pictures of the caravan or of the solitary\ntraveller on the night journey cheered and guided by its glimmer. These\nChristian hermits and the long deserted ruins telling of old, forgotten\ntribes\u2014judged and overthrown by God, as the Arabs held and hold\u2014that lie\nthroughout the Syrian waste and along the caravan routes were the two\nthings that most stirred the imagination of Muhammad and went to form\nhis faith. To Muhammad, and to the Semite always, the whole of life was\nbut a long procession from the great deep to the great deep again. Where\nare the kings and rulers of the earth? Where are the peoples that were\nmighty in their day? The hand of God smote them and they are not. There\nis naught real in the world but God. From Him we are, and unto Him we\nreturn. There is nothing for man but to fear and worship. The world is\ndeceitful and makes sport of them that trust it.\n\nSuch is the oversong of all Muslim thought, the faith to which the Semite\never returns in the end. To this the later Murji\u2019ites opposed a doctrine\nof Faith, which was Pauline in its sweep. Faith, they declared, saved,\nand Faith alone. If the sinner believed in God and His Prophet he would\nnot remain in the fire. The Kharijites, on the other hand, held that\nthe sinner who died unrepentant would remain therein eternally, even\nthough he had confessed Islam with his lips. The unrepentant sinner, they\nconsidered, could not be a believer in the true sense. This is still\nthe Ibadite position, and from it developed one of the most important\ncontroversies of Islam as to the precise nature of faith. Some extreme\nMurji\u2019ites held that faith (_iman_) was a confession in the heart,\nprivate intercourse with God, as opposed to Islam, public confession with\nthe lips. Thus, one could be a believer (_mu\u2019min_), and outwardly confess\nJudaism or Christianity; to be a professed Muslim was not necessary.\nThis is like the doctrine of the Imamites, called _taqiya_, that it is\nallowable in time of stress to dissemble one\u2019s religious views; and it is\nworth noticing that Jahm ibn Safwan (killed, 131?), one of these extreme\nMurji\u2019ites, was a Persian proselyte in rebellion against the Arab rule,\nand of the loosest religious conduct. But these Antinomians were no more\nMuslims than the Anabaptists of Munster had a claim to be Christians. The\nother wing of the Murji\u2019ites is represented by Abu Hanifa, who held that\nfaith (_iman_) is acknowledgment with the tongue as well as the heart and\nthat works are a necessary supplement. This is little different from the\northodox position which grew up, that persuasion, confession, and works\nmade up faith. When Murji\u2019ism dropped out of existence as a sect it left\nas its contribution to Islam a distinction between great and little sins\n(_kabiras_, _saghiras_), and the position that even great sins, if not\ninvolving polytheism (_shirk_), would not exclude the believer forever\nfrom the Garden.\n\n[Sidenote: QADARITES]\n\nThe second sect, that of Qadarites, had its origin in a philosophical\nnecessity of the human mind. A perception of the contradiction between\nman\u2019s consciousness of freedom and responsibility, on the one hand, and\nthe absolute rule and predestination of God, on the other, is the usual\nbeginning of the thinking life, both in individuals and in races. It was\nso in Islam. In theology as in law, Muhammad had been an opportunist pure\nand simple. On the one hand, his Allah is the absolute Semitic despot who\nguides aright and leads astray, who seals up the hearts of men and opens\nthem again, who is mighty over all. On the other hand, men are exhorted\nto repentance, and punishment is threatened against them if they remain\nhardened in their unbelief. All these phases of a wandering and intensely\nsubjective mind, which lived only in the perception of the moment,\nappear in the Qur\u2019an. Muhammad was a poet rather than a theologian; just\nas he was a prophet rather than a legislator. As soon, then, as the\nMuslims paused in their career of conquest and began to think at all,\nthey thought of this. Naturally, so long as they were fighting in the\nPath of God, it was the conception of God\u2019s absolute sovereignty which\nmost appealed to them; by it their fates were fixed, and they charged\nwithout fear the ranks of the unbelievers. In these earliest times,\nthe fatalistic passages bore most stress and the others were explained\naway. This helped, at least, to bring it about that the party which in\ntime came to profess the freedom of man\u2019s will, began and ended as an\nheretical sect. But it only helped, and we must never lose sight of the\nfact that the eventual victory in Islam of the absolute doctrine of God\u2019s\neternal decree was the victory of the more fundamental of Muhammad\u2019s\nconflicting conceptions. The other had been much more a campaigning\nexpedient.\n\nThis sect of Qadarites, whose origin we have been conditioning, derived\nits name from their position that a man possessed _qadar_, or power, over\nhis actions. One of the first of them was a certain Ma\u2018bad al-Juhani,\nwho paid for his heresy with his life in A.H. 80. Historians tell that\nhe with Ata ibn Yassar, another of similar opinions, came one day to the\ncelebrated ascetic, al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110), and said, \u201cO Abu Sa\u2018id,\nthose kings shed the blood of the Muslims, and do grievous things and say\nthat their works are by the decree of God.\u201d To this al-Hasan replied,\n\u201cThe enemies of God lie.\u201d The story is only important as showing how the\ntimes and their changes were widening men\u2019s thoughts. Very soon, now,\nwe come from these drifting tendencies to a formal sect with a formal\nsecession and a fixed name. The Murji\u2019ites and the Qadarites melt from\nthe scene, some of their tenets pass into orthodox Islam; some into the\nnew sect.\n\n[Sidenote: ORIGIN OF MU\u2019TAZILITES]\n\nThe story of its founding again connects with the outstanding figure\nof al-Hasan al-Basri. He seems to have been the chief centre of the\nreligious life and movements of his time; his pupils appear and his\ninfluence shows itself in all the later schools. Someone came to him\nas he sat among his pupils and asked what his view was between the\nconflicting Murji\u2019ites and Wa\u2018idites, the first holding that the\ncommitter of a great sin, if he had faith, was not an unbeliever, was to\nbe accepted as a Muslim and his case left in the hands of God; the other\nlaying more stress upon the threats (_wa\u2018id_) in the Book of God and\nteaching that the committer of a great sin could not be a believer, that\nhe had, _ipso facto_, abandoned the true faith, must go into the Fire and\nabide there. Before the master could reply, one of his pupils\u2014some say\nAmr ibn Ubayd (d. circ. 144), others, Wasil ibn Ata (d. 131)\u2014broke in\nwith the assertion of an intermediate position. Such an one was neither\na believer nor an unbeliever. Then he left the circle which sat round\nthe master, went to another part of the mosque and began to develop his\nview to those who gathered round him. The name believer (_mu\u2019min_),\nhe taught, was a term of praise, and an evil-doer was not worthy of\npraise, and could not have that name applied to him. But he was not an\nunbeliever, either, for he assented to the faith. If he, then, died\nunrepentant, he must abide forever in the Fire\u2014for there are only two\ndivisions in the next world, heaven and hell\u2014but his torments would be\nmitigated on account of his faith. The position to which orthodox Islam\neventually came was that a believer could commit a great sin. If he did\nso, and died unrepentant, he went to hell; but after a time would be\npermitted to enter heaven. Thus, hell became for believers a sort of\npurgatory. On this secession, al-Hasan only said \u201c_I\u2018tazala anna_\u201d\u2014He\nhas seceded from us. So the new party was called the Mu\u2018tazila, the\nSecession. That, at least, is the story, which may be taken for what it\nis worth. The fixed facts are the rise at the beginning of the second\ncentury after the Hijra of a tolerably definite school of dissenters from\nthe traditional ideas, and their application of reason to the dogmas of\nthe Qur\u2019an.\n\nWe have noted already the influence of Christianity on Muhammad through\nthe hermits of the desert. From it sprang the asceticism of Islam\nand that asceticism grew and developed into quietism and thence into\nmysticism. The last step was still in the future, but already at this\ntime there were wandering monks who imitated their Christian brethren in\nthe wearing of a coarse woollen frock and were thence called Sufis, from\n_suf_, wool. It was not long before Sufi came to mean mystic, and the\nthird of the three great threads was definitely woven into the fabric of\nMuslim thought. But that was not the limit of Christian influence. Those\nanchorites in their caves and huts had little training in the theology of\nthe schools; the dogmas of their faith were of a practical simplicity.\nBut in the development of the Murji\u2019ites and Qadarites it is impossible\nto mistake the workings of the dialectic refinements of Greek theology\nas developed in the Byzantine and Syrian schools. It is worth notice,\ntoo, that, while the political heresies of the Shi\u2018ites and Kharijites\nheld sway mostly in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia, these more religious\nheresies seem to have arisen in Syria first and especially at Damascus,\nthe seat of the Umayyads.\n\n[Sidenote: INFLUENCE OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS]\n\nThe Umayyad dynasty, we should remember, was in many ways a return to\npre-Muslim times and to an easy enjoyment of worldly things; it was a\nrejection of the yoke of Muhammad in all but form and name. The fear\nof the wrath of God had small part with the most of them; sometimes it\nappeared in the form of an insane rebellion and defiance. Further, as\nMuslim governments always have done, they sought aid in their task of\ngoverning from their non-Muslim subjects. So it came about that Sergius,\nthe father of Johannes Damascenus, was treasurer under them and that\nafter his death, this John of Damascus himself, the last great doctor of\nthe Greek Church and the man under whose hands its theology assumed final\nform, became wazir and held that post until he withdrew from the world\nand turned to the contemplative life. In his writings and in those of\nhis pupil, Theodoras Abucara (d. A.D. 826), there are polemic treatises\non Islam, cast in the form of discussions between Christians and Muslims.\nThese represent, there can be little doubt, a characteristic of the time.\nThe close agreement of Murji\u2019ite and Qadarite ideas with those formulated\nand defended by John of Damascus and by the Greek Church generally can\nonly be so explained. The Murji\u2019ite rejection of eternal punishment and\nemphasis on the goodness of God and His love for His creatures, the\nQadarite doctrine of free-will and responsibility, are to be explained in\nthe same way as we have already explained the presence of sentences in\nthe Muslim _fiqh_ which seem to be taken bodily from the Roman codes. In\nthis case, also, we are not to think of the Muslim divines as studying\nthe writings of the Greek fathers, but as picking up ideas from them\nin practical intercourse and controversy. The very form of the tract\nof John of Damascus is significant, \u201cWhen the Saracen says to you such\nand such, then you will reply....\u201d This, as a whole, is a subject which\ncalls for investigation, but so far it is clear that the influence of\nGreek theology on Islam can hardly be overestimated. The one outstanding\nfact of the enormous emphasis laid by both on the doctrine of the nature\nof God and His attributes is enough. It may even be conjectured that\nthe harsher views developed by western Muslims, and especially by the\ntheologians of Spain, were due, on the other hand, to Augustinian and\nRoman influence. It is, to say the least, a curious coincidence that\nSpanish Islam never took kindly to metaphysical or scholastic theology,\nin the exact sense, but gave almost all its energy to canon law.\n\n[Sidenote: INFLUENCES AT BAGHDAD]\n\nBut there were other influences to come. With the fall of the Umayyads\nand the rise of the Abbasids, the intellectual centre of the empire moved\nto the basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris. The story of the founding\nof Baghdad there, in 145, we have already heard. We have seen, too, that\nthe victory of the Abbasids was, in a sense, a conquest of the Arabs by\nthe Persians. _Gr\u00e6cia capta_ and the rest came true here; the battles\nof al-Qadisiya and Nahawand were avenged; Persian ideas and Persian\nreligion began slowly to work on the faith of Muhammad. At the court of\nthe earliest Abbasids it was fashionable to affect a little free thought.\nPeople were becoming enlightened and played with philosophy and science.\nGreek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, Manich\u00e6ism, the old heathenism of\nHarran, Judaism, Christianity\u2014all were in the air and making themselves\nfelt. So long as the adherents and teachers of these took them in a\npurely academic way, were good subjects and made no trouble, the earlier\nAbbasids encouraged their efforts, gathered in the scientific harvest,\npaid well for translations, instruments, and investigations, and\ngenerally posed as patrons of progress.\n\nBut a line had to be drawn somewhere and drawn tightly. The victory of\nthe Abbasids had raised high hopes among the Persian nationalists. They\nhad thought that they were rallying to the overthrow of the Arabs, and\nfound, when all was done, that they had got only another Arab dynasty.\nSo revolts had begun to break out afresh, and now, curiously enough,\nthey were of a marked religious character. They were an expression of\nreligious sects, Buddhistic, Zoroastrian, Manich\u00e6an, and parties with\nprophetic leaders of their own; all are swept together by Muslim writers\nas _Zindiqs_, probably literally, \u201cinitiates,\u201d originally Manich\u00e6ans,\nthereafter, practically non-Muslims concealing their unbelief. For\nwhen not in open revolt they must needs profess Islam. In 167, we find\nal-Mahdi, who was also, it is true, much more strict than his father,\nal-Mansur, appointing a grand inquisitor to deal with such heretics.\nAl-Mansur, however, had contented himself with crushing actual rebellion;\nand Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, and heathen of Harran were tolerated so\nlong as they brought to him the fruits of Greek science and philosophy.\n\nThat they did willingly, and so, through three intermediaries, science\ncame to the Arabs. There was a heathen Syrian source with its centre at\nHarran, of which we know comparatively little. There was a Christian\nSyrian source working from the multitudinous monasteries scattered over\nthe country. There was a Persian source by which natural science, and\nmedicine especially, were passed on. Already in the fifth century A.D.\nan academy of medicine and philosophy had been founded at Gondeshapur\nin Khuzistan. One of the directors of this institution was summoned,\nin 148, to prescribe for al-Mansur, and from that time on it furnished\ncourt physicians to the Abbasids. On these three paths, then, Aristotle\nand Plato, Euclid and Ptolemy, Galen and Hippocrates reached the Muslim\npeoples.\n\n[Sidenote: GOLDEN AGE OF MUSLIM SCIENCE]\n\nThe first hundred years of the Abbasid Khalifate was the golden age of\nMuslim science, the period of growth and development for the People of\nMuhammad fairly as a whole. Intellectual life did not cease with the\nclose of that period, but the Khalifate ceased to aid in carrying the\ntorch. Thereafter, learning was protected and fostered by individual\nrulers here and there, and individual investigators and scholars still\nwent on their own quiet paths. But free intellectual life among the\npeople was checked, and such learning as still generally flourished\nfell more and more between fixed bounds. Scholasticism, with its formal\nmethods and systems, its subtle deductions and endless ramifications of\nproof and counter-proof, drew away attention from the facts of nature.\nThe oriental brain studied itself and its own workings to the point\nof dizziness, and then turned and clung fast to the certainties of\nrevelation. Under this spell heresy and orthodoxy proved alike sterile.\n\nWe return, now, to the beginnings of the Mu\u2018tazilites. These served\nthemselves heirs upon the Qadarites and denied that God predestined\nthe actions of men. Death and life, sickness, health, and external\nvicissitudes came, they admitted, by God\u2019s _qadar_, but it was\nunthinkable that man should be punished for actions not in his control.\nThe freedom of the will is an _a priori_ certainty, and man possesses\n_qadar_ over his own actions. This was the position of Wasil ibn Ata, of\nwhom we have already heard. But to it he added a second doctrine, the\norigin of which is obscure, although suggestive of discussions with Greek\ntheologians. The Qur\u2019an describes God as willing, knowing, decreeing,\netc.\u2014strictly as the Willing One, the Knowing One, the Decreeing One,\netc.\u2014and the orthodox hold that such expressions could only mean that\nGod possesses as Qualities (_sifat_) Will, Knowledge, Power, Life, etc.\nTo this Wasil raised objections. God was One, and such Qualities would\nbe separate Beings. Thus, his party and the Mu\u2018tazilites always called\nthemselves the People of Unity and Justice (_Ahl-at-tawhid wal\u2018adl_); the\nUnity being of the divine nature, the Justice consisting in that they\nopposed God\u2019s _qadar_ over men and held that He must do for the creature\nthat which was best for it. Orthodox Islam held and holds that there can\nbe no necessity upon God, even to do justice; He is absolutely free,\nand what He does man must accept. It flatly opposes the position held\nby the Mu\u2018tazilites in general, that good and evil can be perceived and\ndistinguished by the intellect (_aql_). Good and evil have their nature\nby God\u2019s will, and man can learn to know them only by God\u2019s teachings and\ncommands. Thus, except through revelation, there can be neither theology\nnor ethics.\n\n[Sidenote: ABU HUDHAYL]\n\nThe next great advance was made by Abu Hudhayl Muhammad al-Allaf (d.\n_circa_ 226), a disciple of the second generation from Wasil. At his\nhands the doctrine of God\u2019s qualities assumed a more definite form. Wasil\nhad reduced God to a vague unity, a kind of eternal oneness. Abu Hudhayl\ntaught that the qualities were not _in_ His essence, and thus separable\nfrom it, thinkable apart from it, but that they _were_ His essence. Thus,\nGod was omnipotent by His omnipotence, but it _was_ His essence and not\nin His essence. He was omniscient by His omniscience and it _was_ His\nessence. Further, he held that these qualities must be either negations\nor relations. Nothing positive can be asserted of them, for that would\nmean that there was in God the complexity of subject and predicate, being\nand quality; and God is absolute Unity. This view the Muslim theologians\nregard as a close approximation to the Christian Trinity; for them, the\npersons of the Trinity have always been personified qualities, and such\nseems really to have been the view of John of Damascus. Further, God\u2019s\nWill, according to Abu Hudhayl, as expressed in His Creative Word, did\nnot necessarily exist in a subject (_fi mahall_, _in subiecto_). When God\nsaid, \u201cBe!\u201d creatively, there was no subject. Again, he endeavored\u2014and in\nthis he was followed by most of the Mu\u2018tazilites\u2014to cut down the number\nof God\u2019s attributes. His will, he said, was a form of His knowledge; He\nknew that there was good in an action, and that knowledge was His will.\n\nHis position on the _qadar_ question was peculiar. With regard to this\nworld, he was a Qadarite; but in the next world, both in heaven and in\nhell, he thought that all changes were by divine necessity. Otherwise,\nthat is, if men were free, there would be obligation to observe a law\n(_taklif_); but there is no such obligation in the other world. Thus,\nwhatever happened there happened by God\u2019s decree. Further, he taught\nthat, eventually, nothing would happen there; that there would be no\nchanges, but only an endless stillness in which those in heaven had all\nits joys and those in hell all its pains. This is a close approximation\nto the view of Jahm ibn Safwan, who held that after the judgment both\nheaven and hell would pass away and God remain alone as He was in the\nbeginning. To these doctrines Abu Hudhayl seems to have been led by two\nconsiderations, both significant for the drift of the Mu\u2018tazilites.\nFirst, there was about their reasonings a grimness of logic touched with\nutilitarianism. Thus, from their position that man could come by the\nlight of his reason to the knowledge of God and of virtue, they drew the\nconclusion that it was man\u2019s duty so to attain, and that God would damn\neternally every man who did not. Their utilitarianism, again, comes out\nstrikingly in their view of heaven and hell. These, at present, were\nserving no useful purpose because they had no inhabitants; therefore, at\npresent, they did not exist. But this made difficulties for Abu Hudhayl.\nWhat has a beginning must have an end. So he explained the end as the\nceasing of all changes. Second, he shows clear evidence of influence from\nGreek philosophy. The Qur\u2019an teaches that the world has been created in\ntime; Aristotle, that it is from eternity and to eternity. The creation,\nAbu Hudhayl applied to changes; before that, the world _was_, but in\neternal rest. Hereafter, all changes will cease; rest will again enter\nand endure to all eternity. We shall see how largely this doctrine was\nadvanced and developed by his successors.\n\nBut there were further complications in the doctrine of man\u2019s actions and\ninto some of these we must enter, on account of their later importance.\nNot everything that comes from the action of a man is by his action. God\nhas a creative part in it, apparently as regards the effects. Especially,\nknowledge in the mind of a pupil does not come from the teacher, but from\nGod. The idea seems to be that the teacher may teach, but that the being\ntaught in the pupil is a divine working. Similarly, he distinguished\nmotions in the mind, which he held were not altogether due to the man,\nand external motions which were. There is given, too, to a man at the\ntime of his performing an action an ability to perform the action, which\nis a special accident in him apart from any mere soundness of health or\nlimb.\n\nIn these ways, Abu Hudhayl recognized God\u2019s working through man. Another\nof his positions had a similar basis and was a curious combination of\nhistorical criticism and mysticism, a combination which we shall find\nlater in al-Ghazzali, a much greater man. The evidence of tradition for\nthings dealing with the Unseen World (_al-ghayb_) he rejected. Twenty\nwitnesses might hand on the tradition in question, but it was not to be\nreceived unless among them there was one, at least, of the People of\nParadise. At all times, he taught, there were in the world these Friends\nof God (_awliya Allah_, sing. _wali_), who were protected against all\ngreater sins and could not lie. It is the word of these that is the basis\nfor belief, and the tradition is merely a statement of what they have\nsaid. This shows clearly how far the doctrine of the ecstatic life and of\nknowledge gained through direct intercourse between the believer and God\nhad already advanced.\n\nBut Abu Hudhayl was only one in a group of daring and absolutely\nfree-minded speculators. They were applying to the ideas of the Qur\u2019an\nthe keen solvent of Greek dialectic, and the results which they obtained\nwere of the most fantastically original character. Thrown into the wide\nsea and utter freedom of Greek thought, their ideas had expanded to the\nbursting point and, more than even a German metaphysician, they had lost\ntouch of the ground of ordinary life, with its reasonable probabilities,\nand were swinging loose on a wild hunt after ultimate truth, wielding as\ntheir weapons definitions and syllogisms. The lyric fervors of Muhammad\nin the Qur\u2019an gave scope enough of strange ideas from which to start, or\nwhich had to be explained away. Their belief in the powers of the science\nof logic was unfailing, and, armed with Aristotle\u2019s \u201cAnalytics,\u201d they\nfelt sure that certainty was within their reach. It was at the court and\nunder the protection of al-Ma\u2019mun that they especially flourished, and\nsome account of the leading spirits among them will be necessary before\nwe describe how they reached their utmost pride of power and how they\nfell.\n\n[Sidenote: AN-NAZZAM]\n\nAn-Nazzam (d. 231) has the credit among later historians of having made\nuse, to a high degree, of the doctrines of the Greek philosophers. He\nwas one of the Satans of the Qadarites, say they; he read the books of\nthe philosophers and mingled their teachings with the doctrines of the\nMu\u2018tazilites. He taught, in the most absolute way, that God could do\nnothing to a creature, either in this world or in the next, that was\nnot for the creature\u2019s good and in accordance with strict justice. It\nwas not only that God _would_ not do it; He had not the power to do\nanything evil. Evidently the personality of God was fast vanishing behind\nan absolute law of right. To this, orthodox Islam opposed the doctrine\nthat God could do anything; He could forgive whom He willed, and punish\nwhom He willed. Further, he taught that God\u2019s willing a thing meant only\nthat He did it in accordance with His knowledge; and when He willed\nthe action of a creature that meant only that He commanded it. This is\nevidently to evade phrases in the Qur\u2019an. Man, again, he taught, was\nspirit (_ruh_), and the body (_badan_) was only an instrument. But this\nspirit was a fine substance which flowed in the body like the essential\noil in a rose, or butter in milk. In a universe determined by strict\nlaw, man alone was undetermined. He could throw a stone into the air,\nand by his action the stone went up; but when the force of his throw was\nexhausted it came again under law and fell. If he had only asked himself\nhow it came to fall, strange things might have happened. But he, and all\nhis fellows, were only playing with words like counters. Further, he\ntaught that God had created all created things at once, but that He kept\nthem in concealment until it was time for them to enter on the stage of\nvisible being and do their part. All things that ever will exist are thus\nexisting now, but, in a sense, _in retentis_. This seems to be another\nattempt to solve the problem of creation in time, and it had important\nconsequences. Further, the Qur\u2019an was no miracle (_mu\u2018jiz_) to him. The\nonly miraculous elements in it are the narratives about the Unseen World,\nand past things and things to come, and the fact that God deprived the\nArabs of the power of writing anything like it. But for that, they could\neasily have surpassed it as literature. As a high Imamite he rejected\nutterly agreement and analogy. Only the divinely appointed Imam had the\nright to supplement the teaching of Muhammad. We pass over some of his\nmetaphysical views, odd as they are. The Muslim writers on theological\nhistory have classified him rightly as more of a physicist than a\nmetaphysician. He had a concrete mind and that fondness for playing with\nmetaphysical paradoxes which often goes with it.\n\n[Sidenote: BISHR; MA\u2018MAR]\n\nAnother of the group was Bishr ibn al-Mu\u2018tamir. His principal\ncontribution was the doctrine of _tawlid_ and _tawallud_, begetting and\nderiving. It is the transmission of a single action through a series of\nobjects; the agent meant to affect the first object only; the effect on\nthe others followed. Thus, he moves his hand, and the ring on his finger\nis moved. What relation of responsibility, then, does he bear to these\nderived effects? Generally, how are we to view a complex of causes acting\ntogether and across one another? The answer of later orthodox Islam is\nworth giving at this point. God creates in the man the will to move his\nhand; He creates the movement of the hand and also the movement of the\nring. All is by God\u2019s direct creation at the time. Further, could God\npunish an infant or one who had no knowledge of the faith? Bishr\u2019s reply\non the first point was simply a bit of logical jugglery to avoid saying\nfrankly that there was anything that God could not do. His answer on the\nsecond was that God could have made a different and much better world\nthan this, a world in which all men might have been saved. But He was\nnot bound to make a better world\u2014in this Bishr separates from the other\nMu\u2018tazilites\u2014He was only bound to give man free-will and, then, either\nrevelation to guide him to salvation or reason to show him natural law.\n\nWith Ma\u2018mar ibn Abbad, the philosophies wax faster and more furious.\nHe succeeded in reducing the conception of God to a bare, indefinable\nsomething. We could not say that God had knowledge. For it must be of\nsomething in Himself or outside of Himself. If the first, then there was\na union of knower and known, and that is impossible; or a duality in the\ndivine nature, and that was equally impossible. Here Ma\u2018mar was evidently\non the road to Hegel. If the second, then His knowledge depended on\nthe existence of something other than Himself, and that did away with\nHis absoluteness. Similarly, he dealt with God\u2019s Will. Nor could He be\ndescribed as _qadim_, prior to all things, for that word, in Arabic,\nsuggested sequence and time. By all this, he evidently meant that our\nconceptions cannot be applied to God; that God is unthinkable by us.\nOn creation, he developed the ideas of an-Nazzam. Substances (_jisms_)\nonly were created by God, and by \u201csubstances\u201d he seems to mean matter as\na whole; all changes in them, or it, come either of necessity from its\nnature, as when fire burns, the sun warms; or of free-will, as always\nin the animal world. God has no part in these things. He has given the\nmaterial and has nothing to do with the coming and going of separate\nbodies; such are simple changes, forms of existence, and proceed from the\nmatter itself. Man is an incorporeal substance. The soul is the man and\nhis body is but a cover. This true man can only know and will; the body\nperceives and does.\n\nThe last of this group whose views we need consider, is Thumama ibn\nAshras. He was of very dubious morals; was imprisoned as a heretic by\nHarun ar-Rashid, but highly favored by al-Ma\u2019mun, in whose Khalifate\nhe died, A.H. 213. He held that actions produced through _tawallud_\nhad no agent, either God or man. That knowledge of good and evil could\nbe produced by _tawallud_ through speculation, and is, therefore, an\naction without an agent, and required even before revelation. That\nJews, Christians, Magians will be turned into dust in the next world\nand will not enter either Paradise or Hell; the same will be the fate\nof cattle and children. That any one of the unbelievers who does not\nknow his Creator is excusable. That all knowledge is _a priori_. That\nthe only action which men possess is will; everything besides that is a\nproduction without a producer. That the world is the act of God by His\nnature, _i.e._, it is an act which His nature compels Him to produce;\nis, therefore, from eternity and to eternity with Him. It may be doubted\nhow far Thumama was a professional theologian and how far he was a\nfree-thinking, easy-living man of letters.\n\nIn all this, the influence of Greek theology and of Aristotle can be\nclearly traced. With Aristotle had come to them the idea of the world\nas law, an eternal construction subsisting and developing on fixed\nprinciples. This conception of law shows itself in their thought frankly\nat strife with Muhammad\u2019s conception of God as will, as the sovereign\nover all. Hence, the crudities and devices by which they strove to make\ngood their footing on strange ground and keep a right to the name of\nMuslim, while changing the essence of their faith. The anthropomorphic\nGod of Muhammad, who has face and hands, is seen in Paradise by the\nbeliever and settles Himself firmly upon His throne, becomes a spirit,\nand a spirit, too, of the vaguest kind.\n\n[Sidenote: THE VISION OF GOD]\n\nIt remains now only to touch upon one or two points common to all the\nMu\u2018tazilites. First, the Beatific Vision of God in Paradise. It was a\nfixed agreement of the early Muslim Church, based on texts of the Qur\u2019an\nand on tradition, that some believers, at least, would see and gaze upon\nGod in the other world; this was the highest delight held out to them.\nBut the Mu\u2018tazilites perceived that vision involved a directing of the\neyes on the part of the seer and position on the part of the seen. God\nmust, therefore, be in a place and thus limited. So they were compelled\nto reject the agreement and the traditions in question and to explain\naway the passages in the Qur\u2019an. Similarly, in Qur\u2019an vii. 52, we read\nthat God settled Himself firmly upon His throne. This, with other\nanthropomorphisms of hands and feet and eyes, the Mu\u2018tazilites had to\nexplain away in a more or less cumbrous fashion.\n\nWith one other detail of this class we must deal at greater length. It\nwas destined to be the vital point of the whole Mu\u2018tazilite controversy\nand the test by which theologians were tried and had their places\nassigned. It had a weighty part also in bringing about the fall of the\nMu\u2018tazilites. There had grown up very early in the Muslim community\nan unbounded reverence and awe in the presence of the Qur\u2019an. In it\nGod speaks, addressing His servant, the Prophet; the words, with\nfew exceptions, are direct words of God. It is, therefore, easily\nintelligible that it came to be called the word of God (_kalam Allah_).\nBut Muslim piety went further and held that it was uncreated and had\nexisted from all eternity with God. Whatever proofs of this doctrine may\nhave been brought forward later from the Qur\u2019an itself, we can have no\ndifficulty in recognizing that it is plainly derived from the Christian\nLogos and that the Greek Church, perhaps through John of Damascus, has\nagain played a formative part. So, in correspondence with the heavenly\nand uncreated Logos in the bosom of the Father, there stands this\nuncreated and eternal Word of God; to the earthly manifestation in Jesus\ncorresponds the Qur\u2019an, the Word of God which we read and recite. The\none is not the same as the other, but the idea to be gained from the\nexpressions of the one is equivalent to the idea which we would gain\nfrom the other, if the veil of the flesh were removed from us and the\nspiritual world revealed.\n\n[Sidenote: THE WORD OF GOD]\n\nThat this view grew up very early among the Muslims is evident from\nthe fact that it is opposed by Jahm ibn Safwan, who was killed toward\nthe end of the Umayyad period. It seems to have originated by a kind\nof transfusion of ideas from Christianity and not as a result of\ncontroversy or dialectic about the teachings of the Qur\u2019an. We find\nthe orthodox party vehemently opposing discussion on the subject, as\nindeed they did on all theological subjects. \u201cOur fathers have told\nus; it is the faith received from the Companions;\u201d was their argument\nfrom the earliest time we can trace. Malik ibn Anas used to cut off all\ndiscussions with \u201c_Bila kayfa_\u201d (Believe without asking how); and he held\nstrongly that the Qur\u2019an was uncreated. The same word _kalam_ which we\nhave found applied to the Word of God\u2014both the eternal, uncreated Logos\nand its manifestation in the Qur\u2019an\u2014was used by them most confusingly for\n\u201cdisputation;\u201d \u201che disputed\u201d was _takallam_ and \u201cone who disputed\u201d was\n_mutakallim_. All that was anathema to the pious, and it is amusing to\nsee the origin of what became later the technical terms for scholastic\ntheology and its students in their shuddering repulsion to all \u201ctalking\nabout\u201d the sacred mysteries.\n\nThis opposition appeared in two forms. First, they refused to go an\ninch beyond the statements in the Qur\u2019an and tradition and to draw\nconsequences, however near the surface these consequences might seem\nto lie. A story is told of al-Bukhari, (d. 257), late as he is, which\nshows how far this went and how long it lasted. An inquisition was got\nup against him out of envy by one of his fellow-teachers. The point of\nattack was the orthodoxy of his position on the _lafz_ (utterance) of the\nQur\u2019an; was it created or uncreated? He said readily that the Qur\u2019an was\nuncreated and was obstinately silent as to the utterance of it by men.\nAt last, persistent questioning drove him to an outburst. \u201cThe Qur\u2019an\nis the Word of God and is uncreated. The speech of man is created and\ninquisition (_imtihan_) is an innovation (_bid\u2018a_).\u201d But beyond that he\nwould not go, even to draw the conclusion of the syllogism which he had\nindicated. Some, as we may gather from this story, had felt themselves\ndriven to hold that not only the Qur\u2019an in itself but also the utterance\nof it by the lips of men and the writing of it by men\u2019s hands\u2014all between\nthe boards, as they said\u2014was uncreated. Others were coming to deny\nabsolutely the existence of the eternal Logos and that this revealed\nQur\u2019an was uncreated in any sense. But others, as al-Bukhari, while\nholding tenaciously that the Qur\u2019an was uncreated, refused to make any\nstatement as to its utterance by men. There was nothing said about that\nin Qur\u2019an or tradition.\n\nThe second form of opposition was to any upholding of their belief by\narguments, except of the simplest and most apparent. That was an invasion\nby reason (_aql_) of the realm of traditional faith (_naql_). When the\npious were eventually driven to dialectic weapons, their arguments show\nthat these were snatched up to defend already occupied positions. They\nring artificial and forced. Thus, in the Qur\u2019an itself, the Qur\u2019an is\ncalled \u201cknowledge from God.\u201d It is, then, inseparable from God\u2019s quality\nof knowledge. But that is eternal and uncreated; therefore, so too, the\nQur\u2019an. Again, God created everything by the word, \u201cBe.\u201d But this word\ncannot have been created, otherwise a created word would be a creator.\nTherefore, God\u2019s word is uncreated. Again, there stands in the Qur\u2019an\n(vii, 52), \u201cAre not the creation and the command His?\u201d The command\nhere is evidently different from the creation, _i.e._, not created.\nFurther, God\u2019s command creates; therefore it cannot be created. But it\nis God\u2019s word in command. It will be noticed here how completely God\u2019s\nword is hypostatized. This appears still more strongly in the following\nargument. God said to Moses, (Qur. vii, 141), \u201cI have chosen thee over\nmankind with my apostolate and my word.\u201d God, therefore, has a word. But,\nagain (Qur. iv, 162), He addresses Moses with this word (_kallama-llahu\nMusa taklima_, evidently regarded as meaning that God\u2019s word addressed\nMoses) and said, \u201cLo, I am thy Lord.\u201d This argument is supposed to put\nthe opponent in a dilemma. Either he rejects the fact of Moses being\nso addressed, which is rejecting what God has said, and is, therefore,\nunbelief; or he holds that the _kalam_ which so addresses Moses is a\ncreated thing. Then, a created thing asserts that it is Moses\u2019 Lord.\nTherefore, God\u2019s _kalam_ with which He addresses the prophets, or which\naddresses the prophets, is eternal, uncreated.\n\nBut if this doctrine grew up early in Islam, opposition to it was\nnot slow in appearing, and that on different sides. Literary vanity,\nnational pride, and philosophical scruples all made themselves felt.\nEven in Muhammad\u2019s lifetime, according to the legend of the poet Labid\nand the verses which he put up in challenge on the Ka\u2018ba, the Qur\u2019an had\ntaken rank as inimitable poetry. At all points it was the Word of God\nand perfect in every detail. But, among the Arabs, a jealous and vain\npeople, if there was one thing on which each was more jealous and vain\nthan another, it was skill in working with words. The superiority of\nMuhammad as a Prophet of God they might endure, though often with a bad\ngrace; but Muhammad as a rival and unapproachable literary artist they\ncould not away with. So we find satire of the weaknesses of the Qur\u2019an\nappearing here and there, and it came to be a sign of emancipation and\nfreedom from prejudice to examine it in detail and balance it against\nother products of the Arab genius. The rival productions of Musaylima,\nthe False Prophet, long enjoyed a semi-contraband existence, and Abu\nUbayda (d. 208) found it necessary to write a treatise in defence of\nthe metaphors of the Qur\u2019an. Among the Persians this was still more the\ncase. To them, Muhammad might be a prophet, but he was also an Arab; and\nwhile they accepted his mission, accepting his books in a literary way\nwas too much for them. As a prophet, he was a man; as a literary artist,\nhe was an Arab. So Jahm ibn Safwan may have felt; so, certainly, others\nfelt later. The poet Bashshar ibn Burd (killed for satire, in 167), a\ncompanion of Wasil ibn Ata and a Persian of very dubious orthodoxy, used\nto amuse himself by comparing poems by himself and others with passages\nin the Qur\u2019an, to the disadvantage of the latter. And Ibn al-Muqaffa\n(killed about 140), the translator of \u201cKalila and Dimna\u201d and many other\nbooks into Arabic, and a Persian nationalist, is said to have planned an\nimitation of the Qur\u2019an.\n\n[Sidenote: MU\u2018TAZILITE ATTITUDE]\n\nAdded to all this came the influence of the Mu\u2018tazilite theologians. They\nhad a double ground for their opposition. The doctrine of an absolutely\ndivine and perfect book limited them too much in their intellectual\nfreedom. They were willing to respect and use the Qur\u2019an, but not to\naccept its _ipsissima verba_. Regarded as the production of Muhammad\nunder divine influence, it could have a human and a divine side, and\nthings which needed to be dropped or changed in it could be ascribed to\nthe human side. But that was not possible with a miraculous book come\ndown from heaven. In a word, they were meeting the difficulty which has\nbeen met by Christianity in the latter half of the nineteenth century.\nThe least they could do was to deny that the Qur\u2019an was uncreated.\n\nBut they had a still more vital, if not more important, philosophical\nbase of objection. We have seen already how they viewed the doctrine of\nGod\u2019s qualities (_sifat_) and tried to limit them in every way. These\nqualities ran danger, they held, of being hypostatized into separate\npersons like those in the Christian Trinity, and we have just seen how\nnear that danger really lay in the case of God\u2019s _kalam_. In orthodox\nIslam it has become a plain Logos.\n\nThe position in this of an-Nazzam has been given above. It is interesting\nas showing that the Qur\u2019an, even then, was given as a probative miracle\n(_mu\u2018jiz_) because it deprived all men of power (_i\u2018jaz_) to imitate it.\nThat is, its \u00e6sthetic perfection was raised to the miraculous degree and\nthen regarded as a proof of its divine origin. But al-Muzdar, a pupil of\nBishr ibn al Mu\u2018tamir and an ascetic of high rank, called the Monk of\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites, went still further than an-Nazzam. He flatly damned as\nunbelievers all who held the eternity of the Qur\u2019an; they had taken unto\nthemselves two Gods. Further, he asserted that men were quite capable of\nproducing a work even finer than the Qur\u2019an in point of style. But the\nforce of this opinion is somewhat diminished by the liberality with which\nhe denounced his opponents in general as unbelievers. Stories are told\nof him very much like those in circulation with us about those who hold\nthat few will be saved, and it is worth noticing that upon this point of\nsalvability the Mu\u2018tazilites were even narrower than the orthodox.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n Al-Ma\u2019mun and the triumph of the Mu\u2018tazilites; the Mihna and\n Ahmad ibn Hanbal; al-Farabi; the Fatimids and the Ikhwan\n as-Safa; the early mystics, ascetic and pantheistic; al-Hallaj.\n\n\nSuch for long was the situation between the Mu\u2018tazilites and their\northodox opponents. From time to time the Mu\u2018tazilites received more\nor less protection and state favor; at other times, they had to seek\nsafety in hiding. Popular favor they seem never to have enjoyed. As the\nUmayyads grew weak, they became more stiff in their orthodoxy; but with\nthe Abbasids, and especially with al-Mansur, thought was again free. As\nhas been shown above, encouragement of science and research was part of\nthe plan of that great man, and he easily saw that the intellectual hope\nof the future was with these theological and philosophical questioners.\nSo their work went slowly on, with a break under Harun ar-Rashid, a\nmagnificent but highly orthodox monarch, who understood no trifling with\nthings of the faith. It is an interesting but useless question whether\nIslam could ever have been broadened and developed to the point of\nenduring in its midst free speculation and research. As the case stands\nin history, it has known periods of intellectual life, but only under\nthe protection of isolated princes here and there. It has had Augustan\nages; it has never had great popular yearnings after wider knowledge.\nIts intellectual leaders have lived and studied and lectured at courts;\nthey have not gone down and taught the masses of the people. To that the\ndemocracy of Islam has never come. Hampered by scholastic snobbishness,\nit has never learned that the abiding victories of science are won in the\nvillage school.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-MA\u2019MUN]\n\nBut most unfortunately for the Mu\u2018tazilites and for Islam, a Khalifa\narose who had a relish for theological discussions and a high opinion\nof his own infallibility. This was al-Ma\u2019mun. It did not matter that\nhe ranged himself on the progressive side; his fatal error was that he\ninvoked the authority of the state in matters of the intellectual and\nreligious life. Thus, by enabling the conservative party to pose as\nmartyrs, he brought the prejudices and passions of the populace still\nmore against the new movement. He was that most dangerous of all beings,\na doctrinaire despot. He had ideas and tried to make other people live up\nto them. Al-Mansur, though a bloody tyrant, had been a great statesman\nand had known how to bend people and things quietly to his will. He had\nsketched the firm outlines of a policy for the Abbasids, but had been\ncautious how he proclaimed his programme to the world. The world would\ncome to him in time, and he could afford to wait and work in the dark.\nHe knew, above all, that no people would submit to be school-mastered\ninto the way in which they should go. Al-Ma\u2019mun, for all his genius,\nwas at heart a school-master. He was an enlightened patron of an\nenlightened Islam. Those who preferred to dwell in the darkness of the\nobscurant, he first scolded and then punished. Discussions in theology\nand comparative religion were his hobby. That some such interchange of\nletters between Muslims and Christians as that which crystallized in\nthe Epistle of al-Kindi took place at his court seems certain. Bishr\nal-Marisi, who had lived in hiding in ar-Rashid\u2019s time on account of his\nheretical views, disputed, in 209, before al-Ma\u2019mun on the nature of the\nQur\u2019an. He founded at Baghdad an academy with library, laboratories, and\nobservatory. All the weight of his influence was thrown on the side of\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites. It appeared as though he were determined to pull his\npeople up by force from their superstition and ignorance.\n\nAt last, he took the final and fatal step. In 202 a decree appeared\nproclaiming the doctrine of the creation of the Qur\u2019an as the only\ntruth, and as binding upon all Muslims. At the same time, as an evident\nsop to the Persian nationalists and the Alids, Ali was proclaimed the\nbest of creatures after Muhammad. The Alids, it should be remembered,\nhad close points of contact with the Mu\u2018tazilites. Such a theological\ndecree as this was a new thing in Islam; never before had the individual\nconsciousness been threatened by a word from the throne. The Mu\u2018tazilites\nthrough it practically became a state church under erastian control. But\nthe system of Islam never granted to the Imam, or leader of the Muslim\npeople, any position but that of a protector and representative. Its\ntheology could only be formed, as we have seen in the case of its law,\nby the agreement of the whole community. The question then naturally\nwas what effect such a new thing as this decree could have except to\nexasperate the orthodox and the masses. Practically, there was no other\neffect. Things went on as before. All that it meant was that one very\nprominent Muslim had stated his opinion and thrown in his lot with\nheretics.\n\nFor six years this continued, and then a method was devised of bringing\nthe will of the Khalifa home upon the people. In 217 a distinguished\nMu\u2018tazilite, Ahmad ibn Abi Duwad, was appointed chief qadi, and in 218\nthe decree was renewed. But this time it was accompanied by what we would\ncall a test-act, and an inquisition (_mihna_) was instituted. The letter\nof directions for the conduct of this matter, written by al-Ma\u2019mun to his\nlieutenant at Baghdad, is decisive as to the character of the man and the\nnature of the movement. It is full of railings against the common people\nwho know not the law and are accursed. They are too stupid to understand\nphilosophy or argument. It is the duty of the Khalifa to guide them and\nespecially to show them the distinction between God and His book. He who\nholds otherwise than the Khalifa is either too blind or too lying and\ndeceitful to be trusted in any other thing. Therefore, the qadis must\nbe tested as to their views. If they hold that the Qur\u2019an is uncreated,\nthey have abandoned _tawhid_, the doctrine of God\u2019s Unity, and can no\nlonger hold office in a Muslim land. Also, the qadis must apply the same\ntest to all the witnesses in cases before them. If these do not hold that\nthe Qur\u2019an is created, they cannot be legal witnesses. Other letters\nfollowed; the Mihna was extended through the Abbasid empire and applied\nto other doctrines, _e.g._, that of free-will and of the vision of God.\nThe Khalifa also commanded that the death penalty for unbelief (_kufr_)\nshould be inflicted on those who refused to take the test. They were to\nbe regarded as idolaters and polytheists. The death of al-Ma\u2019mun in the\nsame year relieved the pressure. It is true that the Mihna was continued\nby his successor, al-Mu\u2018tasim, and by his successor, al-Wathiq, but\nwithout energy; it was more a handy political weapon than anything else.\nIn 234, the second year of al-Mutawakkil, it was abolished and the Qur\u2019an\ndecreed uncreated. At the same time the Alids and all Persian nationalism\ncame under a ban. Practically, the _status quo ante_ was restored and\nMu\u2018tazilism was again left a struggling heresy. The Arab party and the\npure faith of Muhammad had reasserted themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: AHMAD IBN HANBAL]\n\nIn this long conflict, the most prominent figure was certainly that of\nAhmad ibn Hanbal. He was the trust and strength of the orthodox; that he\nstood fast through imprisonment and scourging defeated the plans of the\nMu\u2018tazilites. In dealing with the development of law, we have seen what\nhis legal position was. The same held in theology. Scholastic theology\n(_kalam_) was his abomination. Those who disputed over doctrines he cast\nout. That their dogmatic position was the same as his made no difference.\nFor him, theological truth could not be reached by reasoning (_aql_);\ntradition (_naql_) from the fathers (_as-salaf_) was the only ground on\nwhich the dubious words of the Qur\u2019an could be explained. So, in his\nlong examinations before the officials of al-Ma\u2018mun and al-Mu\u2018tasim, he\ncontented himself with repeating either the words of the Qur\u2019an which\nfor him were proofs or such traditions as he accepted. Any approach to\ndrawing a consequence he utterly rejected. When they argued before him,\nhe kept silence.\n\nWhat, then, we may ask, was the net result of this incident? for it was\nnothing more. The Mu\u2018tazilites dropped back into their former position,\nbut under changed conditions. The sympathy of the populace was further\nfrom them than ever. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, saint and ascetic, was the idol\nof the masses; and he, in their eyes, had maintained single-handed the\nhonor of the Word of God. For his persecutors there was nothing but\nhatred. And after he had passed away, the conflict was taken up with\nstill fiercer bitterness by the school of law founded by his pupils. They\ncontinued to maintain his principles of Qur\u2019an and tradition long after\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites themselves had practically vanished from the scene, and\nall that was left for them to contend against was the modified system of\nscholastic theology which is now the orthodox theology of Islam. With\nthese reactionary Hanbalites we shall have to deal later.\n\n[Sidenote: SCHOOLS OF MU\u2018TAZILITES]\n\nThe Mu\u2018tazilites, on their side, having seen the shipwreck of their\nhopes and the growing storm of popular disfavor, seem to have turned\nagain to their scholastic studies. They became more and more theologians\naffecting a narrower circle, and less and less educators of the world\nat large. Their system became more metaphysical and their conclusions\nmore unintelligible to the plain man. The fate which has fallen on all\ncontinued efforts of the Muslim mind was coming upon them. Beggarly\nspeculations and barren hypotheses, combats of words over names, sapped\nthem of life and reality. What the ill-fated friendship of al-Ma\u2019mun had\nbegun was carried on and out by the closed circle of Muslim thought.\nThey separated into schools, one at al-Basra and another at Baghdad. At\nBaghdad the point especially developed was the old question, What is a\nthing (_shay_)? They defined a thing, practically, as a concept that\ncould be known and of which something could be said. Existence (_wujud_)\ndid not matter. It was only a quality which could be there or not.\nWith it, the thing was an entity (_mawjud_); without it, a non-entity\n(_ma\u2018dum_), but still a thing with all equipment of substance (_jawhar_)\nand accident (_arad_), genus and species. The bearing of this was\nespecially upon the doctrine of creation. Practically, by God\u2019s adding\na single quality, things entered the sphere of existence and _were_ for\nus. Here, then, is evidently an approach to a doctrine of pre-existent\nmatter. At al-Basra the relation of God to His qualities was especially\ndiscussed, and there it came to be pretty nearly a family dispute between\nal-Jubba\u2018i (d. 303) and his son Abu Hashim. Orthodox Islam held that\nGod has qualities, existent, eternal, added to His essence; thus, He\nknows, for example, by such a quality of knowledge. The students of Greek\nphilosophy and the Shi\u2018ites denied this and said that God knew by His\nessence. We have seen already Mu\u2018tazilite views as to this point. Abu\nHudhayl held that these qualities _were_ God\u2019s essence and not _in_ it.\nThus, He knew by a quality of knowledge, but that quality _was_ His\nessence. Al-Jubba\u2018i contented himself with safeguarding this statement.\nGod knew in accordance with His essence, but it was neither a quality nor\na state (_hal_) which required that He should be a knower. The orthodox\nhad said the first; his son, Abu Hashim, said the second. He held that we\nknow an essence and know it under different conditions. The conditions\nvaried but the essence remained. These conditions are not thinkable by\nthemselves, for we know them only in connection with the essence. These\nare states; they are different from the essence, but do not exist apart\nfrom it. Al-Jubba\u2018i opposed to this a doctrine that these states were\nreally subjective in the mind of the perceiver, either generalizations\nor relationships existing mentally but not externally. This controversy\nspun itself out at great length through centuries. It eventually\nresolved itself into the fundamental metaphysical inquiry, What is a\nthing? A powerful school came to a conclusion that would have delighted\nthe soul of Mr. Herbert Spencer. Things are four, they said, entities,\nnon-entities, states and relationships. As we have seen above, al-Jubba\u2018i\ndenied the reality of both states and relationships. Orthodox Islam has\nbeen of a divided opinion.\n\nBut all this time, other movements had been in progress, some of\nwhich were to be of larger future importance than this fossilizing\nintellectualism. In 255 al-Jahiz died. Though commonly reckoned a\nMu\u2018tazilite he was really a man of letters, free in life and thought. He\nwas a maker of books, learned in the writings of the philosophers and\nrather inclined to the doctrines of the Tabi\u2018iyun, deistic naturalists.\nHis confession of faith was of the utmost simplicity. He taught that\nwhoever held that God had neither body nor form, could not be seen with\nthe eyes, was just and willed no evil deeds, such was a Muslim in truth.\nAnd, further, if anyone was not capable of philosophical reflection, but\nheld that Allah was his Lord and that Muhammad was the Apostle of Allah,\nhe was blameless and nothing more should be required of him. Here we have\nevidently in part a reaction from the subtilties of controversy, and in\npart an attempt to broaden theology enough to give even the unsettled\na chance to remain in the Muslim Church. Something of the same kind we\nshall find, later, in the case of Ibn Rushd. Finally, we have probably\nto see in his remark that the Qur\u2019an was a body, turned at one time into\na man and at another into a beast, a satirical comment on the great\ncontroversy of his time.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-JAHIZ; AL-KINDI]\n\nAl-Jahiz may be for us a link with the philosophers proper, the students\nof the wisdom of the Greeks. He represents the stand-point of the\neducated man of the time, and was no specialist in anything but a general\nscepticism. In the first generation of the philosophers of Islam, in\nthe narrower sense, stands conspicuously al-Kindi, commonly called the\nPhilosopher of the Arabs. The name belongs to him of right, for he is\nalmost the only example of a student of Aristotle, sprung from the\nblood of the desert. But he was hardly a philosopher in any independent\nsense. His r\u00f4le was translating, and during the reigns of al-Ma\u2019mun\nand al-Mu\u2018tasim a multitude of translations and original works _de omni\nscibili_ came from his hands; the names of 265 of these have come down\nto us. In the orthodox reaction under al-Mutawakkil he fared ill; his\nlibrary was confiscated but afterward restored. He died about 260, and\nwith him dies the brief, golden century of eager acquisition, and the\nscholastic period enters in philosophy as in theology.\n\n[Sidenote: PLATO; PLOTINUS; ARISTOTLE]\n\nThat the glory was departing from Baghdad and the Khalifate is shown by\nthe second important name in philosophy. It is that of al-Farabi, who\nwas born at Farab in Turkestan, lived and worked in the brilliant circle\nwhich gathered round Sayf ad-Dawla, the Hamdanid, at his court at Aleppo.\nIn music, in science, in philology, and in philosophy, he was alike\nmaster. Aristotle was his passion, and his Arabic contemporaries and\nsuccessors united in calling him the second teacher, on account of his\nsuccess in unknotting the tangles of the Greek system. It was in truth\na tangled system which came to him, and a tangled system which he left.\nThe Muslim philosophers began, in their innocence, with the following\npositions: The Qur\u2019an is truth and philosophy is truth; but truth can\nonly be one; therefore, the Qur\u2019an and philosophy must agree. Philosophy\nthey accepted in whole-hearted faith, as it came to them from the Greeks\nthrough Egypt and Syria. They took it, not as a mass of more or less\ncontradictory speculation, but as a form of truth. They, in fact, never\nlost a certain theological attitude. Under such conditions, then, Plato\ncame to them; but it was mostly Plato as interpreted by Porphyrius,\nthat is, as neo-Platonism. Aristotle, too, came to them in the guise\nof the later Peripatetic schools. But in Aristotle, especially, there\nentered a perfect knot of entanglement and confusion. During the reign of\nal-Mu\u2018tasim, a Christian of Emessa in the Lebanon\u2014the history in details\nis obscure\u2014translated parts of the \u201cEnneads\u201d of Plotinus into Arabic\nand entitled his work \u201cThe Theology of Aristotle.\u201d A more unlucky bit\nof literary mischief and one more far-reaching in its consequences has\nnever been. The Muslims took it all as solemnly as they took the text of\nthe Qur\u2019an. These two great masters, Plato and Aristotle, they said, had\nexpounded the truth, which is one. Therefore, there must be some way of\nbringing them into agreement. So generations of toilers labored valiantly\nwith the welter of translations and pseudographs to get out of them and\ninto them the one truth. The more pious added the third element of the\nQur\u2019an, and it must remain a marvel and a magnificent testimonial to\ntheir skill and patience that they got even so far as they did and that\nthe whole movement did not end in simple lunacy. That al-Farabi should\nhave been so incisive a writer, so wide a thinker and student; that Ibn\nSina should have been so keen and clear a scientist and logician; that\nIbn Rushd should have known\u2014really known\u2014and commented his Aristotle\nas he did, shows that the human brain, after all, is a sane brain and\nhas the power of unconsciously rejecting and throwing out nonsense and\nfalsehood.\n\nBut it is not wonderful that, dealing with such materials and\ncontradictions, they developed a tendency to mysticism. There were many\nthings which they felt compelled to hold which could only be defended\nand rationalized in that cloudy air and slanting light. Especially,\nno one but a mystic could bring together the emanations of Plotinus,\nthe ideas of Plato, the spheres of Aristotle and the seven-storied\nheaven of Muhammad. With this matter of mysticism we shall have to deal\nimmediately. Of al-Farabi it is enough to say that he was one of the most\npatient of the laborers at that impossible problem. It seems never to\nhave occurred to him, or to any of the others, that the first and great\nimperative was to verify his references and sources. The oriental, like\nthe medi\u00e6val scholastic, tests minutely the form of his syllogism, but\ntakes little thought whether his premises state facts or not. With a\nscrupulous scepticism in deduction, he combines a childlike acceptance on\ntradition or on the narrowest of inductions.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-FARABI]\n\nBut there are other and more ominous signs in al-Farabi of the scholastic\ndecline. There appears first in him that tendency toward the writing\nof encyclop\u00e6dic compends, which always means superficiality and the\ncommonplace. Al-Farabi himself could not be accused of either, but\nthat he thus claimed all knowledge for his portion showed the risk of\nthe premature circle and the small gain. Another is mysticism. He is a\nneo-Platonist, more exactly a Plotinian; although he himself would not\nhave recognized this title. He held, as we have seen, that he was simply\nretelling the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. But he was also a devout\nMuslim. He seems to have taken in earnest all the bizarre details of\nMuslim cosmography and eschatology; the Pen, the Tablet, the Throne, the\nAngels in all their ranks and functions mingle picturesquely with the\nsystem of Plotinus, his \u1f15\u03bd, his \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, his \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, his receptive and active\nintellects. But to make tenable this position he had to take the great\nleap of the mystic. Unto us these things are impossible; with God, i.e.,\non another plane of existence, they are the simplest realities. If the\nveil were taken from our eyes we would see them. This has always been the\nrefuge of the devout Muslim who has tampered with science. We shall look\nfor it more in detail when we come to al-Ghazzali, who has put it into\nclassical form.\n\nAgain, he was, in modern terms, a monarchist and a clericalist. His\nconception of the model state is a strange compound of the republic of\nPlato and Shi\u2018ite dreams of an infallible Imam. Its roots lie, of course,\nin the theocratic idea of the Muslim state; but his city, which is to\ntake in all mankind, a Holy Roman Empire and a Holy Catholic Church at\nonce, a community of saints ruled by sages, shows a later influence than\nthat of the mother city of Islam, al-Madina, under Abu Bakr and Umar.\nThe influence is that of the Fatimids with their capital, al-Mahdiya,\nnear Tunis. The Hamdanids were Shi\u2018ites and Sayf ad-Dawla, under whom\nal-Farabi enjoyed peace and protection, was a vassal of the Fatimid\nKhalifas.\n\nThis brings us again to the great mystery of Muslim history. What was the\ntruth of the Fatimid movement? Was the family of the Prophet the fosterer\nof science from the earliest times? What degree of contact had they with\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites? With the founders of grammar, of alchemy, of law? That\nthey were themselves the actual beginners of everything\u2014and everything\nhas been claimed for them\u2014we may put down to legend. But one thing does\nstand fast. Just as al-Ma\u2019mun combined the establishment of a great\nuniversity at Baghdad with a favoring of the Alids, so the Fatimids in\nCairo erected a great hall of science and threw all their influence and\nauthority into the spreading and extending of knowledge. This institution\nseems to have been a combination of free public library and university,\nand was probably the gateway connecting between the inner circle of\ninitiated Fatimid leaders and the outside, uninitiated world. We have\nalready seen how unhappy were the external effects of the Shi\u2018ite, and\nespecially of the Fatimid, propaganda on the Muslim world. But from\ntime to time we become aware of a deep undercurrent of scientific and\nphilosophical labor and investigation accompanying that propaganda, and\nstriving after knowledge and truth. It belongs to the life below the\nsurface, which we can know only through its occasional outbursts. Some of\nthese are given above; others will follow. The whole matter is obscure\nto the last degree, and dogmatic statements and explanations are not in\nplace. It may be that it was only a natural drawing together on the part\nof all the different forces and movements that were under a ban and had\nto live in secrecy and stillness. It may be that the students of the\nnew sciences passed over, simply through their studies and political\ndespair\u2014as has often happened in our day\u2014into different degrees of\nnihilism, or, at the other extreme, into a passionate searching for, and\ndependence on, some absolute guide, an infallible Imam. It may be that\nwe have read wrongly the whole history of the Fatimid movement; that it\nwas in reality a deeply laid and slowly ripened plan to bring the rule of\nthe world into the control of a band of philosophers, whose task it was\nto be to rule the human race and gradually to educate it into self-rule;\nthat they saw\u2014these unknown devotees of science and truth\u2014no other way of\nbreaking down the barriers of Islam and setting free the spirits of men.\nA wild hypothesis! But in face of the real mystery no hypothesis can seem\nwild.\n\n[Sidenote: IKHWAN AS-SAFA]\n\nClosely allied with both al-Farabi and the Fatimids is the association\nknown as the Sincere Brethren (_Ikhwan as-safa_). It existed at al-Basra\nin the middle of the fourth century of the Hijra during the breathing\nspace which the free intellectual life enjoyed after the capture of\nBaghdad by the Buwayhids in 334. It will be remembered how that Persian\ndynasty was Shi\u2018ite by creed and how it, for the time, completely clipped\nthe claws of the orthodox and Sunnite Abbasid Khalifas. The only thing,\nthereafter, which heretics and philosophers had to fear was the enmity\nof the populace, but that seems to have been great enough. The Hanbalite\nmob of Baghdad had grown to be a thing of terror. It was, then, an\neducational campaign on which this new philosophy had to enter. Their\nprogramme was by means of clubs, propagating themselves and spreading\nover the country from al-Basra and Baghdad, to reach all educated people\nand introduce among them gradually a complete change in their religious\nand scientific ideas. Their teaching was the same combination of\nneo-Platonic speculation and mysticism with Aristotelian natural science,\nwrapped in Mu\u2018tazilite theology, that we have already known. Only there\nwas added to it a Pythagorean reverence for numbers, and everything,\nbesides, was treated in an eminently superficial and popularized\nmanner. Our knowledge of the Fraternity and its objects is based on its\npublication, \u201cThe Epistles of the Sincere Brethren\u201d (_Rasa\u2019il ikhwan\nas-safa_) and upon scanty historical notices. The Epistles are fifty\nor fifty-one in number and cover the field of human knowledge as then\nconceived. They form, in fact, an Arabic _Encyclop\u00e9die_. The founders of\nthe Fraternity, and authors, presumably, of the Epistles, were at most\nten. We have no certain knowledge that the Fraternity ever took even\nits first step and spread to Baghdad. Beyond that almost certainly the\ndevelopment did not pass. The division of members into four\u2014learners,\nteachers, guides, and drawers near to God in supernatural vision\u2014and the\nplan of regular meetings of each circle for study and mutual edification\nremained in its paper form. The society was half a secret one and lacked,\napparently, vitality and energy. There was among its founders no man of\nweight and character. So it passed away and has left only these Epistles\nwhich have come down to us in numerous MSS., showing how eagerly they\nhave been read and copied and how much influence they at least must have\nexercised. That influence must have been very mixed. It was, it is\ntrue, for intellectual life, yet it carried with it in a still higher\ndegree the defects we have already noticed in al-Farabi. To them must be\nadded the most simple skimming of all real philosophical problems and a\ntreatment of nature and natural science which had lost all connection\nwith facts.\n\n[Sidenote: THE IKHWAN AND THE FATIMIDS]\n\nIt has been suggested, and the suggestion seems luminous and fertile,\nthat this Fraternity was simply a part of the great Fatimid propaganda\nwhich, as we know, honey-combed the ground everywhere under the Sunnite\nAbbasids. Descriptions which have reached us of the methods followed\nby the leaders of the Fraternity agree exactly with those of the\nmissionaries of the Isma\u2018ilians. They raised difficulties and suggested\nserious questionings; hinted at possible answers but did not give them;\nreferred to a source where all questions would be answered. Again,\ntheir catch-words and fixed phrases are the same as those afterward\nused by the Assassins, and we have traces of these Epistles forming a\npart of the sacred library of the Assassins. It is to be remembered\nthat the Assassins were not simply robber bands who struck terror by\ntheir methods. Both the western and the eastern branches were devoted\nto science, and it may be that in their mountain fortresses there\nwas the most absolute devotion to true learning that then existed.\nWhen the Mongols captured Alamut, they found it rich in MSS. and in\ninstruments and apparatus of every kind. It is then possible that the\nelevated eclecticism of the _Ikhwan as-safa_ was the real doctrine of\nthe Fatimids, the Assassins, the Qarmatians and the Druses; certainly,\nwherever we can test them there is the most singular agreement. It is a\nmechanical and \u00e6sthetic pantheism, a glorification of Pythagoreanism,\nwith its music and numbers; idealistic to the last degree; a worship and\npursuit of a conception of a harmony and beauty in all the universe,\nto find which is to find and know the Creator Himself. It is thus far\nremoved from materialism and atheism, but could easily be misrepresented\nas both. This, it is true, is a very different explanation from the one\ngiven in our first Part; it can only be put along-side of that and left\nthere. The one expresses the practical effect of the Isma\u2018ilians in\nIslam; the other what may have been their ideal. However we judge them,\nwe must always remember that somewhere in their teaching, at its best,\nthere was a strange attraction for thinking and troubled men. Nasir ibn\nKhusraw, a Persian Faust, found peace at Cairo between 437 and 444 in\nrecognizing the divine Imamship of al-Mustansir, and after a life of\npersecution died in that faith as a hermit in the mountains of Badakhshan\nin 481. The great Spanish poet, Ibn Hani, who died in 362, similarly\naccepted al-Mu\u2018izz as his spiritual chief and guide.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN KARRAM]\n\nAnother eclectic sect, but on a very different principle, was that of the\nKarramites, founded by Abu Abd Allah ibn Karram, who died in 256. Its\nteachings had the honor to be accepted and protected by no less a man\nthan the celebrated Mahmud of Ghazna (388-421), Mahmud the Idol-breaker,\nthe first invader of India and the patron of al-Beruni, Firdawsi, Ibn\nSina and many another. But that, to which we will return, belongs to a\nlater date and, probably, to a modified form of Ibn Karram\u2019s teaching.\nFor himself, he was an ascetic of Sijistan and, according to the story,\na man of no education. He lost himself in theological subtleties which\nhe seems to have failed to understand. However, out of them all he put\ntogether a book which he called \u201cThe Punishment of the Grave,\u201d which\nspread widely in Khurasan. It was, in part, a frank recoil to the\ncrassest anthropomorphism. Thus, for him, God actually sat upon the\nthrone, was in a place, had direction and so could move from one point\nto another. He had a body with flesh, blood, and limbs; He could be\nembraced by those who were purified to the requisite point. It was a\nliteral acceptance of the material expressions of the Qur\u2019an along with a\nconsideration of how they could be so, and an explanation by comparison\nwith men\u2014all opposed to the principle _bila kayfa_. So, apparently,\nwe must understand the curious fact that he was also a Murji\u2019ite and\nheld faith to be only acknowledgment with the tongue. All men, except\nprofessed apostates, are believers, he said, because of that primal\ncovenant, taken by God with the seed of Adam, when He asked, \u201cAm I not\nyour Lord?\u201d (_Alastu bi-rabbikum_) and they, brought forth from Adam\u2019s\nloins for the purpose, made answer, \u201cYea, verily, in this covenant\nwe remain until we formally cast it off.\u201d This, of course, involved\ntaking God\u2019s qualities in the most literal sense. So, if we are to see\nin the Mu\u2018tazilites scholastic commentators trying to reduce Muhammad,\nthe poet, to logic and sense, we must see in Ibn Karram one of those\nwooden-minded literalists, for whom a metaphor is a ridiculous lie if it\ncannot be taken in its external meaning. He was part of the great stream\nof conservative reaction, in which we find also such a man as Ahmad ibn\nHanbal. But the saving salt of Ahmad\u2019s sense and reverence kept him by\nthe safe proviso \u201cwithout considering how and without comparison.\u201d All\nAhmad\u2019s later followers were not so wise. In his doctrine of the state\nIbn Karram inclined to the Kharijites.\n\nBefore we return to al-Jubba\u2018i and the fate of the Mu\u2018tazilites, it\nremains to trace more precisely the thread of mysticism, that _kashf_,\nrevelation, which we have already mentioned several times. Its\nfundamental fact is that it had two sides, an ascetic and a speculative,\ndifferent in degree, in spirit and in result, and yet so closely\nentangled that the same mystic has been assigned, in good and in bad\nfaith, as an adherent of both.\n\n[Sidenote: WOMEN SAINTS]\n\nIt is to the form of mysticism which sprang from asceticism that we must\nfirst turn. Attention has been given above to the wandering monks and\nhermits, the _sa\u2019ihs_ (wanderers) and _rahibs_ who caught Muhammad\u2019s\nattention and respect. We have seen, too, how Muslim imitators began\nin their turn to wander through the land, clad in the coarse woollen\nrobes which gave them the name of Sufis, and living upon the alms of the\npious. How early these appeared in any number and as a fixed profession\nis uncertain, but we find stories in circulation of meetings between\nsuch mendicant friars and al-Hasan al-Basri himself. Women, too, were\namong them, and it is possible that to their influence a development of\ndevotional love-poetry was due. At least, many verses of this kind are\nascribed to a certain Rabi\u2018a, an ascetic and ecstatic devotee of the most\nextreme other-worldliness, who died in 135. Many other women had part in\nthe contemplative life. Among them may be mentioned, to show its grasp\nand spread, A\u2019isha, daughter of Ja\u2018far as-Sadiq, who died in 145; Fatima\nof Naysabur, who died in 223, and the Lady Nafisa, a contemporary and\nrival in learning with ash-Shafi\u2018i and the marvel of her time in piety\nand the ascetic life. Her grave is one of the most venerated spots in\nCairo, and at it wonders are still worked and prayer is always answered.\nShe was a descendant of al-Hasan, the martyred ex-Khalifa, and an example\nof how the fated family of the Prophet was an early school for women\nsaints. Even in the Heathenism we have traces of female penitents and\nhermits, and the tragedy of Ali and his sons and descendants gave scope\nfor the self-sacrifice, loving service and religious enthusiasm with\nwhich women are dowered.\n\nAll these stood and stand in Islam on exactly the same footing as men.\nThe distinction in Roman Christendom that a woman cannot be a priest\nthere falls away, for in Islam is neither priest nor layman. They lived\neither as solitaries or in conventual life exactly as did the men. They\nwere called by the same terms in feminine form; they were Sufiyas beside\nthe Sufis; Zahidas (ascetics) beside the Zahids; Waliyas (friends of\nGod) beside the Walis; Abidas (devotees) beside the Abids. They worked\nwonders (_karamat_, closely akin to the \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of 1 Cor. xii, 9)\nby the divine grace, and still, as we have seen, at their own graves\nsuch are granted through them to the faithful, and their intercession\n(_shafa\u2018a_) is invoked. Their religious exercises were the same; they\nheld _dhikrs_ and women darwishes yet dance to singing and music in order\nto bring on fits of ecstasy. To state the case generally, whatever is\nsaid hereafter of mysticism and its workings among men must be taken as\napplying to women also.\n\nTo return: one of the earliest male devotees of whom we have distinct\nnote is Ibrahim ibn Adham. He was a wanderer of royal blood, drifted\nfrom Balkh in Afghanistan to al-Basra and to Mecca. He died in 161.\nContempt for the learning of lawyers and for external forms appears in\nhim; obedience to God, contemplation of death, death to the world formed\nhis teaching. Another, Da\u2019ud ibn Nusayr, who died in 165, was wont to\nsay, \u201cFlee men as thou fleest a lion. Fast from the world and let the\nbreaking of thy fast be when thou diest.\u201d Another, al-Fudayl ibn Iyad of\nKhurasan, who died in 187, was a robber converted by a heavenly voice;\nhe cast aside the world, and his utterances show that he lapsed into the\npassivity of quietism.\n\nReference has already been made in the chapter on jurisprudence to\nthe development of asceticism which came with the accession of the\nAbbasids. The disappointed hopes of the old believers found an outlet\nin the contemplative life. They withdrew from the world and would have\nnothing to do with its rulers; their wealth and everything connected\nwith them they regarded as unclean. Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his later life\nhad to use all his obstinacy and ingenuity to keep free of the court and\nits contamination. Another was this al-Fudayl. Stories\u2014chronologically\nimpossible\u2014are told how he rebuked Harun ar-Rashid for his luxury and\ntyranny and denounced to his face his manner of life. With such an\nattitude to those round him he could have had little joy in his devotion.\nSo it was said, \u201cWhen al-Fudayl died, sadness was removed from the world.\u201d\n\n[Sidenote: PASSAGE OF ASCETICISM TO ECSTASY]\n\nBut soon the recoil came. Under the spur of such exercises and thoughts,\nthe ecstatic oriental temperament began to revel in expressions borrowed\nfrom human love and earthly wine. Such we find by Ma\u2018ruf of al-Karkh, a\ndistrict of Baghdad, who died in 200, and whose tomb, saved by popular\nreverence, is one of the few ancient sites in modern Baghdad; and by\nhis greater disciple, Sari as-Saqati, who died in 257. To this last is\nascribed, but dubiously, the first use of the word _tawhid_ to signify\nthe union of the soul with God. The figure that the heart is a mirror to\nimage back God and that it is darkened by the things of the body appears\nin Abu Sulayman of Damascus, who died in 215. A more celebrated ascetic,\nwho died in 227, Bishr al-Hafi (bare-foot), speaks of God directly as the\nBeloved (_habib_). Al-Harith al-Muhasibi was a contemporary of Ahmad ibn\nHanbal and died in 243. The only thing in him to which Ahmad could take\nexception was that he made use of _kalam_ in refuting the Mu\u2018tazilites;\neven this suspicion against him he is said to have abandoned. Sari and\nBishr, too, were close friends of Ahmad\u2019s. Dhu-n-Nun, the Egyptian Sufi,\nwho died in 245, is in more dubious repute. He is said to have been the\nfirst to formulate the doctrine of ecstatic states (_hals_, _maqamas_);\nbut if he went no further than this, his orthodoxy, in the broad sense,\nshould be above suspicion. Islam has now come to accept these as right\nand fitting. Perhaps the greatest name in early Sufiism is that of\nal-Junayd (d. 297); on it no shadow of heresy has ever fallen. He was\na master in theology and law, reverenced as one of the greatest of\nthe early doctors. Questions of _tawhid_ he is said to have discussed\nbefore his pupils with shut doors. But this was probably _tawhid_ in the\ntheological and not in the mystical sense\u2014against the Mu\u2018tazilites and\nnot on the union of the soul with God. Yet he, too, knew the ecstatic\nlife and fell fainting at verses which struck into his soul. Ash-Shibli\n(d. 334) was one of his disciples, but seems to have given himself more\ncompletely to the ascetic and contemplative life. In verses by him we\nfind the vocabulary of the amorous intercourse with God fully developed.\nThe last of this group to be mentioned here shall be Abu Talib al-Makki,\nwho died in 386. It is his distinction to have furnished a text-book\nof Sufiism that is in use to this day. He wrote and spoke openly on\n_tawhid_, now in the Sufi sense, and got into trouble as a heretic, but\nhis memory has been restored to orthodoxy by the general agreement of\nIslam. When, in 488, al-Ghazzali set himself to seek light in Sufiism,\namong the treatises he studied were the books of four of those mentioned\nabove, Abu Talib, al-Muhasibi, al-Junayd, and ash-Shibli.\n\n[Sidenote: GROWTH OF FRATERNITIES]\n\nIn the case of these and all the others already spoken of there was\nnothing but a very simple and natural development such as could easily\nbe paralleled in Europe. The earliest Muslims were burdened, as we have\nseen, with the fear of the terrors of an avenging God. The world was\nevil and fleeting; the only abiding good was in the other world; so\ntheir religion became an ascetic other-worldliness. They fled into the\nwilderness from the wrath to come. Wandering, either solitary or in\ncompanies, was the special sign of the true Sufi. The young men gave\nthemselves over to the guidance of the older men; little circles of\ndisciples gathered round a venerated Shaykh; fraternities began to form.\nSo we find it in the case of al-Junayd, so in that of Sari as-Saqati.\nNext would come a monastery, rather a rest-house; for only in the winter\nand for rest did they remain fixed in a place for any time. Of such a\nmonastery there is a trace at Damascus in 150 and in Khurasan about\n200. Then, just as in Europe, begging friars organized themselves. In\nfaith they were rather conservative than anything else; touched with a\nreligious passivism which easily developed into quietism. Their ecstasies\nwent little beyond those, for instance, of Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, though struck\nwith a warmer oriental fervor.\n\nThe points on which the doctors of Islam took exception to these earlier\nSufis are strikingly different from what we would expect. They concern\nthe practical life far more than theological speculation. As was natural\nin the case of professional devotees, a constantly prayerful attitude\nbegan to assume importance beside and in contrast to the formal use\nof the five daily prayers, the _salawat_. This development was in all\nprobability aided by the existence in Syria of the Christian sect of\nthe Euchites, who exalted the duty of prayer above all other religious\nobligations. These, also, abandoned property and obligations and wandered\nas poor brethren over the country. They were a branch of Hesychasts, the\nquietistic Greek monks who eventually led to the controversy concerning\nthe uncreated light manifested at the transfiguration on Mount Tabor and\nadded a doctrine to the Eastern Church. Considering these points, it can\nhardly be doubted that there was some historical connection and relation\nhere, not only with earlier but also with later Sufiism. There is a\nstriking resemblance between the Sufis seeking by patient introspection\nto see the actual light of God\u2019s presence in their hearts, and the Greek\nmonks in Athos, sitting solitarily in their cells and seeking the divine\nlight of Mount Tabor in contemplation of their navels.\n\nBut our immediate point is the matter of constant, free prayer. In the\nQur\u2019an (xxxiii, 41) the believers are exhorted to \u201cremember (_dhikr_) God\noften;\u201d this command the Sufis obeyed with a correlative depreciation of\nthe five canonical prayers. Their meetings for the purpose, much like our\nown prayer-meetings, still more like the \u201cclass-meetings\u201d of the early\nMethodists, as opposed to stated public worship, were called _dhikrs_.\nThese services were fiercely attacked by the orthodox theologians, but\nsurvived and are the darwish functions which tourists still go to see\nat Constantinople and Cairo. But the more private and personal _dhikrs_\nof individual Sufis, each in his house repeating his Qur\u2019anic litanies\nthrough the night, until to the passer-by it sounded like the humming of\nbees or the unceasing drip of roof-gutters, these seem, in the course\nof the third century, to have fallen before ridicule and accusations of\nheresy.\n\n[Sidenote: TAWAKKUL]\n\nAnother point against the earlier Sufis was their abuse of the principle\nof _tawakkul_, dependence upon God. They gave up their trades and\nprofessions; they even gave up the asking for alms. Their ideal was to\nbe absolutely at God\u2019s disposal, utterly cast upon His direct sustenance\n(_rizq_). No anxiety for their daily bread was permitted to them; they\nmust go through the world separated from it and its needs and looking up\nto God. Only one who can do this is properly an acknowledger of God\u2019s\nunity, a true _Muwahhid_. To such, God would assuredly open the door of\nhelp; they were at His gate; and the biographies of the saints are full\nof tales how His help used to come.\n\nTo this it may be imagined that the more sober, even among Sufis, made\nvehement objection. It fell under two heads. One was that of _kasb_,\nthe gaining of daily bread by labor. The examples of the husbandman who\ncasts his seed into the ground and then depends upon God, of the merchant\nwho travels with his wares in similar trust, were held up against the\nwandering but useless monk. As always, traditions were forged on both\nsides. Said a man\u2014apparently in a spirit of prophecy\u2014one day to the\nProphet, \u201cShall I let my camel run free and trust in God?\u201d Replied\nthe Prophet, or someone for him with a good imitation of his humorous\ncommon-sense, \u201cTie up your camel and trust in God.\u201d The other head\nwas the use of remedies in sickness. The whole controversy parallels\nstrikingly the \u201cmental science\u201d and \u201cChristian science\u201d of the present\nday. Medicine, it was held, destroyed _tawakkul_. In the fourth century\nin Persia this insanity ran high and many books were written for it and\nagainst it. The author of one on the first side was consulted in an\nobstinate case of headache. \u201cPut my book under your pillow,\u201d he said,\n\u201cand trust in God.\u201d On both these points the usage of the Prophet and the\nCompanions was in the teeth of the Sufi position. They had notoriously\nearned their living, honestly or dishonestly, and had possessed all the\ncredulity of semi-civilization toward the most barbaric and multifarious\nremedies. So the agreement of Islam eventually righted itself, though the\nquestion in its intricacies and subtilties remained for centuries a thing\nof delight for theologians. In the end only the wildest fanatics held by\nabsolute _tawakkul_.\n\n[Sidenote: SPECULATIVE SUFIISM]\n\nBut all this time the second form of Sufiism had been slowly forcing its\nway. It was essentially speculative and theological rather than ascetic\nand devotional. When it gained the upper hand, _zahid_ (ascetic) was no\nlonger a convertible term with Sufi. We pass over the boundary between\nThomas \u00e0 Kempis and St. Francis to Eckhart and Suso. The roots of this\nmovement cannot be hard to find in the light of what has preceded.\nThey lie partly in the neo-Platonism which is the foundation of the\nphilosophy of Islam. Probably it did not come to the Sufis along the\nsame channels by which it reached al-Farabi. It was rather through the\nChristian mystics and, perhaps, especially through the Pseudo-Dionysius\nthe Areopagite, and his asserted teacher, Stephen bar Sudaili with his\nSyriac \u201cBook of Hierotheos.\u201d We need not here consider whether the\nMonophysite heresy is to be reckoned in as one of the results of the\ndying neo-Platonism. It is true that outlying forms of it meant the\nfrank deifying of a man and thus raised the possibility of the equal\ndeifying of any other man and of all men. But there is no certainty that\nthese views had an influence in Islam. It is enough that from A.D. 533\nwe find the Pseudo-Dionysius quoted and his influence strong with the\nultra Monophysites, and still more, thereafter, with the whole mystical\nmovement in Christendom. According to it, all is akin in nature to the\nAbsolute, and all this life below is only a reflection of the glories of\nthe upper sphere, where God is. Through the sacraments and a hierarchy\nof angels man is led back toward Him. Only in ecstasy can man come to a\nknowledge of Him. The Trinity, sin and the atonement fade out of view.\nThe incarnation is but an example of how the divine and the human can\njoin. All is an emanation or an emission of grace from God; and the\nyearnings of man are back to his source. The revolving spheres, the\ngroaning and travailing nature are striving to return to their origin.\nWhen this conception had seized the Oriental Church; when it had passed\ninto Islam and dominated its emotional and religious life; when through\nthe translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius by Scotus Erigena in 850, it had\nbegun the long contest of idealism in Europe, the dead school of Plotinus\nhad won the field, and its influence ruled from the Oxus to the Atlantic.\n\nBut the roots of Sufiism struck also in another direction. We have\nalready seen an early tendency to regard Ali and, later, members of his\nhouse as incarnations of divinity. In the East, where God comes near to\nman, the conception of God in man is not difficult. The Semitic prophet\nthrough whom God speaks easily slips over into a divine being in whom\nGod exists and may be worshipped. But if with one, why not with another?\nMay it not be possible by purifying exercises to reach this unity? If\none is a Son of God, may not all become that if they but take the means?\nThe half-understood pantheism which always lurks behind oriental fervors\nclaims its due. From his wild whirling dance, the darwish, stung to\ncataleptic ecstasy by the throbbing of the drums and the lilting chant,\nsinks back into the unconsciousness of the divine oneness. He has passed\ntemporarily from this scene of multiplicity into the sea of God\u2019s unity\nand, at death, if he but persevere, he will reach that haven where he\nfain would be and will abide there forever. Here, we have not to do with\ncalm philosophers rearing their systems in labored speculations, but with\nmen, often untaught, seeking the salvation of their souls earnestly and\nwith tears.\n\n[Sidenote: PANTHEISTIC SCHOOL]\n\nOne of the earliest of the pantheistic school was Abu Yazid al-Bistami\n(d. 261). He was of Persian parentage, and his father had been a follower\nof Zarathustra. As an ascetic he was of the highest repute; he was also\nan author of eminence on Sufiism (al-Ghazzali used his books) and he\njoined to his devout learning and self-mortification clear miraculous\ngifts. But equally clear was his pantheistic drift and his name has\ncome down linked to the saying, \u201cBeneath my cloak there is naught else\nthan God.\u201d It is worth noticing that certain other of his sayings show\nthat, even in his time, there were Sufi saints who boasted that they had\nreached such perfection and such miraculous powers that the ordinary\nmoral and ceremonial law no longer applied to them. The antinomianism\nwhich haunted the later Sufiism and darwishdom had already appeared.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-HALLAJ]\n\nBut the greatest name of all among these early pantheists was that of\nal-Hallaj (the cotton carder), a pupil of al-Junayd, who was put to\ndeath with great cruelty in 309. It is almost impossible to reach any\ncertain conclusion as to his real views and aims. In spite of what seem\nto be utterances of the crassest pantheism, such as, \u201cI am the Truth,\u201d\nthere have not been wanting many in later Islam who have reverenced his\nmemory as that of a saint and martyr. To Sufis and darwishes of his\ntime and to this day he has been and is a patron saint. In his life\nand death he represents for them the spirit of revolt against dogmatic\nscholasticism and formalism. Further, even such a great doctor of the\nMuslim Church as al-Ghazzali defended him and, though lamenting some\nincautious phrases, upheld his orthodoxy. At his trial itself before\nthe theologians of Baghdad, one of them refused to sign the _fatwa_\ndeclaring him an unbeliever; he was not clear, he said, as to the case.\nAnd it is true that such records as we have of the time suggest that his\ncondemnation was forced by the government as a matter of state policy. He\nwas a Persian of Magian origin, and evidently an advanced mystic of the\nspeculative type. He carried the theory to its legitimate conclusion, and\nproclaimed the result publicly. He dabbled in scholastic theology; had\nevident Mu\u2018tazilite leanings; wrote on alchemy and things esoteric. But\nwith this mystical enthusiasm there seem to have united in him other and\nmore dangerous traits. The stories which have reached us show him of a\ncharacter fond of excitement and change, surrounding himself with devoted\nadherents and striving by miracle-working of a commonplace kind to add\nto his following. His popularity among the people of Baghdad and their\nreverence for him rose to a perilous degree. He may have had plans of his\nown as a Persian nationalist; he may have had part in one of the Shi\u2018ite\nconspiracies; he may have been nothing but a rather weak-headed devotee,\ncarried off his feet by a sudden tide of public excitement, the greatest\ntrial and danger that a saint has to meet. But the times were not such\nthen in Baghdad that the government could take any risks. Al-Muqtadir\nwas Khalifa and in his weak hands the Khalifate was slipping to ruin.\nThe Fatimids were supreme in North Africa; the Qarmatians held Syria and\nArabia, and were threatening Baghdad itself. In eight years they were to\ntake Mecca. Persia was seething with false prophets and nationalists of\nevery shade. Thirteen years later Ibn ash-Shalmaghani was put to death\nin Baghdad on similar grounds; in his case, Shi\u2018ite conspiracy against\nthe state was still more clearly involved. We can only conclude in the\nwords of Ibn Khallikan (d. 681), \u201cThe history of al-Hallaj is long to\nrelate; his fate is well known; and God knoweth all secret things.\u201d With\nhim we must leave, for the present, consideration of the Sufi development\nand return to the Mu\u2018tazilites and to the people tiring of their dry\nsubtilties.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n The rise of orthodox _kalam_; al-Ash\u2018ari; decline of the\n Mu\u2018tazilites; passing of heresy into unbelief; development of\n scholastic theology by Ash\u2018arites; rise of Zahirite _kalam_;\n Ibn Hazm; persecution of Ash\u2018arites; final assimilation of\n _kalam_.\n\n\nAs we have already seen, the traditionalist party at first refused to\nenter upon any discussion of sacred things. Malik ibn Anas used to say,\n\u201cGod\u2019s _istiwa_ (settling Himself firmly upon His throne) is known;\nhow it is done is unknown; it must be believed; questions about it are\nan innovation (_bid\u2018a_).\u201d But such a position could not be held for\nany length of time. The world cannot be cut in two and half assigned\nto faith and half to reason. So, as time went on, there arose on the\northodox side men who, little by little, were prepared to give a reason\nfor the faith that was in them. They thus came to use _kalam_ in order\nto meet the _kalam_ of the Mu\u2018tazilites; they became _mutakallims_, and\nthe scholastic theology of Islam was founded. It is the history of this\ntransfer of method which we have now to consider.\n\n[Sidenote: RISE OF ORTHODOX KALAM]\n\nIts beginnings are wrapped in a natural obscurity. It was at first a\ngradual, unconscious drift, and people did not recognize its existence.\nAfterward, when they looked back upon it, the tendency of the human\nmind to ascribe broad movements to single men asserted itself and the\nwhole was put under the name of al-Ash\u2018ari. It is true that with him,\nin a sense, the change suddenly leaped to self-consciousness, but it\nhad already been long in progress. As we have seen, al-Junayd discussed\nthe unity of God, but it was behind closed doors. Ash-Shafi\u2018i held that\nthere should be a certain number of men trained thus to defend and purify\nthe faith, but that it would be a great evil if their arguments should\nbecome known to the mass of the people. Al-Muhasibi, a contemporary of\nAhmad ibn Hanbal, was suspected, and rightly, of defending his faith with\nargument, and thereby incurred Ahmad\u2019s displeasure. Another contemporary\nof Ahmad\u2019s, al-Karabisi (d. 345), incurred the same displeasure, and the\nlist might easily be extended. But the most significant fact of all is\nthat the movement came to the surface and showed itself openly at the\nsame time in the most widely separated lands of Islam. In Mesopotamia\nthere was al-Ash\u2018ari, who died after 320; in Egypt there was at-Tahawi,\nwho died in 331; in Samarqand there was al-Mataridi, who died in 333. Of\nthese at-Tahawi is now little more than a name; al-Mataridi\u2019s star has\npaled before that of al-Ash\u2018ari; al-Ash\u2018ari has come in popular view to\nbe the solitary hero before whom the Mu\u2018tazilite system went down. It\nwill perhaps be sufficient if we take his life and experiences as our\nguide in this period of change; the others must have followed very much\nin the same path.\n\nHe was born at al-Basra in 260, the year in which al-Kindi died and\nMuhammad al-Muntazar vanished from the sight of men. He came into a\nworld full of intellectual ferment; Alids of different camps were\nactive in their claim to be possessors of an infallible Imam; Zaydites\nand Qarmatians were in revolt; the decree of 234 that the Qur\u2019an was\nuncreated had had little effect, so far, in silencing the Mu\u2018tazilites;\nin 261 the Sufi pantheist, Abu Yazid, died. Al-Ash\u2018ari himself was of the\nbest blood of the desert and of a highly orthodox family which had borne\na distinguished part in Muslim history. Through some accident he came in\nearly youth into the care of al-Jubba\u2018i, the Mu\u2018tazilite, who, according\nto one story, had married al-Ash\u2018ari\u2019s mother; was brought up by him and\nremained a stanch Mu\u2018tazilite, writing and speaking on that side, till he\nwas forty years old.\n\n[Sidenote: RETURN OF AL-ASH\u2018ARI]\n\nThen a strange thing happened. One day he mounted the pulpit of the\nmosque in al-Basra and cried aloud, \u201cHe who knows me, knows me; and\nhe who knows me not, let him know that I am so and so, the son of so\nand so. I have maintained the creation of the Qur\u2019an and that God will\nnot be seen in the world to come with the eyes, and that the creatures\ncreate their actions. Lo, I repent that I have been a Mu\u2018tazilite and\nturn to opposition to them.\u201d It was a voice full of omen. It told that\nthe intellectual supremacy of the Mu\u2018tazilites had publicly passed and\nthat, hereafter, they would be met with their own weapons. What led to\nthis change of mind is strictly unknown; only legends have reached us.\nOne, full of psychological truth, runs that one Ramadan, the fasting\nmonth, when he was worn with prayer and hunger, the Prophet appeared to\nhim three times in his sleep, and commanded him to turn from his vain\n_kalam_ and seek certainty in the traditions and the Qur\u2019an. If he would\nbut give himself to that study, God would make clear the difficulties and\nenable him to solve all the puzzles. He did so, and his mind seemed to be\nopened; the old contradictions and absurdities had fled, and he cursed\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites and all their works.\n\nIt can easily be seen that in some such way as this the blood of the race\nmay have led him back to the God of his fathers, the God of the desert,\nwhose word must be accepted as its own proof. The gossips of the time\ntold strange tales of rich relatives and family pressure; we can leave\nthese aside. When he had changed he was terribly in earnest. He met his\nold teacher, al-Jubba\u2018i, in public discussions again and again till the\nold man withdrew. One of these discussions legend has handed down in\nvarying forms. None of them may be exactly true, but they are significant\nof the change of attitude. He came to al-Jubba\u2018i and said, \u201cSuppose the\ncase of three brothers; one being God-fearing, another godless and a\nthird dies as a child. What of them in the world to come?\u201d Al-Jubba\u2018i\nreplied, \u201cThe first will be rewarded in Paradise; the second punished in\nHell, and the third will be neither rewarded nor punished.\u201d Al-Ash\u2018ari\ncontinued, \u201cBut if the third said, \u2018Lord, Thou mightest have granted\nme life, and then I would have been pious and entered Paradise like my\nbrother,\u2019 what then?\u201d Al-Jubba\u2018i replied, \u201cGod would say, \u2018I knew that if\nthou wert granted life thou wouldst be godless and unbelieving and enter\nHell.\u2019\u201d Then al-Ash\u2018ari drew his noose, \u201cBut what if the second said,\n\u2018Lord, why didst Thou not make me die as a child? Then had I escaped\nHell.\u2019\u201d Al-Jubba\u2018i was silenced, and Al-Ash\u2018ari went away in triumph.\nThree years after his pupil had left him the old man died. The tellers\nof this story regard it as disproving the Mu\u2018tazilite doctrine of \u201cthe\nbest\u201d\u2014_al-aslah_\u2014namely, that God is constrained to do that which may be\nbest and happiest for His creatures. Orthodox Islam, as we have seen,\nholds that God is under no such constraint, and is free to do good or\nevil as He chooses.\n\nBut the story has also another and somewhat broader significance. It is a\nprotest against the religious rationalism of the Mu\u2018tazilites, which held\nthat the mysteries of the universe could be expressed and met in terms\nof human thought. In this way it represents the essence of al-Ash\u2018ari\u2019s\nposition, a recoil from the impossible task of raising a system of\npurely rationalistic theology to reliance upon the Word of God, and the\ntradition (_hadith_) and usage (_sunna_) of the Prophet and the pattern\nof the early church (_salaf_).\n\nThe stories told above represent the change as sudden. According to the\nevidence of his books that was not so. In his return there were two\nstages. In the first of these he upheld the seven rational Qualities\n(_sifat aqliya_) of God, Life, Knowledge, Power, Will, Hearing, Seeing,\nSpeech: but explained away the Qur\u2019anic anthropomorphisms of God\u2019s\nface, hands, feet, etc. In the second stage, which fell, apparently,\nafter he had moved to Baghdad and come under the strong Hanbalite\ninfluences there, he explained away nothing, but contented himself with\nthe position that the anthropomorphisms were to be taken, _bila kayfa\nwala tashbih_, without asking how and without drawing any comparison.\nThe first phrase is directed against the Mu\u2018tazilites, who inquired\npersistently into the nature and possibility of such things in God;\nthe second, against the anthropomorphists (_mushabbihs_, comparers;\n_mujassims_, corporealizers), mostly ultra Hanbalites and Karramites, who\nsaid that these things in God were like the corresponding things in men.\nAt all stages, however, he was prepared to defend his conclusions and\nassail those of his adversaries by dint of argument.\n\n[Sidenote: SYSTEM OF AL-ASH\u2018ARI]\n\nThe details of his system will be best understood by reading his creed\nand the creed of al-Fudali, which is essentially Ash\u2018arite. Both are\nin the Appendix of Translated Creeds. Here, it is necessary to draw\nattention to two, only, of the obscurer points. On the vexed question,\n\u201cWhat is a thing?\u201d he anticipated Kant. The early theologians, orthodox\nand theoretical, and those later ones also who did not follow him,\nregarded, as we have seen, existence (_wujud_) as only one of the\nqualities belonging to an existing thing (_mawjud_). It was there all the\ntime, but it lacked the quality of \u201cexistence\u201d; then that quality was\nadded to its other qualities and it became existent. But al-Ash\u2018ari and\nhis followers held that existence was the \u201cself\u201d (_ayn_) of the entity\nand not a quality or state, however personal or necessary. See, on the\nwhole, Appendix of Creeds.\n\nOn the other vexed question of free-will, or, rather, as the Muslims\nchose to express it, on the ability of men to produce actions, he took\nup a mediating position. The old orthodox position was absolutely\nfatalistic; the Mu\u2018tazilites, following their principle of Justice, gave\nto man an initiative power. Al-Ash\u2018ari struck a middle path. Man cannot\ncreate anything; God is the only creator. Nor does man\u2019s power produce\nany effect on his actions at all. God creates in His creature power\n(_qudra_) and choice (_ikhtiyar_). Then He creates in him his action\ncorresponding to the power and choice thus created. So the action of the\ncreature is created by God as to initiative and as to production; but\nit is _acquired_ by the creature. By acquisition (_kasb_) is meant that\nit corresponds to the creature\u2019s power and choice, previously created\nin him, without his having had the slightest effect on the action. He\nwas only the _locus_ or subject of the action. In this way al-Ash\u2018ari\nis supposed to have accounted for free-will and entailed responsibility\nupon men. It may be doubted whether the second point occupied him much.\nIt was open to his God to do good or evil as He chose; the Justice of the\nMu\u2018tazilites was left behind. He may have intended only to explain the\nconsciousness of freedom, as some have done more recently. The closeness\nwith which al-Ash\u2018ari in this comes to the pre-established harmony of\nLeibnitz and to the Kantian conception of existence shows how high a rank\nhe must take as an original thinker. His abandoning of the Mu\u2018tazilites\nwas due to no mere wave of sentiment but to a perception that their\nspeculations were on too narrow a basis and of a too barren scholastic\ntype. He died after 320 with a curse on them and their methods as his\nlast words.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-MATARIDI]\n\nA few words only need be given to al-Mataridi. The creed of an-Nasafi\nin the Appendix of Creeds, pp. 308-315 belongs to his school. He and\nat-Tahawi were followers of the broad-minded Abu Hanifa, who was more\nthan suspected of Mu\u2018tazilite and Murji\u2019ite leanings. Muslim theologians\nusually reckon up some thirteen points of difference between al-Mataridi\nand al-Ash\u2018ari and admit that seven of these are not much more than\ncombats of words. Those which occur in an-Nasafi\u2019s creed are marked with\na star.\n\nWe are now in a position to finish shortly with the Mu\u2018tazilites. Their\nwork, as a constructive force, is done. From this time on there is\n_kalam_ among the orthodox, and the term _mutakallim_ denotes nothing but\na scholastic theologian, whether of one wing or another. And so, like\nany other organ which has done its part and for the existence of which\nthere is no longer any object, they gradually and quietly dropped into\nthe background. They had still, sometimes, to suffer persecution, and\nfor hundreds of years there were men who continued to call themselves\nMu\u2018tazilites; but their heresies came to be heresies of the schools\nand not burning questions in the eyes of the masses. We need now draw\nattention to only a few incidents and figures in this dying movement.\nThe Muslim historians lay much stress on the orthodox zeal of the\nKhalifa al-Qadir, who reigned 381-422, and narrate how he persecuted the\nMu\u2018tazilites, Shi\u2018ites and other heretics and compelled them, under oath,\nto conform.\n\nBut there are several difficulties in the way of this persecution, which\nmake it probable that it was more nominal than otherwise. Al-Qadir was\nbitterly orthodox; he had written a treatise on theology and compelled\nhis unhappy courtiers to listen to a public reading of it every week.\nBut he enjoyed, outside of his palace, next to no power. He was in the\ncontrol of the Shi\u2018ite Buwayhids, who, as we have seen, ruled Baghdad and\nthe Khalifate from 320 to 447. These dubious persecutions are said to\nhave fallen in 408 and 420. Again, a Muslim pilgrim from Spain visited\nBaghdad about 390 and has left us a record of the state of religious\nthings there. He found in session what may perhaps best be described as\na Parliament of Religions. It seems to have been a free debate between\nMuslims of all sects, orthodox and heretical, Parsees and atheists, Jews\nand Christians\u2014unbelievers of every kind. Each party had a spokesman,\nand at the beginning of the proceedings the rule was rehearsed that\nno one might appeal to the sacred books of his creed but might only\nadduce arguments founded upon reason. The pious Spanish Muslim went to\ntwo meetings but did not peril his soul by any further visits. In his\nnarrative we recognize the horror with which the orthodox of Spain viewed\nsuch proceedings\u2014Spain, Muslim and Christian, has always favored the\nstraitest sect; but when such a thing was permitted in Baghdad, religious\nliberty there at least must have been tolerably broad. Possibly it was\nsittings of the _Ikhwan as-safa_ upon which this scandalized Spaniard\nstumbled. He himself speaks of them as meetings of mutakallims.\n\n[Sidenote: MAHMUD OF GHAZNA]\n\nBut if the mixture of Sunnite and Shi\u2018ite authority in Baghdad gave\nall the miscellaneous heretics a chance for life, it was different in\nthe growing dominions of Mahmud of Ghazna. That iconoclastic monarch\nhad embraced the anthropomorphic faith of the Karramites, the most\nliteral-minded of all the Muslim sects. In consequence, all forms of\nMu\u2018tazilism and all kinds of mutakallims were an abomination to him,\nand it was a very real persecution which they met at his hands. That\nal-Qadir, his spiritual suzerain, urged him on is very probable; it is\nalso possible that respect for the growing power of Mahmud may have\nprotected al-Qadir to some extent from the Buwayhids. In 420 Mahmud took\nfrom them Ispahan and held there a grand inquisition on Shi\u2018ites and\nheretics of all kinds.\n\nTo proceed with the Mu\u2018tazilites; when we come to al-Ghazzali and his\ntimes we shall find that they have ceased to be a crying danger to the\nfaith. Though their views might, that doctor held, be erroneous in some\nrespects, they were not to be considered as damnable. Again, in 538,\nthere died az-Zamakhshari, the great grammarian, who is often called\nthe last of the Mu\u2018tazilites. He was not that by any means, but his\nheresies were either mild or were regarded mildly. A single point will\nshow this. His commentary on the Qur\u2019an, the _Kashshaf_, was revised\nand expurgated in the orthodox interest by al-Baydawi (d. 688) and in\nthat form is now the most popular and respected of all expositions. The\n_Kashshaf_ itself, in its original, unmodified form, has been printed\nseveral times at Cairo. Again, Ibn Rushd, the Aristotelian, who died in\n595, when he is combating the arguments of the mutakallims, makes little\ndifference between the Mu\u2018tazilites and the others. They are only, to\nhim, another variety of scholastic theologian, with a rather better idea,\nperhaps, of logic and argument. He considered, as we shall find later,\nall the mutakallims as sadly to seek in such matters. Since then, and\ninto quite modern times, there have been sporadic cases of theologians\ncalled Mu\u2018tazilites by themselves or others. Practically, they have\nbeen scholastics of eccentric views. Finally, the use of this name for\nthemselves by the present-day broad school Muslims of India is absolutely\nunhistorical and highly misleading.\n\nWe turn now to suggest, rather than to trace, some of the non-theological\nconsequences of the preceding theology.\n\n[Sidenote: AL-BERUNI; IBN SINA]\n\nIncreasingly, from this time on, it is not heresy which has to be met\nso much as simple unbelief, more or less frank. It is evident that the\nheretics of the earlier period are now dividing in two directions,\none part inclining toward milder forms of heresy and the other toward\ndoubt in the largest sense, passing over to Aristotelian + neo-Platonic\nphilosophy, and thence dividing into materialists, deists, and theists.\nThus we have seen earlier the workings of al-Farabi and of the Ikhwan\nas-safa. The teachings of the latter pass on to the Isma\u2018ilians who\ndeveloped them in the mountain fortresses, the centres of their power,\nscattered from Persia to Syria. These were otherwise called Assassins;\notherwise Batinites in the narrower sense\u2014in the broader that term\nmeant only those who found under the letter of the Qur\u2019an a hidden,\nesoteric meaning; otherwise Ta\u2018limites or claimers of a _ta\u2018lim_, a\nsecret teaching by a divinely instructed Imam, and with them we shall\nhave much to do later. It is sufficient here to notice how the peaceful\nand rather watery philosophy of the \u201cSincere Brethren\u201d was transmuted\nthrough ambition and fanaticism into belligerent politics at the hands\nand daggers of these fierce sectaries. Into this period, too, fall some\nwell-known names of dubious and more than dubious orthodoxy. Al-Beruni\n(d. 440) even at the court of Mahmud of Ghazna managed to keep his\nfooting and his head. Yet it may be doubted how far he was a Karramite\nor even a Muslim. He was certainly the first scientific student of India\nand _Indica_ and of chronology and calendars, a man whose attainments\nand results show that our so-called modern methods are as old as genius.\nOn religion, he maintained a prudent silence, but earned the favor of\nMahmud by an unsparing exposure of the weakness in the Fatimid genealogy.\nIn this sketch he has a place as a man of science who went his own way\nwithout treading on the religious toes of other people.\n\nHis contemporary Ibn Sina (d. 428), for us Avicenna, was of a different\nnature, and his lines were cast in different places. He was a wanderer\nthrough the courts of northern Persia. The orthodox and stringent Mahmud\nhe carefully avoided; the Buwayhids and those of their ilk took such\nheresies as his more easily. Endowed with a gigantic memory and an\ninsatiable intellectual appetite, he was the encyclop\u00e6dist of his age,\nand his scientific work, and especially that in medicine, went further\nthan anything else to put the Muslim East and medi\u00e6val Europe in the\nstrait waistcoat from which the first has not yet emerged and the second\nonly shook itself free in the seventeenth century. He was a student\nof Aristotle and a mystic, as all Muslim students of Aristotle have\nbeen. How far his mysticism enabled him to square the Qur\u2019an with his\nphilosophy is not clear; such men seldom said exactly what they meant\nand all that they thought. He was also a diligent student and reader of\nthe Qur\u2019an and faithful in his public religious duties. Yet the Muslim\nworld asserts that he left behind him a testamentary tractate (_wasiya_)\ndefending dissimulation as to the religion of the country in which\nwe might be; that it was not wrong for the philosopher to go through\nreligious rites which for him had no meaning. He, too, is significant for\nhis time, and, if our interest were philosophy, would call for lengthened\ntreatment. As it is, he marks for us the accomplished separation between\nstudents of theology and students of philosophy.\n\nAn equally well known and by us much better loved name is that of Umar\nal-Khayyam, who died later, about 515, but who may fitly be grouped with\nIbn Sina. He, too, was a _bon vivant_, but of a deeper, more melancholy\nstrain. His wine meant more than friendly cups; it was a way of escape\nfrom the world and its burden. His science, too, went deeper. He was not\na gatherer and arranger of the wisdom of the past; his reformed calendar\nis more perfect than that which we even now use. His faith is a riddle to\nus, as it was to his comrades. But it was because he had no certain truth\nto proclaim that Umar did not speak out clearly. His last words were\nalmost those of Rabelais, \u201cI go to meet the great Perhaps.\u201d Anecdotage\nconnects his name with that of al-Ghazzali. Neither had escaped the pall\nof universal scepticism which must have descended upon their time. But\nal-Ghazzali, by God\u2019s grace, as he himself reverently says, was enabled\nto escape. Umar died under it.\n\n[Sidenote: ABU-L-ALA AL-MA\u2018ARRI]\n\nA very different man was Abu-l-Ala al-Ma\u2018arri, the blind poet and singer\nof intellectual freedom. In Arabic literature there is no other voice\nlike his, clear and confident. He was a man of letters; no philosopher\nnor theologian nor scientist, though at one time he seems to have come\nin contact with a circle like that of Ikhwan as-safa, perhaps the same;\nand his spirit was like that of one of the heroic poets of the old desert\nlife, whose hand was taught to keep his head, whose tongue spared nothing\nfrom heaven to earth, and who lived his own life out in his own way,\nundaunted. In his darkness he nourished great thoughts and flung out a\n_s\u00e6va indignatio_ on hypocrisy and subservience which reminds of Lessing.\nBut Abu-l-Ala was a great poet, and his scorn of priests and courtiers\nand their lies, his pity for suffering humanity and his confidence in\nthe light of reason are thrown into scraps of burning, echoing verse\nwithout their like in Arabic. He died at the town of his birth, Ma\u2018arrat\nan-Nu\u2018man, in northern Syria, in 449. The problem is how he was suffered\nto live out his long life of eighty-six years.\n\nWe can now return to the development of scholastic theology in the\northodox church at the hands of the followers of al-Ash\u2018ari. They\nhad to fight their way against many and most differing opponents. At\nthe one extreme were the dwindling Mu\u2018tazilites, passing slowly into\ncomparatively innocuous heretics, and the growing party of unbelievers,\nphilosophical and otherwise, open and secret. At the other extreme was\nthe mob of Hanbalites, belonging to the only legal school which laid\ntheological burdens on its adherents. The theologians, in this case,\ncertainly varied as to the weight of their own anathemas against all\nkalam, but were at one in that they carried the bulk of the multitude\nwith them and could enforce their conclusions with the cudgels of\nrioters. In the midst were the rival orthodox (_pace_ the Hanbalites)\ndevelopers of kalam, among whom the Mataridites probably held the most\nimportant place. Thus, the Ash\u2018arite school was the nursling as well as\nthe child of controversy.\n\nIt was, then, fitting that the name joined, at least in tradition, with\nthe final form of that system, should be that of a controversialist.\nBut this man, Abu Bakr al-Baqilani the Qadi, was more than a mere\ncontroversialist. It is his glory to have contributed most important\nelements to and put into fixed form what is, perhaps, the most fantastic\nand daring metaphysical scheme, and almost certainly the most thorough\ntheological scheme, ever thought out. On the one hand, the Lucretian\natoms raining down through the empty void, the self-developing monads\nof Leibnitz, pre-established harmony and all, the Kantian \u201cthings in\nthemselves\u201d are lame and impotent in their consistency beside the\nparallel Ash\u2018arite doctrines; and, on the other, not even the rigors\nof Calvin, as developed in the Dutch confessions, can compete with the\nunflinching exactitude of the Muslim conclusions.\n\n[Sidenote: ASH\u2018ARITE METAPHYSICS]\n\nFirst, as to ontology. The object of the Ash\u2018arites was that of Kant, to\nfix the relation of knowledge to the thing in itself. Thus, al-Baqilani\ndefined knowledge (_ilm_) as cognition (_ma\u2018rifa_) of a thing as it is\nin itself. But in reaching that \u201cthing in itself\u201d they were much more\nthorough than Kant. Only two of the Aristotelian categories survived\ntheir attack, substance and quality. The others, quantity, place, time\nand the rest, were only relationships (_i\u2018tibars_) existing subjectively\nin the mind of the knower, and not things. But a relationship, they\nargued, if real, must exist in something, and a quality cannot exist in\nanother quality, only in a substance. Yet it could not exist in either\nof the two things which it brought together; for example, in the cause\nor the effect. It must be in a third thing. But to bring this third\nthing and the first two together, other relationships would be needed\nand other things for these relationships to exist in. Thus we would be\nled back in an infinite sequence, and they had taken over from Aristotle\nthe position that such an infinite series backward (_tasalsul_) is\ninadmissible. Relationships, then, had no real existence but were mere\nphantoms, subjective non-entities. Further, the Aristotelian view of\nmatter was now impossible for them. All the categories had gone except\nsubstance and quality; and among them, passion. Matter, then, could not\nhave the possibility of suffering the impress of form. A possibility\nis neither an entity nor a non-entity, but a subjectivity purely. But\nwith the suffering matter, the active form and all causes must also go.\nThey, too, are mere subjectivities. Again, qualities, for these thinkers,\nbecame mere accidents. The fleeting character of appearances drove them\nto the conclusion that there was no such thing as a quality planted\nin the nature of a thing; that the idea \u201cnature\u201d did not exist. Then\nthis drove them further. Substances exist only with qualities, _i.e._,\naccidents. These qualities may be positive or they may be negative;\nthe ascription to things of negative qualities is one of their most\nfruitful conceptions. When, then, the qualities fall out of existence,\nthe substances themselves must also cease to exist. Substance as well as\nquality is fleeting, has only a moment\u2019s duration.\n\nBut when they rejected the Aristotelian view of matter as the possibility\nof receiving form, their path of necessity led them straight to the\natomists. So atomists they became, and, as always, after their own\nfashion. Their atoms are not of space only, but also of time. The basis\nof all the manifestation, mental and physical, of the world in place\nand time, is a multitude of monads. Each has certain qualities but has\nextension neither in space nor time. They have simply position, not bulk,\nand do not touch one another. Between them is absolute void. Similarly as\nto time. The time-atoms, if the expression may be permitted, are equally\nunextended and have also absolute void\u2014of time\u2014between them. Just as\nspace is only in a series of atoms, so time is only in a succession of\nuntouching moments and leaps across the void from one to the other with\nthe jerk of the hand of a clock. Time, in this view, is in grains and can\nexist only in connection with change. The monads differ from those of\nLeibnitz in having no nature in themselves, no possibility of development\nalong certain lines. The Muslim monads are, and again are not, all change\nand action in the world are produced by their entering into existence and\ndropping out again, not by any change in themselves.\n\nBut this most simple view of the world left its holders in precisely the\nsame difficulty, only in a far higher degree, as that of Leibnitz. He was\ncompelled to fall back on a pre-established harmony to bring his monads\ninto orderly relations with one another; the Muslim theologians, on their\nside, fell back upon God and found in His will the ground of all things.\n\n[Sidenote: ASH\u2018ARITE THEOLOGY]\n\nWe here pass from their ontology to their theology, and as they\nwere thorough-going metaphysicians, so now they are thorough-going\ntheologians. Being was all in the one case; now it is God that is all.\nIn truth, their philosophy is in its essence a scepticism which destroys\nthe possibility of a philosophy in order to drive men back to God and\nHis revelations and compel them to see in Him the one grand fact of the\nuniverse. So, when a darwish shouts in his ecstasy, \u201c_Huwa-l-haqq_,\u201d he\ndoes not mean, \u201cHe is the Truth,\u201d in our Western sense of Verity, or our\nNew Testament sense of \u201cThe Way, the Truth, and the Life,\u201d but simply,\n\u201cHe is the Fact\u201d\u2014the one Reality.\n\nTo return: from their ontology they derived an argument for the\nnecessity of a God. That their monads came so and not otherwise must have\na cause; without it there could be no harmony or connection between them.\nAnd this cause must be one with no cause behind it; otherwise we would\nhave the endless chain. This cause, then, they found in the absolutely\nfree will of God, working without any matter beside it and unaffected by\nany laws or necessities. It creates and annihilates the atoms and their\nqualities and, by that means, brings to pass all the motion and change of\nthe world. These, in our sense, do not exist. When a thing seems to us to\nbe moved, that really means that God has annihilated\u2014or permitted to drop\nout of existence, by not continuing to uphold, as another view held\u2014the\natoms making up that thing in its original position, and has created them\nagain and again along the line over which it moves. Similarly of what\nwe regard as cause and effect. A man writes with a pen and a piece of\npaper. God creates in his mind the will to write; at the same moment he\ngives him the power to write and brings about the apparent motion of the\nhand, of the pen and the appearance on the paper. No one of these is the\ncause of the other. God has brought about by creation and annihilation\nof atoms the requisite combination to produce these appearances. Thus we\nsee that free-will for the Muslim scholastics is simply the presence, in\nthe mind of the man, of this choice created there by God. This may not\nseem to us to be very real, but it has, certainly, as much reality as\nanything else in their world. Further, it will be observed how completely\nthis annihilates the machinery of the universe. There is no such thing\nas law, and the world is sustained by a constant, ever-repeated miracle.\nMiracles and what we regard as the ordinary operations of nature are on\nthe same level. The world and the things in it could have been quite\ndifferent. The only limitation upon God is that He cannot produce a\ncontradiction. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. There is\nno such thing as a secondary cause; when there is the appearance of\nsuch, it is only illusional. God is producing it as well as the ultimate\nappearance of effect. There is no nature belonging to things. Fire does\nnot burn and a knife does not cut. God creates in a substance a being\nburned when the fire touches it and a being cut when the knife approaches\nit.\n\n[Sidenote: ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES]\n\nIn this scheme there are certainly grave difficulties, philosophical\nand ethical. It establishes a relationship between God and the atoms;\nbut we have already seen that relationships are subjective illusions.\nThat, however, was in the case of the things of the world, perceived\nby the senses\u2014contingent being, as they would put it. It does not hold\nof necessary being. God possesses a quality called Difference from\noriginated things (_al-mukhalafa lil-hawadith_). He is not a natural\ncause, but a free cause; and the existence of a free cause they were\ncompelled by their principles to admit. The ethical difficulty is perhaps\ngreater. If there is no order of nature and no certainty, or nexus,\nas to causes and effects; if there is no regular development in the\nlife, mental, moral, and physical of a man\u2014only a series of isolated\nmoments; how can there be any responsibility, any moral claim or duty?\nThis difficulty seems to have been recognized more clearly than the\nphilosophical one. It was met formally by the assertion of a certain\norder and regularity in the will of God. He sees to it that a man\u2019s\nlife is a unity, and, for details, that the will to eat and the action\nalways coincide. But such an answer must have been felt to be inadequate\nand to involve grave moral dangers for the common mind. Therefore, as\nwe have seen, the study of kalam was hedged about with difficulties and\nrestrictions. Theologians recognized its trap-falls and doubts, even for\nthemselves, and lamented that they were compelled by their profession\nto study it. The public discussion of its questions was regarded as a\nbreach of professional etiquette. Theologians and philosophers alike\nstrove to keep these deeper mysteries hidden from the multitude. The gap\nbetween the highly educated and the great mass\u2014that fundamental error and\ngreatest danger in Muslim society\u2014comes here again to view. Further, even\namong theologians, there was some difference in degree of insight, and\nbooks and phrases could be read by different men in very different ways.\nTo one, they would suggest ordinary, Qur\u2019anic doctrines; another would\nsee under and behind them a trail of metaphysical consequences bristling\nwith blasphemous possibilities. Thus, Muslim science has been always of\nthe school; it has never learned the vitalizing and disinfecting value\nof the fresh air of the market-place. This applies to philosophers even\nmore than to theologians. The crowning accusation which Ibn Rushd, the\ngreat Aristotelian commentator, brought against al-Ghazzali was that he\ndiscussed such subtilties in popular books.\n\n[Sidenote: SPREAD OF ASH\u2018ARISM]\n\nThis, then, was the system which seems to have reached tolerably\ncomplete form at the hands of al-Baqilani, who died in 403. But with the\ncompletion of the system there went by no means its universal or even\nwide-spread acceptance in the Muslim world. That of al-Mataridi held its\nown for long, and, even yet, the Mataridite creed of an-Nasafi is used\nlargely in the Turkish schools. In the fifth century it was considered\nremarkable that Abu Dharr (d. 434), a theologian of Herat, should be\nan Ash\u2018arite rather than, apparently, a Mataridite. It was not till\nal-Ghazzali (d. 505) that the Ash\u2018arite system came to the orthodox\nhegemony in the East, and it was only as the result of the work of Ibn\nTumart, the Mahdi of the Muwahhids (d. 524), that it conquered the West.\nFor long its path was darkened by suspicion and persecution. This came\nalmost entirely from the Hanbalites. The Mu\u2018tazilites had no force behind\nthem, and while the views of deists and materialists were steadily making\nway in secret, their public efforts appeared only in very occasional\ndisputes between theologians and philosophers. As we have seen, Muslim\nphilosophy has always practised an economy of teaching.\n\nThe Hanbalite crisis seems to have come to a head toward the close of the\nreign of Tughril Beg, the first Great Saljuq. In 429, as we have seen,\nthe Saljuqs had taken Merv and Samarqand, and in 447 Tughril Beg had\nentered Baghdad and freed the Khalifa from the Shi\u2018ite domination of the\nBuwayhids who had so long enforced toleration. It was natural that he, a\ntheologically unschooled Turk, should be captured by the simplicity and\nconcreteness of the Hanbalite doctrines.\n\nAdded to this political factor there was a theological movement at work\nwhich was deeply hostile to the Ash\u2018arites as they had developed. An\nimportant point in the method of al-Ash\u2018ari himself, and, after him, of\nhis followers, was to put forth a creed, expressed in the old-fashioned\nterms and containing the old-fashioned doctrines as nearly as was at\nall possible, and to accompany it with a spiritualizing interpretation\nwhich was, naturally, accessible to the professional student only.\nAccordingly what had at first seemed a weapon against the Mu\u2018tazilites\ncame to be viewed with more and more suspicion by the holders to the old,\nunquestioning orthodoxy. The duty also of religious investigation and\nspeculation (_nazr_) came to have more and more stress laid upon it. The\n_bila kayfa_ dropped into the background. A Muslim must have a reason for\nthe faith that was in him, they said; otherwise, he was no true Muslim,\nwas in fact an unbeliever. Of course, they limited carefully the extent\nto which he should go. For the ordinary man a series of very simple\nproofs would be prepared; the student, on the other hand, when carefully\nled, could work his way through the system sketched above. All this,\nnaturally, was anathema to the party of tradition.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN HAZM]\n\nIt is significant that at this time the Zahirite school of law (_fiqh_)\ndeveloped into a school of kalam and applied its literal principles\nunflinchingly to its new victim. The leader in this was Ibn Hazm, a\ntheologian of Spain. He died in 456, after a stormy life filled with\ncontroversy. The remorseless sting of his vituperative style coupled\nhim, in popular proverb, with al-Hajjaj, the blood-thirsty lieutenant\nof the Umayyads in al-Iraq. \u201cThe sword of al-Hajjaj and the tongue of\nIbn Hazm,\u201d they said. But for all his violence of language and real\nweight of character and brain, he made little way for his views in his\nlifetime. It was almost one hundred years after his death before they\ncame into any prominence. The theologians and lawyers around him in\nthe West were devoted to the study of _fiqh_ in the narrowest and most\ntechnical sense. They labored over the systems and treatises of their\npredecessors and neglected the great original sources of the Qur\u2019an and\nthe traditions. The immediate study of tradition (_hadith_) had died out.\nIbn Hazm, on the other hand, went straight back to _hadith_. _Taqlid_ he\nabsolutely rejected, each man must draw from the sacred texts his own\nviews. So the whole system of the canon lawyers came down with a crash\nand they, naturally, did not like it. Analogy (_qiyas_), their principal\ninstrument, he swept away. It had no place either in law or theology.\nEven on the principle of agreement (_ijma_) he threw a shadow of doubt.\n\nBut it was in theology rather than in law that Ibn Hazm\u2019s originality\nlay. Strictly, his Zahirite principles when applied there should have led\nhim to anthropomorphism (_tajsim_). The literal meaning of the Qur\u2019an, as\nwe have seen, assigns to God hands and feet, sitting on and descending\nfrom His throne. But to Ibn Hazm, anthropomorphism was an abomination\nonly less than the speculative arguments with which the Ash\u2018arites tried\nto avoid it. His own method was purely grammatical and lexicographical.\nHe hunted in his dictionary until he found some other meaning for \u201chand\u201d\nor \u201cfoot,\u201d or whatever the stumbling-block might be.\n\nBut the most original point in his system is his doctrine of the\nnames of God, and his basing of that doctrine upon God\u2019s qualities.\nThe Ash\u2018arites, he contended with justice, had been guilty of a grave\ninconsistency in saying that God was different in nature, qualities,\nand actions from all created things, and yet that the human qualities\ncould be predicated of God, and that men could reason about God\u2019s\nnature. He accepted the doctrine of God\u2019s difference (_mukhalafa_)\non highly logical, but, for us, rather startling grounds. The Qur\u2019an\napplies to Him the words, \u201cThe Most Merciful of those that show mercy,\u201d\nbut God, evidently, is not merciful. He tortures children with all\nmanner of painful diseases, with hunger and terror. Mercy, in our human\nsense, which is high praise applied to a man, cannot be predicated\nof God. What then does the Qur\u2019an mean by those words? Simply that\nthey\u2014_arhamu-r-rahimin_\u2014are one of God\u2019s names, applied to Him by\nHimself and that we have no right to take them as descriptive of a\nquality, mercy, and to use them to throw light on God\u2019s nature. They\nform one of the Ninety-nine Most Beautiful Names (_al-asma al-husna_)\nof which the Prophet has spoken in a tradition. Similarly, we may call\nGod the Living One (_al hayy_), because He has given us that as one\nof His names, not because of any reasoning on our part. Do we not say\nthat His life is different from that of all other living beings? These\nnames then, are limited to ninety-nine and no more should be formed,\nhowever full of praise such might be for God, or however directly based\non His actions. He has called Himself _al-Wahib_, the Giver, and so we\nmay use that term of Him. But He has not called Himself _al-Wahhab_ the\nBountiful Giver, so we may not use that term of Him, though it is one of\npraise. Of course, you may describe His action and say that He is the\nguider of His saints. But you must not make from that a name, and call\nHim simply the Guider. Further, if we regard these names as expressing\nqualities in God, we involve multiplicity in God\u2019s nature; there is the\nquality and the thing qualified. Here we are back at the old Mu\u2018tazilite\ndifficulty and it is intelligible that Ibn Hazm dealt more gently with\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites than with the Ash\u2018arites. The one party were Muslims and\nsinned in ignorance\u2014invincible ignorance, a Roman Catholic would call it;\nthe others were unbelievers. They had turned wilfully from the way. The\nMu\u2018tazilites had tried to limit the qualities as much as possible. At the\nbest they had said that they _were_ God\u2019s essence and not in His essence.\nAl-Ash\u2018ari and his school had fairly revelled in qualities and had mapped\nout the nature of God with the detail\u2014and daring\u2014of a phrenological chart.\n\nNaturally, Ibn Hazm made his ethical basis the will of God only. God\nhas willed that this should be a sin and that a good deed. Lying, he\nconcedes, is always saying what does not agree with the truth. But,\nstill, God may pronounce that one lie is a sin, and one not. Muslim\nethics, it is true, have never branded lying as sinful in itself.\n\nFor the Shi\u2018ites and their doctrine of an infallible Imam, Ibn Hazm\ncannot find strong enough expressions of contempt.\n\nIn Ibn Hazm\u2019s time, and he praises God for it, there were but few\nAsh\u2018arites in the West. Theology generally did not find many students. So\nthings went on till long after his death. To this fiery controversialist\nthe worst blow of all would have been if he could have known that the\nmen who were at last to bring his system, in part and for a time, into\npublic acceptance and repute, were also to complete the conquest of Islam\nfor the Ash\u2018arite school. That was still far in the future, and we must\nreturn to the persecution.\n\nThe accounts of the persecution which set in are singularly conflicting.\nSome assign it to Hanbalite influence; others tell of a Mu\u2018tazilite wazir\nof Tughril Beg. That the traditionalist party was the main force in it\nseems certain. In all probability, however, all the other anti-Ash\u2018arite\nsects, from the Mu\u2018tazilites on, took their own parts. The Ash\u2018arite\nparty represented a _via media_ and would be set upon with zest by all\nthe extremes. They were solemnly cursed from the pulpits and, what\nadded peculiar insult to it, the Rafidites, an extreme Kharijite sect,\nwere joined in the same anathema. Al-Juwayni, the greatest theologian\nof the time, fled to the Hijaz and gained the title of Imam of the two\nHarams (_Imam al-Haramayn_), by living for four years between Mecca and\nal-Madina. Al-Qushayri, the author of a celebrated treatise on Sufiism,\nwas thrown into prison. The Ash\u2018arite doctors generally were scattered to\nthe winds. Only with the death of Tughril Beg in 455 did the cloud pass.\nHis successor, Alp-Arslan, and especially the great wazir, Nizam al-Mulk,\nfavored the Ash\u2018arites. In 459 the latter founded the Nizamite Academy\nat Baghdad to be a defence of Ash\u2018arite doctrines. This may fairly be\nregarded as the turning-point of the whole controversy. The Hanbalite mob\nof Baghdad still continued to make itself felt, but its excesses were\npromptly suppressed. In 510 ash-Shahrastani was well received there by\nthe people, and in 516 the Khalifa himself attended Ash\u2018arite lectures.\n\n[Sidenote: TRIUMPH OF ASH\u2018ARISM]\n\nIt is needless to spend more time over the other theologians who were\nlinks in the chain between al-Ash\u2018ari and the Imam al-Haramayn. Their\nviews wavered, this way and that, only the rationalizing tendency became\nstronger and stronger. There was danger that the orthodox system would\nfossilize and lose touch with life as that of the Mu\u2018tazilites had\ndone. It is true that Sufiism still held its ground. All theologians\npractically were touched by it in its simpler form; and the cause of the\nhigher Sufiism of ecstasy, wonders by saints (_karamat_) and communion of\nthe individual soul with God had been eloquently and effectively urged\nby al-Qushayri (d. 465) in his _Risala_. But in spite of the labors of\nso many men of high ability, the religious outlook was growing ever\ndarker. Keen observers recognized that some change was bound to come.\nThat it might be an inflowing of new life by a new al-Ash\u2018ari was their\nprayer. It is more than dubious whether even the keenest mind of the\ntime could have recognized what form the new life must take. They had\nnot the perspective and could only feel a vague need. But from what has\ngone before it will be plain that Islam had again to assimilate to itself\nsomething from without or perish. Such had been its manner of progress\nup till now. New opinions had arisen; had become heresies; conflict had\nfollowed; part of the new thought had been absorbed into the orthodox\nchurch; part had been rejected; through it all the life of the church\nhad gone on in fuller and richer measure, being always, in spite of\neverything, the main stream; the heresy itself had slowly dwindled out\nof sight. So it had been with Murji\u2019ism; so with Mu\u2018tazilism. With the\northodox, tradition (_naql_) still stood fast, but reason (_aql_) had\ntaken a place beside it. Kalam, in spite of Hanbalite clamors, had become\nfairly a part of their system. What was to be the new element, and who\nwas to be its champion?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n Al-Ghazzali, his life, times, and work; Sufiism formally\n accepted into Islam.\n\n\nWith the time came the man. He was al-Ghazzali, the greatest, certainly\nthe most sympathetic figure in the history of Islam, and the only teacher\nof the after generations ever put by a Muslim on a level with the four\ngreat Imams. The equal of Augustine in philosophical and theological\nimportance, by his side the Aristotelian philosophers of Islam, Ibn\nRushd and all the rest, seem beggarly compilers and scholiasts. Only\nal-Farabi, and that in virtue of his mysticism, approaches him. In his\nown person he took up the life of his time on all its sides and with it\nall its problems. He lived through them all and drew his theology from\nhis experience. Systems and classifications, words and arguments about\nwords, he swept away; the facts of life as he had known them in his own\nsoul he grasped. When his work was done the revelation of the mystic\n(_kashf_) was not only a full part but the basal part in the structure\nof Muslim theology. That basis, in spite, or rather on account of the\nwork of the mutakallims had previously been lacking. Such a scepticism\nas their atomic system had practically amounted to, could disprove much\nbut could prove little. If all the categories but substance and quality\nare mere subjectivities, existing in the mind only, what can we know of\nthings? An ultra-rational basis had to be found and it was found in the\necstasy of the Sufis. But al-Ghazzali brought another element into fuller\nand more effective working. With him passes away the old-fashioned kalam,\na thing of shreds and patches, scraps of metaphysics and logic snatched\nup for a moment of need, without grasp of the full sweep of philosophy,\nand incapable, in the long run, of meeting it. Even its atomic system is\na philosophy of amateurs, with all their fantastic one-sidedness, their\nvigor and rigor. But al-Ghazzali was no amateur. His knowledge and grasp\nof the problems and objects of philosophy were truer and more vital\nthan in any other Muslim up to his time\u2014perhaps after it, too. Islam\nhas not fully understood him any more than Christendom fully understood\nAugustine, but until long after him the horizon of Muslims was wider and\ntheir air clearer for his work. Then came a new scholasticism, reigning\nto this day.\n\nSo much by way of preface. We must now give some account of the life\nand experiences, the ideas and sensations, of this great leader and\nreformer. For his life and his work were one. Everything that he thought\nand wrote came with the weight and reality of personal experience. He\nrecognized this connection himself, and has left us a book\u2014the _Munqidh\nmin ad-dalal_, \u201cRescuer from Error\u201d\u2014almost unique in Islam, which, in the\nform of an apology for the faith, is really an _Apologia pro vita sua_.\nThis book is our main source for what follows.\n\n[Sidenote: EARLY CAREER; RENUNCIATION]\n\nAl-Ghazzali was born at Tus in 450. He lost his father when young and\nwas educated and brought up by a trusted Sufi friend. He early turned\nto the study of theology and canon law, but, as he himself confesses,\nit was only because they promised wealth and reputation. Very early\nhe broke away from _taqlid_, simple acceptance of religious truth on\nauthority, and he began to investigate theological differences before\nhe was twenty. His studies were of the broadest, embracing canon law,\ntheology, dialectic, science, philosophy, logic and the doctrines and\npractices of the Sufis. It was a Sufi atmosphere in which he moved, but\ntheir religious fervors do not seem to have laid hold of him. Pride in\nhis own intellectual powers, ambition and contempt for others of less\nability mastered him. The latter part of his life as a student was spent\nat Naysabur as pupil and assistant of the Imam al-Haramayn. Through the\nImam he stood in the apostolic succession of Ash\u2018arite teachers, being\nthe fourth from al-Ash\u2018ari himself. There he remained till the death of\nthe Imam in 478, when he went out to seek his fortune and found it with\nthe great wazir, Nizam al-Mulk. By him al-Ghazzali was appointed, in 484,\nto teach in the Nizamite Academy at Baghdad. There he had the greatest\nsuccess as a teacher and consulting lawyer, and his worldly hopes seemed\nsafe. But suddenly he was struck down by a mysterious disease. His speech\nbecame hampered; his appetite and digestion failed. His physicians gave\nhim up; his malady, they said, was mental and could only be mentally\ntreated. His only hope lay in peace of mind. Then he suddenly quitted\nBaghdad, in 488, ostensibly on pilgrimage to Mecca. This flight, for it\nwas so in effect, of al-Ghazzali was unintelligible to the theologians of\nthe time; since that time it has marked the greatest epoch in the church\nof Islam after the return of al-Ash\u2018ari.\n\nThat it should be unintelligible was natural. No cause could be seen on\nthe surface, except some possible political complications; the cause in\nreality lay in al-Ghazzali\u2019s mind and conscience. He was wandering in the\nlabyrinth of his time. From his youth he had been a sceptical, ambitious\nstudent, playing with religious influences yet unaffected by them. But\nthe hollowness of his life was ever present with him and pressing upon\nhim. Like some with us, he sought to be converted and could not bring\nit to pass. His religious beliefs gradually gave way and fell from him,\npiece by piece.\n\nAt last, the strain became too great and at the court of Nizam al-Mulk he\ntouched for two months the depths of absolute scepticism. He doubted the\nevidence of the senses; he could see plainly that they often deceived. No\neye could perceive the movement of a shadow, but still the shadow moved;\na gold piece would cover any star, but a star was a world larger than the\nearth. He doubted even the primary ideas of the mind. Is ten more than\nthree? Can a thing be and not be? Perhaps; he could not tell. His senses\ndeceived him, why not his mind? May there not be something behind the\nmind and transcending it, which would show the falsity of its convictions\neven as the mind showed the falsity of the information given by the\nsenses? May not the dreams of the Sufis be true, and their revelations\nin ecstasy the only real guides? When we awake in death, may it not be\ninto a true but different existence? All this\u2014perhaps. And so he wandered\nfor two months. He saw clearly that no reasoning could help him here; he\nhad no ideas on which he could depend, from which he could begin. But the\nmercy of God is great; He sends His light to whom He wills, a light that\nflows in, and is given by no reasoning. By it al-Ghazzali was saved; he\nregained the power to think, and the task which he now set before him was\nto use this power to guide himself to truth.\n\n[Sidenote: THE SEEKERS OF HIS TIME]\n\nWhen he looked around, he saw that those who gave themselves to the\nsearch for truth might be divided into four groups. There were the\nscholastic theologians, who were much like the theologians of all times\nand faiths. Second, there were the Ta\u2018limites, who held that to reach\ntruth one must have an infallible living teacher, and that there was\nsuch a teacher. Third, there were the followers of philosophy, basing\non logical and rational proofs. Fourth, there were the Sufis, who held\nthat they, the chosen of God, could reach knowledge of Him directly in\necstasy. With all these he had, of course, been acquainted to a greater\nor less degree; but now he settled down to examine them one by one, and\nfind which would lead him to a certainty to which he could hold, whatever\nmight come. He felt that he could not go back to the unconscious faith of\nhis childhood; _that_ nothing could restore. All his mental being must be\nmade over before he could find rest. He began with scholastic theology,\nbut found no help there. Grant the theologians their premises and they\ncould argue; deny them and there was no common ground on which to meet.\nTheir science had been founded by al-Ash\u2018ari to meet the Mu\u2018tazilites;\nit had done that victoriously, but could do no more. They could hold the\nfaith against heretics, expose their inconsistencies; against the sceptic\nthey availed nothing. It is true that they had attempted to go further\nback and meet the students of philosophy on their own ground; to deal\nwith substances and attributes and first principles generally; but their\nefforts had been fruitless. They lacked the necessary knowledge of the\nsubject, had no scientific basis, and were constrained eventually to fall\nback on authority. After study of them and their methods it became clear\nto al-Ghazzali that the remedy for his ailment was not in scholastic\ntheology.\n\n[Sidenote: MATERIALISTS; DEISTS; THEISTS]\n\nThen he turned to philosophy. He had seen already that the weakness\nof the theologians lay in their not having made a sufficient study of\nprimary ideas and the laws of thought. Three years he gave up to this.\nHe was at Baghdad at the time, teaching law and writing legal treatises,\nand probably the three years extended from the beginning of 484 to the\nbeginning of 487. Two years he gave, without a teacher, to the study of\nthe writings of the different schools of philosophy, and almost another\nto meditating and working over his results. He felt that he was the\nfirst Muslim doctor to do this with the requisite thoroughness. And it\nis noteworthy that at this stage he seems to have again felt himself to\nbe a Muslim, and in an enemy\u2019s country when he was studying philosophy.\nHe speaks of the necessity of understanding what is to be refuted; but\nthis may be only a confusion between his attitude when writing after\n500, and his attitude when investigating and seeking truth, fifteen\nyears earlier. He divides the followers of philosophy in his time into\nthree: Materialists, Deists (_Tabi\u2018is, i.e._ Naturalists), and Theists.\nThe materialists reject a creator; the world exists from all eternity;\nthe animal comes from the egg and the egg from the animal. The wonder\nof creation compels the deists to admit a creator, but the creature is\na machine, has a certain poise (_i\u2018tidal_) in itself which keeps it\nrunning; its thought is a part of its nature and ends with death. They\nthus reject a future life, though admitting God and His attributes.\n\nHe deals at much greater length with the teachings of those whom he calls\ntheists, but through all his statements of their views his tone is not\nthat of a seeker but that of a partisan; he turns his own experiences\ninto a warning to others, and makes of their record a little guide to\napologetics. Aristotle he regards as the final master of the Greek\nschool; his doctrines are best represented for Arabic readers in the\nbooks of Ibn Sina and al-Farabi; the works of their predecessors on this\nsubject are a mass of confusion. Part of these doctrines must be stamped\nas unbelief, part as heresy, and part as theologically indifferent. He\nthen divides the philosophical sciences into six, mathematics, logic,\nphysics, metaphysics, political economy, ethics; and discusses these in\ndetail, showing what must be rejected, what is indifferent, what dangers\narise from each to him who studies or to him who rejects without study.\n\nThroughout, he is very cautious to mark nothing as unbelief that is\nnot really so; to admit always those truths of mathematics, logic, and\nphysics that cannot intellectually be rejected; and only to warn against\nan attitude of intellectualism and a belief that mathematicians, with\ntheir success in their own department, are to be followed in other\ndepartments, or that all subjects are susceptible of the exactness and\ncertainty of a syllogism in logic. The damnable errors of the theists are\nalmost entirely in their metaphysical views. Three of their propositions\nmark them as unbelievers. _First_, they reject the resurrection of the\nbody and physical punishment hereafter; the punishments of the next\nworld will be spiritual only. That there will be spiritual punishments,\nal-Ghazzali admits, but there will be physical as well. _Second_, they\nhold that God knows universals only, not particulars. _Third_, they\nhold that the world exists from all eternity and to all eternity. When\nthey reject the attributes of God and hold that He knows by His essence\nand not by something added to His essence, they are only heretics and\nnot unbelievers. In physics he accepts the constitution of the world as\ndeveloped and explained by them; only all is to be regarded as entirely\nsubmitted to God, incapable of self-movement, a tool of which the Creator\nmakes use. Finally, he considers that their system of ethics is derived\nfrom the Sufis. At all times there have been such saints, retired from\nthe world\u2014God has never left himself without a witness; and from their\necstasies and revelations our knowledge of the human heart, for good and\nfor evil, is derived.\n\n[Sidenote: FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHY]\n\nThus in philosophy he found little light. It did not correspond entirely\nto his needs, for reason cannot answer all questions nor unveil all the\nenigmas of life. He would probably have admitted that he had learned much\nin his philosophical studies\u2014so at least we may gather from his tone; he\nnever speaks disrespectfully of philosophy and science in their sphere;\nhis continual exhortation is that he who would understand them and refute\nthem must first study them; that to do otherwise, to abuse what we do\nnot know, brings only contempt on ourselves and on the cause which we\nchampion. But with his temperament he could not found his religion on\nintellect. As a lawyer he could split hairs and define issues; but once\nthe religious instinct was aroused, nothing could satisfy him but what he\neventually found. And so, two possibilities and two only were before him,\nthough one was hardly a real possibility, if we consider his training\nand mental powers. He might fall back on authority. It could not be the\nauthority of his childish faith, \u201cOur fathers have told us,\u201d he himself\nconfesses, could never again have weight with him. But it might be some\nclaimer of authority in a new form, some infallible teacher with a\ndoctrine which he could accept for the authority behind it. As the Church\nof Rome from time to time gathers into its fold men of keen intellect\nwho seek rest in submission, and the world marvels, so it might have\nbeen with him. Or again, he might turn directly to God and to personal\nintercourse with Him; he might seek to know Him and to be taught of Him\nwithout any intermediary, in a word to enter on the path of the mystic.\n\nHe came next to examine the doctrine of the Ta\u2018limites. They, a somewhat\noutlying wing of the Fatimid propaganda, had come at this time into\nalarming prominence. In 483 Hasan ibn as-Sabbah had seized Alamut and\nentered on open rebellion. The sect of the Assassins was applying its\nprinciples. But the poison of their teaching was also spreading among\nthe people. The principle of authority in religion, that only by an\ninfallible teacher could truth be reached and that such an infallible\nteacher existed if he could only be found, was in the air. For\nhimself, al-Ghazzali found the Ta\u2018limites and their teaching eminently\nunsatisfactory: They had a lesson which they went over parrot-fashion,\nbut beyond it they were in dense ignorance. The trained theologian and\nscholar had no patience with their slackness and shallowness of thought.\nHe labored long, as ash-Shahrastani later confesses that he, too, did,\nto penetrate their mystery and learn something from them; but beyond the\naccustomed formul\u00e6 there was nothing to be found. He even admitted their\ncontention of the necessity of a living, infallible teacher, to see what\nwould follow\u2014but nothing followed. \u201cYou admit the necessity of an Imam,\u201d\nthey would say. \u201cIt is your business now to seek him; we have nothing to\ndo with it.\u201d But though neither al-Ghazzali nor ash-Shahrastani, who died\n43 (lunar) years after him, could be satisfied with the Ta\u2018limites, many\nothers were. The conflict was hot, and al-Ghazzali himself wrote several\nbooks against them.\n\n[Sidenote: STUDY OF SUFIISM]\n\nThe other possibility, the path of the mystic, now lay straight before\nhim. In the _Munqidh_ he tells us how, when he had made an end of the\nTa\u2018limites, he began to study the books of the Sufis, without any\nsuggestion that he had had a previous acquaintance with them and their\npractices. But probably this means nothing more than it does when he\nspeaks in a similar way of studying the scholastic theologians; namely,\nthat he now took up the study in earnest and with a new and definite\npurpose. He therefore read carefully the works of al-Harith al-Muhasibi,\nthe fragments of al-Junayd, ash-Shibli, and Abu Yazid al-Bistami. He had\nalso the benefit of oral teaching; but it became plain to him that only\nthrough ecstasy and the complete transformation of the moral being could\nhe really understand Sufiism. He saw that it consisted in feelings more\nthan in knowledge, that he must be initiated as a Sufi himself; live\ntheir life and practise their exercises, to attain his goal.\n\nOn the way upon which he had gone up to this time, he had gained three\nfixed points of faith. He now believed firmly in God, in prophecy, and in\nthe last judgment. He had also gained the belief that only by detaching\nhimself from this world, its life, enjoyments, honors, and turning to God\ncould he be saved in the world to come. He looked on his present life,\nhis writing and his teaching, and saw of how little value it was in the\nface of the great fact of heaven and hell. All he did now was for the\nsake of vainglory and had in it no consecration to the service of God. He\nfelt on the edge of an abyss. The world held him back; his fears urged\nhim away. He was in the throes of a conversion wrought by terror; his\nreligion, now and always, in common with all Islam, was other-worldly. So\nhe remained in conflict with himself for six months from the middle of\n488. Finally, his health broke down under the strain. In his feebleness\nand overthrow he took refuge with God, as a man at the end of his\nresources. God heard him and enabled him to make the needed sacrifices.\nHe abandoned all and wandered forth from Baghdad as a Sufi. He had put\nhis brilliant present and brilliant future absolutely behind him; had\ngiven up everything for the peace of his soul. This date, the end of 488,\nwas the great era in his life; but it marked an era, too, in the history\nof Islam. Since al-Ash\u2018ari went back to the faith of his fathers in 300,\nand cursed the Mu\u2018tazilites and all their works, there had been no such\nepoch as this flight of al-Ghazzali. It meant that the reign of mere\nscholasticism was over; that another element was to work openly in the\nfuture Church of Islam, the element of the mystical life in God, of the\nattainment of truth by the soul in direct vision.\n\n[Sidenote: ON THE PATH OF THE SUFIS]\n\nHe went to Syria and gave himself up for two years to the religious\nexercises of the Sufis. Then he went on pilgrimage, first to Jerusalem;\nthen to the tomb of Abraham at Hebron; finally to Mecca and al-Madina.\nWith this religious duty his life of strict retirement ended. It is\nevident that he now felt that he was again within the fold of Islam.\nIn spite of his former resolution to retire from the world, he was\ndrawn back. The prayers of his children and his own aspirations broke\nin upon him, and though he resolved again and again to return to the\ncontemplative life, and did often actually do so, yet events, family\naffairs, and the anxieties of life, kept continually disturbing him.\n\nThis went on, he tells us, for almost ten years, and in that time there\nwere revealed to him things that could not be reckoned and the discussion\nof which could not be exhausted. He learned that the Sufis were on the\ntrue and only path to the knowledge of God; that neither intelligence\nnor wisdom nor science could change or improve their doctrine or their\nethics. The light in which they walk is essentially the same as the light\nof prophecy; Muhammad was a Sufi when on his way to be a prophet. There\nis none other light to light any man in this world. A complete purifying\nof the heart from all but God is their Path; a seeking to plunge the\nheart completely in the thought of God, is its beginning, and its end is\ncomplete passing away in God. This last is only its end in relation to\nwhat can be entered upon and grasped by a voluntary effort; in truth, it\nis only the first step in the Path, the vestibule to the contemplative\nlife. Revelations (_mukashafas_, unveilings) came to the disciples from\nthe very beginning; while awake they see angels and souls of prophets,\nhear their voices and gain from them guidance. Then their State (_hal_,\na Sufi technicality for a state of ecstasy) passes from the beholding of\nforms to stages where language fails and any attempt to express what is\nexperienced must involve some error. They reach a nearness to God which\nsome have fancied to be a _hulul_, fusion of being, others an _ittihad_,\nidentification, and others a _wusul_, union; but these are all erroneous\nways of indicating the thing. Al-Ghazzali notes one of his books in\nwhich he has explained wherein the error lies. But the thing itself is\nthe true basis of all faith and the beginning of prophecy; the _karamat_\nof the saints lead to the miracles of the prophets. By this means the\npossibility and the existence of prophecy can be proved, and then the\nlife itself of Muhammad proves that he was a prophet. Al-Ghazzali goes\non to deal with the nature of prophecy, and how the life of Muhammad\nshows the truth of his mission; but enough has been given to indicate his\nattitude and the stage at which he had himself arrived.\n\nDuring this ten years he had returned to his native country and to his\nchildren, but had not undertaken public duty as a teacher. Now that was\nforced upon him. The century was drawing to a close. Everywhere there\nwas evident a slackening of religious fervor and faith. A mere external\ncompliance with the rules of Islam was observed, men even openly defended\nsuch a course. He adduces as an example of this the _Wasiya_ of Ibn Sina.\nThe students of philosophy went their way, and their conduct shook the\nminds of the people; false Sufis abounded, who taught antinomianism;\nthe lives of many theologians excited scandal; the Ta\u2018limites were\nstill spreading. A religious leader to turn the current was absolutely\nneeded, and his friends looked to al-Ghazzali to take up that duty;\nsome distinguished saints had dreams of his success; God had promised a\nreformer every hundred years and the time was up. Finally, the Sultan\nlaid a command upon him to go and teach in the academy at Naysabur, and\nhe was forced to consent. His departure for Naysabur fell at the end of\n499, exactly eleven years after his flight from Baghdad. But he did not\nteach there long. Before the end of his life we find him back at Tus, his\nnative place, living in retirement among his disciples, in a Madrasa or\nacademy for students and a Khanqah or monastery for Sufis.\n\n[Sidenote: THE TAHAFUT]\n\nThere he settled down to study and contemplation. We have already seen\nwhat theological position he had reached. Philosophy had been tried and\nfound wanting. In a book of his called _Tahafut_, or \u201cDestruction,\u201d he\nhad smitten the philosophers hip and thigh; he had turned, as in earlier\ntimes al-Ash\u2018ari, their own weapons against them, and had shown that with\ntheir premises and methods no certainty could be reached. In that book\nhe goes to the extreme of intellectual scepticism, and, seven hundred\nyears before Hume, he cuts the bond of causality with the edge of his\ndialectic and proclaims that we can know nothing of cause or effect,\nbut simply that one thing follows another. He combats their proof of\nthe eternity of the world, and exposes their assertion that God is its\ncreator. He demonstrates that they cannot prove the existence of the\ncreator or that that creator is one; that they cannot prove that He is\nincorporeal, or that the world has any creator or cause at all; that they\ncannot prove the nature of God or that the human soul is a spiritual\nessence. When he has finished there is no intellectual basis left for\nlife; he stands beside the Greek sceptics and beside Hume. We are thrown\nback on revelation, that given immediately by God to the individual soul\nor that given through prophets. All our real knowledge is derived from\nthese sources. So it was natural that in the latter part of his life he\nshould turn to the traditions of the Prophet. The science of tradition\nmust certainly have formed part of his early studies, as of those of all\nMuslim theologians, but he had not specialized in it; his bent had lain\nin quite other directions. His master, the Imam al-Haramayn, had been no\nstudent of tradition; among his many works is not one dealing with that\nsubject. Now he saw that the truth and the knowledge of the truth lay\nthere, and he gave himself, with all the energy of his nature, to the new\npursuit.\n\nThe end of his wanderings came at Tus, in 505. There he died while\nseeking truth in the traditions of Muhammad, as al-Ash\u2018ari, his\npredecessor, had done. The stamp of his personality is ineffaceably\nimpressed on Islam. The people of his time reverenced him as a saint and\nwonder-worker. He himself never claimed to work _karamat_ and always\nspoke modestly of the light which he had reached in ecstasy. After\nhis death legends early began to gather round him, and the current\nbiographies of him are untrustworthy to a degree. It says much for the\nsolidity of his work that he did not pass into a misty figure of popular\nsuperstition. But that work remained and remains among his disciples and\nin his books. We must now attempt to estimate its bearing and scope.\n\n[Sidenote: VOLITION AS A BASIS]\n\nFor him, as for the mutakallims in general, the fundamental thing in the\nworld and the starting-point of all speculation is will. The philosophers\nin their intellectualism might picture God as thought\u2014thought thinking\nitself and evolving all things thereby. Their source was Plotinus; that\nof the Muslims was the terrific \u201cBe!\u201d of creation. But how can we know\nthis will of God if we are simply part of what it has produced? In\nanswering this, al-Ghazzali and his followers have diverged from the rest\nof Islam, but not into heresy. Their view is admitted to be a possible\ninterpretation of Qur\u2019anic passages, if not that commonly held. The soul\nof man, al-Ghazzali taught, is essentially different from the rest of\nthe created things. We read in the Qur\u2019an (xv, 29; xxxviii, 72) that God\nbreathed into man of His spirit (_ruh_). This is compared with the rays\nof the sun reaching a thing on the earth and warming it. In virtue of\nthis, the soul of man is different from everything else in the world. It\nis a spiritual substance (_jawhar ruhani_), has no corporeality, and is\nnot subject to dimension, position or locality. It is not in the body or\noutside of the body; to apply such categories to it is as absurd as to\nspeak of the knowledge or ignorance of a stone. Though created, it is\nnot shaped; it belongs to the spiritual world and not to this world of\nsensible things. It contains some spark of the divine and it is restless\ntill it rests again in that primal fire; but, again, it is recorded in\ntradition that the Prophet said, \u201cGod Most High created Adam in His own\nform (_sura_).\u201d Al-Ghazzali takes that to mean that there is a likeness\nbetween the spirit of man and God in essence, quality, and actions.\nFurther, the spirit of man rules the body as God rules the world.\nMan\u2019s body is a microcosm beside the macrocosm of this world, and they\ncorrespond, part by part. Is, then, God simply the _anima mundi_? No,\nbecause He is the creator of all by His will, the sustainer and destroyer\nby His will. Al-Ghazzali comes to this by a study of himself. His primary\nconception is, _volo ergo sum_. It is not thought which impresses him,\nbut volition. From thought he can develop nothing; from will can come the\nwhole round universe. But if God, the Creator, is a Willer, so, too, is\nthe soul of man. They are kin, and, therefore, man can know and recognize\nGod. \u201cHe who knows his own soul, knows his Lord,\u201d said another tradition.\n\nThis view of the nature of the soul is essential to the Sufi position\nand is probably borrowed from it. But there are in it two possibilities\nof heresy, if the view be pushed any further. It tends (1) to destroy\nthe important Muslim dogma of God\u2019s Difference (_mukhalafa_) from all\ncreated things, and (2) to maintain that the souls of men are partakers\nof the divine nature and will return to it at death. Al-Ghazzali labored\nto safeguard both dangers, but they were there and showed themselves\nin time. Just as the Aristotelian + neo-Platonic philosophers reached\nthe position that the universe with all its spheres was God, so, later,\nSufis came to the other pantheistic position that God was the world.\nBefore the atomic scholastics the same danger also lay. It is part of\nthe irony of the history of Muslim theology that the very emphasis on\nthe transcendental unity should lead thus to pantheism. Al-Ghazzali\u2019s\nendeavor was to strike the _via media_. The Hegelian Trinity might have\nappealed to him.\n\n[Sidenote: DIVINE ORIGIN OF SCIENCES]\n\nTo return, his views on science, as we have already seen, were the same\nas those of the contemporary students of natural philosophy. Their\nteachings he accepted, and, so far, he can be compared to a theologian\nof the present day, who accepts evolution and explains it to suit\nhimself. His world was framed on what is commonly called the Ptolemaic\nsystem. He was no flat-earth man like the present Ulama of Islam; God\nhad \u201cspread out the earth like a carpet,\u201d but that did not hinder him\nfrom regarding it as a globe. Around it revolve the spheres of the seven\nplanets and that of the fixed stars; Alphonso the Wise had not yet added\nthe crystalline sphere and the _primum mobile_. All that astronomers and\nmathematicians teach us of the laws under which these bodies move is\nto be accepted. Their theory of eclipses and of other phenomena of the\nheavens is true, whatever the ignorant and superstitious may clamor. Yet\nit is to be remembered that the most important facts and laws have been\ndivinely revealed. As the weightiest truths of medicine are to be traced\nback to the teaching of the prophets, so there are conjunctions in the\nheavens which occur only once in a thousand years and which man can yet\ncalculate because God has taught him their laws. And all this structure\nof the heavens and the earth is the direct work of God, produced out of\nnothing by His will, guided by His will, ever dependent for existence on\nHis will, and one day to pass away at His command. So al-Ghazzali joins\nscience and revelation. Behind the order of nature lies the personal,\nomnipotent God who says, \u201cBe!\u201d and it is. The things of existence do not\nproceed from Him by any emanation or evolution, but are produced directly\nby Him.\n\n[Sidenote: THE THREE WORLDS]\n\nFurther, there is another side of al-Ghazzali\u2019s attitude toward the\nphysical universe that deserves attention, but which is very difficult\nto grasp or express. Perhaps it may be stated thus: Existence has\nthree modes; there is existence in the _alam al-mulk_, in the _alam\nal-jabarut_, and in the _alam al-malakut_. The first is this world of\nours which is apparent to the senses; it exists by the power (_qudra_)\nof God, one part proceeding from another in constant change. The _alam\nal-malakut_ exists by God\u2019s eternal decree, without development,\nremaining in one state without addition or diminution. The _alam\nal-jabarut_ comes between these two; it seems externally to belong to\nthe first, but in respect of the power of God which is from all eternity\n(_al-qudra al-azaliya_) it is included in the second. The soul (_nafs_)\nbelongs to the _alam al-malakut_, is taken from it and returns to it. In\nsleep and in ecstasy, even in this world, it can come into contact with\nthe world from which it is derived. This is what happens in dreams\u2014\u201csleep\nis the brother of death,\u201d says al-Ghazzali; and thus, too, the saints\nand the prophets attain divine knowledge. Some angels belong to the\nworld of _malakut_; some to that of _jabarut_, apparently those who\nhave shown themselves here as messengers of God. The things in the\nheavens, the preserved tablet, the pen, the balance, etc., belong to the\nworld of _malakut_. On the one hand, these are not sensible, corporeal\nthings, and, on the other, these terms for them are not metaphors. Thus\nal-Ghazzali avoids the difficulty of Muslim eschatology with its bizarre\nconcreteness. He rejects the right to allegorize\u2014these things are real,\nactual; but he relegates them to this world of _malakut_. Again, the\nQur\u2019an, Islam, and Friday (the day of public worship) are personalities\nin the world of _malakut_ and _jabarut_. So, too, the world of _mulk_\nmust appear as a personality at the bar of these other worlds at the last\nday. It will come as an ugly old woman, but Friday as a beautiful young\nbride. This personal Qur\u2019an belongs to the world of _jabarut_, but Islam\nto that of _malakut_.\n\nBut just as those three worlds are not thought of as separate in time,\nso they are not separate in space. They are not like the seven heavens\nand seven earths of Muslim literalists, which stand, story-fashion, one\nabove the other. Rather they are, as expressed above, modes of existence,\nand might be compared to the speculations on another life in space of n\ndimensions, framed, from a very different starting-point and on a basis\nof pure physics, by Balfour Stewart and Tait in their \u201cUnseen Universe.\u201d\nOn another side they stand in close kinship to the Platonic world of\nideas, whether through neo-Platonism or more immediately. Sufiism at its\nbest, and when stripped of the trappings of Muslim tradition and Qur\u2019anic\nexegesis, has no reason to shrink from the investigation either of the\nphysicist or of the metaphysician. And so it is not strange to find that\nall Muslim thinkers have been tinged with mysticism to a greater or less\ndegree, though they may not all have embraced formal Sufiism and accepted\nits vocabulary and system. This is true of al-Farabi, who was avowedly a\nSufi; true also of Ibn Sina, who, though nominally an Aristotelian, was\nessentially a neo-Platonist, and admitted the possibility of intercourse\nwith superior beings and with the Active Intellect, of miracles and\nrevelations; true even of Ibn Rushd, who does not venture to deny the\nimmediate knowledge of the Sufi saints, but only argues that experience\nof it is not sufficiently general to be made a basis for theological\nscience.\n\nIn ethics, as we have already seen, the position of al-Ghazzali is a\nsimple one. All our laws and theories upon the subject, the analysis of\nthe qualities of the mind, good and bad, the tracing of hidden defects\nto their causes\u2014all these things we owe to the saints of God to whom\nGod Himself has revealed them. Of these there have been many at all\ntimes and in all countries, and without them and their labors and the\nlight which God has vouchsafed to them, we could never know ourselves.\nHere, as everywhere, comes out al-Ghazzali\u2019s fundamental position that\nthe ultimate source of all knowledge is revelation from God. It may\nbe major revelation, through accredited prophets who come forward as\nteachers, divinely sent and supported by miracles and by the evident\ntruth of their message appealing to the human heart, or it may be minor\nrevelation\u2014subsidiary and explanatory\u2014through the vast body of saints of\ndifferent grades, to whom God has granted immediate knowledge of Himself.\nWhere the saints leave off, the prophets begin; and, apart from such\nteaching, man, even in physical science, would be groping in the dark.\n\n[Sidenote: AGNOSTIC ATTITUDE]\n\nThis position becomes still more prominent in his philosophical system.\nHis agnostic attitude toward the results of pure thought has been already\nsketched. It is essentially the same as that taken up by Mansel in his\nBampton lectures on \u201cThe Limits of Religious Thought.\u201d Mansel, a pupil\nand continuator of Hamilton, developed and emphasized Hamilton\u2019s doctrine\nof the relativity of knowledge, and applied it to theology, maintaining\nthat we cannot know or think of the absolute and infinite, but only of\nthe relative and finite. Hence, he went on to argue, we can have no\npositive knowledge of the attributes of God. This, though disguised by\nthe methods and language of scholastic philosophy, is al-Ghazzali\u2019s\nattitude in the _Tahafut_. Mansel\u2019s opponents said that he was like a man\nsitting on the branch of a tree and sawing off his seat. Al-Ghazzali, for\nthe support of his seat, went back to revelation, either major, in the\nbooks sent down to the prophets, or minor, in the personal revelations\nof God\u2019s saints. Further, it was not only in the Muslim schools that\nthis attitude toward philosophy prevailed. Yehuda Halevi (d. A.D. 1145;\nal-Ghazzali, d. 1111) also maintains in his _Kusari_ the insufficiency of\nphilosophy in the highest questions of life, and bases religious truth on\nthe incontrovertible historical facts of revelation. And Maimonides (d.\nA.D. 1204) in his _Moreh Nebuchim_ takes essentially the same position.\n\nOf his views on dogmatic theology little need be said. Among modern\ntheologians he stands nearest to Ritschl. Like Ritschl, he rejects\nmetaphysics and opposes the influence of any philosophical system on\nhis theology. The basis must be religious phenomena, simply accepted\nand correlated. Like Ritschl, too, he was emphatically ethical in his\nattitude; he lays stress on the _value for us_ of a doctrine or a piece\nof knowledge. Our source of religious knowledge is revelation, and\nbeyond a certain point we must not inquire as to the how and why of that\nknowledge. To do so would be to enter metaphysics and the danger-zone\nwhere we lose touch with vital realities and begin to use mere words. On\none point he goes beyond Ritschl, and, on another, Ritschl goes beyond\nhim. In his devotion to the facts of the religious consciousness Ritschl\ndid not go so far as to become a mystic, indeed rejected mysticism with\na conscious indignation; al-Ghazzali did become a mystic. But, on the\nother hand, Ritschl refused absolutely to enter upon the nature of God or\nupon the divine attributes\u2014all that was mere metaphysics and heathenism;\nal-Ghazzali did not so far emancipate himself, and his only advance was\nto keep the doctrine on a strictly Qur\u2019anic basis. So it stands written;\nnot, so man is compelled by the nature of things to think.\n\n[Sidenote: WORK AND INFLUENCE]\n\nHis work and influence in Islam may be summed up briefly as follows:\n_First_, he led men back from scholastic labors upon theological\ndogmas to living contact with, study and exegesis of, the Word and\nthe traditions. What happened in Europe when the yoke of medi\u00e6val\nscholasticism was broken, what is happening with us now, happened in\nIslam under his leadership. He could be a scholastic with scholastics,\nbut to state and develop theological doctrine on a Scriptural basis was\nemphatically his method. We should now call him a Biblical theologian.\n\n_Second_, in his teaching and moral exhortations he reintroduced the\nelement of fear. In the _Munqidh_ and elsewhere he lays stress on the\nneed of such a striking of terror into the minds of the people. His was\nno time, he held, for smooth, hopeful preaching; no time for optimism\neither as to this world or the next. The horrors of hell must be kept\nbefore men; he had felt them himself. We have seen how other-worldly\nwas his own attitude, and how the fear of the Fire had been the supreme\nmotive in his conversion; and so he treated others.\n\n_Third_, it was by his influence that Sufiism attained a firm and assured\nposition in the Church of Islam.\n\n_Fourth_, he brought philosophy and philosophical theology within the\nrange of the ordinary mind. Before his time they had been surrounded,\nmore or less, with mystery. The language used was strange; its vocabulary\nand terms of art had to be specially learned. No mere reader of the\nArabic of the street or the mosque or the school could understand at once\na philosophical tractate. Greek ideas and expressions, passing through a\nSyriac version into Arabic, had strained to the uttermost the resources\nof even that most flexible tongue. A long training had been thought\nnecessary before the elaborate and formal method of argumentation could\nbe followed. All this al-Ghazzali changed, or at least tried to change.\nHis _Tahafut_ is not addressed to scholars only; he seeks with it a wider\ncircle of readers, and contends that the views, the arguments, and the\nfallacies of the philosophers should be perfectly intelligible to the\ngeneral public.\n\nOf these four phases of al-Ghazzali\u2019s work, the first and the third\nare undoubtedly the most important. He made his mark by leading Islam\nback to its fundamental and historical facts, and by giving a place\nin its system to the emotional religious life. But it will have been\nnoticed that in none of the four phases was he a pioneer. He was not\na scholar who struck out a new path, but a man of intense personality\nwho entered on a path already blazed and made it the common highway. We\nhave here his character. Other men may have been keener logicians, more\nlearned theologians, more gifted saints; but he, through his personal\nexperiences, had attained so overpowering a sense of the divine realities\nthat the force of his character\u2014once combative and restless, now narrowed\nand intense\u2014swept all before it, and the Church of Islam entered on a new\nera of its existence.\n\nSo much space it has been necessary to give to this great man. Islam has\nnever outgrown him, has never fully understood him. In the renaissance\nof Islam which is now rising to view his time will come and the new life\nwill proceed from a renewed study of his works.\n\n[Sidenote: LATER ASH\u2018ARITES]\n\nFrom this time on, the Ash\u2018arites may be fairly regarded as the dominant\nschool so far as the East is concerned. Saladin (d. 589) did much to aid\nin the establishment of this hegemony. He was a devout Muslim with the\ntaste of an amateur for theological literature. Anecdotes tell how he had\na special little catechism composed, and used himself to instruct his\nchildren in it. He founded theological academies in Egypt at Alexandria\nand Cairo, the first there except the Fatimid Hall of Science. One of the\nfew blots on his name is the execution of the pantheistic Sufi, Shihab\nad-Din as-Suhrawardi, at Aleppo in 587. Meanwhile, in the farther East,\nFakhr ad-Din ar-Razi (d. 606) was writing his great commentary on the\nQur\u2019an, the _Mafatih al-Ghayb_, \u201cThe Keys of the Unseen,\u201d and carrying\non the work of al-Ghazzali. The title of his commentary itself shows the\ndash of mysticism in his teaching, and he was in correspondence with Ibn\nArabi, the arch-Sufi of the time. He studied philosophy, too, commented\non works of Ibn Sina, and fought the philosophers on their own ground\nas al-Ghazzali had done. Kalam and philosophy are now, in the eyes of\nthe theologians, a true philosophy and a false. Philosophy has taken the\nplace of Mu\u2018tazilism and the other heresies. The enemies of the faith\nare outside its pale, and the scholasticizing of philosophy goes on\nsteadily. According to some, a new stage was marked by al-Baydawi (d.\n685), who confused inextricably philosophy and kalam, but the newness\ncan have been comparative only. A century later al-Iji (d. 756) writes\na book, _al-Mawaqif_, on kalam, half of which is given to metaphysics\nand the other half to dogmatics. At-Taftazani is another name worthy of\nmention. He died in 791, after a laborious life as a controversialist and\ncommentator. When we reach Ibn Khaldun (d. 808), the first philosophical\nhistorian and the greatest until the nineteenth century of our era, we\nfind that kalam has fallen again from its high estate. It has become a\nscholastic discipline, useful only to repel the attacks of heretics and\nunbelievers; and of heretics, says Ibn Khaldun, there are now none left.\nReason, he goes on, cannot grasp the nature of God; cannot weigh His\nunity nor measure His qualities. God is unknowable and we must accept\nwhat we are told about Him by His prophets. Such was the result of the\ndestruction of philosophy in Islam.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\n Islam in the West; Ibn Tumart and the Muwahhids; philosophy in\n the West under Muwahhid protection; Ibn Bajja; Ibn Tufayl; Ibn\n Rushd; Ibn Arabi; Ibn Sab\u2018in.\n\n\nWe have now anticipated one of the strangest and most characteristic\nfigures and movements in the history of Islam. The preceding account,\nexcept as relates to Ibn Khaldun, has told of the triumphs of the\nAsh\u2018arites in the East only. In the West the movement was slower, and to\nit we must now turn. The Maghrib\u2014the Occident, as the Arabs called all\nNorth Africa beyond Egypt\u2014had been slow from the first to take on the\nMuslim impress. The invading army had fought its way painfully through,\nbut the Berber tribes remained only half subdued and one-tenth Islamized.\nEgypt was conquered in A.H. 20, and Samarqand had been reached in 56;\nbut it was not till 74 that the Muslims were at Carthage. And even then\nand for long after there arose insurrection after insurrection, and the\nnational spirit of the Berbers remained unbroken. Broadly, but correctly,\nIslam in North Africa for more than three centuries was a failure. The\ntribal constitutions of the Berbers were unaffected by the conception\nof the Khalifate and their primitive religious aspirations by the Faith\nof Muhammad. Not till the possibility came to them to construct Muslim\nstates out of their own tribes did their opposition begin to weaken.\nAnd then it was rather political Islam that had weakened. When the\nFatimids conquered Egypt in 356 and moved the seat of their empire from\nal-Mahdiya to the newly founded Cairo, Islam assumed a new meaning for\nNorth Africa. The Fatimid empire there quickly melted away, and in its\nplace arose several independent states, Berber in blood though claiming\nArab descent and bearing Arab names. Islam no longer meant foreign\noppression, and it began at last to make its way. Again, in the preceding\nperiod of insurrection the Berber leaders had frequently appeared in the\nguise and with the claim of prophets, men miraculously gifted and with\na message from God. These wild tribesmen, with all their fanaticism for\ntheir own tribal liberties, have always been peculiarly accessible to the\ngenius which claims its mission from heaven. So they had taken up the\nFatimid cause and worshipped Ubayd Allah the Mahdi. And so they continued\nthereafter, and still continue to be swayed by saints, darwishes, and\nprophets of all degrees of insanity and cunning. The latest case in\npoint is that of the Shaykh as-Sanusi, with whom we have already dealt.\nAs time went on, there came a change in these prophet-led risings and\nsaint-founded states. They gradually slipped over from being frankly\nanti-Muhammadan, if also close imitations of Muhammad\u2019s life and methods,\nto being equally frankly Muslim. The theology of Islam easily afforded\nthem the necessary point of connection. All that the prophet of the day\nneed do was to claim the position of the Mahdi, that Guided One, who\naccording to the traditions of Muhammad was to come before the last day,\nwhen the earth shall be filled with violence, and to fill it again with\nrighteousness. It was easy for each new Mahdi to select from the vast and\ncontradictory mass of traditions in Muslim eschatology those which best\nfitted his person and his time. To the story and the doctrine of one of\nthese we now come.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN TUMART]\n\nAt the beginning of the sixth century a certain Berber student of\ntheology, Ibn Tumart by name, travelled in the East in search of\nknowledge. An early and persistent western tradition asserts that he\nwas a favorite pupil of al-Ghazzali\u2019s, and was marked out by him as\nshowing the signs of a future founder of empire. This may be taken for\nwhat it is worth. What is certain is that Ibn Tumart went back to the\nMaghrib and there brought about the triumph of a doctrine which was\nderived, if modified, from that of the Ash\u2018arites. Previously all kalam\nhad been under a cloud in the West. Theological studies had been closely\nlimited to _fiqh_, or canon law, and that of the narrowed school of\nMalik ibn Anas. Even the Qur\u2019an and the collections of traditions had\ncome to be neglected in favor of systematized law-books. The revolt of\nIbn Hazm against this had apparently accomplished little. It had been\ntoo one-sided and negative, and had lacked the weight of personality\nbehind it. Ibn Hazm had assailed the views of others with a wealth of\nvituperative language. But he had been a controversialist only. There\nis a story, tolerably well authenticated, that the books of al-Ghazzali\nwere solemnly condemned by the Qadis of Cordova, and burnt in public.\nYet, against that is to be set that all the Spanish theologians did not\napprove of this violence.\n\n[Sidenote: A ZAHIRITE IMAMITE]\n\nIbn Tumart started in life as a reformer of the corruptions of his\nday, and seems to have slipped from that into the belief that he had\nbeen appointed by God as the great reformer for all time. As happens\nwith reformers, from exhortation it came to force; from preaching at\nthe abuses of the government to rebellion against the government. That\ngovernment, the Murabit, went down before Ibn Tumart and his successors,\nand the pontifical rule of the Muwahhids, the asserters of God\u2019s\n_tawhid_ or unity, rose in its place. The doctrine which he preached\nbears evident marks of the influence of al-Ghazzali and of Ibn Hazm.\n_Tawhid_, for him, meant a complete spiritualizing of the conception of\nGod. Opposed to _tawhid_, he set _tajsim_, the assigning to God of a\n_jism_ or body having bulk. Thus, when the theologians of the West took\nthe anthropomorphic passages of the Qur\u2019an literally, he applied to them\nthe method of _ta\u2019wil_, or interpretation, which he had learned in the\nEast, and explained away these stumbling-blocks. Ibn Hazm, it will be\nremembered, resorted to grammatical and lexicographical devices to attain\nthe same end, and had regarded _ta\u2019wil_ with abhorrence. To Ibn Tumart,\nthen, this _tajsim_ was flat unbelief and, as Mahdi, it was his duty to\noppose it by force of arms, to lead a _jihad_ against its maintainers.\nFurther, with Ibn Hazm, he agreed in rejecting _taqlid_. There was only\none truth, and it was man\u2019s duty to find it for himself by going to the\noriginal sources. This is the genuine Zahirite doctrine which utterly\nrejects all comity with the four other legal rites; but Ibn Tumart,\nas Mahdi, added another element. It is based on a very simple Imamite\nphilosophy of history. There has always been an Imam in the world, a\ndivinely appointed leader, guarded by _isma_, protection against error.\nThe first four Khalifas were of such divine appointment; thereafter came\nusurpers and oppressors. Theirs was the reign of wickedness and lies in\nthe earth. Now he, the Mahdi, was come of the blood of the Prophet and\nbearing plainly all the necessary, accrediting signs to overcome these\ntyrants and anti-Christs. He thus was an Imamite, but stood quite apart\nfrom the welter of conflicting Shi\u2018ite sects\u2014the Seveners, Twelvers,\nZaydites and the rest\u2014as far as do the present Sharifs of Morocco with\ntheir Alid-Sunnite position. The Mahdi, it is to be remembered, is\nawaited by Sunnites as by Shi\u2018ites, and is guarded against error as much\nas an Imam, since he partakes of the general _isma_ which in divine\nthings belongs to prophets. Such a leader, then, could claim from the\npeople absolute obedience and credence. His word must be for them the\nsource of truth. There was, therefore, no longer any need of analogy\n(_qiyas_) as a source, and we accordingly find that Ibn Tumart rejected\nit in all but legal matters and there surrounded it with restrictions.\nAnalogical argument in things theological was forbidden.\n\nBut where he absolutely parted company from the Ash\u2018arites was with\nregard to the qualities of God. In that, too, he followed the view\nof Ibn Hazm sketched above. We must take the Qur\u2019anic expressions\nas names and not as indicating attributes to us. It is true that his\ncreed shows signs of a philosophical width lacking in Ibn Hazm. Like\nthe Mu\u2018tazilites, _e.g._ Abu Hudhayl, he defines largely by negations.\nGod is not this; is not affected by that. It is even phrased so as to\nbe capable of a pantheistic explanation, and we find that Ibn Rushd\nwrote a commentary on it. But it may be doubted whether Ibn Tumart was\nhimself a pantheist. All phases of Islam, as we have seen, ran toward\nthat; and here there is only a little indiscretion in the wording. But\nit may easily have been that he had besides, like the Fatimids, a secret\nteaching or exposition of those simpler declarations which were intended\nfor the mass of the people. Among his successors distinct traces of\nsuch a thing appear; both Aristotelian philosophers and advanced Sufis\nare connected with the Muwahhid movement. That, however, belongs to the\nsequel.\n\nThe success of Ibn Tumart, if halting at first, was eventually complete.\nAs a simple lawyer who felt called upon to protest\u2014as, indeed, are all\ngood Muslims in virtue of a tradition from Muhammad\u2014against the abuses\nof the time, he accomplished comparatively little. As Mahdi, he and\nhis supporter and successor, Abd al-Mu\u2019min, swept the country. For his\nmovement was not merely Imamite and Muslim, but an expression as well of\nBerber nationalism. Here was a man, sprung from their midst, of their\nown stock and tongue, who, as Prophet of God, called them to arms. They\nobeyed his call, worshipped him and fought for him. He translated the\nQur\u2019an for them into Berber; the call to prayers was given in Berber;\nfunctionaries of the church had to know Berber; his own theological\nwritings circulated in Berber as well as in Arabic. As Persia took Islam\nand moulded it to suit herself, so now did the Berber tribes. And a\nstrange jumble they made of it. With them, the Zahirite system of canon\nlaw, rejected by all other Muslim peoples, enjoyed its one brief period\nof power and glory. Shi\u2018ite legends and superstitions mingled with\nphilosophical free thought. The book of mystery, _al-Jafr_, written by\nAli, and containing the history of the world to the end of time, was said\nto have passed from the custody of al-Ghazzali at his death to the hands\nof the Mahdi and was by him committed to his successors. If only in view\nof the syncretism practised by both, it was fitting that al-Ghazzali and\nIbn Tumart should be brought closely together. Yet it is hard to explain\nthe persistence with which the great Ash\u2018arite is made the teacher and\nguide of the semi-Zahirite. There must have been something, now obscure\nto us, in their respective systems which suggested to contemporaries such\nintimate connection.\n\nThe rule of the Muwahhids lasted until 667, nearly one hundred years, and\ninvolved in its circle of influence many weighty personalities. With some\nof these we will now deal shortly.\n\nIt has been told above how narrow in general were the intellectual\ninterests of the West. Canon law, poetry, history, geography were eagerly\npursued, but little of original value was produced. Originality and the\nbreaking of ground in new fields were under a ban. Subtilty of thought\nand luxury of life took their place. Above all, and naturally, this\napplied to philosophy. And so it comes that the first philosophic name\nin the Muslim West is that of Abu Bakr ibn Bajja, for medi\u00e6val Europe\nAvenpace, who died comparatively young in 533. For him, as for all, and\nstill more in the West than in the East, the problem of the philosopher\nwas how to gain and maintain a tenable position in a world composed\nmostly of the philosophically ignorant and the religiously fanatical.\nThis problem had two sides, internal and external. The inner and the\nnobler one was how such a mind could in its loneliness rise to its\nhighest level and purify itself to the point of knowing things as they\nreally are and so reach that eternal life in which the individual spirit\nloses itself in the Active Intellect (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, _al-aql al-fa\u2018\u2018al_)\nwhich is above all and behind all. The other, and baser, was how to so\npresent his views and adapt his life that the life and the views might be\npossible in a Muslim community.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN BAJJA]\n\nIbn Bajja was a close disciple of al-Farabi, who is to be regarded as the\nspiritual father of the later Arabic philosophy; Ibn Sina practically\nfalls out. In logic, physics, and metaphysics he followed al-Farabi\nclosely. But we can see how the times have moved and the philosophies\nwith them. The essential differences have appeared and Ibn Bajja can no\nlonger, with a good conscience, appear as a pious Muslim. The Sufi strain\nalso is much weaker. The greatest joy and the closest truth are to be\nfound in thought, and not in the sensuous ecstasies of the mystic. The\nintellect is the highest element in man\u2019s being, but is only immortal as\nit joins itself to the one Active Intellect, which is all that is left of\nGod. Here we have the beginning of the doctrine which, later, under the\nname of Averroism and pampsychism ran like wild-fire through the schools\nof Europe. Further, only by the constant exercise of its own functions\ncan the intellect of man be thus raised. He must live rationally at all\npoints; be able to give a reason for every action. This may compel him\nto live in solitude; the world is so irrational and will not suffer\nreason. Or some of the disciples of reason may draw together and form a\ncommunity where they may live the calm life of nature and of the pursuit\nof knowledge and self-development. So they will be at one with nature and\nthe eternal, and far removed from the frenzied life of the multitude with\nits lower aims and conceptions. It is easy to see how the iron of a fight\nagainst overwhelming odds had entered this soul. Only the friendship of\nsome of the Murabit princes saved him; but he died in the end, says a\nstory, by poison.\n\nWith the next names we find ourselves at a Muwahhid court, and there the\natmosphere has changed. It is evident that, whatever might be the temper\nof the people, the chiefs of the Muwahhids viewed philosophy with no\ndisfavor. Their problem, as in the case of the Fatimids, seems rather\nto have been how much the people might be taught with safety. Their\nsolution of the problem\u2014here we proceed on conjecture, but the basis is\ntolerably sound\u2014was that the bulk of the people should be taught nothing\nbut the literal sense of the Qur\u2019an, metaphors, anthropomorphisms and\nall; that the educated lay public, which had already some inkling of the\nfacts, should be assured that there was really no difference between\nphilosophy and theology\u2014that they were two phases of one truth; and that\nthe philosophers should have a free hand to go on their own way, always\nprovided that their speculations did not spread beyond their own circle\nand agitate the minds of the commonalty. It was a beautiful scheme, but\nlike all systems of obscurantism it did not work. On the one hand, the\npeople refused to be blindfolded, and, on the other, philosophy died out\nof inanition.\n\nIn accordance with this, we find the Muwahhid chiefs installing the\nZahirite _fiqh_ as the official system and sternly stopping all\nspeculative discussing either of canon law or of theology. \u201cThe Word so\nstands written; take it or the sword,\u201d is the significant utterance which\nhas come to us from Abu Ya\u2018qub (reg. 558-580), son of Abd al-Mu\u2019min. The\nsame continued under his son Abu Yusuf al-Mansur (reg. 580-595), who\nadded a not very carefully concealed contempt for the Mahdiship of Ibn\nTumart. All such things were ridiculous in his philosophic eyes.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN TUFAYL; IBN RUSHD]\n\nUnder these men and in adjustment with their system lived and worked Ibn\nTufayl and Ibn Rushd, the last of the great Aristotelians. Ibn Tufayl\nwas wazir and physician to Abu Ya\u2018qub and died a year after him, in 531.\nHis was a calm, contemplative life, secluded in princely libraries. But\nhis objects were the same as those of Ibn Bajja. He has evidently no\nhope that the great body of the people can ever be brought to the truth.\nA religion, sensuous and sensual alike, is needed to restrain the wild\nbeast in man, and the masses should be left to the guidance of that\nreligion. For a philosopher to seek to teach them better is to expose\nhimself to peril and them to the loss of that little which they have. But\nin his methods, on the other hand, Ibn Tufayl is essentially at one with\nal-Ghazzali. He is a mystic who seeks in Sufi exercises, in the constant\npurifying of mind and body and in the unwearying search for the one unity\nin the individual multiplicity around him, to find a way to lose his self\nin that eternal and one spirit which for him is the divine. So at last\nhe comes to ecstasy and reaches those things which eye hath not seen\nnor ear heard. The only difference between him and al-Ghazzali is that\nal-Ghazzali was a theologian and saw in his ecstasy Allah upon His throne\nand around Him the things of the heavens, as set forth in the Qur\u2019an,\nwhile Ibn Tufayl was a philosopher, of neo-Platonic + Aristotelian stamp,\nand saw in his ecstasy the Active Intellect and Its chain of causes\nreaching down to man and back to Itself.\n\nThe book by which his name has lived, and which has had strange haps,\nis the romance of _Hayy ibn Yaqzan_, \u201cThe Living One, Son of the\nWaking One.\u201d In it he conceives two islands, the one inhabited and the\nother not. On the inhabited island we have conventional people living\nconventional lives, and restrained by a conventional religion of rewards\nand punishments. Two men there, Salaman and Asal, have raised themselves\nto a higher level of self-rule. Salaman adapts himself externally to the\npopular religion and rules the people; Asal, seeking to perfect himself\nstill further in solitude, goes to the other island. But there he finds a\nman, Hayy ibn Yaqzan, who has lived alone from infancy and has gradually,\nby the innate and uncorrupted powers of the mind, developed himself to\nthe highest philosophic level and reached the Vision of the Divine. He\nhas passed through all the stages of knowledge until the universe lies\nclear before him, and now he finds that his philosophy thus reached,\nwithout prophet or revelation, and the purified religion of Asal are\none and the same. The story told by Asal of the people of the other\nisland sitting in darkness stirs his soul and he goes forth to them as a\nmissionary. But he soon learns that the method of Muhammad was the true\none for the great masses, and that only by sensuous allegory and concrete\nthings could they be reached and held. He retires to his island again to\nlive the solitary life.\n\nThe bearing of this on the system of the Muwahhids cannot be mistaken.\nIf it is a criticism of the finality of historical revelation, it is\nalso a defence of the attitude of the Muwahhids toward both people and\nphilosophers. By the favor of Abu Ya\u2018qub, Ibn Tufayl had practically been\nable to live on an island and develop himself by study. So, too, Abu\nYa\u2018qub might stand for the enlightened but practical Salaman. Yet the\nmeaning evidently is that between them they failed and must fail. There\ncould only be a solitary philosopher here and there, and happy for him\nif he found a princely patron. The people which knew not the truth were\naccursed. Perhaps, rather, they were children and had to be humored and\nguided as such in an endless childhood.\n\nIt is evident that such a solitary possessor of truth had two courses\nopen to him. He could either busy himself in his studies and exercises,\nas had done Ibn Bajja and Ibn Tufayl, or he could boldly enter public\nlife and trust to his dialectic ingenuity and resource\u2014perhaps, also, to\nhis plasticity of conscience\u2014to carry him past all whispers of heresy\nand unbelief. The latter course was chosen by Ibn Rushd. He was born\nat Cordova, in 520, of a family of jurists and there studied law. From\nhis legal studies only a book on the law of inheritance has reached\nus, and it, though frequently commented on, has never been printed. In\n548 he was presented to Abu Ya\u2018qub by Ibn Tufayl and encouraged by him\nin the study of philosophy. In it his greatest work was done. In spite\nof the shreds and patches of neo-Platonism which clung to him, he was\nthe greatest medi\u00e6val commentator on Aristotle. It is only part of the\neternal puzzle of the Muslim mind that the utility of Greek for a student\nof Aristotle seems never to have struck him. Thereafter he acted as judge\nin different places in Spain and was court physician for a short time\nin 578 to Abu Ya\u2018qub. In 575 he had written his tractates, to which we\nshall come immediately, mediating between philosophy and theology. Toward\nthe end of his life he was condemned by Abu Yusuf al-Mansur for heresy\nand banished from Cordova. This was in all likelihood a truckling on the\npart of al-Mansur to the religious prejudices of the people of Spain,\nwho were probably of stiffer orthodoxy than the Berbers. He was in Spain,\nat Cordova, at the time, and was engaged in carrying on a religious war\nwith the Christians. On his return to Morocco the decree of exile was\nrecalled and Ibn Rushd restored to favor. We find him again at the court\nin Morocco, and he died there in 595.\n\nThis is not the place to enter upon Ibn Rushd\u2019s philosophical system.\nHe was a thorough-going Aristotelian, as he knew Aristotle. That was\nprobably much better than any of his predecessors; but even he had\nnot got clear from the fatal influence of Plotinus. Above all, he is\nessentially a theologian just as much as they. In Aristotle there had\nbeen given what was to all intents a philosophical revelation. Only in\nthe knowledge and acceptance of it could truth and life be found. And\nsome must reach it; one at least there must always be. If a thing is\nnot seen by someone it has existed in vain; which is impossible. If\nsomeone at least does not know the truth, it also has existed in vain,\nwhich is still more impossible. That is Ibn Rushd\u2019s way of saying that\nthe _esse_ is the _percipi_ and that there must be a perceiver. And he\nhas unlimited faith in his means of reaching that Truth\u2014only by such\ncapitalization can we express his theologic attitude. The logic of\nAristotle is infallible and can break through to the supreme good itself.\nEcstasy and contemplation play no part with him; there he separates from\nIbn Tufayl. Such intercourse with the Active Intellect may exist; but it\nis too rare to be taken into account. Obviously, Ibn Rushd himself, who\nto himself was the percipient of truth for his age, had never reached\nthat perception. Solitary meditation he cannot away with; for him the\nmarket-place and contact with men; there he parts with Ibn Bajja. In\ntruth, he is nearer to the life in life of Ibn Sina, and that, perhaps,\nexplains his constant attacks on the Persian _bon vivant_.\n\n[Sidenote: ATTACK ON AL-GHAZZALI]\n\nAll his predecessors he joys in correcting, but his especial _b\u00eate\nnoire_ is al-Ghazzali. With him it is war on life or death. He has two\ngood causes. One is al-Ghazzali\u2019s \u201cDestruction of the Philosophers;\u201d\nof it, Ibn Rushd, in his turn, writes a \u201cDestruction.\u201d This is a\nclever, incisive criticism, luminous with logical exactitude, yet\nmissing al-Ghazzali\u2019s vital earnestness and incapable of reaching his\noriginality. But al-Ghazzali had not only attacked the philosophers; he\nhad also spread the knowledge of their teachings and reasonings, and had\nsaid that there was nothing esoteric and impossible of grasp in them for\nthe ordinary mind. He had thus assailed the fundamental principles of the\nMuwahhid system. Against this, Ibn Rushd wrote the tractates spoken of\nabove. They were evidently addressed to the educated laity; not to the\nignorant multitude, but to those who had already read such books as those\nof al-Ghazzali and been affected by them, yet had not studied philosophy\nat first hand. That they were not intended for such special students is\nevident from the elaborate care that is taken in them to conceal, or,\nif that were not possible, to put a good face upon obnoxious doctrines.\nThus, his philosophy left no place in reality for a system of rewards\nand punishments or even for any individual existence of the soul after\ndeath, for a creation of the material world, or for a providence in the\ndirect working of the supreme being on earth. But all these points are\ninvolved or glossed over in these tractates.\n\nFurther, it is plain that their object was to bring about a reform\nof religion in itself, and also of the attitude of theologians to\nstudents of philosophy. In them he sums up his own position under four\nheads: _First_, that philosophy agrees with religion and that religion\nrecommends philosophy. Here, he is fighting for his life. Religion is\ntrue, a revelation from God; and philosophy is true, the results reached\nby the human mind; these two truths cannot contradict each other. Again,\nmen are frequently exhorted in the Qur\u2019an to reflect, to consider, to\nspeculate about things; that means the use of the intelligence, which\nfollows certain laws, long ago traced and worked out by the ancients. We\nmust, therefore, study their works and proceed further on the same course\nourselves, _i.e._, we must study philosophy.\n\n_Second_, there are two things in religion, literal meaning and\ninterpretation. If we find anything in the Qur\u2019an which seems externally\nto contradict the results of philosophy, we may be quite sure that\nthere is something under the surface. We must look for some possible\ninterpretation of the passage, some inner meaning; and we shall certainly\nfind it.\n\n[Sidenote: THE MULTIFORM TRUTH]\n\n_Third_, the literal meaning is the duty of the multitude, and\ninterpretation the duty of scholars. Those who are not capable of\nphilosophical reasoning must hold the literal truth of the different\nstatements in the Qur\u2019an. The imagery must be believed by them exactly\nas it stands, except where it is absolutely evident that we have only\nan image. On the other hand, philosophers must be given the liberty\nof interpreting as they choose. If they find it necessary, from some\nphilosophical necessity, to adopt an allegorical interpretation of any\npassage or to find in it a metaphor, that liberty must be open to them.\nThere must be no laying down of dogmas by the church as to what may\nbe interpreted and what may not. In Ibn Rushd\u2019s opinion, the orthodox\ntheologians sometimes interpreted when they should have kept by the\nletter, and sometimes took literally passages in which they should have\nfound imagery. He did not accuse them of heresy for this, and they should\ngrant him the same liberty.\n\n_Fourth_, those who know are not to be allowed to communicate\ninterpretations to the multitude. So Ali said, \u201cSpeak to the people of\nthat which they understand; would ye that they give the lie to God and\nHis messenger?\u201d Ibn Rushd considered that belief was reached by three\ndifferent classes of people in three different ways. The many believe\nbecause of rhetorical syllogisms (_khitabiya_), _i.e._, those whose\npremises consist of the statements of a religious teacher (_maqbulat_),\nor are presumptions (_maznunat_). Others believe because of controversial\nsyllogisms (_jadliya_), which are based on principles (_mashhurat_) or\nadmissions (_musallamat_). All these premises belong to the class of\npropositions which are not absolutely certain. The third class, and by\nfar the smaller, consists of the people of demonstration (_burhan_).\nTheir belief is based upon syllogisms composed of propositions which are\ncertain. These consist of axioms (_awwaliyat_) and five other classes of\ncertainties. Each of these three classes of people has to be treated in\nthe way that suits its mental character. It is wrong to put demonstration\nor controversy before those who can understand only rhetorical reasoning.\nIt destroys their faith and gives them nothing to take its place. The\ncase is similar with those who can only reach controversial reasoning\nbut cannot attain unto demonstration. Thus Ibn Rushd would have the\nfaith of the multitude carefully screened from all contact with the\nteachings of philosophers. Such books should not be allowed to go into\ngeneral circulation, and if necessary, the civil authorities should step\nin to prevent it. If these principles were accepted and followed, a\nreturn might be looked for of the golden age of Islam, when there was no\ntheological controversy and men believed sincerely and earnestly.\n\nOn this last paragraph it is worth noticing that its threefold\ndistinction is \u201cconveyed\u201d by Ibn Rushd from a little book belonging to\nal-Ghazzali\u2019s later life, after he had turned to the study of tradition,\n_Iljam al-Awamm an ilm al-kalam_, \u201cThe reining in of the commonalty from\nthe science of kalam.\u201d\n\nSuch was, practically, the end of the Muslim Aristotelians. Some\nflickers of philosophic study doubtless remained. So we find a certain\nAbu-l-Hajjaj ibn Tumlus (d. 620) writing on Aristotle\u2019s \u201cAnalytics,\u201d\nand the tractates of Ibn Rushd described above were copied at Almeria\nin 724. But the fate of all Muslim speculation fell, and this school\nwent out in Sufiism. It was not Ibn Rushd that triumphed but Ibn Tufayl,\nand that side of Ibn Tufayl which was akin to al-Ghazzali. From this\npoint on, the thinkers and writers of Islam become mystics more and\nmore overwhelmingly. Dogmatic theology itself falls behind, and of\nphilosophical disciplines only formal logic and a metaphysics of the\nstraitest scholastic type are left. Philosophy becomes the handmaid of\ntheology, and a very mechanical handmaid at that. It is only in the\nschools of the Sufis that we find real development and promise of life.\nThe future lay with them, however dubious it may seem to us that a future\nin such charge must be.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN ARABI]\n\nThe greatest Sufi in the Arabic-speaking world was undoubtedly Muhyi\nad-Din ibn Arabi. He was born in Murcia in 560, studied _hadith_ and\n_fiqh_ at Seville, and in 598 set out to travel in the East. He wandered\nthrough the Hijaz, Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, and died at Damascus in\n638, leaving behind him an enormous mass of writings, at least 150 of\nwhich have come down to us. Why he left Spain is unknown; it is plain\nthat he was under the influence of the Muwahhid movement. He was a\nZahirite in law; rejected analogy, opinion, and _taqlid_, but admitted\nagreement. His attachment to the opinions of Ibn Hazm especially was very\nstrong. He edited some of that scholar\u2019s works, and was only prevented by\nhis objections to _taqlid_ from being a formal Hazmite. But with all that\nliteralness in _fiqh_, his mysticism in theology was of the most rampant\nand luxurious description. Between the two sides, it is true, there\nexisted a connection of a kind. He had no need for analogy or opinion or\nfor any of the workings of the vain human intelligence so long as the\ndivine light was flooding his soul and he saw the things of the heavens\nwith plain vision. So his books are a strange jumble of theosophy and\nmetaphysical paradoxes, all much like the theosophy of our own day. He\nevidently took the system of the mutakallims and played with it by means\nof formal logic and a lively imagination. To what extent he was sincere\nin his claim of heavenly illuminings and mysterious powers it would be\nhard to say. The oriental mystic has little difficulty in deceiving\nhimself. His opinions\u2014so far as we can know them\u2014may be briefly sketched\nas follows: The being of all things is God: there is nothing except Him.\nAll things are an essential unity; every part of the world is the whole\nworld. So man is a unity in essence but a multiplicity in individuals.\nHis anthropology was an advance upon that of al-Ghazzali toward a more\nunflinching pantheism. He has the same view that the soul of man is a\nspiritual substance different from everything else and proceeding from\nGod. But he obliterates the difference of God and makes souls practically\nemanations. At death these return into God who sent them forth. All\nreligions to Ibn Arabi were practically indifferent; in them all the\ndivine was working and was worshipped. Yet Islam is the more advantageous\nand Sufiism is its true philosophy. Further, man has no free-will; he is\nconstrained by the will of God, which is really all that exists. Nor is\nthere any real difference between good and evil; the essential unity of\nall things makes such a division impossible.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN SAB\u2018IN]\n\nThe last of the Muwahhid circle with whom we need deal\u2014and, perhaps,\nabsolutely the last\u2014is Abd al-Haqq ibn Sab\u2018in. He was as much a mystic as\nIbn Arabi, but was apparently more deeply read in philosophy and did not\ncast his conceptions in so theological and Qur\u2019anic a mould. He, too, was\nborn in Murcia about 613, and must very early have founded a school of\nhis own, gathered disciples round him and established a wide reputation.\nHigh skill in alchemy, astrology, and magic is ascribed to him, which\nprobably means that he claimed to be a _wali_, a friend of God, gifted\nwith miraculous powers. He is accused of posing as a prophet, although\nin orthodox Islam Muhammad is the last and the seal of the prophets. But\nagainst this, it may be said that he had no need of the actual title,\n\u201cprophet\u201d; many mystics held\u2014heretically, it is true\u2014that the _wali_\nstood higher than the prophet, _nabi_ or _rasul_. He had evidently\nbesides this a more solid reputation in philosophy, as is shown by his\ncorrespondence with Frederick II, the great Hohenstaufen (d. 1250 A.D.).\nThe story is told on the Muslim side only, but has _vraisemblance_ and\nseems to be tolerably authentic. According to it, Frederick addressed\ncertain questions in philosophy\u2014on the eternity of the world, the nature\nof the soul, the number and nature of the categories, etc.\u2014to different\nMuslim princes, begging that they would submit them to their learned\nmen. So the questions came to ar-Rashid, the Muwahhid (reg. 630-640),\naddressed to Ibn Sab\u2018in as a scholar whose reputation had reached even\nthe Sicilian court. Ar-Rashid passed them on; Ibn Sab\u2018in accepted the\ncommission with a smile\u2014this is the Muslim account\u2014and triumphantly and\ncontemptuously expounded the difficulties of the Christian monarch and\nstudent. In his replies he certainly displays a very complete and exact\nknowledge of the Aristotelian and neo-Platonic systems, and is far less\na blind follower of Aristotle than is Ibn Rushd. But his schoolmasterly\ntone is most unpleasant, and we discover in the end that all this is\na mere preliminary discipline, leading in itself to agnosticism and a\nrecognition that there is nothing but vanity in this world, and that only\nin the Vision of the Sufi can certainty and peace be found. So we have\nagain the circle through which al-Ghazzali went. As distinguished from\nIbn Rushd, the prophet, with Ibn Sab\u2018in, takes higher rank than the sage.\nBeyond the current division of the soul into the vegetative, the animal\nand the reasonable, he adds two others, derived from the reasonable, the\nsoul of wisdom and the soul of prophecy. The first of these is the soul\nof the philosopher, and the other of the prophet; and the last is the\nhighest. Of the reasonable soul upward, he predicates immortality.\n\nHis position otherwise must have been practically the same as that of Ibn\nArabi. Like him he was a Zahirite in law and a mystic in theology. \u201cGod\nis the reality of existing things,\u201d he taught, and it is evident that he\nbelonged to the school of pantheism in which God is all, and separate\nthings are emanations from him. In life we have flashes of recognition\nof the heavenly realities, but only at death\u2014which is our true birth\u2014do\nwe reach union with the eternal, or, to speak technically, with the\nActive Intellect.\n\n[Sidenote: END OF THE MUWAHHIDS]\n\nApparently it was quite possible for him to hold these views in public\nso long as the Muwahhids were strong enough to protect him. But their\nempire was rapidly falling to pieces and the time of freedom had passed.\nAn attack on him at Tunis, where the Hafsids now ruled, drove him to the\nEast about 643, and there he took refuge at\u2014of all places\u2014Mecca. The\nrefuge seems to have been secure. He lived there more than twenty years\namid a circle of disciples, among whom was the Sharif himself, and died\nabout 667. There is a poorly authenticated story that he died by suicide.\nThe man himself, with so many of his time and kind, must remain a puzzle\nto us. For all his haughty pride of learning, it is noted of him that his\nfirst disciples were from among the poor. His contemporaries described\nhim as \u201ca Sufi after the manner of the philosophers.\u201d The last vestige of\nthe Muwahhid empire passed away in the year of his death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n The rise and spread of darwish Fraternities; the survival\n and tradition of the Hanbalite doctrine; Abd ar-Razzaq; Ibn\n Taymiya, his attacks on saint-worship and on the mutakallims;\n ash-Sha\u2018rani and his times; the modern movements; Wahhabism and\n the influence of al-Ghazzali; possibilities of the present.\n\n\nOur sources now begin to grow more and more scanty, and we must hasten\nover long intervals of time and pass with little connection from one\nname to another. Preliminary investigations are also to a great extent\nlacking, and it is possible that the centuries which we shall merely\ntouch may have witnessed developments only less important than those with\nwhich we have already dealt. But that is not probable; for when, after\na long silence, the curtain rises again for us in the twelfth Muslim\ncentury, we shall find at work only those elements and conditions whose\ninception and growth we have now set forth.\n\nOne name in our rapid flight deserves mention, at least. It is that of\nUmar ibn al-Farid, the greatest poet that Arabic mysticism has produced.\nHe was born at Cairo in 586, lived for a time at Mecca, and died at Cairo\nin 632. He led no new movement or advance, but the East still cherishes\nhis memory and his poems.\n\n[Sidenote: DARWISH FRATERNITIES]\n\nWe have already noticed (p. 177) the beginnings of darwish Fraternities\nand the founding of monasteries or _khanqahs_. During the period over\nwhich we have just passed, these received a great and enduring impetus.\nThe older ascetics and _walis_ gathered round them groups of personal\nfollowers and their pupils carried on their names. But it was long,\napparently, before definite corporations were founded of fixed purpose\nto perpetuate the memory of their masters. One of the earliest of these\nseems to have been the fraternity of Qadirite darwishes, founded by Abd\nal-Qadir al-Jilani, who died in 561 at Baghdad, where pilgrimage is still\nmade to his shrine. So, too, the Rifa\u2018ite Fraternity was founded at\nBaghdad by Ahmad ar-Rifa\u2018a in 576. Another is that of the Shadhilites,\nnamed after their founder, ash-Shadhili, who died in 656. Again another\nis that of the Badawites, whose founder was Ahmad al-Badawi (d. 675);\nhis shrine at Tanta in Lower Egypt is still one of the most popular\nplaces of pilgrimage. Again, the order of the Naqshbandite darwishes was\nfounded by Muhammad an-Naqshbandi, who died in 791. Among the Turks by\nfar the most popular religious order is that of the Mawlawites, founded\nby the great Persian mystical poet, Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi (d. 672), whose\n_Mesnevi_ is read over all Islam. These and very many others, especially\nof later date, are still in existence. Others, once founded, have again\nbecome extinct. Thus, Ibn Sab\u2018in, though he was surrounded by disciples\nwho for a time after his death carried on the order of Sab\u2018inites, does\nnot seem now to have any to do him honor. The same holds of a certain\nAdi al-Hakkari who founded a cloister near Mawsil and died about 558. It\nis significant that al-Ghazzali, though he founded a cloister for Sufis\nat Tus and taught and governed there himself, left no order behind him.\nApparently in his time the movement toward continuous corporations had\nnot yet begun. It is true that there are at present in existence darwish\nFraternities which claim to be descended from the celebrated ascetics\nand _walis_, Ibrahim ibn Adham (d. 161), Sari as-Saqati (d. 257) and Abu\nYazid al-Bistami (d. 261), but it may be gravely doubted whether they can\nshow any sound pedigree. The legend of Shaykh Ilwan, who is said to have\nfounded the first order in 49, may be safely rejected. It is significant\nthat the _Awlad Ilwan_, sons of Ilwan, as his followers are called, form\na sect of the Rifa\u2018ites. Further, just as the Sufis have claimed for\nthemselves all the early pious Muslims, and especially the ten to whom\nMuhammad made specific promise of Paradise (_al-ashara al-mubashshara_),\nso these Fraternities are ascribed in their origin to, and put under the\nguardianship of the first Khalifas, and, in Egypt at least, a direct\ndescendant of Abu Bakr holds authority over all their orders.\n\nIn these orders all are darwishes, but only those gifted by God with\nmiraculous powers are _walis_. Those of them who are begging friars are\n_faqirs_. They stand under an elaborate hierarchy grading in dignity\nand holiness from the _Qutb_, or Axis, who wanders, often invisible and\nalways unknown to the world, through the lands performing the duties of\nhis office, and who has a favorite station on the roof of the Ka\u2018ba,\nthrough his _naqibs_ or assistants, down to the lowest _faqir_. But\nthe members of these orders are not exclusively _faqirs_. All classes\nare enrolled as, in a sense, lay adherents. Certain trades affect\ncertain fraternities; in Egypt, for example, the fishermen are almost\nall Qadirites and walk in procession on their festival day, carrying\ncolored nets as their banners. Much the same thing held, and holds, of\nthe monastic orders of Europe, but the Muslim does not wait till he is\ndying to put on the weeds of Ahmad al-Badawi or ash-Shadhili. Finally,\nreference may be made again to the last and most important of all these\norders, the militant Brotherhood of as-Sanusi.\n\n[Sidenote: MYSTICS _v._ TRADITIONALISTS]\n\nWe have now returned to the period of al-Iji and at-Taftazani, when\nphilosophy definitely descended from the throne and became the servant\nand defender of theology. From this time on, the two independent forces\nat work are the unveiling of the mystic (_kashf_) and tradition (_naql_).\nThe only place for reason (_aql_) now is to prove the possibility of a\ngiven doctrine. That done, its actual truth is proven by tradition. These\ntwo then, _kashf_ and _naql_, hold the field, and the history of Muslim\ntheology from this point to the present day is the history of their\nconflicts. The mystics are accused of heresy by the traditionalists.\nThe traditionalists are accused by the mystics of formalism, hypocrisy,\nand, above all, of flat inability to argue logically. Both accusations\nare certainly true. No fine fence on personality can conceal the fact\nthat Muslim mysticism is simple pantheism of the Plotinian type, the\nindividuals are emanations from the One. On the other hand, the formalism\nof the traditionalists can hardly be exaggerated. They pass over almost\nentirely into canon lawyers, meriting richly the fine sarcasm of\nal-Ghazzali, who asked the _faqihs_ of his day what possible value for\nthe next world could lie in a study of the Qur\u2019anic law of inheritance\nor the like. Tradition (_hadith_), in the exact sense of the sayings and\ndoings of Muhammad, falls into the background, and _fiqh_, the systems\nbuilt upon it by the generations of lawyers, from the four masters down,\ntakes its place. Again, the accusation of illogical reasoning is also\nthoroughly sound. The habit of unending subdivision deprived the minds\nof the canonists of all breadth of scope, and their devotion to the\nprinciple of acceptance on authority (_taqlid_) weakened their feeling\nfor argument. It is true, further, that the mystics, such as they were,\nhad heired all the philosophy left in Islam, and were thus become\nthe representatives of the intellectual life. They had so much of an\nadvantage over their more orthodox opponents. But the intellectual life\nwith them, as with the earlier philosophers, remained of a too subjective\ncharacter. The fatal study of the self, and the self only\u2014that tramping\nalong the high _a priori_ road\u2014and neglect of the objective study of\nthe outside world which ruined their forerunners, was their ruin as\nwell. Outbursts of intellectual energy and revolt we may meet with again\nand again; there will be few signs of that science which seeks facts\npatiently in the laboratory, the observatory, and the dissecting-room.\n\n[Sidenote: ABD AR-RAZZAQ]\n\nCuriously enough, there fall closely together at this time the death\ndates of two men of the most opposite schools. The one was Ibn Taymiya,\nthe anthropomorphist free lance, who died in 728, and the other was\nAbd ar-Razzaq, the pantheistic Sufi, who died in 730. Abd ar-Razzaq of\nSamarqand and Kashan was a close student and follower of Ibn Arabi. He\ncommented on his books and defended his orthodoxy. In fact, so closely\nhad Ibn Arabi come to be identified with the Sufi position as a whole\nthat a defence of him was a favorite form in which to cast a defence\nof Sufiism generally. But Abd ar-Razzaq did not follow his master\nabsolutely. On the freedom of the will especially he left him. For Ibn\nArabi, the doctrine of the oneness of all things had involved fatalism.\nWhatever happens is determined by the nature of things, that is, by the\nnature of God. So the individuals are bound by the whole. Abd ar-Razzaq\nturned this round. His pantheism was of the same type as that of Ibn\nArabi; God, for him, was all. But there is freedom of the divine nature,\nhe went on. It must therefore exist in man also, for he is an emanation\nfrom the divine. His every act, it is true, is predetermined, in time,\nin form, and in place. But his act is brought about by certain causes,\nthemselves predetermined. These are what we would call natural laws in\nthings, natural abilities, aptitudes, etc., in the agent; finally, free\nchoice itself. And that free choice is in man because he is of and from\nGod. Further, it is evident that Abd ar-Razzaq\u2019s anxiety is to preserve a\nbasis for morals. Among the predetermining causes he reckons the divine\ncommands, warnings, proofs in the Qur\u2019an. The guidance of religion finds\nthus its place and the prophets their work. But what of the existence\nof evil and the necessity of restraint in a world that has emanated from\nthe divine? This problem he faces bravely. Our world must be the best of\nall possible worlds; otherwise God would have made it better. Difference,\nthen, among men and things belongs to its essence and necessity. Next,\njustice must consist in accepting these different things and adapting\nthem to their situations. To try to make all things and men alike would\nbe to leave some out of existence altogether. That would be a great\ninjustice. Here, again, religion enters. Its object is to rectify this\ndifference in qualities and gifts. Men are not responsible for these,\nbut they are responsible if they do not labor to correct them. In the\nhereafter all will be reabsorbed into the divine being and taste such\nbliss as the rank of each deserves. For those who need it there will be a\nperiod of purgatorial chastisement, but that will not be eternal, _in sha\nAllah_.\n\nLike his predecessors, Abd ar-Razzaq divides men into classes according\nto their insight into divine things. The first is of men of the world,\nwho are ruled by the flesh (_nafs_) and who live careless of all\nreligion. The second is of men of reason (_aql_). They through the reason\ncontemplate God, but see only His external attributes. The third is of\nmen of the spirit (_ruh_) who, in ecstasy, see God face to face in His\nvery essence, which is the substrate of all creation.\n\nIn his cosmogony, Abd ar-Razzaq follows, of course, the neo-Platonic\nmodel and shows great ingenuity in weaving into it the crude and\nmaterialistic phrases and ideas of the Qur\u2019an. Like all Muslim thinkers\nhe displays an anxiety to square with his philosophy the terms dear to\nthe multitude.\n\n[Sidenote: IBN TAYMIYA]\n\nTo Ibn Taymiya all this was the very abomination of desolation itself.\nHe had no use for mystics, philosophers, Ash\u2018arite theologians, or, in\nfact, for anyone except himself. A contemporary described him as a man\nmost able and learned in many sciences, but with a screw loose. However\nit may have been about the last point, there can be no question that\nhe was the reviver for his time and the transmitter to our time of the\ngenuine Hanbalite tradition, and that his work rendered possible the\nWahhabites and the Brotherhood of as-Sanusi. He was the champion of the\nreligion of the multitude as opposed to that of the educated few with\nwhich we have been dealing so long. This popular theology had been going\nsteadily upon its way and producing its regular riots and disputings. It\nis related of a certain Ash\u2018arite doctor, Fakhr ad-Din ibn Asakir (d.\n620), that, in Damascus, he never dared to pass by a certain way through\nfear of Hanbalite violence. The same Fakhr ad-Din once gave, as in duty\nbound, the normal salutation of the Peace to a Hanbalite theologian. The\nHanbalite did not return it, which was more than a breach of courtesy,\nand indicated that he did not regard Fakhr ad-Din as a Muslim. When\npeople remonstrated with him, he turned it as a theological jest and\nreplied, \u201cThat man believes in \u2018Speech in the Mind\u2019 (_kalam nafsi,\nhadith fi-n-nafs_), so I returned his salutation mentally.\u201d The point\nis a hit at the Ash\u2018arites, who contended that thought was a kind of\nspeech without letters or sounds, and that God\u2019s quality of Speech could\ntherefore be without letters or sounds.\n\nBut even the simple orthodoxy of the populace had not remained unchanged.\nIt had received a vast accretion of the most multifarious superstitions.\nThe cult of saints, alive and dead, of holy sites, trees, garments, and\nthe observance of all manner of days and seasons had been developing\nparallel to the advance of Sufiism among the educated. The _walis_ were\nuntiring in the recital of the _karamat_ which God had worked for them,\nand the populace drank in the wonders greedily. The metaphysical and\ntheological side they left untouched. \u201cThis is a holy man,\u201d they said,\n\u201cwho can work miracles; we must fear and serve him.\u201d And so they would do\nwithout much thought whether his morality might not be antinomian and his\ntheology pantheistic. To abate this and other evils and bring back the\nfaith of the fathers was the task which Ibn Taymiya took up.\n\n[Sidenote: A MUJTAHID]\n\nHe was born near Damascus in 661 and educated as a Hanbalite. His\nfamily had been Hanbalite for generations, and he himself taught in\nthat school and was reckoned as the greatest Hanbalite of his time.\nHis position, too, was practically that of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, modified\nby the necessities imposed by new controversaries. Thus he was an\nanthropomorphist, but of what exact shade is obscure. He was accused of\nteaching that God was above His throne, could be pointed at, and that He\ndescended from His seat as a man might, _i.e._, that He was in space. But\nhe certainly distinguished himself from the crasser materialists. He\nrefused to be classed as the adherent of any school or of any system save\nthat of Muhammad and the agreement of the fathers. He claimed for himself\nthe rights of a _mujtahid_ and went back to first sources and principles\nin everything. His self-confidence was extreme, and he smote down with\nproud words the Rightly Guided Khalifas, Umar and Ali, themselves. His\nbases were Qur\u2019an, tradition from the Prophet and from the Companions and\nanalogy. Agreement, in the broad sense of the agreement of the Muslim\npeople, he rejected. If he had accepted it he would have been forced\nto accept innumerable superstitions, beliefs, and practices\u2014especially\nthe whole doctrine of the _walis_ and their wonders\u2014for their basis\nwas agreement. The agreement of the Companions he did accept, while\nconvicting them right and left of error as individuals.\n\nHis life was filled up with persecutions and misfortune. He was a popular\nidol, and inquiries for his judgment on theological and canonical\nquestions kept pouring in upon him. If there was no inquiry, and he\nfelt that a situation called for an expression of opinion from him, he\ndid not hesitate to send it out with all formality. It is true that it\nis the duty of every Muslim, so far as he can, to do away or at least\nto denounce any illegality or unorthodox view or practice which he may\nobserve. This duty evidently weighed heavily on Ibn Taymiya, and there\nwas fear at one time at the Mamluk court lest he might go the way of\nIbn Tumart. In one of these utterances he defined the doctrine of God\u2019s\nqualities as Ibn Hazm had done, and joined thereto denunciations of\nthe Ash\u2018arite kalam and of the Qur\u2019anic exegesis of the mutakallims as\na whole. They were nothing but the heirs and scholars of philosophers,\nidolaters, Magians, etc.; and yet they dared to go beyond the Prophet\nand his heirs and Companions. The consequence of this _fatwa_ or legal\nopinion was that he was silenced for a time as a teacher. On another\noccasion he gave out a _fatwa_ on divorce, pronouncing _tahlil_ illegal.\n_Tahlil_ is a device by which an awkward section in the canon law is\nevaded. If a man divorces his wife three times, or pronounces a threefold\ndivorce formula, he cannot remarry her until she has been married to\nanother man, has cohabited with him and been divorced by him. Muslim\nideas of sexual purity are essentially different from ours, and the\ncustom has grown up, when a man has thus divorced his wife in hasty\nanger, of employing another to marry her on pledge of divorcing her\nagain next day. Sometimes the man so employed refuses to carry out his\ncontract; such refusal is a frequent _motif_ in oriental tales. To avoid\nthis, the husband not infrequently employs one of his slaves and then\npresents him to his former wife the next day. A slave can legally marry a\nfree woman, but when he becomes her property the marriage is _ipso facto_\nannulled, because a slave cannot be the husband of his mistress or a\nslave woman the wife of her master. It is to Ibn Taymiya\u2019s credit that he\nwas one of the few to lift up their voices against this abomination. His\nindependence is shown at its best.\n\n[Sidenote: CONTROVERSY WITH SUFIS]\n\nBut it was with the Sufis that he had his worst conflicts, and at their\nhands he suffered most. In many points his career is parallel to that of\nAhmad ibn Hanbal, the Sufi movement taking the place that was played by\nMu\u2018tazilism in the life of the earlier saint. One great difference, it\nmay be remarked, was that al-Ma\u2019mun urged the persecution of Ibn Hanbal,\nwhile an-Nasir, the great Mamluk Sultan (reg. 693, 698-708, 709-741),\nsupported Ibn Taymiya as far as he possibly could. The beginning of the\nSufi controversy was characteristic. Ibn Taymiya heard that a certain\nan-Nasr al-Manbiji (d. 719?), a reputed follower of Ibn Arabi and of Ibn\nSab\u2018in, had reached a position of influence in Cairo. That was enough to\nmake Ibn Taymiya address an epistle to him, intended to turn him from his\nheresies. It is needless to give in detail the position and content of\nthe epistle. He wrote as a strong monotheist of the old-fashioned type\nand exposed and assailed unmercifully the doctrine of Unity (_ittihad_)\nof the mystics. Al-Manbiji retorted with countercharges of heresy, and,\nas he had behind him all the Sufis of Egypt\u2014as great an army as the\nChristian monks and ascetics or earlier Egypt and much like to them\u2014Ibn\nTaymiya had to pay for his eagerness for a fight with long and painful\nimprisonment at Cairo, Alexandria and Damascus. Here it is evident that\nhe had lost touch with the drift of popular, and especially Egyptian,\nfeeling.\n\nBut his fearlessness was like that of Ibn Hanbal himself, and in 726\nhe gave out a _fatwa_ which ran still straighter in the teeth of the\nbeliefs of the people and which sent him to a prison which he never left\nalive. It had long been a custom in Islam to make pious pilgrimage to\nthe graves of saints and prophets and there to do reverence to their\nmemory and to ask their aid. It was part of that cult of saints which\nhad so overspread and overcome the earlier simplicity of Islam. The most\noutstanding case in point was, and is, the pilgrimage to the tomb of\nMuhammad at al-Madina, which has come to be a more or less essential part\nof the Hajj to the Ka\u2018ba itself. Against all this Ibn Taymiya lifted a\nvoice of emphatic protest. These shrines were in great part false, and\nwhen they were genuine the visitation of them was an idolatrous imitation\nof heathen practices. Equally idolatrous was all invoking of saints or\nprophets, including Muhammad himself; to God alone should prayer be\ndirected. The clamor raised by this _fatwa_ was tremendous. This was\nno doctrine of the schools which he had touched, but a bit of concrete\nreligiosity which appealed to everyone. His public life practically\nended, and the practices which he had denounced abide to this day. It is\na bitter satire on his position that when he died in 726 the populace\npaid to his relics all these signs of superstitious reverence against\nwhich he had protested. He became a saint, _malgr\u00e9 lui_. His work had\nbeen to keep alive the Hanbalite doctrine and pass it on unchanged to\nmodern times. He did not destroy philosophy: it was dead of itself before\nhe came. Nor Sufiism: it is still very much alive. Nor _kalam_: it still\ncontinues in the form to which it had crystallized by his time. But he\nand his disciples made possible the Wahhabites and the monotheistic\nrevival of our day. The faith of Muhammad himself was not to perish\nentirely from the earth.\n\n[Sidenote: ASH-SHA\u2018RANI]\n\nIt would now be possible to pass at once to the Wahhabite movement in\nthe latter part of the twelfth century of the Hijra. All the elements\nfor the explanation of it and of the modern situation are in our hands.\nBut there is one figure which stands out so clearly in an otherwise most\nobscure picture and is so significant for the time, that some account\nmust be taken of it. It is that of ash-Sha\u2018rani, theologian, canonist,\nand mystic. He was a Cairene and died in 973. The rule of Egypt had\npassed half a century before to the Ottoman Turks, and they governed by\nmeans of a Turkish Pasha. The condition of the people, as we find it\nsketched by ash-Sha\u2018rani, was a most unhappy one. They were bent down,\nand especially the peasantry, under a load of taxation. The Turks found\nit advisable, too, to cultivate the friendship of the canon lawyers and\nprofessional theologians in order to maintain their hold upon the people.\nThese canonists, in consequence, were rapidly becoming an official class\nwith official privileges. Further, the process, the beginnings of which\nwe have already seen, by which religious science was narrowed to _fiqh_,\nhad gone still further. Practically, the two classes of theologians left\nwere the canonists and the mystics. And the mystics had fallen far from\ntheir pride of power under the Mamluks. They now were of the poor of the\nland, a kind of Essenes over against the Pharisees of the schools.\n\nSuch, at least, is the picture of his time which ash-Sha\u2018rani gives.\nHow far it is exact must remain uncertain. For, of the many puzzling\npersonalities in Islam, ash-Sha\u2018rani is perhaps for us the most\nunintelligible. He combined the most abject superstitions of a\nsuperstitious age and country with lofty ethical indignation; social\nhumility of the most extreme with an intellectual pride and arrogance\nrarely paralleled, a keen and original grasp of the canon law of the four\nschools with an utter submission of the intellect to the inbreathings\nof the divine from without; a power of discreet silence as to the\ninconvenient with an open-mouthed vehemence in other things. He was\na devoted follower of Ibn Arabi and defended his memory against the\naccusation of heresy. Yet his position is singularly different from that\nof Ibn Arabi, and a doubt cannot but rise as to either his knowledge,\nhis intelligence, or his honesty. Practically where he differs from\nthe ordinary Muslim is in his extension of the doctrine of saints. As\nto the Most Beautiful Names (_al-asma al-husna_), he follows Ibn Hazm.\nSo, too, as to God\u2019s qualities, he follows the older school and would\nprefer to leave them unconsidered. But he is, otherwise and in general, a\nsound Ash\u2018arite, _e.g._, on the doctrine of predestination, and of man\u2019s\npart in his works (_iktisab_). There is in him no sign of the Plotinian\npantheism of Ibn Arabi. The doctrine of God\u2019s difference (_mukhalafa_)\nhe taught, and that He created the world by His will and not by any\nemanation of energy.\n\n[Sidenote: THE UNSEEN WORLD]\n\nBut truth for him is not to be reached by speculation and argument:\nits only basis is through the unveiling of the inner eye which brings\nus to the immediate Vision of the Divine. Those who have reached that\nVision, guide and teach those who cannot or have not. Upon that Vision\nall systems are built, and reason can only serve the visionary as a\ndefence against the gainsayer or against his own too wild thoughts.\nNaturally, with such a starting-point as this the supernatural side of\nthings (_al-ghayb_) receives strong emphasis. The Jinn and the angels are\nmost intense realities. Ash-Sha\u2018rani met them in familiar converse. He\nmet, too, al-Khadir, the undying pilgrim saint who wanders through the\nlands, succoring and guiding. The details of these interviews are given\nwith the greatest exactness. A Jinni in the form of a dog ran into his\nhouse on such a day by such a door, with a piece of European paper in his\nmouth\u2014this is a touch of genius\u2014on which certain theological questions\nwere written. The Jinni wished ash-Sha\u2018rani\u2019s opinion as to them. Such\nwas the origin of one of his books, and another sprang from a similarly\nexactly described talk with al-Khadir. Yet he was content also with\nsmaller mercies and reckons as a _karama_ that he was enabled to read\nthrough a certain book for some time at the rate of two and a half times\ndaily. To all this it would be possible of course to say flatly that he\nlied. But such a judgment applied to an oriental is somewhat crude, and\nthe knot of the mystic\u2019s mind in any land is not to be so easily cut.\nFurther, the doctrine of the _walis_ is developed by him at length. They\npossess a certain illumination (_ilham_), which is, however, different\nfrom the inspiration (_wahy_) of the prophets. So, too, they never reach\nthe grade of the prophets, or a nearness to God where the requirements\nof a revealed law fall away from them, _i.e._, they must always walk\naccording to the law of a prophet. They are all guided by God, whatever\ntheir particular Rule (_tariqa_) may be, but the Rule of al-Junayd (p.\n176) is the best because it is in most essential agreement with the Law\n(_shari\u2018a_) of Islam. Their _karamat_ are true and are a consequence of\ntheir devout labors, for these are in agreement with the Qur\u2019an and the\nSunna. The order of nature will not be broken for anyone who has not\nachieved more than is usual in religious knowledge and exercises. All\n_walis_ stand under a regular hierarchy headed by the Qutb; yet above\nhim in holiness stand the Companions of the Prophet. This marks a very\nmoderate position. Many Sufis had contended that the _walis_ stood higher\nthan even the prophets, not to speak of their Companions.\n\nIt will be seen that his position is essentially a mediating one. He\nwishes to show that the beliefs of the mystics and of the mutakallims\nare really one although they are reached by different paths. In _fiqh_\nhe made a similar attempt. The Sufis had always looked down on those\ntheologians who were canonists pure and simple. A study of canon law was\na necessity, they thought; but as a prop\u00e6deutic only. The canonists who\nwent no further never reached religion at all. Especially they held that\nno Sufi should join himself to any of the four contending schools. Their\ncontroversies were upon insignificant details which had nothing to do\nwith the life in God. But could it not be shown that their differences\nwere not actual\u2014one view being true and the other false\u2014but were capable\nof being reduced to a unity? This was the problem that ash-Sha\u2018rani\nattacked. These differing opinions, he held, are adapted to different\nclasses of men. Some men of greater gifts and endurance can follow the\nhardest of these opinions, while the easier are to be recognized as\nconcessions (_rukhsa_) from God to the weakness of others. Each man may\nfollow freely the view which appeals to him; God has appointed it for him.\n\nAsh-Sha\u2018rani was one of the last original thinkers in Islam: for a\nthinker he was despite his dealings with the Jinn and al-Khadir. Egypt\nkeeps his memory. A mosque in Cairo bears his name, as does also a\ndivision of the Badawite darwishes. In modern times his books have been\nfrequently reprinted, and his influence is one of the ferments in the new\nIslam.\n\n[Sidenote: THE WAHHABITES]\n\nWe must now pass over about two hundred years and come to the latter part\nof the twelfth century of the Hijra, a period nearly coinciding with the\nend of the eighteenth of our era. There these two movements come again to\nlight. Wahhabism, the historical origin of which we have already seen (p.\n60), is a branch of the school of Ibn Taymiya. Manuscripts of the works\nof Ibn Taymiya copied by the hand of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab exist in Europe.\nSo the Wahhabites refused to accept as binding the decisions of the four\northodox sects of canon law. Agreement as a source they also reject. The\nwhole People of Muhammad can err and has erred. Only the agreement of\nthe Companions has binding force for them. It is, therefore, the duty\nand right of every man to draw his own doctrine from the Qur\u2019an and the\ntraditions; the systems of the schools should have no weight with him.\nAgain, they take the anthropomorphisms of the Qur\u2019an in their literal\nsense. God has a hand, God settles Himself on His throne; so it must be\nheld \u201cwithout inquiring how and without comparison.\u201d They profess to be\nthe only true Muslims, applying to themselves the term Muwahhids and\ncalling all others _Mushriks_, assigners of companions to God. Again,\nlike Ibn Taymiya, they reject the intercession of _walis_ with God. It\nis allowable to ask of God for the sake of a saint but not to pray to\nthe saint. This applies also to Muhammad. Pilgrimage to the tombs of\nsaints, the presenting of offerings there, all acts of reverence, they\nalso forbid. No regard should be paid even to the tomb of the Prophet\nat al-Madina. All such ceremonies are idolatrous. Whenever possible the\nWahhabites destroy and level the shrines of saints.\n\nOver other details, such as the prohibition of the use of tobacco, we\nneed not spend time. Wahhabism as a political force is gone. It has,\nhowever, left the Sanusi revolt as its direct descendant and what may be\nthe outcome of that Brotherhood we have no means of guessing. It has also\nleft a general revival and reformation throughout the Church of Islam,\nmuch parallel, as has been remarked, to the counter-reformation which\nfollowed the Protestant Reformation in Europe.\n\n[Sidenote: INFLUENCE OF AL-GHAZZALI]\n\nThe second movement is the revival of the influence of al-Ghazzali. That\ninfluence never became absolutely extinct and it seems to have remained\nespecially strong in al-Yaman. In that corner of the Muslim world\ngenerations of Sufis lived comparatively undisturbed, and it was the\nSayyid Murtada, a native of Zabid in Tihama, who by his great commentary\non the _Ihya_ of al-Ghazzali practically founded the modern study of\nthat book. There have been two editions of this commentary in ten quarto\nvolumes and many of the _Ihya_ itself and of other works by al-Ghazzali.\nWhether his readers understand him fully or not, there can be no question\nof the wide influence which he is now exercising. At Mecca, for example,\nthe orthodox theological teaching is practically Ghazzalian and the\ncontroversy throughout all Arabia is whether Ibn Taymiya and al-Ghazzali\ncan be called Shaykhs of Islam. The Wahhabites hold that anyone who thus\nhonors al-Ghazzali is an unbeliever, and the Meccans retort the same of\nthe followers of Ibn Taymiya.\n\nThese two tendencies then\u2014that back to the simple monotheism of Muhammad\nand that to an agnostic mysticism\u2014are the hopeful signs in modern\nIslam. There are many other drifts in which there is no such hope.\nSimple materialism under European, mostly French, influence is one. A\nseeking of salvation in the study of canon law is another. Canon law is\nstill the field to which an enormous proportion of Muslim theologians\nturn. Again, there are various forms of frankly pantheistic mysticism.\nThat is especially the case among Persians and Turks. For the body of\nthe people, religion is still overburdened, as in Ibn Taymiya\u2019s days,\nwith a mass of superstition. Lives of _walis_ containing the wildest\nand most blasphemous stories abound and are eagerly read. The books of\nash-Sha\u2018rani are especially rich in such hagiology. It is difficult for\nus to realize that stories like the most extravagant in the _Thousand and\nOne Nights_ are the simplest possibilities to the masses of Islam. The\ncanon lawyers, still, in their discussions, take account of the existence\nof Jinn, and no theologian would dare to doubt that Solomon sealed them\nup in brass bottles. Of philosophy, in the free and large sense, there\nis no trace. Ibn Rushd\u2019s reply to al-Ghazzali\u2019s \u201cDestruction of the\nPhilosophers\u201d has been printed, but only as a pendant to that work. In\nit, too, Ibn Rushd carefully covers his great heresies. His tractates on\nthe study of kalam, spoken of above, have also been reprinted at Cairo\nfrom the European edition. But these tractates are arranged to give no\nclew to his real philosophy. The Arabic Aristotelianism has perished\nutterly from the Muslim lands. Of the modern Indian Mu\u2018tazilism no\naccount need be taken here. It is derived from Europe and is ordinary\nChristian Unitarianism, connecting with Muhammad instead of with Jesus.\n\n[Sidenote: THE PROBLEM OF THE FUTURE]\n\nFrom the above sketch some necessary conditions are clear, which must be\nfulfilled if there is to be a chance for a future development in Islam.\nEducation must be widely extended. The proportion of trained minds must\nbe greatly increased and the barrier between them and the commonalty\nremoved. The economy of teaching has failed; it has destroyed the\ndoctrine which it sought to protect. Again, the slavery of the disciple\nto the master must cease. It must always be possible for the student, in\ndefiance of _taqlid_, to go back to first principles or to the primary\nfacts and to disregard what the great Imams and Mujtahids have taught.\nSo much of health there was in the Zahirite system.\n\nThird, these primary facts must include the facts of natural science.\nThe student, emancipated from the control of the schools, must turn from\nthe study of himself to an examination of the great world. And that\nexamination must not be cosmological but biological; it must not lose\nitself in the infinities but find itself in concrete realities. It must\nexperiment and test rather than build lofty hypotheses.\n\nBut can the oriental mind thus deny itself? The English educational\nexperiment in Egypt may go far to answer that question.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n\nI. ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS TRANSLATED FROM THE ARABIC.\n\nII. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\nIII. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\n\n 1. ASH-SHAHRASTANI ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF MUSLIM SECTS.\n\n 2. TWO TRADITIONS FROM MUHAMMAD ON THE ESSENTIALS OF ISLAM.\n\n 3. A SHORT CREED BY AL-ASH\u2018ARI.\n\n 4. A SHORT CREED BY AL-GHAZZALI.\n\n 5. A SHORT CREED BY AN-NASAFI (MATARIDITE).\n\n 6. A SCHOLASTIC EXPOSITION OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THEOLOGY.\n\n 7. ANALYSIS OF A TREATISE IN CANON LAW.\n\n Notes have been added where such appeared called for, but the\n index, facilitating reference to the body of the book, renders\n a full commentary unnecessary. The student should use the\n index as a vocabulary of technical terms, referring for their\n explanation to the passages where they occur.\n\n\nI\n\nASH-SHAHRASTANI ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF MUSLIM SECTS\n\nThen I applied myself to what of arrangement was easy of attainment and\nto what of attainment was easy of arrangement, until I had crowded them\n[the different opinions] into four fundamentals, which are the great\nprinciples. The first fundamental concerns the Qualities (_sifat_)\nwith the Unity (_tawhid_); it embraces the question of the eternal\n(_azali_) Qualities, affirmed by some and denied by others, and of\nthe exposition of the essential Qualities (_sifat adh-dhat_) and of\nthe active Qualities (_sifat al-fi\u2018l_) and of what is necessary in\nGod Most High and what is possible for Him and what is impossible; it\ninvolves the controversies between the Ash\u2018arites and the Karramites and\nthe Anthropomorphists (_mujassims_) and the Mu\u2018tazilites. The second\nfundamental concerns decree (_qadar_) and justice (_adl_); it embraces\nthe question of destiny (_qada_) and decree (_qadar_); of force (_jabr_)\nand acquisition (_kasb_); of the willing of good and of evil and of\nthe decreed and the known, affirmed by some and denied by others; it\ninvolves the controversies between the Qadarites and Najjarites and\nJabarites and Ash\u2018arites and Karramites. The third fundamental concerns\npromise (_wa\u2018d_) and the decisions (_hukms_); it embraces the question\nof faith (_iman_) and repentance (_tawba_) and threatening (_wa\u2018id_)\nand postponing (_irja_) and pronouncing anyone an unbeliever (_takfir_)\nand leading anyone astray (_tadlil_), affirmed by some and denied by\nothers; it involves the controversies between the Murji\u2019ites and the\nWa\u2018idites and the Mu\u2018tazilites and the Ash\u2018arites and the Karramites. The\nfourth fundamental concerns tradition (_sam_) and reason (_aql_) and the\nprophetic mission (_risala_) and the imamate; it embraces the questions\nof the determination of actions as good (_tahsin_) or vile (_taqbih_); of\nthe advantageous (_salah_) and most advantageous (_aslah_); of benignity\n(_lutf_); of the prophets being guarded against sin (_isma_); of the\ncondition of the imamate, by statute (_nass_) according to some and by\nagreement (_ijma_) according to others, and how it is transferred on\nthe view of those who say it is by statute, and how it is fixed on the\nview of those who say it is by agreement; it involves the controversies\nbetween the Shi\u2018ites and the Kharijites and the Mu\u2018tazilites and the\nKarramites and the Ash\u2018arites.\u2014_Translated from Cureton\u2019s Arabic text, p.\n4._\n\n\nII\n\nTHE PROPHET IN A TRADITION\n\n\u201cIslam is built upon five things; testimony that there is no god but God\nand that Muhammad is the Apostle of God. Prayer (_salat_), the Poor-rate\n(_zakat_), Pilgrimage (_hajj_) and Fast (_sawm_) in Ramadan.\u201d\n\nA TRADITION OF THE PROPHET\n\nJibril came in the form of an Arab of the desert and sat down so that\nhis knees touched the knees of the Prophet and said, \u201cO Apostle of God,\nwhat is Islam?\u201d He said, \u201cThat thou should bear witness that there is\nno god save God and that I am the Apostle of God; that thou shouldest\nperform the prayers (_salat_) and bring the poor-rate (_zakat_) and\nfast in the month of Ramadan and pilgrimage to the House if the way is\npossible for thee.\u201d He said, \u201cThou hast spoken truly.\u201d Then he said,\n\u201cWhat is Faith (_iman_)?\u201d The Prophet said, \u201cThat thou should believe\nin God and His angels and His books and His messengers and in the Last\nDay, and that thou should believe in the decreeing (_qadar_) both of good\nand of evil.\u201d He said, \u201cThou hast spoken truly.\u201d Then he said, \u201cWhat\nis right doing (_ihsan_)?\u201d The Prophet said, \u201cThat thou should serve\nGod as though thou sawest Him; for though thou seest Him not, He sees\nthee.\u201d He said, \u201cThou hast spoken truly.\u201d Then he said, \u201cWhen shall be\nthe Last Day (_as-sa\u2018a_)?\u201d The Prophet said, \u201cThe questioned knoweth not\nmore of that than the questioner.\u201d Then he arose and went out. And the\nProphet said, \u201cThat was Jibril; he came to you to teach you your religion\n(_din_).\u201d\u2014_Translated from Cureton\u2019s text of ash-Shahrastani, p. 27._\n\n\nIII\n\nA SHORT CREED BY AL-ASH\u2018ARI\n\nOur doctrine which we teach and our religion (_diyana_) which we follow\nconsists in clinging fast to the Book of God and the Usage (_sunna_)\nof His Prophet and to that which is handed down from the Companions,\ntheir immediate followers (_tabi\u2018s_) and from the leaders (_imams_) in\ntradition\u2014with that we take refuge; and we teach that which Ahmad ibn\nHanbal\u2014may God illumine his face, exalt his rank and make great his\nreward\u2014followed; and we shun that which is opposed to his doctrine. For\nhe is the excellent leader, the perfect chief, through whom God made\nplain the truth, when error was made manifest, and showed the path and\nsmote down the innovations of the innovators, the deviations of the\ndeviators and the doubts of the doubters. So, the mercy of God be upon\nhim for an appointed leader and an instructed chief, and upon all the\nleaders of the Muslims.\n\nThe sum of our doctrine is this, that we believe in God, His Angels, His\nBooks, His Apostles, in all that has come from God, and what trustworthy\nmen (_thiqat_) have reported from the Apostles of God; we oppose\nnothing thereof. That God is One God, Single, One, Eternal; beside Him\nno God exists; He has taken to Himself no wife (_sahiba_), nor child\n(_walad_); and that Muhammad is His Servant (_abd_) and His Apostle.\nThat Paradise and Hell are Verity and that the Hour (_as-sa\u2018a_) will\ncome without doubt, and God will arouse those that are in the graves.\nThat God has settled Himself (_istawa_) upon His throne, as He has\nsaid, (Qur. 20, 4); \u201cthe Rahman has settled Himself upon His throne.\u201d\nThat God has a countenance, as He has said, (Qur. 55, 27); \u201cand the\ncountenance of thy Lord will abide, full of majesty and glory;\u201d and two\nhands, as He has said, (Qur. 5, 69); \u201cmuch more! both His hands are\nspread out,\u201d and (Qur. 38, 75); \u201cthat which I have created with both My\nhands;\u201d and two eyes, without asking how (_bila kayfa_), as He has said,\n(Qur. 54, 14); \u201cwhich swims forth under Our eyes.\u201d That whoever thinks\nthat God\u2019s name is other than He, is in error. That God has Knowledge\n(_ilm_), as He has said, (Qur. 35, 12); \u201cNot one woman becomes pregnant\nand brings forth, except by His knowledge.\u201d We maintain that God has\nPower (_qudra_), as He has said, (Qur. 41, 14); \u201cand have they not seen\nthat God who created them is stronger than they?\u201d We maintain that God\nhas Hearing (_sam_) and Seeing (_basar_) and do not deny it, as do the\nMu\u2018tazilites, Jahmites and Kharijites. We teach that God\u2019s Word (_kalam_)\nis uncreated, and that He has never created anything except by saying\nto it, \u201cBe!\u201d and it forthwith became, as He has said, (Qur. 16, 42);\n\u201cOur speech to anything when We willed it was, \u2018Be\u2019 and it was.\u201d Nothing\nexists upon earth, be it good or bad, but that which God wills; but\nall things are by God\u2019s Will (_mashya_). No one is able to do anything\nbefore God does it, neither is anyone independent of God, nor can he\nwithdraw himself from God\u2019s Knowledge. There is no Creator but God. The\nworks (_amals_) of creatures are created and predestined by God, as He\nsaid, (Qur. 37, 94); \u201cand God has created you and what ye do.\u201d Man is\nable to create nothing; but they are created, as He has said, (Qur. 35,\n31); \u201cIs there any Creator except God?\u201d and (Qur. 16, 17) \u201cand is He\nwho created like him who created not?\u201d and (Qur. 52, 35); \u201cwere they\ncreated out of nothing, or are they the creators?\u201d and such passages are\nmany in the Qur\u2019an. And God maintains the believers in obedience to Him,\nis gracious unto them, cares for them, reforms them, and guides them\naright; but the unbelievers He leads astray, guides them not aright,\nvouchsafes them not Faith (_iman_), by His Grace, as the People of\nerror and pride maintain. For should He be gracious unto them and help\nthem aright, then would they be pious, and should He guide them aright,\nthen would they allow themselves to be guided aright, as He has said,\n(Qur. 7, 177); \u201cwhom God guideth aright, he allows himself to be guided\naright, and whom He leads astray, they are the losers.\u201d God is able to\nhelp the unbelieving aright and to be gracious unto them, so that they\nshall become believing, but He wills that they shall be unbelieving as\nis known. For He has made them impervious to all help and sealed their\nhearts. Good and Evil happen according to the Destiny (_qada_) and Decree\n(_qadar_) of God for good and evil, for the sweet and the bitter. We\nknow that the misfortune that befalls us is not in order that we may go\nastray, and that the good fortune which befalls us is not in order that\nwe may go aright. We have no control over that which is good or hurtful\nto us, except so far as God wills. We flee from our anxieties to God and\ncommit at all times our distress and poverty to Him. We teach that the\nQur\u2019an is God\u2019s Word, and that it is uncreated, and that whosoever says\nthat it is created is an unbeliever (_kafir_). We believe that God at\nthe Day of Resurrection (_yawm al-qiyama_) will be visible to the eyes,\nas the moon is seen upon the night of the full moon; the believers will\nsee Him, according to traditions which have come down from the Prophet.\nWe teach that while the believers will see Him, the unbelievers will be\nseparated from Him by a wall of division, as God has said, (Qur. 83, 15);\n\u201cSurely not! They will be separated from their Lord, upon that Day.\u201d\nWe teach that Moses besought God that he might see Him in this world;\nthen God revealed Himself to the mountain and turned it into dust and\ntaught Moses thereby that he could not see Him in this world (Qur. 7,\n139). We are of the opinion that we may not accuse anyone of unbelief\n(_kufr_), who prays towards Mecca, on account of sin committed by him,\nsuch as unchastity, theft, wine drinking, as the Kharijites believe,\nwho judge that these thereby become unbelievers. We teach that whoever\ncommits a great sin (_kabira_), or anything like it, holding it to be\nallowed, is an unbeliever, since he does not believe in its prohibition.\nWe teach that Islam is a wider idea than Faith (_iman_), so that not\nevery Islam is Faith. We believe that God turns the hearts upside down,\nand holds them between two of His fingers, that He lays the heavens upon\na finger and the earth upon a finger, according to the tradition from\nthe Prophet. We believe that God will not leave in Hell any of those\nwho confess His Unity (_muwahhid_) and hold fast to the Faith, and that\nthere is no Hell for him whom the Prophet has by his witness appointed\nto Paradise. We hope for Paradise for sinners and fear on their account,\nthat they will be punished in Hell. We teach that God will release a few\nout of Hell, on account of Muhammad\u2019s intercession (_shafa\u2018a_) after they\nhave been scorched there. We believe in the punishment of the grave. We\nbelieve that the Tank (_hawd_) and the Balance are Verities: that the\nBridge _as-Sirat_ is a Verity; that the Arousing (_ba\u2018th_) after death\nis a Verity; that God will set up His creatures in a place (_mawqif_)\nand will hold a reckoning with the Believers.[1] We believe that Faith\n(_iman_) consists in word (_qawl_) and in work (_amal_) and that it\nincreases and diminishes. We trust in the sound Traditions handed down\nfrom the Apostle of God, which trustworthy people (_thiqat_), just man\nfrom just man, up to the Apostle, have transmitted. We hold by the love\nof the early Believers (_salaf_), whom God chose to be Companions to the\nProphet, and we praise them with the praise with which God praised them,\nand we carry on their succession. We assert that the Imam succeeding\nthe Apostle of God was Abu Bakr; that God through him made the Religion\n(_din_) mighty, and caused him to conquer the Apostates (_murtadds_).\nThe Muslims made him their Imam, just as Muhammad had made him Imam at\nprayers. Then followed [as legal Imam] Umar ibn al-Khattab; then Uthman\nibn Affan; his murderers killed him out of wickedness and enmity; then\nAli ibn Abi Talib. These are the Imams after the Apostle, and their\nKhalifate is that of the Prophetic office [_i.e._, they are, though not\nprophets, successors of the Prophet]. We bear witness of Paradise for\nthe Ten (_al-asharatu-l-mubashshara_), to whom the Apostle bore witness\nof it, and we carry on the succession of the other Companions of the\nProphet and hold ourselves far from that which was in dispute between\nthem. We hold that the four Imams were in the true way, were rightly\nguided and excellent, so that no one equals them in excellence. We hold\nas true the traditions which the People of Tradition (_naql_) have\nestablished, concerning the descent of God to the lowest heaven (_sama\nad-dunya_), and that the Lord will say, \u201cIs there a supplicant? Is there\na seeker for forgiveness?\u201d and the rest of that which they have handed\ndown and established, contrary to that which the mistaken and misled\nopine. We ground ourselves in our opposition on the Qur\u2019an, the _Sunna_\nof the Prophet, the agreement of the Muslims and what is in accordance\ntherewith, but put forth no novelty (_bid\u2018a_) not sanctioned by God, and\nopine of God nothing that we have not been taught. We teach that God will\ncome on the Day of Resurrection, as He has said, (Qur. 89, 23); \u201cWhen\nthe earth shall be turned to dust, and the Lord shall appear and the\nangels, rank on rank,\u201d and that God is near to His servants, in what way\n(_kayfa_) He wills, as He has said, (Qur. 50, 15); \u201cand We are nearer to\nhim than the artery in his neck;\u201d and (Qur. 53, 8); \u201cThen He approached\nand came near and was two bows\u2019 length distant or even nearer.\u201d To our\nReligion (_din_) belongs further, that we on Fridays and on festival\ndays pray behind every person, pious and profane\u2014so are the conditions\nfor congregational prayers, as it is handed down from Abd Allah ibn Umar\nthat he prayed behind al-Hajjaj. To our Religion belongs the wiping\n(_mash_) of the inner boots (_khuffs_) upon a journey and at home, in\ncontradiction to the deniers of this.[2] We uphold the prayer for peace\nfor the Imams of the Muslims, submission to their office, and maintain\nthe error of those who hold it right to rise against them whenever there\nmay be apparent in them a falling away from right. We are against armed\nrebellion against them and civil war.\n\nWe believe in the appearance of anti-Christ (_ad-Dajjal_) according to\nthe tradition handed down from the Prophet; in the punishment of the\ngrave, and in Munkar and Nakir and in their questions to the buried in\ntheir graves. We hold the tradition of the journey to heaven (_mi\u2018raj_,\nQur. 17) of Muhammad as true, and declare many of the visions in sleep to\nbe true, and we say that there is an explanation for them. We uphold the\nalms for the dead of the Muslims and prayer for them, and believe that\nGod will help them therewith. We hold as true that there are enchanters\nin the world, and that enchantment is and exists. We hold as a religious\nduty the prayer which is held over the dead of those who have prayed\ntoward Mecca, whether they have been believers or godless; we uphold\nalso their right of testation. We acknowledge that Paradise and Hell are\ncreated, and that whoever dies or is killed, dies or is killed at his\nappointed time (_ajal_); that the articles of sustenance (_rizq_) from\nGod, with which He sustains His creatures, are permitted (_halal_) and\nforbidden (_haram_);[3] that Satan makes evil suggestions to men, and\nputs them in doubt, and causes them to be possessed, contrary to that\nwhich the Mu\u2018tazilites and the Jahmites maintain, as God said, (Qur.\n2, 276); \u201cThose who take usury will [at the Resurrection] stand there\nlike one whom Satan causes to be possessed by madness,\u201d and (Qur. 114,\n4 ff.); \u201cI take my refuge in God, from the evil suggestion, from the\nstealthy one who makes suggestions in the hearts of men, by means of men\nand Jinn.\u201d We affirm that God may distinguish the pious by signs which\nHe manifests through them. Our teaching concerning the little children\nof the polytheists (_mushriks_) is this, that God will kindle a fire in\nthe other world for them, and will say, \u201cRun in there;\u201d\u2014as the tradition\nsays.[4] We believe that God knows what men do and what they will to do,\nwhat happens and how that which does not happen, if it should happen,\nwould happen. We believe in the obedience of the Imams and in their\ncounsel of the Muslims. We consider right the separation from every\ninciter to innovation (_bid\u2018a_) and the turning aside from the People of\nwandering desires (_ahl al-ahwa_).\u2014_Translated from the Arabic text in\nSpitta\u2019s Zur Geschichte al-As\u2018ari\u2019s, pp. 133 ff._\n\n\nIV\n\nA SHORT CREED BY AL-GHAZZALI\n\nAn exposition of the Creed of the People of the Sunna on the two Words of\nWitnessing (_kalimata-sh-shabada_) which form one of the Foundations of\nIslam.\n\n [Intended to be committed to memory by children. It forms the\n first section of the second book of his _Ihya_, vol. ii, pp.\n 17-42 of edit. of Cairo with commentary of the Sayyid Murtada.]\n\nWe say\u2014and in God is our trust\u2014Praise belongeth unto God, the Beginner,\nthe Bringer back, the Doer of what He willeth, the Lord of the Glorious\nThrone and of Mighty Grasp, the Guider of His chosen creatures to the\nright path and to the true way, the Granter of benefits to them after\nthe witness to the Unity (_tawhid_) by guarding their articles of belief\nfrom obscurities of doubt and opposition, He that bringeth them to follow\nHis Apostle, the Chosen one (_al-Mustafa_), and to imitate the traces\nof his Companions, the most honored, through His aid and right guidance\nrevealed to them in His essence and His works by His beautiful qualities\nwhich none perceives, save he who inclines his ear. He is the witness who\nmaketh known to them that He in His essence is One without any partner\n(_sharik_). Single without any similar, Eternal without any opposite,\nSeparate without any like. He is One, Prior (_qadim_) with nothing before\nHim, from eternity (_azali_) without any beginning, abiding in existence\nwith none after Him, to eternity (_abadi_) without any end, subsisting\nwithout ending, abiding without termination. He hath not ceased and\nHe will not cease to be described with glorious epithets; finishing\nand ending, through the cutting off of the ages and the terminating of\nallotted times, have no rule over Him, but He is the First and Last, the\nExternal and the Internal, and He knoweth everything.\n\nWe witness that He is not a body possessing form, nor a substance\npossessing bounds and limits: He does not resemble bodies, either in\nlimitation or in accepting division. He is not a substance and substances\ndo not exist in Him; and He is not an accident and accidents do not exist\nin Him, nay He does not resemble an entity, and no entity resembles Him;\nnothing is like Him and He is not like anything; measure does not bound\nHim and boundaries do not contain Him; the directions do not surround\nHim and neither the earth nor the heavens are on different sides of Him.\nLo, He is seated firmly upon His Throne (_arsh_), after the manner which\nHe has said, and in the sense in which He willed a being seated firmly\n(_istiwa_), which is far removed from contact and fixity of location and\nbeing established and being enveloped and being removed. The Throne does\nnot carry Him, but the Throne and those that carry it are carried by the\ngrace of His power and mastered by His grasp. He is above the Throne and\nthe Heavens and above everything unto the limit of the Pleiades, with an\naboveness which does not bring Him nearer to the Throne and the Heavens,\njust as it does not make Him further from the earth and the Pleiades.\nNay, He is exalted by degrees from the Throne and the Heavens, just as\nHe is exalted by degrees from the earth and the Pleiades; and He, in\nspite of that, is near to every entity and is \u201cnearer to a creature than\nthe artery of his neck\u201d (Qur. 50, 15), and He witnesseth everything,\nsince His nearness does not resemble the nearness of bodies, just as\nHis essence does not resemble the essence of bodies. He does not exist\nin anything, just as nothing exists in Him: He has exalted Himself far\ntherefrom that a place should contain Him, just as He has sanctified\nHimself far therefrom that time should limit Him. Nay, He was before He\nhad created Time and Place and He is now above that which He was above,\nand distinct from His creatures through His qualities. There is not in\nHis essence His equal, nor in His equal His essence. He is far removed\nfrom change of state or of place. Events have no place in Him, and\nmishaps do not befall him. Nay, He does not cease, through His glorious\nepithets, to be far removed from changing, and through His perfect\nqualities to be independent of perfecting increase. The existence of His\nessence is known by reason; His essence is seen with the eyes, a benefit\nfrom Him and a grace to the pious, in the Abiding Abode and a completion\nin beatitude from Him, through gazing upon His gracious face.\n\nWe witness that He is living, powerful, commanding, conquering;\ninadequacy and weakness befall Him not; slumber seizes Him not, nor\nsleep. Passing away does not happen to Him, nor death. He is Lord of the\nWorlds, the Visible and the Invisible, that of Force and that of Might;\nHe possesses Rule and Conquest and Creation and Command; the heavens\nare rolled in His right hand and the created things are overcome in His\ngrasp; He is separate in creating and inventing; He is one in bringing\ninto existence and innovating; He created the creation and their works\nand decreed their sustenance and their terms of life; not a decreed thing\nescapes His grasp and the mutations of things are not distant from His\npower; the things which He hath decreed cannot be reckoned and the things\nwhich He knoweth have no end.\n\nWe witness that He knoweth all the things that can be known,\ncomprehending that which happeneth from the bounds of the earths unto the\ntopmost heavens; no grain in the earth or the heavens is distant from His\nknowledge. Yea, He knows the creeping of the black ant upon the rugged\nrock in a dark night, and He perceives the movement of the mote in the\nmidst of the air; He knows the secret and the concealed and has knowledge\nof the suggestions of the minds and the movements of the thoughts and the\nconcealed things of the inmost parts, by a knowledge which is prior from\neternity; He has not ceased to be describable by it, from the ages of the\nages, not by a knowledge which renews itself and arises in His essence by\narrival and removal.\n\nWe witness that He is a Willer of the things that are, a Director of\nthe things that happen; there does not come about in the world, seen\nor unseen, little or much, small or great, good or evil, advantage or\ndisadvantage, faith or unbelief, knowledge or ignorance, success or loss,\nincrease or diminution, obedience or rebellion, except by His will.\nWhat He wills is, and what He wills not is not. Not a glance of one who\nlooks, or a slip of one who thinks is outside of His will: He is the\nCreator, the Bringer back, the Doer of that which He wills. There is no\nopponent of His command and no repeater of His destiny and no refuge for\na creature from disobeying Him, except by His help and His mercy, and\nno strength to a creature to obey Him except by His will. Even though\nmankind and the Jinn and the Angels and the Shaytans were to unite to\nremove a single grain in the world or to bring it to rest without His\nwill, they would be too weak for that. His will subsists in His essence\nas one of His qualities; He hath not ceased to be described through it as\na Willer, in His infinity, of the existence of things at their appointed\ntimes which He hath decreed. So they come into existence at their\nappointed times even as He has willed in His infinity without precedence\nor sequence. They happen according to the agreement of His knowledge and\nHis will, without exchange or change in planning of things, nor with\narranging of thoughts or awaiting of time, and therefore one thing does\nnot distract Him from another.\n\nAnd we witness that He is a Hearer and a Seer. He hears and sees, and\nno audible thing is distant from His hearing, and no visible thing is\nfar from His seeing, however fine it may be. Distance does not curtain\noff His hearing and darkness does not dull His seeing; He sees without\neyeball or eyelid, and hears without earholes or ears, just as He\nknows without a brain and seizes without a limb and creates without an\ninstrument, since His qualities do not resemble the qualities of created\nthings, just as His essence does not resemble the essences of created\nthings.\n\nAnd we witness that He speaks, commanding, forbidding, praising,\nthreatening, with a speech from all eternity, prior, subsisting in His\nessence not resembling the speech of created things. It is not a sound\nwhich originates through the slipping out of air, or striking of bodies;\nnor is it a letter which is separated off by closing down a lip or moving\na tongue. And the Qur\u2019an and the Tawrat [the Law of Moses] and the\nInjil [the Gospel] and the Zabbur [the Psalms] are His book revealed to\nHis Apostles. And the Qur\u2019an is repeated by tongues, written in copies,\npreserved in hearts: yet it, in spite of that, is prior, subsisting\nin the essence of God, not subject to division and separation through\nbeing transferred to hearts and leaves. And Musa heard the speech of God\nwithout a sound and without a letter, just as the pious see the essence\nof God, in the other world, without a substance or an attribute.\n\nAnd since He has those qualities, He is Living, Knowing, Powerful, a\nWiller, a Hearer, a Seer, a Speaker, through Life, Power, Knowledge,\nWill, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, not by a thing separated from His essence.\n\nWe witness that there is no entity besides Him, except what is originated\nfrom His action and proceeds from His justice, after the most beautiful\nand perfect and complete and just of ways. He is wise in His actions,\njust in His determinations; there is no analogy between His justice and\nthe justice of creatures, since tyranny is conceivable in the case of a\ncreature, when he deals with the property of some other than himself, but\ntyranny is not conceivable in the case of God. For He never encounters\nany property in another besides Himself, so that His dealing with it\nmight be tyranny. Everything besides Him, consisting of men and Jinn and\nAngels and Shaytans and the heavens and the earth and animals and plants\nand inanimate things and substance and attribute and things perceived\nand things felt, is an originated thing, which He created by His power,\nbefore any other had created it, after it had not existed, and which He\ninvented after that it had not been a thing, since He in eternity was an\nentity by Himself, and there was not along with Him any other than He.\nSo He originated the creation thereafter, by way of manifestation of His\npower, and verification of that which had preceded of His Will, and of\nthat which existed in eternity of His Word; not because He had any lack\nof it or need of it. And He is gracious in creating and in making for the\nfirst times and in imposing of duty\u2014not of necessity\u2014and He is generous\nin benefiting; and well-doing and gracious helping belong to Him, since\nHe is able to bring upon His creatures different kinds of punishment\nand to test them with different varieties of pains and ailments. And if\nHe did that, it would be justice on His part, and would not be a vile\naction or tyranny in Him. He rewardeth His believing creatures for their\nacts of obedience by a decision which is of generosity and of promise\nand not of right and of obligation, since no particular action toward\nanyone is incumbent upon Him, and tyranny is inconceivable in Him, and\nno one possesses a right against Him. And His right to acts of obedience\nis binding upon the creatures because He has made it binding through the\ntongues of His prophets, not by reason alone. But He sent apostles and\nmanifested their truth by plain miracles, and they brought His commands\nand forbiddings and promisings and threatenings. So, belief in them as to\nwhat they have brought is incumbent upon the creation.\n\nTHE SECOND WORD OF WITNESSING is witnessing that the apostolate belongs\nto the apostle, and that God sent the unlettered Qurayshite prophet,\nMuhammad, with his apostolate to the totality of Arabs and foreigners\nand Jinn and men. And He abrogated by his law the other laws, except so\nmuch of them as He confirmed; and made him excellent over the rest of the\nprophets and made him the Lord of Mankind and declared incomplete the\nFaith that consists in witnessing the Unity, which is saying, \u201cThere is\nno god except God,\u201d so long as there is not joined to that a witnessing\nto the Apostle, which is saying, \u201cMuhammad is the Apostle of God.\u201d And\nHe made obligatory upon the creation belief in him, as to all which he\nnarrated concerning the things of this world and the next. And that He\nwould not accept the faith of a creature, so long as he did not believe\nin that which the Prophet narrated concerning things after death.\nThe first of that is the question of Munkar and Nakir; these are two\nawful and terrible beings who will cause the creature to sit up in his\ngrave, complete, both soul and body; and they will ask him, \u201cWho is thy\nLord, and what is thy religion (_din_), and who is thy Prophet?\u201d They\nare the two testers in the grave and their questioning is the first\ntesting after death. And that he should believe in the punishment of the\ngrave\u2014that it is a Verity and that its judgment upon the body and the\nsoul is just, according to what God wills. And that he should believe\nin the Balance\u2014it with the two scales and the tongue, the magnitude\nof which is like unto the stages of the heavens and the earth. In it,\ndeeds are weighed by the power of God Most High; and its weights in\nthat day will be of the weight of motes and mustard seeds, to show the\nexactitude of its justice. The leaves of the good deeds will be placed\nin a beautiful form in the scale of light; and then the Balance will\nbe weighed down by them according to the measure of their degree with\nGod, by the grace of God. And the leaves of evil deeds will be cast in\na vile form into the scale of darkness, and the Balance will be light\nwith them, through the justice of God. And that he should believe that\nthe Bridge (_as-sirat_) is a Verity; it is a bridge stretched over the\nback of Hell (_jahannam_), sharper than a sword and finer than a hair.\nThe feet of the unbelievers slip upon it, by the decree of God, and fall\nwith them into the Fire. But the feet of believers stand firm upon it,\nby the grace of God, and so they pass into the Abiding Abode. And that\nhe should believe in the Tank (_hawd_), to which the people shall go\ndown, the Tank of Muhammad from which the believers shall drink before\nentering the Garden and after passing the Bridge. Whoever drinks of it\na single draught will never thirst again thereafter. Its breadth is a\njourney of a month; its water is whiter than milk and sweeter than honey;\naround it are ewers in numbers like the stars of heaven; into it flow two\ncanals from _al-Kawthar_ (Qur. 108). And that he should believe in the\nReckoning and in the distinctions between men in it, him with whom it\nwill go hard in the Reckoning and him to whom compassion will be shown\ntherein, and him who enters the Garden without any reckoning,\u2014these are\nthe honored (_muqarrab_). God Most High will ask whomsoever He will of\nthe prophets, concerning the carrying of His message, and whomsoever He\nwill of the unbelievers, concerning the rejection of the messengers; and\nHe will ask the innovators (_mubtadi\u2018s_) concerning the Sunna; and the\nMuslims concerning works. And that he should believe that the attestors\nof God\u2019s Unity (_muwahhids_) will be brought forth from the Fire,\nafter vengeance has been taken on them, so that there will not remain\nin Hell an attestor of God\u2019s Unity. And that he should believe in the\nintercession (_shafa\u2018a_) of the prophets, next of the learned (_ulama_),\nnext of the martyrs, next of the rest of the believers\u2014each according\nto his dignity and rank with God Most High. And he who remains of the\nbelievers, and has no intercessor, shall be brought forth of the grace\nof God, whose are Might and Majesty. So there shall not abide eternally\nin the Fire a single believer, but whoever has in his heart the weight\nof a single grain of faith shall be brought forth therefrom. And that he\nshould confess the excellence of the Companions\u2014May God be well pleased\nwith them!\u2014and their rank; and that the most excellent of mankind,\nafter the Prophet, is Abu Bakr, next Umar, next Uthman, next Ali\u2014May\nGod be well pleased with them! And that he should think well of all the\nCompanions and should praise them like as he praises God, whose are Might\nand Majesty, and His Apostles. All this is of that which has been handed\ndown in traditions from the Prophet and in narratives from the followers.\nHe who confesses all this, relying upon it, is of the People of the Truth\nand the Company of the Sunna, and hath separated himself from the band of\nerror and the sect of innovation (_bid\u2018a_). So we ask from God perfection\nof certainty and firm standing in the Faith (_din_) for us and for all\nMuslims through His compassion.\u2014lo! He is the Most Compassionate!\u2014and\nmay the blessing of God be upon our Lord Muhammad and upon every chosen\ncreature.\n\n\nV\n\nARTICLES OF BELIEF OF NAJM AD-DIN ABU HAFS AN-NASAFI\n\n [A Mataridite who d. A.H. 537. This creed is still used as a\n text-book in schools. It is translated from Cureton\u2019s edition\n (London, 1843) with the assistance of at-Taftazani\u2019s commentary\n (Constantinople, A.H. 1310). The asterisks mark the points on\n which al-Mataridi differed from al-Ash\u2018ari.]\n\nIn the name of God, the merciful Compassionator.\n\nThe Shaykh, the Imam, Najm ad-Din Abu Hafs Umar ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad\nan-Nasafi\u2014may God have mercy upon him!\u2014said;\u2014The People of Verity,\ncontradicting the Sceptics [_Sufistiqiya_, i.e., Sophists] say that the\nreal natures of things are validly established and that the science of\nthem is certain.\n\nFurther, that the sources of knowledge for mankind are three: the sound\nSenses, true Narration (_khabar_), and Reason (_aql_). As for the\nSenses, they are five: Hearing, Sight, Smell, Taste and Touch, and by\neach sense you are informed concerning that for which it is appointed.\nTrue Narration, again, is of two kinds. The one is Narration handed down\nalong a large number of lines of tradition (_mutawatir_); that is, it\nis established by the tongues of a number of people of whom we cannot\nimagine that they would agree in a lie. It compels a knowledge which\nis of necessity (_daruri_), such as the knowledge of departed kings in\npast times and of distant countries. And the second is Narration by the\nApostle (_rasul_) aided by miracle [_i.e._, Muhammad], and it compels\ndeduced knowledge (_istidlali_), and the knowledge established by it\nresembles in certainty and fixity the knowledge established by necessity.\n\nThen as for Reason, it is a cause of knowledge also; and whatever is\nestablished by intuition (_badaha_) is of necessity, as the knowledge\nthat everything is greater than its parts; and whatever is established\nby inference is acquired knowledge (_iktisabi_), as the existence of\nfire from the appearance of smoke. And the Inner Light (_ilham_) with\nthe People of Verity is not one of the causes of knowledge as to the\nsoundness of anything.[5]\n\nFurther, the world in the totality of its parts is a thing originated\n(_muhdath_), in that it consists of Substances (_ayns_) and Attributes\n(_arads_). The Substances are what exist in themselves, and a substance\nis either a compound, that is a body (_jism_), or not compounded like an\nessence (_jawhar_), namely a division that is not further divided. And\nthe attributes are what do not exist in themselves but have a dependent\nexistence in bodies or essences, such as colors, tastes, conditions\n(_kawns_), odors.\n\nThe Originator (_Muhdith_) of the world is God Most High, the One,\nthe Eternal, the Decreeing, the Knowing, the Hearing, the Seeing, the\nWilling. He is not an attribute, nor a body, nor an essence, nor a thing\nformed, nor a thing bounded, nor a thing numbered, nor a thing divided,\nnor a thing compounded, nor a thing limited; and He is not described by\nquiddity (_mahiya_), nor by modality (_kayfiya_), and He does not exist\nin place or time, and there is nothing that resembles Him and nothing\nthat is outwith His knowledge and power.\n\nHe has qualities (_sifat_) from all eternity (_azali_) existing in\nHis essence. They are not He nor are they any other than He. They are\nKnowledge and Power and Life and Strength and Hearing and Seeing and\nDoing and Creating and Sustaining and Speech (_kalam_).\n\nAnd He, whose Majesty is majestic, speaks with a Word (_kalam_). This\nWord is a quality from all eternity, not belonging to the genus of\nletters and sounds, a quality that is incompatible with coming to silence\nand that has no weakness.\n\nGod Most High speaks with this Word, commanding and prohibiting and\nnarrating. And the Qur\u2019an is the uncreated Word of God, repeated by our\ntongues, heard by our ears, written in our copies, preserved in our\nhearts, yet not simply a transient state (_hal_) in these [_i.e._, the\ntongues, ears, etc.]. And Creating (_takwin_) is a quality of God Most\nHigh from all eternity, and it is the Creating of the world and of every\none of its parts at the time of its becoming existent, and this quality\nof Creating is not the thing created, according to our opinion.* And\nWilling is a quality of God Most High from all eternity, existing in His\nessence.\n\nAnd that there is a Vision (_ru\u2019ya_) of God Most High is allowed by\nreason and certified by tradition (_naql_). A proof on authority has come\ndown with the affirmation that believers have a Vision of God Most High\nin Paradise and that He is seen, not in a place or in a direction or by\nfacing or the joining of glances or the placing of a distance between him\nwho sees and God Most High.\n\nAnd God Most High is the Creator of all actions of His creatures, whether\nof unbelief or belief, of obedience or of rebellion; all of them are by\nthe will of God and His sentence and His conclusion and His decreeing.\n\nAnd to His creatures belong actions of choice (_ikhtiyar_),* for\nwhich they are rewarded or punished, and the good in these is by the\ngood pleasure of God (_rida_) and the vile in them is not by His good\npleasure.*\n\nAnd the ability to do the action (_istita\u2018a_) goes along with the action\nand is the essence of the power (_qudra_) by which the action takes\nplace, and this word \u201cability\u201d means the soundness of the causes and\ninstruments and limbs. And the validity of the imposition of the task\n(_taklif_) is based upon this ability,* and the creature has not a task\nimposed upon him that is not in his power.\n\nAnd the pain which is found in one who is beaten as a consequence of\nbeing beaten by any man, and the state of being broken in glass as a\nconsequence of its being broken by any man, and such things, all that is\ncreated by God Most High, and the creature has no part in its creation\nand a slain man is dead because his appointed time (_ajal_) has come;\nand death exists in a slain man and is created by God Most High, and the\nappointed time is one.[6]\n\nAnd that which is forbidden (_haram_) is still Sustenance (_rizq_), and\neach one receives his own Sustenance whether it consists of permitted or\nof forbidden things; and let no one imagine that a man shall not eat his\nSustenance or that another than he shall eat his Sustenance.\n\nAnd God leadeth astray whom He wills and guideth aright whom He wills,\nand it is not incumbent upon God Most High to do that which may be best\n(_aslah_) for the creature.\n\nThe punishment of the grave for unbelievers and for some rebellious ones\nof the believers, and the bliss of the obedient in the grave, and the\nquestioning by Munkar and Nakir are established by proofs of authority.\nAnd the Quickening of the Dead (_ba\u2018th_) is a Verity, and the Weighing is\na Verity, and the Book is a Verity and the Tank (_hawd_) is a Verity, and\nthe Bridge, _as-Sirat_, is a Verity, and the Garden is a Verity, and the\nFire is a Verity, and they are both created, existing, continuing; they\nshall not pass away and their people shall not pass away.\n\nA great sin (_kabira_) does not exclude the creature who believes from\nthe Belief (_iman_) and does not make him an unbeliever. And God does\nnot forgive him who joins another with Himself, but He forgives anything\nbeneath that to whom He wills, of sins small (_saghira_) or great.\n\nAnd there may be punishment for a small and pardon for a great one, if it\nbe not of the nature of considering lawful what is forbidden, for that is\nunbelief (_kufr_). And the intercession (_shafa\u2018a_) of the Apostles and\nof the excellent on behalf of those who commit great sins is established.\n\nAnd those believers who commit great sins do not remain eternally in the\nFire although they die without repentance.\n\nBelief (_iman_) is assent (_tasdiq_) to that which comes from God and\nconfession (_iqrar_) of it. Then, as for Works (_amal_), they are acts\nof obedience and gradually increase of themselves, but Belief does not\nincrease and does not diminish. And Belief and al-Islam are one.* And\nwhenever assent and confession are found in a creature, it is right that\nhe should say, \u201cI am a believer in truth.\u201d And it is not fitting that he\nshould say, \u201cI am a believer if God will.\u201d*\n\nThe happy one sometimes becomes miserable and the miserable one sometimes\nbecomes happy,* and the changing is in happiness and misery, and not in\nmaking happy and making miserable: for those are both qualities of God\nMost High, and there is no changing in Him nor in His qualities.\n\nAnd in the sending of Apostles (_rasuls_) is an advantage and God\nhas sent Apostles of flesh unto flesh with good tidings, warning and\nexplaining to men the things of the world and of faith, of which they\nhave need. And He has aided them with miracles (_mu\u2018jizat_) which break\nthe order of nature. The first of the Prophets (_nabis_) was Adam and the\nlast is Muhammad, Upon both of them be Peace! A statement of their number\nhas been handed down in several traditions, but the more fitting course\nis that there should be no limiting to a number in naming them; God Most\nHigh has said, \u201cOf them are those concerning whom We have recited to\nthee, and of them are those concerning whom We have not recited to thee.\u201d\nAnd there is no security in a statement of number against there being\nentered among them some that are not of them, or of there being excluded\nfrom them some that are of them. They all give intelligence concerning\nGod Most High, are veracious and sincere, and the most excellent of the\nProphets is Muhammad\u2014Upon him be Peace!\n\nThe Angels are servants of God and work according to His commands. They\nare not described as masculine or feminine.\n\nAnd God has books which He has revealed to His Prophets, and in them are\nHis commands and His promises.\n\nThe Night Journey (_mi\u2018raj_) of the Apostle of God\u2014Upon whom be Blessing\nand Peace! while awake, in the body, to Heaven, then to what place God\nMost High willed of the Exalted Regions, is a Verity.\n\nThe Wonders (_karamat_) of the Saints (_walis_) are a Verity. And a\nWonder on the part of a Saint appears by way of a contradiction of the\nordinary course of nature, such as passing over a great distance in a\nshort time, and the appearing of meat and drink and clothing at a time of\nneed, and walking upon the water and in the air, and the speech of stones\nand of beasts, and the warding off of an evil that is approaching, and\nthe guarding of him who is anxious from enemies, and other things of the\nsame kind. And such a thing is to be reckoned as an evidentiary miracle\n(_mu\u2018jiza_) on behalf of the Apostle followed by the Saint on whose part\nthe wonder appears. For it is evident by it that he is a Saint and he\ncould never be a Saint unless he were right in his religion and worship\nand in abiding by the message committed to his Apostle.\n\nThe most excellent of mankind after the Prophets are Abu Bakr, the Very\nVeracious (_as-Siddiq_), then Umar, the Divider (_al-Faruq_), then\nUthman, he of the Two Lights (_Dhu-n-Nurayn_), then Ali\u2014The good-will of\nGod be upon them! Their Khalifates were in this order, and the Khalifate\nextended to thirty years; then, thereafter, came kings and princes.\n\nThe Muslims cannot do without a leader (_Imam_) who shall occupy\nhimself with the enforcing of their decisions, and in maintaining their\nboundaries and guarding their frontiers, and equipping their armies,\nand receiving their alms, and putting down robberies and thieving and\nhighwaymen, and maintaining the Friday services and the Festivals, and\nremoving quarrels that fall between creatures, and receiving evidence\nbearing on legal claims, and marrying minors, male and female, and those\nwho have no guardians, and dividing booty. And it is necessary that the\nleader should be visible, not hidden and expected to appear (_muntazar_),\nand that he should be of the tribe of Quraysh and not of any other. And\nhe is not assigned exclusively to the sons of Hashim nor to the children\nof Ali. And it is not a condition that he should be protected by God from\nsin (_isma_), nor that he should be the most excellent of the people\nof his time, but it is a condition that he should have administrative\nability, should be a good governor and be able to carry out decrees and\nto guard the restrictive ordinances (_hadds_) of Islam and to protect the\nwronged against him who wrongs him. And he is not to be deposed from the\nleadership on account of immorality or tyranny.\n\nPrayer is allowable behind anyone whether pure or a sinner. And we give\nthe salutation of Peace to the pure and to the sinner.\n\nAnd we abstain from the mention of the Companions (_sahibs_) of the\nProphet except with good.\n\nAnd we bear witness that Paradise is for the ten to whom the\nProphet\u2014God bless him and give him Peace!\u2014gave good tidings of Paradise\n(_al-asharatu-l-mubashshara_).\n\nAnd we approve the wiping (_mash_) of the inner-shoes (_khuffs_) both at\nhome and when on a journey.\n\nAnd we do not regard _nabidh_ as forbidden.\n\nAnd the Saint does not reach the level of the Prophets. And the creature\ndoes not come to a point where commands and prohibitions and the details\nof the statutes in their outward sense (_zahir_) fall away from him; and\nthe turning aside from these to the views which the People of the Inner\nMeaning (_batin_) assert is a deviation (_ilhad_) through unbelief.\n\nAnd feeling safe from God is unbelief. And despairing of God is unbelief.\nAnd rejection of the statutes and contempt for the law is unbelief. And\nbelieving a diviner (_kahin_) in what he tells of the Unseen (_ghayb_) is\nunbelief. And what does not exist (_ma\u2018dum_) is known of God Most High\njust as what exists (_mawjud_) is known of Him and it [_i.e._, what does\nnot exist] is neither a thing (_shay_) nor an object of vision (_mar\u2019an_).\n\nAnd in prayer of the living for the dead, and in alms offered for them\nthere is an advantage to them. And God Most High answers prayers and\nsupplies needs.\n\nAnd what the Prophet has reported of the conditions of the last day\n(_as-sa\u2018a_), of the appearance of _ad-Dajjal_ and of the beast of the\nearth [cf. Revelations xiii, 11 ff.] and of _Yajuj_ and _Majuj_ and the\ndescent of Isa from heaven and the rising of the sun in the west, that is\nverity.\n\nAnd the Mujtahids sometimes err and sometimes hit the mark. And the\nApostles of mankind are more excellent than the Apostles of the angels;\nand the Apostles of the angels are more excellent than the generality\nof mankind; and the generality of mankind of the true believers is more\nexcellent than the generality of the angels.\n\n\nVI\n\nTHE CREED CALLED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMMONALTY IN THE SCIENCE\nOF SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY, BY MUHAMMAD AL-FUDALI [D. FIRST HALF OF THE\nTHIRTEENTH CENTURY OF THE HIJRA]\n\n[Translated from the Arabic text of Cairo, A.H. 1315, with the commentary\nof al-Bayjuri.]\n\nIn the name of God, the merciful Compassionator. Praise belongeth unto\nGod who alone bringeth into existence, and blessing and peace be upon\nour Lord Muhammad, his family and companions, possessors of beauty and\nguidance.\n\nTo proceed: The creature who stands in need of the mercy of his exalted\nLord, Muhammad ibn ash-Shafi\u2018i al-Fudali says: One of the brethren asked\nme that I should compose a tractate on the divine unity (_tawhid_), and\nI agreed to that, following the example of the most learned Shaykh,\nas-Sanusi, [d. 895,] in the establishing of proofs, except that I adduced\neach proof (_dalil_) in connection with the doctrine that was to be\nproved, and added to it an exposition on account of my knowledge of the\nlimitations of that student. So, in the ascription of praise to God Most\nHigh, it became a tractate, useful and excellent for the establishing of\nthat which is in it. And I called it, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PEOPLE IN\nTHAT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THEM OF THE SCIENCE OF SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY\n(_kalam_). And I pray God Most High that He will make it useful, for He\nis my sufficiency, and excellent is the Guardian.\n\nKnow that it is incumbent upon every Muslim that he should know fifty\narticles of belief (_aqidas_), and for each article that he should know\na proof, general (_ijmali_) or detailed (_tafsili_). Some say that it is\nrequired that he should know a detailed proof, but the common opinion is\nthat a general proof suffices for each article of the fifty. An example\nof a detailed proof is when someone says, \u201cWhat is the proof of the\nexistence (_wujud_) of God?\u201d that the answer should be, \u201cThese created\nthings.\u201d That the asker should then say, \u201cDo the created things prove the\nexistence of God on the side of their possibility or on the side of their\nexistence after non-existence (_adam_)?\u201d and that his question should\nbe answered. And if the further question is not answered, but the only\nanswer is, \u201cThese created things,\u201d and the answerer does not know whether\nit is on the side of their possibility or of their existence after\nnon-existence, then the proof is said to be general; but it is sufficient\naccording to the common position. And with regard to _taqlid_ (blind\nacceptance), which is that fifty articles are known but no proof of them\nis known, either general or detailed, the learned differ. Some say that\nit does not suffice, and that the _mukallad_ (blind accepter) is an\nunbeliever (_kafir_). Ibn al-Arabi [d. 543] held this and as-Sanusi, and\nthe latter gave in his commentary on his _kubra_ a lengthy refutation of\nthose who hold that _taqlid_ is sufficient. Yet there is a report that he\nretired from this position, and acknowledged the sufficiency of _taqlid_;\nbut I have never seen in his books anything but the opinion that it does\nnot suffice.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nKnow that an understanding of the fifty following articles must be based\nupon three things\u2014the necessary (_wajib_), the impossible (_mustahil_),\nand the possible (_ja\u2019iz_). The necessary is that the non-existence\nof which cannot be apprehended by the intellect (_aql_), that is, the\nintellect cannot affirm its non-existence, as boundary to a body\n(_jirm_), _i.e._, its taking up a certain measure of space (_faragh_). An\nexample of a body is a tree or a stone. Then, whenever a person says to\nyou, that a tree, for example, does not take up room (_mahall_) in the\nearth, your intellect cannot affirm that, for its taking up room is a\nnecessary thing, the absence of which your intellect cannot affirm. The\nimpossible is that the existence of which cannot be apprehended; that\nis, the intellect cannot affirm its existence. Then, whenever anyone\nsays that such a body is bare of motion and rest at the same time, your\nintellect cannot affirm that, because being bare of motion and rest\nat the same time is an impossibility, the occurrence and existence of\nwhich the intellect cannot affirm, and whenever it is said that weakness\n(_ajz_) is impossible in God, the meaning is that the occurrence or\nexistence of weakness in God is unthinkable. So, too, with the other\nimpossibilities. And the possible is that the existence of which at one\ntime, and the non-existence at another, the intellect can affirm, as the\nexistence of a child of Zayd\u2019s. When, then, someone says that Zayd has a\nchild, your intellect acknowledges the possibility of the truth of that;\nand whenever he says that Zayd has no child, your intellect acknowledges\nthe possibility of the truth of that. So the existence and the\nnon-existence of a child of Zayd is possible; the intellect can believe\nin its existence or in its non-existence. And whenever it is said that\nGod\u2019s sustaining Zayd with a _dinar_ is a possibility, the meaning is\nthat the intellect assents to the existence of that sustaining (_rizq_)\nat one time and to its non-existence at another.\n\nOn these three distinctions, then, is based the science of the articles\nof belief; and these three are necessary for every _mukallaf_ [one who\nhas a task imposed upon him; in this case of religious duty], male and\nfemale, for that upon which the necessary is based is necessary. The\nImam al-Haramayn (d. 478) even held that an understanding of these three\nconstituted reason itself and that he who did not know the meaning of\nnecessary, impossible and possible, was not a reasoning being. So,\nwhenever it is said here that Power is necessary (_wajib_) in God, the\nmeaning is that the intellect cannot affirm its non-existence, because\nthe necessary is that the non-existence of which the intellect cannot\naffirm, as has preceded. But necessary (_wajib_, incumbent) in the sense\nof that the not doing of which is punished, is an idea which does not\nenter into the science of the divine Unity. So, do not let the matter be\nconfused for you. It is true that if one says that belief in the Power\nof God is incumbent (_wajib_) on the _mukallaf_, the meaning is that\nhe is rewarded for that and punished for omitting that. Thus there is\na distinction between saying that belief in such and such is incumbent\nand that the knowledge, for example, is necessary. For when it is said\nthat knowledge is necessary in God, the meaning is that the intellect\ncannot affirm the non-existence of knowledge in God. But when it is said\nthat belief in that knowledge is incumbent, the meaning is that belief\nin it is rewarded and lack of belief punished. So, apply thyself to the\ndistinction between the two and be not of those who regard _taqlid_ in\nthe articles of Religion as right, that so your faith (_iman_) should\ndiffer from the truth and you should abide in the Fire, according to\nthose who hold that _taqlid_ does not suffice. As-Sanusi said, \u201cA person\nis not a Believer when he says, \u2018I hold by the Articles and will not\nabandon them though I be cut in pieces;\u2019 nay, he is not a Believer until\nhe knows each Article of the fifty, along with its proof.\u201d And this\nscience of theology must be studied first of all sciences, as may be\ngathered from the commentary [by at-Taftazani, d. 791] on as-Sanusi\u2019s\n_Articles_; for he made this science a foundation on which other things\nare built. So a judgment as to anyone\u2019s ceremonial ablution (_wudu_) or\nprayer is not valid unless the person in question knows these articles\nor, on the other hand, holds them without proof.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNow, let us state to you the fifty articles shortly, before stating them\nin detail. Know, then, that twenty qualities are necessary in God Most\nHigh, that twenty are impossible in Him and that one is possible. This\nmakes up forty-one. And in the case of the Apostles, four qualities are\nnecessary, four impossible and one possible. This makes up the fifty.\nAnd there shall come an accurate account of doctrines along with the\nstatement of them, if it be the will of God Most High.\n\nThe first of the qualities necessary in God is existence (_wujud_); and\nthere is a difference of opinion as to its meaning. All except the Imam\nal-Ash\u2018ari and his followers hold that existence is the state (_hal_)\nnecessary to the essence so long as the essence abides; and this state\nhas no cause (_illa_). And the meaning of it being a state is that it\ndoes not attain to the degree of an entity (_mawjud_) and does not\nfall to the degree of a non-entity (_ma\u2018dum_), so that it should be\nnon-existence pure, but is half way between an entity and a non-entity.\nSo the existence of Zayd, for example, is a state necessary to his\nessence; that is, it cannot be separated from his essence. And when it\nis said that it has no cause, the meaning is that it does not originate\nin anything, as opposed to Zayd\u2019s potentiality (_qadir_, powerful), for\nexample, which originates in his power (_qudra_). So Zayd\u2019s potentiality\nand his existence are two states which subsist in his essence,\nunperceived by any of the five senses; only, the first has a cause in\nwhich it originates, and it is power, and the second has no cause. This\nis the description of a personal state (_hal nafsi_) and every state\nsubsisting in an essence, without a cause, is a personal quality (_sifa\nnafsiya_). It is that without which the essence is unthinkable; that\nis, the essence cannot be apprehended by the intellect and comprehended\nexcept through its personal quality, like limitation for a body. For, if\nyou apprehend and comprehend a body, you have comprehended that it is\nlimited. So, according to this doctrine\u2014that existence is a state\u2014the\nessence of God is not His existence and the essences of the created\nthings are not their existences. But al-Ash\u2018ari and his followers hold\nthat existence is the self (_ayn_) of an entity, and according to their\nview the existence of God is the self of His essence and not an addition\nto it externally, and the existence of a created thing is the self of\nits essence. And, on this view, it is not clear how existence can be\nreckoned as a quality, because existence is the self of the essence, and\na quality, on the other hand, as we have seen already, is something else\nthan the essence. But if he makes existence a quality, then the thing is\nplain and the meaning that existence is necessary in God, according to\nthe first view, is that the personal quality is a state established in\nGod; and its meaning, on the second view, is that the essence of God is\nan entity with external reality, so that if the veil were removed from\nus we would see it. The essence of God, then, is a reality; only, its\nexistence is something else than it, on the one view, and is it, on the\nother.\n\nAnd the proof of the existence of God is the origin (_huduth_) of the\nworld; that is, its existence after non-existence. The world consists of\nbodies (_jirms_) like essences; and accidents (_arads_) like motion, and\nrest and colors. And the origin of the world is a proof of the existence\nof God only because it is not sound reasoning that it should originate\nthrough itself without someone bringing it into existence. Before it\nexisted, its existence equalled its non-existence; then, when it entered\nexistence and its non-existence ceased, we know that its existence\noverbalanced its non-existence. But this existence had previously\nequalled the non-existence; and it is not sound reasoning that it could\noverbalance the non-existence through itself; so that it is clear that\nthere must have been one who caused the overbalancing, other than itself,\nand it is He that brought it into existence; for it is impossible\nthat one of two equal things could overbalance the other without an\noverbalancer. For example, before Zayd exists it is possible that he may\ncome into existence in such and such a year and also that he may remain\nin non-existence. So, his existence is equal to his non-existence. So,\nthen, when he exists and his non-existence ceases, in the time in which\nhe exists, we know that his existence is by a bringer-into-existence and\nnot through himself. The proof, in short, is that you say:\u2014The world,\nconsisting of bodies and accidents, is a thing originated (_hadith_),\n_i.e._, an entity after non-existence. And every originated thing cannot\nhelp but have an originator (_muhdith_). Therefore, the world must have\nhad an originator.\n\nThis is what can be gained by an intellectual proof. But as for the\nOriginator being named by the Glorious and Lofty Expression [_i.e._,\n_Allah_, God] or the other Names (_asma_), knowledge of that is to be\ngained from the Prophets only. So note this point carefully and also the\nproof which has preceded, that the originating of the world is a proof of\nthe existence of Him Most High.\n\nBut as for the proof that the world has had an origin, know that the\nworld consists of bodies and accidents only, as has preceded. And the\naccidents, like motion and rest, are originated, because you observe\ntheir changing from existence to non-existence and from non-existence\nto existence. You see it is so in the motion of Zayd. His motion is\nlacking if he is at rest; and his rest is lacking if he is in motion.\nThen his rest, which comes after his motion, exists after that it has\nbeen lacking through motion; and his motion, which comes after his rest,\nexists after that it has been lacking through his rest. And existence\nafter non-existence means having an origin. And bodies are inseparable\nfrom attributes, because they are never free from either motion or\nrest. And whatever is inseparable from a thing having origin must have\norigin; _i.e._, must be an entity after non-existence. So, the bodies are\noriginated also, like the attributes. The proof, in short, is that you\nsay: Bodies are inseparable from attributes and these have an origin;\neverything that is inseparable from that which has an origin, itself has\nan origin; therefore, bodies have an origin. And the origin of the two\nthings\u2014bodies and attributes\u2014that is their existence after non-existence,\nis a proof of the existence of Him Most High, because everything having\nan origin must have an originator, and there is no originator of the\nworld save God Most High alone, who has no partner (_sharik_) as shall\nbe shown in the proof of His Unity. This, then, is the general proof, a\nknowledge of which is incumbent upon every _mukallaf_, male and female,\naccording to the opinion of Ibn al-Arabi and as-Sanusi, who hold those\nwho do not know it to be unbelievers. So, beware lest there be a\ncontradiction in your faith.\n\nThe second Quality necessary in God is Priority (_qidam_); its meaning is\nlack of beginning. And the meaning of God\u2019s being Prior (_qadim_) is that\nthere was no beginning to His existence, as opposed to Zayd, for example.\nZayd\u2019s existence had a beginning and it was the creation from the drop\nfrom which he was created. And there is a difference of opinion whether\nPrior and _Azali_ (eternal with respect to past time) mean the same or\nnot. Those who hold that they mean the same, define them as that which\nhas no beginning, and explain \u201cthat which\u201d by thing (_shay_). That is,\nprior and _azali_ are the thing which has no beginning; so the essence\nof God and His qualities are included. And those who hold that their\nmeaning is different define prior as the entity which had no beginning\nand _azali_ as that which had no beginning, covering thus both entity and\nnon-entity. So _azali_ is broader than prior, but they both come together\nin the essence of God and His existential qualities. The essence of God\nis _azali_ and His Power (_qudra_) is _azali_. But only _azali_ is said\nof the states (_hals_) like God\u2019s being powerful, in accordance with the\ndoctrine of the states. For God\u2019s being powerful is called _azali_, in\naccordance with that doctrine, and is not called prior, because in prior\nthere must be existence, and \u201cbeing powerful\u201d does not rise to the level\nof existence [to being an entity], but is only a state (_hal_).\n\nAnd the proof of God\u2019s Priority is that if He were not Prior He would\nbe a thing originated (_hadith_), because there is no medium between\nthe prior and the thing originated; to everything of which priority is\ndenied, origin belongs. But if God were a thing originated, He would need\nan originator, and His originator would need an originator, and so on.\nThen, if the originators did not coincide, there would be the Endless\nChain (_tasalsul_), that is a sequence of things, one after another to\ninfinity; and the Endless Chain is impossible. And if the series of\noriginators comes to an end by it being said that the originator of God\nwas originated by Him, then we have the Circle (_dawr_) and it is that\none thing depends on another thing which again depends on the first. For\nif God had an originator, He would depend on this originator; but the\nhypothesis is that God originated this originator and so the originator\ndepends on Him. But the Circle is impossible; that is, its existence is\nunthinkable. And that which leads to the Circle and to the Chain, both\nbeing impossible, involves the originating of God. So, the originating\nof God is impossible; for what involves an impossibility is impossible.\nThe proof, in short, is that you say, \u201cIf God were other than Prior,\nthrough being a thing originated, He would have need of an originator.\nThen the Circle or the Chain would be unavoidable; but they are both\nimpossible. So, the originating of God is impossible and His Priority is\nestablished; and that is what has been sought.\u201d This is the general proof\nof the Priority of God, and by it the _mukallaf_ escapes from the noose\nof _taqlid_, the remainer in which will abide eternally in the Fire,\naccording to the opinion of Ibn al-Arabi and as-Sanusi, as has preceded.\n\nThe third Quality necessary in God is Continuance (_baqa_). The meaning\nof it is lack of termination of the existence; and the meaning of God\u2019s\nbeing continuing is that there is no end to His existence. And the proof\nof God\u2019s continuance is that if it were possible that any lack could be\njoined to Him, then He would be a thing originated and would need an\noriginator and then the Circle or the Chain would necessarily follow.\nA definition of each one of these two has preceded in the proof of\nPriority and in the explanation that to a thing with which non-existence\nis possible, priority must be denied. For the existence of everyone to\nwhom non-existence is joined is possible, and everything whose existence\nis possible is a thing originated, and everything originated requires an\noriginator. But Priority has been established for God by the preceding\nproof, and non-existence is impossible for everything for which Priority\nhas been established. So the proof of Continuance in God is the same\nas the proof of Priority. That proof, in short, is that you say, \u201cIf\nContinuance is not necessary in Him, then Priority must be negated of\nHim. But Priority cannot be negated on account of the preceding proof.\u201d\nThis is the general proof of Continuance, a knowledge of which is\nincumbent on every individual. And similarly a knowledge of every article\nis necessary and of its general proof. Then, if some of the articles are\nknown with their proofs, and the rest are not known with their proofs,\nthat is not sufficient according to the opinion of those who do not\nregard _taqlid_ as sufficient.\n\nThe fourth Quality necessary in God is difference (_mukhalafa_) from\noriginated things. That is, from created things (_makhluqat_), for God\nis different from every created thing, men, Jinn, angels and the rest;\nand it is not good that He should be described with the descriptions\nwhich apply to created things, as walking, sitting, having members of\nthe body, for He is far removed (_munazzah_) from members of the body,\nas mouth, eye, ear and the like. Then, from everything that is in your\nmind of length and breadth and shortness and fatness, God is different;\nHe has removed Himself far from all descriptions which apply to the\ncreation. And the proof of the necessity of this difference in God is\nthat if any originated thing resembled Him, that is, if it were laid\ndown that God could be described with any of the things with which an\noriginated thing is described, then He would be an originated thing. And\nif God were an originated thing, then He would need an originator, and\nHis originator, another originator, and so we would come necessarily to\nthe circle or the chain, and both of these are impossible. This proof, in\nshort, is that you say, \u201cIf God resembles a created thing in anything,\nHe is an originated thing, because what is possible in one of two things\nresembling each other, is possible in the other. But that God should be\noriginated is impossible, for priority is necessary in Him. And when\nbeing originated is denied in Him, His difference from created things\nstands fast and there is absolutely no resemblance between Him and the\noriginated things.\u201d This is the general proof, the knowledge of which is\nnecessary, as has preceded.\n\nThe fifth Quality necessary in God is self-subsistence (_qiyam\nbin-nafs_). That is in the essence; and its meaning is that there\nis independence of a _locus_ (_mahall_, subject) and a specifier\n(_mukhassis_). The _locus_ is the essence and the specifier is the\nbringer-into-existence (_mujid_); then the meaning of God\u2019s subsisting in\nHimself is that He is independent of an essence in which He may subsist,\nor of a bringer-into-existence; for He is the bringer-into-existence of\nall things. The proof that He subsists in Himself is that you say, \u201cIf\nGod had need of a _locus_, that is an essence, in which He might subsist,\nas whiteness has need of an essence in which it may subsist, He would be\na quality, as whiteness, for example, is a quality. But it is not sound\nto say of Him that He is a quality, for He is described by qualities, and\na quality is not described by qualities, so He is not a quality. And if\nHe had need of a bringer-into-existence, He would be an originated thing,\nand His originator would be an originated thing also, and the Circle or\nthe Chain would necessarily follow. Then it stands fast that He is the\nabsolutely independent, that is, He is independent of everything. But the\ncreated thing that is independent is independent in a limited sense only;\nthat is, of one thing in place of another. And may God rule thy guidance.\u201d\n\nThe sixth Quality in God is Unity (_wahdaniya_). It is unity in essence\nand qualities and acts in the sense of absence of multiplicity. And the\nmeaning of God\u2019s being one in His essence is that His essence is not\ncompounded of parts, and this compounding is called internal quantity\n(_kamm muttasil_). And in the sense that there is not in existence\nor in possibility an essence which resembles the essence of God,\nthis impossibility of resemblance is called external quantity (_kamm\nmunfasil_). The unity, then, in the essence denies both quantities,\nexternal and internal. And the meaning of God\u2019s Oneness in qualities is\nthat He has not two qualities agreeing in name and meaning, like two\nPowers, or two Knowledges or two Wills\u2014for He has only one Power and\none Will and one Knowledge, in opposition to Abu Sahl, who held that\nHe had knowledges to the number of the things known. And this, I mean\nmultiplicity in qualities, is called internal quantity in qualities. Or\nthe sense is, that no one has a quality resembling a quality of God.\nAnd this, I mean anyone possessing a quality, etc., is called external\nquantity in qualities. Oneness, then, in qualities, negates quantity in\nthem, internal and external. And the meaning of God\u2019s Oneness in acts is\nthat no created thing possesses an act, for God is the creator of the\nacts of created things, prophets, angels and the rest. And as for what\nhappens when an individual dies or falls into pain on opposing himself\nto a saint (_wali_), that is by the creation of God, who creates it when\nthe saint is angry with the man who opposes him. Do not then explain\nOneness in acts by saying that no other than God has an act like God\u2019s\nact, for that involves that some other than God has an act, but that it\nis not like the act of God. That is false. God it is who is the creator\nof all acts. What comes from you by way of movement of the hand, when you\nstrike Zayd, for example, is by the creation of God. He has said (Qur.\n37, 99), \u201cGod created you, and what do ye do?\u201d And another than God being\npossessor of an act is called external quantity in acts.\n\nSo the unity necessary in God denies the five impossible quantities.\nInternal quantity in the essence makes the essence a compound of parts;\nexternal quantity means that there is an essence which resembles it.\nInternal quantity in the qualities is that God has two Powers, for\nexample; external quantity in them means that someone else has a quality\nwhich resembles one of His qualities. External quantity in acts means\nthat some other than God possesses an act. These five quantities deny the\nunity necessary in God. The meaning of quantity is number (_adad_).\n\nThe proof that Unity is necessary in God is the existence of the world.\nIf God had a partner (_sharik_) in divinity (_uluhiya_), the case could\nnot be in doubt. Either they would agree on the existence of the world,\nin that one of them would say, \u201cI will cause the world to exist,\u201d and\nthe other would say, \u201cI will cause it to exist along with thee, that we\nmay help one another in it.\u201d Or they would disagree, and one of them\nwould say, \u201cI will cause the world to exist by my power,\u201d and the other,\n\u201cI will that the existence be lacking.\u201d Then, if they agreed upon the\nexistence of the world in that both of them together caused it to exist,\nand it existed through their action, that would necessarily involve the\ncoincidence of two impressors upon one impression, which is impossible.\nAnd if they disagreed, it is plain that the will of one either would\nbe carried out or it would not be carried out. If the will of one,\nrather than the other, is carried out, then the other whose will is not\ncarried out must be weaker. But our hypothesis was that he was equal in\ndivinity to the one whose will was carried out. So whenever weakness is\nestablished in the case of the one, it is established in the case of the\nother, for he is like the other. And if the wills of both are not carried\nout, they are both weak. And upon every alternative, that they agree\nor differ, the existence of a single thing of the world is impossible;\nbecause if they agree on its existence, there necessarily follows the\ncoincidence of two impressors upon one impression if their will is\ncarried out, and that is impossible. So the carrying out of their will\nis not affected, and it is not possible that a single thing of the world\nshould come into existence then. And if they disagree and the will of one\nof them is carried out, the other is weak. But he is his like. So it is\nnot possible that there should come into existence a single thing of this\nworld, for he is weak. So _the_ God is not except one. And if they differ\nand their will is not carried out, they are weak and not able to cause\nthe existence of a thing of the world. But the world exists, by common\nwitness (_mushahada_). So it stands fast that _the_ God is one; and that\nwas what was sought. So the existence of the world is proof of the Unity\nof God and that He has no partner in any act, and no second cause in an\naction. He is the independent (_al-Ghani_), the absolutely independent.\n\nAnd from this proof it may be known that there is no impression, by fire\nor a knife or eating, upon anything, consisting of burning or cutting or\nsatiety, but God makes the being burnt in a thing which fire touches,\nwhen it touches it, and being cut in a thing with which a knife is\nbrought into contact, when it is brought into contact with it, and\nsatiety at eating and satisfaction at drinking. And he who holds that\nfire burns by its nature (_tab_), and water satisfies by its nature, and\nso on, is an unbeliever (_kafir_) by agreement (_ijma_). And he who holds\nthat it burns by a power (_quwa_) created in it by God, is ignorant and\ncorrupt, because he knows not the true nature (_haqiqa_) of Unity.\n\nThis is the general proof a knowledge of which is incumbent upon every\nindividual, male and female: and he who knows it not is an unbeliever,\naccording to as-Sanusi and al-Arabi. And may God rule thy guidance.\n\nAnd Priority and Continuance and Difference from originated things and\nSelf-Subsistence and Unity are negative qualities (_sifat salabiya_),\nthat is, their meaning is negation and exclusion, for each of them\nexcludes from God what does not beseem Him.\n\nThe seventh Quality necessary in God is Power (_qudra_). It is a quality\nwhich makes an impression on a thing that is capable of existence\nor non-existence. So it comes into connection (_ta\u2018allaqa_) with a\nnon-entity and makes it an entity, as it came into connection with you\nbefore you existed. And it comes into connection with an entity and\nreduces it to a non-entity, as it comes into contact with a body which\nGod desires should become a non-entity, that is, a not-thing (_la shay_).\nThis connection is called accomplished (_tanjizi_) in the sense that it\nis actual (_bil-fi\u2018l_), and this accomplished connection is a thing that\ntakes place (_hadith_). But this quality has also an eternal, potential\nconnection (_saluhi qadim_), and it is its potentiality from eternity of\nbringing into existence. It is potential in eternity to make Zayd tall or\nshort or broad, or give him knowledge; but its accomplished connection\nis conditioned by the state in which Zayd is. So it has two connections;\none eternal, potential, which has been described, and one accomplished,\nhappening. The last is its connection with a non-entity, when it makes\nit an entity; and with an entity, when it makes it a non-entity. And\nthis, I mean its connection with an entity or a non-entity, is a\nreal (_haqiqi_) connection. But it has also a figurative (_majazi_)\nconnection. That is, its connection with an entity after it has become\nso and before it has become a non-entity, as it is connected with us\nafter we have come to exist and before we have ceased to exist. It is\ncalled the connection of grasping (_ta\u2018alluqu-l-qabdati_) in the sense\nthat the entity is in the grasp (_qabda_) of the Power of God. If God\nwill, He makes it remain an entity; and if He will, He reduces it to\nnon-entity. And its connection with the non-entity before that God wills\nits existence is like its connection with Zayd at the time of the Flood\n(_tufan_), for example; it also is a connection of grasping in the sense\nthat the non-entity is in the grasp of the Power of God. If God wills,\nHe makes it remain in non-existence, and if He wills, He brings it out\ninto existence. And similar is its connection with us after our death and\nbefore the resurrection (_ba\u2018th_). It, too, is called a connection of\ngrasping in the sense of what has preceded. So the quality of Power has\nseven connections: (1) eternal, (2) connection of grasping (that is, its\nconnection with us before God wills our existence), (3) actual connection\n(that is, God\u2019s bringing the thing into existence), (4) connection of\ngrasping (that is, connection with a thing after existence and before God\nhas willed non-existence), (5) actual connection (that is, God\u2019s making a\nthing a non-entity), (6) connection of grasping after non-existence and\nbefore the resurrection, (7) actual connection (that is, God\u2019s making us\nexist on the day of resurrection).\n\nBut the real connections of these are two; God\u2019s bringing into existence\nand bringing into non-existence. This is a detailed statement; and a\ngeneral statement would be that God\u2019s Power has two connections\u2014as is\ncommonly accepted\u2014a potential and an accomplished; but the accomplished\nis limited to actual bringing into existence and non-existence. And\nthe connection of grasping is not to be described as accomplished, nor\nas eternal. And what has preceded about this quality connecting with\nexistence and non-existence is the opinion of the multitude on the\nsubject. But some hold that it does not connect with non-existence; that\nwhenever God desires the non-existence of an individual, He takes away\nfrom him the aids (_imdadat_) which are the cause of his continuance.\n\nThe eighth Quality necessary in God is Will (_irada_). It is the quality\nwhich specifies the possible with one of the things possible to it. For\nexample, tallness and shortness are possible to Zayd; then Will specifies\nhim with one,\u2014tallness, say. Power brings tallness out of non-existence\ninto existence. So Will specifies and Power brings out. And the\npossibilities (_mumkinat_) with which Power and Will connect are six: (1)\nexistence, (2) non-existence, (3) qualities, like tallness and shortness,\n(4) times, (5) places, (6) directions.\n\nAnd the possibilities are called \u201cthe mutual opposers\u201d (_mutaqabilat_),\nexistence opposes non-existence and tallness opposes shortness and\ndirection upward opposes direction downward, and one place, like Egypt,\nopposes another place, like Syria. And this, in short, means that it\nis possible in the case of Zayd, for example, that he should remain in\nnon-existence and also that he should enter existence at this time.\nThen, whenever he enters existence, Will has specified existence instead\nof non-existence, and Power has brought out existence. And it would\nhave been possible that he might have entered existence at the time of\nthe Flood (_tufan_) or at some other time; so that which specifies his\nexistence at this time instead of any other is Will. And it is possible\nthat he should be tall or short; then that which specifies his tallness\ninstead of shortness is Will. And it is possible that he should be in\nthe direction upward, then that which specifies him in the direction\ndownward is Will. And Power and Will are two qualities subsisting in\nGod\u2019s essence\u2014two entities; if the veil were removed from us we could\nsee them. They have connection with the possible only; but none with the\nimpossible, such as a partner for God. He is far removed from that! Nor\nwith the necessary, like the essence of God and His qualities. Ignorance\nis the saying of those who hold that God has power to take a son\n(_walad_); for Power has no connection with the impossible and taking a\nson is impossible. But it should not be said that because He has no power\nto take a son, He is therefore weak. We say that weakness would follow\nonly if the impossible were of that which is allotted to Power. But\nPower has not been connected with that, seeing that nothing is allotted\nto it except the possible. And Will has two connections, one eternally\npotential, and it is its potentiality to specify from all eternity. So,\nin the case of the tall or the short Zayd, it is possible that he might\nbe otherwise than what he is, so far as relationship to the potentiality\nof Will is concerned. For Will is potential that Zayd should be a Sultan\nor a scavenger, so far as the potential connection is concerned. And Will\nhas also an eternal accomplished connection, and it is the specifying\nby God of a thing with a quality which it possesses. So God specified\nZayd from all eternity by His Will with the knowledge that he possesses.\nAnd his being specified with knowledge, for example, is eternal and is\ncalled an eternal accomplished connection. And the potentiality of Will\nto specify him with knowledge, etc., in relationship to the essence of\nWill, cutting off all consideration of actual specifying, is called an\neternal potential connection. And some say that Will has also a temporal,\naccomplished connection. It is, for example, the specifying of Zayd with\ntallness, when he is actually brought into existence. According to this\nview, Will has three connections; but the truth is that this third is\nnot a connection but is the making manifest of the eternal, accomplished\nconnection.\n\nAnd the connection of Power and Will is common to every possible thing to\nthe extent that the affections of the mind (_khatarat_) which arise in\nthe mind of an individual are specified by the Will of God and created\nby His Power as the Shaykh al-Malawi [Ahmad al-Malawi, d. 1181] has said\nin some of his books. But know that the attributing of specifying to\nWill and of bringing out into existence to Power is only metaphorical;\nfor the true specifier is God by His Will and the true producer and\nbringer-into-existence is God by His Power. Then, in the case of the\nsaying of the common people that Power does such and such to so and so,\nif it is meant that the doing belongs to Power actually, or to it and to\nthe essence of God, that is unbelief (_kufr_). Rather, the doing belongs\nto the essence of God by His Power.\n\nThe ninth Quality necessary in God is Knowledge (_ilm_). It is an\neternal quality subsisting in the essence of God, an entity by which\nwhat is known is revealed with a revealing of the nature of complete\ncomprehension (_ihata_), without any concealment having preceded. It\nis connected with the necessary, the possible and the impossible. He\nknows His own essence and qualities by His Knowledge. And He knows\nimpossibilities in the sense that He knows that a partner is impossible\nto Him and that, if one existed, corruption would accrue from it. And\nKnowledge has an eternal, accomplished connection only. For God knows\nthese things that have been mentioned from all eternity with a complete\nknowledge that is not by way of opinion (_zann_) or doubt (_shakk_);\nbecause opinion and doubt are impossibilities in God. And the meaning of\nthe saying, \u201cwithout any concealment having preceded,\u201d is that He knows\nthings eternally; He is not first ignorant of them and then knowing them.\nBut an originated being (_hadith_) is ignorant of a thing and then knows\nit. And God\u2019s Knowledge has no potential connection in the sense that\nthere is a potentiality that such and such should be revealed by it,\nbecause that involves that the thing in question has not been actually\nrevealed, and lack of actual revealing of it is ignorance.\n\nThe tenth Quality necessary in God is Life (_hayah_). It is a quality\nwhich in him in whom it subsists validates perception, as knowledge and\nhearing and seeing: that is, it is valid that he should be described\ntherewith. But being characterized by actual perception does not\nnecessarily follow from possessing the quality, Life. And it is not\nconnected with anything, entity or non-entity.\n\nThe proof that Knowledge and Power and Will and Life are necessary is the\nexistence of the created things. Because, if any one of these four is\ndenied, why does the created world exist? So, since the created things\nexist, we know that God is to be described by these qualities. And the\nreason of the existence of the created things depending on these four\nis this. He who makes a thing does not make it except when he knows\nthe thing. Then he wills the thing which he would make and, after his\nwilling, he busies himself with making it by his power. Further, it is\nknown that the maker cannot but be living. And Knowledge and Will and\nPower are called qualities of impression (_sifat at-ta\u2019thir_), for making\nan impression depends upon them. Because he who wills a thing must have\nknowledge of it before he aims at it; then, after he has aimed at it, he\nbusies himself with doing it. For example, when there is something in\nyour house and you wish to take it, your knowledge precedes your wish\nto take it, and after your wish to take it, you take it actually. The\nconnection of these qualities, then, is in a certain order, in the case\nof an originated being; first comes the knowledge of the thing, then the\naiming at it, then the doing. But in the case of God, on the other hand,\nthere is no sequence in His qualities, except in our comprehension; in\nthat, Knowledge comes first, then Will, then Power. But as for the making\nof an impression externally, there is no sequence in the qualities of\nGod. It is not said that Knowledge comes into actual connection, then\nWill, then Power; because all that belongs to originated beings. Order is\nonly according to our comprehensions.\n\nThe eleventh and twelfth Qualities of God are Hearing (_sam_) and Seeing\n(_basar_). These are two qualities subsisting in the essence of God and\nconnected with every entity; that is, by them is revealed every entity,\nnecessary or possible. And Hearing and Seeing are connected with the\nessence of God and His qualities; that is, His essence and qualities are\nrevealed to Him by His Seeing and Hearing, besides the revealing of His\nKnowledge. And God hears the essences of Zayd and Amr and a wall and He\nsees them. And He hears the sound of the possessor of a sound and He sees\nit, that is the sound. Then, if you say, \u201cHearing a sound is plain,\nbut hearing the essence of Zayd and the essence of a wall is not plain;\nso, too, the connection of seeing with sounds, for sounds are heard\nonly,\u201d we reply, \u201cBelief in this is incumbent upon us because these two\nqualities are connected with every entity; but the _how_ (_kayfiya_) of\nthe connection is unknown to us. God hears the essence of Zayd, but we do\nnot know how hearing is connected with that essence. And it is not meant\nthat He hears the walking of the essence of Zayd, for the hearing of his\nwalking enters into the hearing of all the sounds (_sawt_), but what is\nmeant is that He hears the essence of Zayd and his body (_juththa_),\nbesides hearing his walking. But we do not know how the hearing of God\nis connected with the person (_nafs_) of the essence. This is what is\nbinding upon every individual, male and female\u2014Our trust is in God!\u201d\n\nThe proof of Hearing and Seeing is the saying of God that He is a\nHearer and Seer. And know that the connection of Hearing and Seeing in\nrelation to originated things is an eternal, potential connection before\nthe existence of these, and after their existence it is a temporal,\naccomplished connection. That is, after their existence, they are\nrevealed to God by His Hearing and Seeing besides the revealing of His\nKnowledge. So they have two connections. And in relation to God and His\nqualities, the connection is eternal, accomplished, in the sense that His\nessence and His qualities are revealed to Him from all eternity through\nHis Hearing and Seeing. So, God hears His essence and all His existential\nqualities [all except the states and the negative qualities], Power,\nHearing, and all the rest; but we do not know how the connection is, and\nHe sees His essence and His qualities of existence, Power, Seeing and\nthe rest, but again we do not know how the connection is. The preceding\nstatement that Hearing and Seeing are connected with every entity is the\nopinion of as-Sanusi and those who follow him; it is the preponderating\none. But it is said, also, that Hearing is only connected with sounds\nand Seeing with objects of vision. And God\u2019s Hearing is not with ear or\near-hole, and His Seeing is not with eyeball or eyelid.\n\nThe thirteenth Quality of God is Speech (_kalam_). It is an eternal\nquality, subsisting in God\u2019s essence, not a word or sound, and far\nremoved from order of preceding and following, from inflection and\nstructure, opposed to the speech of originated beings. And by the\nSpeech that is necessary to God is not meant the Glorious Expressions\n(_lafz_) revealed to the Prophet, because these are originated and\nthe quality that subsists in the essence of God is eternal. And these\nembrace preceding and following, inflection and chapters and verses;\nbut the eternal quality is bare of all these things. It has no verses\nor chapters or inflections, because such belong to the speech which\nembraces letters and sounds, and the eternal quality is far removed from\nletters and sounds, as has preceded. And those Glorious Expressions are\nnot a guide to the eternal quality in the sense that the eternal quality\ncan be understood from them. What is understood from these expressions\nequals what would be understood from the eternal quality if the veil were\nremoved from us and we could hear it. In short, these expressions are a\nguide to its meaning, and this meaning equals what would be understood\nfrom the eternal Speech which subsists in the essence of God. So meditate\nthis distinction, for many have erred in it. And both the Glorious\nExpressions and the eternal quality are called Qur\u2019an and the Word\n(_kalam_) of God. But the Glorious Expressions are created and written\non the Preserved Tablet (_al-lawh-al-mahfuz_); Jibril brought them down\n[_i.e._, revealed them] to the Prophet after that they had been brought\ndown in the Night of Decree (_laylatu-l-qadr_; Qur. 97, 1) to the Mighty\nHouse (_baytu-l-izza_), a place in the Heaven nearest to the earth;\nit was written in books (_sahifas_) and placed in the Mighty House.\nIt is said that it was brought down to the Mighty House all at once\nand then brought down to the Prophet in twenty years, and some say, in\ntwenty-five. And it is also said that it was brought down to the Mighty\nHouse only to the amount that was to be revealed each year and not all at\nonce.\n\nAnd that which was brought down to the Prophet was expression and\nmeaning. And it is said also that only the meaning was brought down to\nhim. There is a conflict of opinion on this; some say that the Prophet\nclothed the meaning with expressions of his own, and others, that he\nwho so clothed the meaning, was Jibril. But the truth is that it was\nsent down in expressions and meaning. In short, the quality subsisting\nin the essence of God is not a letter nor a sound. And the Mu\u2018tazilites\ncalled in doubt the existence of a kind of Speech without letters. But\nthe People of the Sunna answered that because thoughts in the mind\n(_hadith an-nafs_), a kind of speech with which an individual speaks\nto himself, are without letter or sound, there exists a kind of speech\nwithout letters or words. By this the People of the Sunna do not wish\nto institute a comparison between the Speech of God and thoughts in the\nmind; for the Speech of God is eternal and thoughts in the mind are\noriginated. They wished to disprove the contention of the Mu\u2018tazilites\nwhen they urged that speech cannot exist without letter or sound.\n\nThe proof of the necessity of Speech in God is His saying (Qur. 4, 162);\n\u201cand God spoke to Moses.\u201d So He has established Speech for Himself. And\nSpeech connects with that with which Knowledge connects, of necessary and\npossible and impossible. But the connection of Knowledge with these is a\nconnection of revealing, in the sense that they are revealed to God by\nHis Knowledge; and the connection of Speech with them is a connection of\nproof, in the sense that if the veil were taken away from us and we heard\nthe eternal Speech we would understand these things from it.\n\nThe fourteenth Quality subsisting in God is Being Powerful (_kawn\nqadir_). It is a Quality subsisting in His essence, not an entity\nand not a non-entity. It is not Power, but between it and Power is a\nreciprocal inseparability. When Power exists in an essence, the quality\ncalled \u201cBeing Powerful\u201d exists in that essence, equally whether that\nessence is eternal or originated. So, God creates in the essence of\nZayd Power actual, and He creates also in it the quality called Zayd\u2019s\nBeing Powerful. This quality is called a state (_hal_) and Power is a\ncause (_illa_) in it in the case of created things. But in the case of\nGod, Power is not said to be a cause in His Being Powerful; it is only\nsaid that between Power and God\u2019s Being Powerful there is a reciprocal\ninseparability. The Mu\u2018tazilites hold also the reciprocal inseparability\nbetween the Power of an originated being and its Being Powerful. But they\ndo not say that the second quality is by the creation of God, only that\nwhen God creates Power in an originated being, there proceeds from the\nPower a quality called Being Powerful, without creation.\n\nThe Fifteenth Quality necessary in God is Being a Willer (_kawn murid_).\nIt is a quality subsisting in His essence, not an entity and not a\nnon-entity. It is called a state (_hal_) and it is not Will, equally\nwhether the essence is eternal or created. So, God creates in the essence\nof Zayd Will actual, and He creates in it the quality called Zayd\u2019s Being\na Willer. And what is said above, about the disagreement between the\nMu\u2018tazilites and the People of the Sunna on Being Powerful, applies also\nto Being a Willer.\n\n[The same thing applies exactly to Qualities Sixteen, Seventeen,\nEighteen, Nineteen and Twenty,\u2014Being a Knower (_alim_), a Living One\n(_hayy_), a Hearer (_sami_), a Seer (_basir_), a Speaker (_mutakallim_).]\n\nNOTICE. The Qualities, Power, Will, Knowledge, Life, Hearing, Seeing,\nSpeech, which have preceded, are called, \u201cQualities consisting of\nideas\u201d (_sifat al-ma\u2018ani_, thought-qualities as opposed to active\nqualities; see below); on account of the connection of the general\nwith the particular (_idafatu-l-amm lil-khass_), or the explanatory\nconnection (_al-idafatu-l-bayaniya_). And those which follow these,\nGod\u2019s Being Powerful, etc., are called \u201cQualities _derived_ from ideas\u201d\n(_sifat ma\u2018nawiya_), by way of derivation (_nisba_) from the \u201cQualities\nconsisting of ideas,\u201d because they are inseparable from them in a thing\neternal and proceed from them in a thing originated, according to what\nhas preceded.\n\nAnd the Mataridites added to the \u201cQualities consisting of Ideas,\u201d an\nEighth Quality and called it, Making to Be (_takwin_). It is a quality\nand an entity like the rest of the \u201cQualities consisting of Ideas\u201d; if\nthe veil were removed from us we would see it, just as we would see\nthe other \u201cQualities consisting of Ideas\u201d if the veil were removed\nfrom us. But the Ash\u2018arites opposed them and urged that there was no\nadvantage in having a quality, Making to Be, besides Power, because the\nMataridites said that God brought into existence and out of existence by\nthe quality of Making to Be. Then these replied that Power prepared the\npossibility for existence, that is, made it ready to receive existence\nafter it had not been ready; that thereafter Making to Be brought it\ninto existence actually. The Ash\u2018arites replied that the possible was\nready for existence without anything further. And on account of their\nhaving added this quality, they said that the active qualities (_sifat\nal-af\u2018al_), such as Creating (_khalq_), Bringing to Life (_ihya_),\nSustaining (_razq_), Bringing to Death (_imata_), were eternal, because\nthese expressions are names of the quality Making to Be, which is a\nquality and an entity, according to them. But it is eternal; therefore\nthese active qualities are eternal. But according to the Ash\u2018arites,\nthe active qualities are originated, because they are only names of the\nconnections of Power. So Bringing to Life is a name for the connection\nof Power with Life, and Sustaining is a name for the connection of\nPower with the creature to be sustained, and Creating is a name for its\nconnection with the thing to be created, and Bringing to Death, a name\nfor its connection with death. And the connections of Power, according to\nthem, are originated.\n\nAnd among the Fifty Articles are twenty which express the opposites of\nthe twenty above. They are Non-existence, the opposite to Existence.\n\nThe Second, Origin (_huduth_), is the opposite of Priority.\n\nThe Third, Transitoriness (_fana_), is the opposite of Continuance.\n\nThe Fourth, Resemblance (_mumathala_), is the opposite of Difference. It\nis impossible that God should resemble originated things in any of those\nthings with which they are described; time has no effect upon Him and He\nhas not a place or movement or rest; and He is not described with colors\nor with a direction; it is not said with regard to Him that He is above\nsuch a body, or on the right of such a body. And He has no direction\nfrom Him. So it is not said, \u201cI am under God.\u201d And the saying of the\ncommonalty, \u201cI am under our Lord,\u201d and \u201cMy Lord is over me,\u201d is to be\ndisapproved. Unbelief is to be feared on the part of him who holds the\nuse of it to be an article of his faith.\n\nThe Fifth is having need of a _locus_ (_ihtiyaj ila mahall_), that\nis, an essence in which He may subsist, or a Specifier, that is a\nbringer-into-existence. This is the opposite of Self-subsistence.\n\nThe Sixth is Multiplicity (_ta\u2018addud_), in the sense of combination in\nthe essence or the qualities, or the existence of a being similar in\nessence or qualities or acts. This is the opposite of Unity.\n\nThe Seventh is Weakness (_ajz_) and it is the opposite of Power. So,\nbeing unequal to any possibility is impossible in God.\n\nThe Eighth is Unwillingness (_karaha_, lit. dislike). It is the opposite\nof Will, and it is impossible in God that He should bring into existence\nanything of the world, along with Unwillingness toward it, that is, lack\nof Will. Entities are possibilities which God brought into existence by\nHis Will and Choice (_ikhtiyar_). And it is derived from the necessity\nof Will in God, that the existence of created things is not through\ncausation (_ta\u2018lil_), or by way of nature (_tab_). And the difference\nbetween the two is that the entity which exists through causation is\nwhatever exists whenever its cause exists, without dependence on another\nthing. The movement of the finger is the cause of the movement of the\nring; when the one exists, the second exists, without dependence on\nanything else. And the entity which exists, by way of nature, depends\nupon a condition and upon the nullifying of a hindrance. So, fire does\nnot burn except on the condition of contact with wood and the nullifying\nof moistness which is the hindrance of its burning. For fire burns by its\nnature according to those who hold the doctrine of nature\u2014Whom may God\ncurse!\u2014But the truth is, that God creates the being burned in the wood\nwhen it is in contact with the fire, just as He creates the movement of\nthe ring when movement of the finger exists. And there is no such thing\nas existence through causation or nature. So it is an impossibility in\nGod that there should be a cause in the world which proceeds from Him\nwithout His choice, or that there should be a course of nature and that\nthe world should exist thereby.\n\nThe Ninth is Ignorance (_jahl_). Ignorance of any possible thing is\nimpossible in God, equally whether it is simple, that is, lack of\nknowledge of a thing; or compound, that is, perception of a thing as\ndifferent from what it really is. And Inattention (_ghafala_) and Neglect\n(_dhuhul_) are impossible in God. This is the opposite of Knowledge.\n\nThe Tenth is Death (_mawt_). It is the opposite of Life.\n\nThe Eleventh is Deafness (_samam_). It is the opposite of Hearing.\n\nThe Twelfth is Blindness (_ama_). It is the opposite of Seeing.\n\nThe Thirteenth is Dumbness (_kharas_). In it is the idea of Silence\n(_bakam_) and it is the opposite of Speech.\n\nThe Fourteenth is God\u2019s Being Weak (_kawn ajiz_). It is the opposite of\nHis Being Powerful.\n\nThe Fifteenth is His Being an Unwilling One (_kawn karih_). It is the\nopposite of His Being a Willer.\n\nThe Sixteenth is His Being an Ignorant One (_kawn jahil_). It is the\nopposite of His Being a Knower.\n\nThe Seventeenth is His Being a Dead One (_kawn mayyit_). It is the\nopposite of His Being a Living One.\n\nThe Eighteenth is His Being Deaf (_asamm_). It is the opposite of His\nBeing a Hearer.\n\nThe Nineteenth is His Being Blind (_a\u2018ma_). It is the opposite of His\nBeing a Seer.\n\nThe Twentieth is His Being Silent (_abkam_). In it is the idea of\nDumbness (_kharas_) and it is the opposite of His Being a Speaker.\n\nAll these twenty are impossible in God. And know that the proof of each\none of the twenty qualities necessary in God establishes the existence\nof that quality in Him and denies to Him its opposite. And the proofs of\nthe seven thought-qualities are proofs of the seven derived from these.\nThus, there are Forty Articles; twenty of them are necessary in God;\ntwenty are denied in Him; and there are twenty general proofs, each proof\nestablishing a quality and annulling its opposite.\n\nNOTICE. Some say that things are four, entities, non-entities, states\nand relations (_i\u2018tibarat_). The entities are like the essence of Zayd\nwhich we see; the non-entities are like your child before it is created;\nthe states are like Being Powerful; and so, too, the relations, like the\nestablishing of standing in Zayd. This\u2014I mean that things are four\u2014is the\nview which as-Sanusi follows in his _Sughra_, for he asserts in it the\nexistence of states and makes the necessary qualities to be twenty. But\nelsewhere, he follows the opinion which denies states, and that is the\nright view.\n\nAccording to that view, the Qualities are thirteen in number, because\nthe seven derived qualities\u2014God\u2019s Being Powerful, etc., drop out.\nGod has no quality called Being Powerful, because the right view is\ndenial that states are things. According to this, then, things are\nthree:\u2014entities, non-entities and relations. Then when the seven derived\nqualities drop out from the twenty necessary qualities, seven drop also\nfrom the opposites, and there is no quality called, Being Weak, etc.,\nand there is no need to number these among the impossibilities. So, the\nimpossibilities are thirteen also; at least, if existence is reckoned as\na quality. That it should be is the opinion of all except al-Ash\u2018ari.\nBut the opinion of al-Ash\u2018ari was that Existence is the self (_ayn_) of\nan entity. So, the existence of God is the self of His essence and not\na quality. The necessary qualities, on that view, are twelve. Priority\nand Continuance and Difference and Self-subsistence\u2014expressed also as\nAbsolute Independence\u2014and Unity and Power and Will and Knowledge and Life\nand Hearing and Seeing and Speech; and the derived qualities drop out,\nbecause their existence is based upon the view that there are things\ncalled states; but the right view is the opposite.\n\nAnd if you wish to instruct the commonalty in the qualities of God, then\nstate them as names (_asma_) derived from the qualities just mentioned.\nSo it is said that God is an Entity. Prior, Different from originated\nthings, Independent of everything, One, Powerful, a Willer, a Knower,\nLiving, a Hearer, a Seer, a Speaker. And they should know their opposites.\n\nAnd know that some of the Shaykhs distinguish between states and\nrelationships and say of both that they are not entities and also not\nnon-entities. But each has a reality in itself, except that a state has\na connection with and a subsistence in an essence, and a relation has no\nconnection with an essence. And it is said that a relation has a reality\noutside of the mind. But to this it is opposed that a relation is a\nquality, and if it has no connection with an essence and has a reality\noutside of the mind, where is the thing qualified by it? A quality does\nnot subsist in itself, but must needs have a thing which it qualifies.\nSo the truth is that relations have no reality except in the mind. And\nthey are of two kinds; the invented relation (_i\u2018tibara ikhtira\u2018i_), it\nis that which has no ground in existence, as your making a generous man\nniggardly; and second, the apprehended relation (_intiza\u2018i_, claiming),\nit is that which has ground outside of your mind, as asserting the\nsubsistence of Zayd, for that may be claimed from your saying, \u201cZayd\nsubsists\u201d; so the describing of Zayd as subsisting is existent outside of\nyour mind.\n\nThe forty-first Article is Possibility in the case of God. It is\nincumbent upon every _mukallaf_ that he should believe that it is\npossible for God to create good and evil, to create Islam in Zayd and\nunbelief in Amr, knowledge in one of them and ignorance in the other.\nAnd another of the things, belief in which is incumbent upon every\n_mukallaf_, is that the good and the bad of things is by Destiny (_qada_)\nand Decree (_qadar_). And there is a difference of opinion as to the\nmeaning of destiny and decree. It is said that destiny is the will of God\nand the eternal (_azali_) connection of that will; and decree is God\u2019s\nbringing into existence the thing in agreement with the will. So the Will\nof God which is connected eternally with your becoming a learned man or\na Sultan is destiny; and the bringing knowledge into existence in you,\nafter your existence, or the Sultanship, in agreement with the Will, is\ndecree. And it is said that destiny is God\u2019s eternal knowledge and its\nconnection with the thing known; and decree is God\u2019s bringing things into\nexistence in agreement with His knowledge. So, God\u2019s knowing that which\nis connected eternally with a person\u2019s becoming a learned man after he\nenters existence is destiny, and the bringing knowledge into existence\nin that man after he enters existence is decree. And according to each\nof these two views, destiny is prior (_qadim_), because it is one of the\nqualities of God, whether Will or Knowledge; and decree is originated,\nbecause it is bringing into existence, and bringing into existence is one\nof the connections of Power, and the connections of Power are originated.\n\nAnd the proof that possible things are possible in the case of God is\nthat there is general agreement on their possibility. If the doing of any\npossible thing were incumbent upon God, the possible would be turned into\na necessary thing. And if the doing of a possible thing were hindered\nfrom Him, the possible would be turned into an impossible. But the\nturning of the possible into a necessary or an impossible is false. By\nthis, you may know that there is nothing incumbent upon God, against the\ndoctrine of the Mu\u2018tazilites, who say that it is incumbent upon God to do\nthat which is best (_salah_) for the creature. So, it would be incumbent\nupon Him that He should sustain the creature, but this is falsehood\nagainst Him and a lie from which He is far removed. He creates faith in\nZayd, for example, and gives him knowledge out of His free grace, without\nthere being any necessity upon Him. And one of the arguments which may\nbe brought against the Mu\u2018tazilites is that afflictions come upon little\nchildren, such as ailments and diseases. And in this there is not that\nwhich is best for them. So, if doing that which is best is incumbent upon\nHim, why do afflictions descend upon little children? For they say that\nGod could not abandon that which is incumbent upon Him, for abandoning\nit would be defect, and God is far removed from defect, by Agreement.\nAnd God\u2019s rewarding the obedient is a grace from Him, and His punishing\nthe rebellious is justice from Him. For obedience does not advantage\nHim, nor rebellion injure Him; He is the Advantager and the Injurer. And\nthese acts of obedience or rebellion are only signs of God\u2019s rewarding or\npunishing those described by them. Then him whom He wills to draw near to\nHimself, He helps to obedience: and in him whose abandoning and rejection\nHe wills, He creates rebellion. And all acts of good and bad are by the\ncreation of God, for He creates the creature and that which the creature\ndoes, as He has said (Qur. 37, 94), \u201cand God hath created you and that\nwhich ye do.\u201d\n\nAnd the belief is also incumbent that God may be seen in the Other World\nby believers, for He has joined the seeing (_ru\u2019ya_) of Him with the\nstanding fast of the mountain in His saying (Qur. 7, 139), \u201cAnd if it\nstandeth fast in its place, thou wilt see Me.\u201d And the standing fast\nof the mountain was possible: then, that which is connected with it of\nseeing must also have been possible; because what is connected with the\npossible is possible. But our seeing God must be without inquiring how\n(_bila kayfa_); it is not like our seeing one another. God is not seen in\na direction, nor in a color, nor in a body; He is far removed from that.\nAnd the Mu\u2018tazilites\u2014may God make them vile!\u2014deny the seeing of God. That\nis one of their perverse and false articles of belief. And another of\ntheir corrupt articles is their saying that the creature creates his own\nactions. For this, they are called Qadarites, because they say that the\nactions of the creature are by his own _qudra_ (power), just as the sect\nwhich holds that the creature is forced to the action he does, is called\nJabrite, derived from their holding a being forced (_jabr_) on the part\nof the creature, and a being compelled. It, too, is a perverse article.\nAnd the truth is that the creature does not create his own actions and\nis not forced, but that God creates the actions which issue from the\ncreature, along with the creature\u2019s having a free choice (_ikhtiyar_)\nin them. As-Sa\u2018d [Sa\u2018d ad-Din at-Taftazani, see above] said, in his\ncommentary on the _Articles_, \u201cIt is not possible to render this free\nchoice by any expression, but the creature finds a difference between the\nmovement of his hand when he moves it himself and when the wind moves it\nagainst his will.\u201d\n\nAnd to that which is possible in God belongs also the sending of a number\nof Apostles (_rasuls_). And God\u2019s sending them is by His grace, and by\nway of necessity, as has preceded.\n\nAnd it is necessary to confess that the most excellent of created beings,\nabsolutely, is our Prophet [Muhammad], and there follow him in excellency\nthe rest of the Endowed with Earnestness and Patience (_ulu-l-azm_; see\nQur. 46, 34); they are our Lord Ibrahim, our Lord Musa, our Lord Isa, and\nour Lord Nuh; and this is their order in excellency. And that they are\nfive along with our Prophet, and four after him is the correct view. And\nit is said, too, that the Endowed with Earnestness and Patience are more\nnumerous. And there follow them in excellency the rest of the Apostles.\nThen, the rest of the Prophets (_nabis_), then the Angels.\n\nAnd it is necessary to confess that God has aided them with miracles\n(_mu\u2018jizat_) and that He has distinguished our Prophet in that he is the\nseal of the Apostles, and that his law (_shar_) will not be abrogated\ntill time is fulfilled. And Isa, after his descent, will judge according\nto the law of our Prophet. It is said that he will take it from the\nQur\u2019an and the Sunna. It is said also that he will go to the Glorious\nTomb [of Muhammad] and learn from him. And know that he will abrogate one\npart of the law of our Prophet with a later part, just as the waiting\nperiod of a woman after the death of her husband was changed from a year\nto four months and ten days. And in this there is no defect.\n\nAnd it is necessary also that every _mukallaf_, male and female, should\nknow in detail the Apostles who are mentioned in the Qur\u2019an, and should\nbelieve in them in detail. As for the other Prophets, belief is necessary\nin them as a whole. As-Sa\u2018d handed down an authority in his commentary on\nthe _Maqasid_ that belief in all the Prophets as a whole suffices, but he\nwas not followed.\n\nAnd someone put them into verse as follows:\n\n \u201cThere is imposed upon every _mukallaf_ a knowledge\n Of Prophets in detail, who have been named\n In that document of ours [_i.e._, the Qur\u2019an]. Of them are eight\n After ten [_i.e._, eighteen]. And there remain seven who are\n Idris, Hud, Shu\u2018ayb, Salih, and similarly,\n Dhu-l-Kifl, Adam, with the Chosen One [Muhammad] they close.\u201d\n\nAnd it is necessary to confess that the Companions (_sahibs_) of the\nProphet are the most excellent of the generations. Then their followers\n(_tabi\u2018s_); then the followers of their followers. And the most excellent\nof the Companions is Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali\u2014in\nthis order. But al-Alqami said that our Lady Fatima and her brother,\nour Lord Ibrahim, were absolutely more excellent than the Companions,\nincluding the Four [Khalifas]. And our Lord Malik [ibn Anas] was wont to\nsay, \u201cThere is none more excellent than the children of the Prophet.\u201d\nThis is that the confession of which is incumbent; and we will meet God\nconfessing it, if it is His Will.\n\nAnd of that the confession of which is also necessary, is that the\nProphet was born in Mecca and died in al-Madina. It is incumbent on\nfathers that they teach that to their children. Al-Ajhuri said, \u201cIt is\nincumbent on the individual that he know the genealogy of the Prophet on\nhis father\u2019s side and on his mother\u2019s.\u201d A statement of it will come in\nour Conclusion, if God will. The learned have said, \u201cEvery individual\nought to know the number of the children of the Prophet and the order in\nwhich they were born, for an individual ought to know his Lords, and\nthey are the Lords of the People.\u201d But they do not explain, in what I\nhave seen, whether that is required (_mawjub_) or desired (_mandub_);\nthe analogy (_qiyas_) of things similar to it would say it was required.\nHis children were seven, three male and four female, according to the\nright view. Their order of birth was: al-Qasim, he was the first of his\nchildren, then Zaynab, then Ruqayya, then Fatima, then Umm Kulthum, then\nAbd Allah, he had the to-names (_laqab_) at-Tayyib and at-Tahir, which\nare to-names of Abd Allah, not names of two other different persons.\nThese were all children of our Lady Khadija. And the seventh was our Lord\nIbrahim, born of Mariya, the Copt. So it stands. Let us now return to the\nconclusion of the Articles.\n\nThe Forty-second is the Veracity (_sidq_) of the Apostles in all their\nsayings.\n\nThe Forty-third is their trustworthiness (_amana_), that is, their being\npreserved (_isma_) from falling into things forbidden (_muharram_) or\ndisliked (_makruh_).\n\nThe Forty-fourth is their Conveying (_tabligh_) to the creatures that\nwhich they were commanded to convey. The Forty-fifth is intelligence\n(_fatana_). These four things are necessary in the Apostles in the\nsense that the lack of them is unthinkable. And Faith depends on the\nknowledge of these, according to the controversy between as-Sanusi and\nhis opponents.\n\nThe opposites of these four are impossible in the Apostles, that is,\nLying (_kidhb_), Unfaithfulness (_khiyana_) in a thing forbidden or\ndisliked, Concealment (_kitman_) of a thing they have been commanded to\nconvey, and Stupidity (_balada_). These four are impossible in them, in\nthe sense that the existence of them is unthinkable. And Faith depends\nupon the knowledge of these, as has preceded.\n\nThese are Nine and Forty Articles and the Fiftieth is the possibility of\nthe occurrence of such fleshly accidents in them as do not lead to defect\nin their lofty rank.\n\nAnd the proof of the existence of Veracity in them is that if they were\nto lie, then information from God would be a lie, for He has guaranteed\nthe claim of the Apostles by the manifestation of miracles at their\nhands. For the miracle is revealed in place of an utterance from God, \u201cMy\nservant is truthful in all that he brings from Me.\u201d That is, whenever an\nApostle comes to his people and says, \u201cI am an Apostle to you from God,\u201d\nand they say to him, \u201cWhat is the proof of your apostolate?\u201d then he\nshall say, \u201cThe splitting of this mountain,\u201d for example. And when they\nsay to him, \u201cBring what you say,\u201d God will split that mountain at their\nsaying, as a guarantee of the claim of the Apostle to the apostolate. So,\nGod\u2019s splitting the mountain is sent down in place of an utterance from\nGod, \u201cMy servant is truthful in all which he brings to you from Me.\u201d And\nif the Apostle were lying, this information would be lying. But lying is\nimpossible in the case of God, so lying on the part of the Apostles is\nimpossible. And whenever lying is denied in them, Veracity is established.\n\nAnd as for the proof of the Trustworthiness, that is, their being\npreserved internally and externally from forbidden and disliked things;\nif they were unfaithful in committing such things, we would be commanded\nto do the like. But it is impossible that we could be commanded to do\na forbidden or disliked thing, \u201cfor God does not command a vile thing\u201d\n(Qur. 7, 27). And it is evident that they did nothing except obedience,\nwhether required or desired, and \u201cpermitted\u201d (_mubah_) things entered\namong their actions only to show, whenever they did a \u201cpermitted\u201d thing,\nthat it was allowable (_ja\u2019iz_).\n\nAnd as for the proof of Intelligence, if it were failing in them, how\nwould they be able to establish an argument against an adversary? But\nthe Qur\u2019an indicates in more than one place, that they must establish\narguments against adversaries. And such establishing of arguments is only\npossible with intelligence.\n\nAnd the proof that fleshly accidents do befall them is that they do not\ncease to ascend in their lofty rank; for the occurrence of such accidents\nis in them for increase in their lofty rank, for example, and that others\nmay be consoled, and that the thoughtful may know that the world is not\na place of recompense for the lovers of God; since if it were, why should\naught of the defilements of the world befall the Apostles? The Blessing\nof God be upon them and upon their Mighty Head, our Lord Muhammad, and\nupon his family and Companions and descendants, all!\n\nThe Fifty Articles are completed with their Glorious Proofs.\n\nLet us mention to you now somewhat of that which must be held of the\nthings whose proofs are authority (_sam\u2018i_): Know that it must be\nbelieved that our Prophet has a Tank (_hawd_); and ignorance as to\nwhether it is on one side or the other of the Bridge (_as-sirat_) does\nnot hurt. On the Day of Resurrection (_yawm al-qiyama_) the creatures\nwill go down to drink of it. It is different from _al-Kawthar_, which is\na River in the Garden.\n\nAnd it must also be believed that he will make intercession (_shafa\u2018a_)\non the Day of Resurrection in the midst of the Judgment, when we shall\nstand and long to depart, even though it be into the Fire. Then he shall\nintercede that they may depart from the Station (_mawqif_); and this\nintercession belongs to him only.\n\nAnd it must also be believed that falling into great sins (_kabiras_),\nother than Unbelief (_kufr_), does not involve Unbelief, but repentance\n(_tawba_) from the sin is necessary at once; and if the sin be a small\none (_saghira_) repentance is necessary to him who is liable to fall into\nit. And repentance is not injured by returning to sin; but for the new\nsin a new repentance is necessary.\n\nAnd it is incumbent upon the individual that he set aside arrogance\n(_kibr_) and jealousy (_hasad_) and slander (_ghiba_) on account of what\nthe Prophet has said, \u201cThe gates of the Heavens have curtains which\nreject the works of the people of arrogance, jealousy and slander.\u201d That\nis, they prevent them from rising, and so they are not received. Jealousy\nis a desiring that the well-being of another should pass away, equally\nwhether it is desired that it should come to the jealous one or not.\nAnd arrogance is considering the truth to be falsehood and rejecting it,\nand despising God\u2019s creation. And it is incumbent also upon him that he\nshould not spread malicious slanders among the people, for a tradition\nhas come down, \u201cA slanderer (_qattat_) shall not enter the Garden.\u201d And\njealousy is forbidden, as is said above, when the well-being does not\nlead its possessor to transgression, and if it does, then desire that the\nwell-being should pass away is allowable.\n\nIt is necessary also to hold that some of those who commit great sins\nwill be punished, though it is only one of them.\n\nCONCLUSION. Faith (_iman_), in the usage of the language, is\nacknowledgment that something is true (_tasdiq_), in general. In that way\nit is used by God, when he reports the words of the sons of Ya\u2018qub (Qur.\n12, 17). \u201cBut thou dost not believe us [art not a believer (_mu\u2019min_)\nin us].\u201d Legally, it is belief in all that the Prophet has brought.\nBut there is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of belief, when\nused in this way. Some say that it means knowledge (_ma\u2018rifa_) and that\neveryone who knows what the Prophet has brought is a believer (_mu\u2019min_).\nBut this interpretation is opposed by the fact that the unbeliever\n(_kafir_) knows, but is not a believer. Nor does this interpretation\nagree with the common saying, that the _muqallad_ is a believer, although\nhe does not know. And the right view as to the interpretation of belief\nis that it is a mental utterance (_hadith an-nafs_) following conviction,\nequally whether it is conviction on account of proof, which is called\nknowledge, or on account of acceptance on authority (_taqlid_). This\nexcludes the unbeliever because he does not possess the mental utterance,\nthe idea of which is that you say, \u201cI am well pleased with what the\nProphet has brought.\u201d The mind of the unbeliever does not say this.\nAnd it includes the _muqallad_; for he possesses the mental utterance\nfollowing conviction, though the conviction is not based on a proof.\n\nAnd of that which must be believed is the genealogy of the Prophet, both\non his father\u2019s side and on his mother\u2019s. On his father\u2019s side he is our\nLord, Muhammad, son of Abd Allah, son of Abd al-Muttalib, son of Hashim,\nson of Abd Manaf, son of Qusay, son of Kilab, son of Murra, son of Ka\u2018b,\nson of Lu\u2019ay, or Luway, son of Ghalib, son of Fihr, son of Malik, son of\nNadr, son of Kinana, son of Khuzayma, son of Mudrika, son of Alyas, son\nof Mudar, son of Nizar, son of Ma\u2018add, son of Adnan. And the Agreement\n(_ijma_) unites upon this genealogy up to Adnan. But after him to Adam\nthere is no sure path in that which has been handed down. And as to his\ngenealogy on his mother\u2019s side, she is Amina, daughter of Wahb, son of\nAbd Manaf, son of Zuhra\u2014this Abd Manaf is not the same as his ancestor on\nthe other line\u2014son of Kilab, who is already one of his ancestors. So the\ntwo lines of descent join in Kilab.\n\nAnd it is necessary also to know that he was of mixed white and red\ncomplexion, according to what some of them have said.\n\nThis is the last of that which God has made easy by His grace. His\nBlessing be upon our Lord Muhammad and upon his family and his Companions\nand his descendants, so so long as the mindful are mindful of him and the\nheedless are heedless of the thought of him. And Praise belongeth unto\nGod, the Lord of the Worlds.\n\n\nVII\n\nANALYSIS OF THE _Taqrib_ OF ABU SHUJA AL-ISPAHANI[7]\n\n\n_Book I. Of Ceremonial Purity (Tahara)_\n\n1. The water which may be used for ceremonial ablutions.\n\n2. Legal materials for utensils; what can be purified and what cannot.\n\n3. The use of the toothpick.\n\n4. Description of the different stages of a ceremonial ablution (_wudu_).\n\n5. On cleansing from excrement and its ritual generally.\n\n6. The five things which require a fresh _wudu_.\n\n7. The six things which require a complete ablution of the whole body\n(_ghusl_) and its ritual.\n\n8. The seventeen occasions on which a _ghusl_ is prescribed.\n\n9. When it is allowable to wash the inner shoes (_khuffs_) instead of the\nfeet.\n\n10. The conditions and ritual for the use of sand (_tayammum_) instead of\nwater.\n\n11. On uncleannesses (_najasat_) and how and how far they can be removed.\n\n12. On ailments of women; duration of pregnancy and their conditions.\n\n\n_Book II. Of Prayer_\n\n1. The times of prayer (_salat_).\n\n2. Upon whom prayer is incumbent, and\n\n3. On what occasions.\n\n4. The antecedent requirements of prayer.\n\n5. The eighteen essential parts of prayer.\n\n6. The four things in which the prayer of a woman differs from that of a\nman.\n\n7. The eleven things which nullify prayer.\n\n8. A reckoning of the occurrences of certain frequently repeated elements\nin prayer.\n\n9. On omissions in prayer.\n\n10. The five occasions on which prayer is not allowable.\n\n11. The duty and ritual of congregational prayer.\n\n12. The prayer of a traveller.\n\n13. The conditions under which congregational prayer is required and\nthose under which it is lawful.\n\n14. The requirements in congregational prayer.\n\n15. The prayers of the Two Festivals and their ritual.\n\n16. The prayers on occasion of an eclipse.\n\n17. Prayer for rain.\n\n18. Prayer in presence of the enemy.\n\n19. What is forbidden of clothing.\n\n20. The ritual of the dead.\n\n\n_Book III. Of Rates for the Poor, etc._\n\n1. The condition of the rate (_zakat_) and of the rate-payer; what it is\nlevied on and consists of.\n\n2. On camels.\n\n3. On cattle.\n\n4. On sheep.\n\n5. How it affects partners.\n\n6. On gold and silver.\n\n7. On grain-stuff.\n\n8. On merchandise.\n\n9. The conditions and nature of the rate to be paid at the end of the\nfast.\n\n10. Uses to which the rate may be applied.\n\n\n_Book IV. Of the Fast_\n\n1. The conditions for the fast (_siyam_); its description; what breaks it.\n\n2. What is meritorious in fasting; when and for whom it is forbidden; how\nbreaking the fast must be expiated.\n\n3. The conditions and nature of religious retreat (_i\u2018tikaf_).\n\n\n_Book V. Of the Pilgrimage_\n\n1. The conditions of pilgrimaging (_hajj_); its essentials and other\nelements.\n\n2. The ten things forbidden on pilgrimage.\n\n3. The five sacrifices of the pilgrimage.\n\n\n_Book VI. Of Barter and Other Business Transactions_\n\n1. Conditions and kinds of barter (_bay_); what may be bartered and what\nnot.\n\n2. Description and conditions of the bargain with payment in advance\n(_salam_).\n\n3. Of pledging (_rahn_).\n\n4. Of those who are not to be permitted to administer their own property\n(_hajar as-safih_).\n\n5. Of bankruptcy and composition and common rights in a highway (_sulh_).\n\n6. The conditions for the transfer of debts and credits (_hawala_).\n\n7. Of security for debts (_daman_).\n\n8. Of personal security for debts (_kafala_).\n\n9. Of partnership (_shirka_).\n\n10. Of agency (_wakala_).\n\n11. Of confession (_iqrar_).\n\n12. Of loans (_i\u2018ara_).\n\n13. Of illegal seizure and use of property; indemnity for it and its\ndamage (_ghasb_).\n\n14. Of right of pre-emption (_shuf\u2018a_).\n\n15. The conditions of advancing capital with participation in the profits\n(_qirad_).\n\n16. Of the letting of date-palms and vines (_musaqat_).\n\n17. Of hiring a thing out (_ijara_).\n\n18. Of reward for return of a thing lost (_ja\u2018ala_).\n\n19. That land may not be let for a fixed amount of its produce\n(_mukhabara_).\n\n20. Of irrigation of waste lands (_ihya al-mawat_).\n\n21. Of foundations in mortmain (_waqf_).\n\n22. Of gifts (_hiba_).\n\n23. Of found property (_luqta_).\n\n24. Of foundlings (_laqit_).\n\n25. Of deposits (_wadi\u2018a_).\n\n\n_Book VII. Of Inheritance and Wills_\n\n1. Of legal heirs (_warith_).\n\n2. The conditions and proportions of inheritance (_farida_).\n\n3. Of legacies (_wasiya_).\n\n\n_Book VIII. Of Marriage and Related Subjects_\n\n1. The conditions of marriage (_nikah_). What women a man may see and to\nwhat extent.\n\n2. The form of a legal marriage.\n\n3. The conditions of asking (_khitba_) and giving in marriage; whom a man\nmay not marry; conditions for nullity of marriage.\n\n4. The settlement (_mahr_) on a wife by her husband.\n\n5. On the wedding feast (_walima_).\n\n6. On the equality of the rights of the wives and the authority of the\nhusband.\n\n7. On divorce for incompatibility (_khul_).\n\n8. The forms of divorce (_talaq_).\n\n9. On taking a wife back and the threefold divorce.\n\n10. The oath not to cohabit (_ila_).\n\n11. The temporary separation by the formula, _zihar_ Qur. 58.\n\n12. The form of accusation of adultery and the defence (_li\u2018an_).\n\n13. The period during which a previously married woman cannot remarry\n(_idda_).\n\n14. Of relations with female slaves.\n\n15. The support and behavior of a woman, divorced or a widow; mourning.\n\n16. Law of relationship through suckling (_irda_).\n\n17. The support (_nafaqa_) due to a wife.\n\n18. The support due to children and parents, slaves and domestic animals.\n\n19. Of the custody of children (_hidana_).\n\n\n_Book IX. Of Crimes of Violence to the Person (jinaya)_\n\n1. On murder, homicide and chance medley.\n\n2. The _lex talionis_ (_qisas_) for murder, and\n\n3. For wounds and mutilations.\n\n4. The blood-wit (_diya_).\n\n5. Use of weak evidence in case of murder.\n\n6. Personal penance for homicide.\n\n\n_Book X. Of Restrictive Ordinances of God (hadd)_\n\n1. Of fornication (_zina_) of one who has been or is married (_muhsan_),\nand of one who has not been or is not married.\n\n2. Of accusing of fornication.\n\n3. Of drinking wine or any intoxicating drink.\n\n4. Of theft.\n\n5. Of highway robbery.\n\n6. Of killing in defence.\n\n7. Of rebelling against a just government.\n\n8. Of apostasy.\n\n9. Of abandoning the usage of prayer.\n\n\n_Book XI. Of the Holy War (jihad)_\n\n1. The general law of _jihad_.\n\n2. The distribution of booty taken in the field (_ghanima_).\n\n3. The law of the tax on unbelievers (_fay_).\n\n4. The law of the poll-tax on unbelievers (_jizya_).\n\n\n_Book XII. Of Hunting and the Slaughter of Animals_\n\n1. How an animal may be killed in the chase or otherwise.\n\n2. What flesh may be eaten.\n\n3. The ritual of sacrifice (_udhiya_).\n\n4. The ritual of sacrifice for a child (_aqiqa_).\n\n\n_Book XIII. Of Racing and Shooting with the Bow_\n\n\n_Book XIV. Of Oaths and Vows (yamin, nadhr)_\n\n1. What oaths are allowable and binding; how expiated.\n\n2. Lawful and unlawful vows.\n\n\n_Book XV. Of Judgments and Evidence (qada, shahada)_\n\n1. Of the judge (_qadi_) and court usage.\n\n2. The division (_qasm_) of property held in common.\n\n3. Of evidence and oaths.\n\n4. The conditions of being a legal witness (_adil_).\n\n5. The difference of claims (_haqq_), on the part of God, and on the part\nof man, and their legal treatment.\n\n\n_Book XVI. Of Manumission of Slaves_\n\n1. General conditions of manumission (_itq_).\n\n2. The clientship which follows (_wala_).\n\n3. Of freeing at death (_tadbir_).\n\n4. Of the slave buying his freedom (_kitaba_).\n\n5. Of the slave (_umm walad_) that has borne a child to her master or to\nanother and of her children.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II\n\n I. BOOKS AND ARTICLES, GENERAL AND FUNDAMENTAL, FOR THE STUDY\n OF ISLAM.\n\n II. ON MUSLIM HISTORY AND ON PRESENT CONDITION OF MUSLIM WORLD.\n\n III. ON MUSLIM TRADITIONS AND LAW.\n\n IV. ON MUSLIM THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND MYSTICISM.\n\n\nI\n\nBOOKS AND ARTICLES, GENERAL AND FUNDAMENTAL, FOR THE STUDY OF ISLAM\n\nThe non-Arabist will gain much insight into Muslim life and thought\nby reading such translations as that of Ibn Khallikan by De Slane\n(Paris-London; 1843-71), the Persian Tabari, by Zotenberg (Paris;\n1867-74), Ibn Batuta by Defr\u00e9mery and Sanguinetti (Paris; 1853-58),\nMas\u2018udi by C. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille (Paris;\n1861-77), Ibn Khaldun\u2019s _Prol\u00e9gom\u00e8nes_ by De Slane (Paris; 1862-68),\nad-Dimishqi by Mehren (Copenhagen; 1874), al-Beruni\u2019s _Chronology_ by\nSachau (London; 1879).\n\nThe translations and notes in De Sacy\u2019s _Chrestomathie arabe_ (Paris;\n1826) can also be used to advantage.\n\nVery many valuable articles will be found scattered through the\n_Zeitschrift_ of the German Oriental Society (hereafter ZDMG), the\n_Journal asiatique_ (hereafter JA), the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic\nSociety_ (hereafter JRAS) and the Vienna _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des\nMorgenlandes_ (hereafter WZ).\n\nIt is always worth while to consult the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_.\n\nThe best translations of the Qur\u2019an into English are those by E. H.\nPalmer (2 vols., Oxford; 1880) and J. M. Rodwell (London; 1871). The\nfirst more perfectly represents the spirit and tone, and the second more\nexactly the letter. The commentary added by Sale to his version and his\nintroduction are still useful.\n\nThe _Thousand and One Nights_ should be read in its entirety in Arabic or\nin a translation by every student of Islam. English translation by Lane\n(incomplete but accurate and with very valuable commentary); Burton (last\nedition almost complete; 12 vols., London: 1894). Payne\u2019s translation\nis complete, as is also Burton\u2019s privately printed edition; but, while\nexceedingly readable, Payne hardly represents the tone of the original.\nThere is an almost complete and very cheap German version by Henning\n(published by Reclam, Leipzig); Mardrus\u2019 French version is inaccurate and\nfree to such an extent as to make it useless. Galland\u2019s version is a work\nof genius; but it belongs to French and not to Arabic literature.\n\n R. P. A. DOZY: _Essai sur l\u2019histoire de l\u2019islamisme._ Leyden,\n 1879. A readable introduction.\n\n A. M\u00dcLLER: _Der Islam im Morgen-und-Abendland._ 2 vols. Berlin,\n 1885, 1887. The best general history of Islam.\n\n STANLEY LANE-POOLE: _The Mohammedan Dynasties; chronological\n and genealogical tables with historical introductions._\n Westminster, 1894. An indispensable book for any student of\n Muslim history.\n\n C. BROCKELMANN: _Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur._ 2 vols.\n Weimar, 1898, 1899. Indispensable for names, dates, and books,\n but not a history in any true sense.\n\n T. B. HUGHES: _A Dictionary of Islam._ London, 1896. Very full\n of information, but to be used with caution. Based on Persian\n sources largely.\n\n E. W. LANE: _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the\n Modern Egyptians._ First edition, London, 1836; third, 1842.\n Many others. Indispensable.\n\n C. M. DOUGHTY: _Travels in Arabia Deserta._ 2 vols. Cambridge,\n 1888. By far the best book on nomad life in Arabia. Gives the\n fullest and clearest idea of the nature and workings of the\n Arab mind.\n\n J. L. BURCKHARDT: _Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys._ 2 vols.\n London, 1831.\n\n J. L. BURCKHARDT: _Travels in Arabia._ 2 vols. London, 1829.\n\n R. F. BURTON: _Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to al-Madinah\n and Meccah._ 2 vols. Last edition, London, 1898. On the Hajj\n and Muslim life, thought and studies generally in the middle of\n the nineteenth century. Readable and accurate to a degree.\n\n C. SNOUCK HURGRONJE: _Mekka._ 2 vols. and portfolio of plates.\n Haag, 1888, 1889. Is somewhat dull beside Burton, but very full\n and accurate.\n\n W. ROBERTSON SMITH: _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites._\n First Series. New edition, London, 1894. _Kinship and Marriage\n in Early Arabia._ Cambridge, 1885.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Muhammedanische Studien._ I, Halle a. S.,\n 1889. II, 1890. Epoch-marking books; as are all Goldziher\u2019s\n contributions to the history of Muslim civilization.\n\n ALFRED VON KREMER: _Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des\n Islams._ Leipzig, 1868.\n\n ALFRED VON KREMER: _Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den\n Chalifen._ 2 vols. Wien, 1875-77. _Culturgeschichtliche\n Streifz\u00fcge._ Leipzig, 1873.\n\n EDWARD G. BROWNE: _A Year Among the Persians._ London, 1893. A\n most valuable account of modern Persian life, philosophy, and\n theology, and especially of Sufiism and Babism.\n\n EDWARD G. BROWNE: _A Literary History of Persia._ New York,\n 1902. Really political and religious prolegomena to such a\n history.\n\n G. A. HERKLOTS: _Qanoon-e-Islam, or the Customs of the\n Moosulmans of India._ London, 1832.\n\n\nII\n\nON MUSLIM HISTORY AND ON PRESENT CONDITION OF MUSLIM WORLD\n\n AUGUST M\u00dcLLER: _Die Beherrscher der Gl\u00e4ubigen._ Berlin, 1882. A\n very brightly written sketch based on thorough knowledge.\n\n GUSTAV WEIL: _Geschichte der Chalifen._ 3 vols. Mannheim,\n 1846-1851.\n\n SIR WILLIAM MUIR: _The Caliphate, its Rise, Decline and Fall._\n London, 1891.\n\n THEODOR N\u00d6LDEKE: _Zur tendenti\u00f6sen Gestaltung der Urgeschichte\n des Islams._ ZDMG, lii, pp. 16 ff. All N\u00f6ldeke\u2019s papers on the\n early history of Islam are worthy of the most careful study.\n\n G. VON VLOTEN: _Zur Abbasiden Geschichte._ ZDMG, lii, pp. 213\n ff. On the early Abbasids.\n\n R. E. BR\u00dcNNOW: _De Charidschiten unter den ersten Omayyaden._\n Leyden, 1884.\n\n EDUARD SACHAU: _\u00dcber eine Arabische Chronik aus Zanzibar._\n Mitth. a.d. Sem. f. Orient. Sprachen. Berlin, 1898. On Ibadites.\n\n GEORGE PERCY BADGER: _History of the Imams and Seyyids of\n Oman_, by Sal\u00eel-ibn-Raz\u00eek. London: Hakluyt Society, 1871.\n Valuable for Ibadite history, law and theology.\n\n M. J. DE GOEJE: _M\u00e9moire sur les Carmathes du Bahra\u00efn et les\n Fatimides._ Leyden, 1886.\n\n JOHN NICHOLSON: _An Account of the Establishment of the\n Fatemite Dynasty in Africa._ T\u00fcbingen and Bristol, 1840.\n\n QUATREM\u00c8RE: _M\u00e9moires historiques sur la dynastie des Khalifes\n Fatimites._ JA, 3, ii.\n\n SYLVESTRE DE SACY: _Expos\u00e9 de la religion des Druzes et la vie\n du Khalife Hakem-biamr-allah._ 2 vols. Paris, 1838.\n\n F. W\u00dcSTENFELD: _Geschichte der Fatimiden-Khalifen._ G\u00f6ttingen,\n 1881.\n\n STANLEY LANE-POOLE: _A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages._\n New York, 1901. For the origin and founding of the Fatimid\n Dynasty, the Khalifa al-Hakim, etc.\n\n H. L. FLEISCHER: _Briefwechsel zwischen den Anf\u00fchrern der\n Wahhabiten und dem Pasha von Damaskus._ _Kleinere Schriften_,\n iii, pp. 341 ff. First published in ZDMG for year 1857.\n\n E. REHATSEK: _The History of the Wahhabys in Arabia and in\n India._ Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal. No. xxxviii (read\n January, 1880).\n\n _Turkey in Europe_, by \u201cOdysseus.\u201d London, 1900. The present\n situation, with its historical antecedents in European Turkey\n and the Balkans generally.\n\n H. O. DWIGHT: _Constantinople and its Problems._ New York, 1901.\n\n A. S. WHITE: _The Expansion of Egypt._ London, 1899. The\n present situation in Egypt and its historical antecedents.\n\n W. W. HUNTER: _Our Indian Mussulmans._ London, 1871.\n\n SIR LEWIS PELLY: _The Miracle Play of Hasan and Husain._\n London, 1879.\n\n W. S. BLUNT: _The Future of Islam._ London, 1880.\n\n\nIII\n\nON MUSLIM TRADITIONS AND LAW\n\n _The Mishkat_, translated by Matthews. Calcutta, 1809. (A\n collection of traditions.)\n\n _The Hidaya_, translated by C. Hamilton. II edition. London,\n 1870.\n\n N. B. E. BAILLIE: _A Digest of Muhammadan Law. Hanifi Code._\n London, 1865.\n\n The same. _Imameea Code._ London, 1869. The first volume deals\n with Sunnite, the second with Shi\u2018ite law.\n\n S. KEIJZER: _Pr\u00e9cis de Jurisprudence Musulmane selon le rite\n Ch\u00e2feite par Abu Chodja; texte arabe avec traduction et\n annotations._ Leyden, 1859. To be used with caution.\n\n EDUARD SACHAU: _Muhammadanisches Recht nach Schafiitischer\n Lehre._ Stuttgart & Berlin, 1897. Based largely on al-Bajuri\u2019s\n commentary to Abu Shuja: covers rather less than half the\n material of a corpus of canon law and is the best general\n introduction to the subject.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Die Z\u00e2hiriten, ihr Lehrsystem und ihre\n Geschichte._ Leipzig, 1884.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Neue Materialien zur Litteratur des\n Ueberlieferungswesen bei den Muhammedanern._ ZDMG, I, pp. 465\n ff. Deals with Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Zur Litteratur des Ichtil\u00e2f al-madh\u00e2hib._\n ZDMG, xxxviii, pp. 669 ff. Contains a notice of ash-Sha\u2018rani.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _\u00dcber eine Formel in der judischen\n Responsen-litteratur._ ZDMG, liii, pp. 645 ff. On _fatwas_ and\n _ijtihad_.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Das Princip des Istishab in muham.\n Gesetzwissenschaft._ WZ, i, pp. 228 ff.\n\n EDUARD SACHAU: _Muhammedanisches Erbrecht nach der Lehre\n der Ibaditischen Araber von Zanzibar und \u00d6stafrika._\n Sitzungsberichte der k\u00f6n. preuss. Akad., 1894.\n\n EDUARD SACHAU: _Zur \u00e4ltesten Geschichte des muhammedanischen\n Rechts._ Wien. Akad., 1870.\n\n SNOUCK HURGRONJE: _Le droit musulman._ Revue de l\u2019histoire des\n religions, xxxvii, pp. 1 ff, and 174 ff.\n\n SNOUCK HURGRONJE: _Muhammedanisches Recht nach schafiitischer\n Lehre von Eduard Sachau_; _Anzeige_, ZDMG, liii, pp. 125 ff.\n\n S. K. KEUN DE HOOGERWOERD: _Studien zur Einf\u00fchrung in das Recht\n des Islam._ Erlangen, 1901. Contains introduction and part of\n section on law of marriage. Gives a good but miscellaneous\n bibliography and is written from a Persian point of view;\n transliteration is peculiarly eccentric and Arabic scholarship\n is unsound.\n\n J. WELLHAUSEN: _Medina vor dem Islam. Muhammad\u2019s\n Gemeindeordnung von Medina._ In \u201cSkizzen und Vorarbeiten,\u201d\n Viertes Heft. Berlin, 1889.\n\n HUART: _Les Zindiqs en droit musulman._ Eleventh Congress of\n Orientalists, part iii, pp. 69 ff.\n\n D. B. MACDONALD: _The Emancipation of Slaves under Muslim Law._\n American Monthly Review of Reviews, March, 1900.\n\n\nIV\n\nON MUSLIM THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND MYSTICISM\n\n THEODOR HAARBR\u00dcCKER: _Asch-Schahrast\u00e2ni\u2019s Religionsparteien\n und Philosophenschulen \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt._ 2 vols. Halle,\n 1850-51. The Arabic text, without which Haarbr\u00fccker\u2019s German\n is sometimes hardly intelligible, was published by Cureton,\n London, 1846.\n\n T. J. DE BOER: _Geschichte der Philosophie im Islam._\n Stuttgart, 1901. Unsatisfactory but the best that there is.\n It is only a sketch and takes hardly sufficient account of\n theology and mysticism.\n\n STANLEY LANE-POOLE: _Studies in a Mosque._ II edition. London,\n 1893. Miscellaneous essays, lightly written but trustworthy.\n\n KREHL: _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Characteristik der Lehre vom Glauben in\n Islam._ Leipzig, 1877.\n\n G. VON VLOTEN: _Les Hachwia et Nabita._ Eleventh Congress of\n Orientalists, part iii, pp. 99 ff. On early religious sects.\n\n G. VON VLOTEN: _Irdja._ ZDMG, xiv, pp. 181 ff. On the\n Murji\u2019ites.\n\n EDUARD SACHAU: _\u00dcber de religiosen Anschauungen der\n ibaditischen Muhammedaner in Oman und \u00d6stafrica._ Mitth. a. d.\n Sem. f. Orient. Sprachen. Berlin, 1899.\n\n H. STEINER: _Die Mu\u2018taziliten oder die Freidenker im Islam._\n Leipzig, 1865.\n\n WILHELM SPITTA: _Zur Geschichte Abu l-Hasan al-Ash\u2018ari\u2019s._\n Leipzig, 1876. The best as yet on al-Ash\u2018ari, but to be used\n with caution, especially in the translations of theological\n texts.\n\n MARTIN SCHREINER: _Zur Geschichte des Ash\u2018aritenthums._ In\n Actes du huiti\u00e8me Congress International des Orientalistes, I,\n i, pp. 77 ff. Leiden, 1891.\n\n M. A. F. MEHREN: _Expos\u00e9 de la r\u00e9forme de l\u2019Islamisme commenc\u00e9e\n au troisi\u00e8me si\u00e8cle de l\u2019H\u00e9gire par Abou-l-Hasan Ali el-Ash\u2018ari\n et continu\u00e9e par son \u00e9cole._ Third International Congress of\n Orientalists, vol. ii.\n\n G. FL\u00dcGEL: _Al-Kindi genannt \u201cder Philosoph der Araber.\u201d Ein\n Vorbild seiner Zeit und seines Volkes._ Leipzig, 1857.\n\n SIR WILLIAM MUIR: _The Apology of al-Kindy, written at the\n court of al-M\u00e1m\u00fbn._ London, 1882.\n\n E. SELL: _The Faith of Islam._ London, 1896. II edition.\n A valuable book, but from the point of view of an Indian\n missionary. Hence the tone is polemic and the technicalities\n are Persian rather than Arabic.\n\n WALTER M. PATTEN: _Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the Mihna._ Leyden,\n 1897. There is a valuable review by Goldziher in ZDMG, lii, pp.\n 155 ff. It traces connection of Hanbalites with Ibn Taymiya and\n Wahhabites.\n\n HEINRICH RITTER: _Ueber unsere Kenntniss der Arabischen\n Philosophie._ G\u00f6ttingen, 1844.\n\n FRIEDRICH DIETERICI: _Alfarabi\u2019s philosophische Abhandlungen\n herausgegeben._ Leiden, 1890. _Aus dem arabischen \u00fcbersetzt._\n Leiden, 1892.\n\n AL-FARABI: _Der Musterstaat. Herausgegeben und \u00dcbersetzt von\n Frdr. Dieterici._ Leiden, 1900.\n\n G. FL\u00dcGEL: _Ueber Inhalt und Verfasser der arabischen\n Encyclop\u00e4die der Ikhwan as-Safa._ ZDMG, xiii, pp. 1 ff. See,\n too, an excellent article by August M\u00fcller in _Ersch und\n Gruber_, ii, 42, pp. 272 ff., and Stanley Lane-Poole in his\n _Studies in a Mosque_.\n\n FRIEDRICH DIETERICI: _Die Philosophie der Araber im X.\n Jahrhundert n. Chr. aus der Schriften der lauteren Br\u00fcder\n herausgegeben._ Berlin and Leipzig, 1861-1879.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Materialien zur Entwickelungs-geschichte des\n Sufismus._ WZ, xiii, pp. 35 ff.\n\n THEODOR N\u00d6LDEKE: _Sufi._ ZDMG, xlviii, pp. 45 ff. On the\n derivation and early usage of the name Sufi.\n\n ADELBERT MERX: _Idee und Grundlinien einer allgemeinen\n Geschichte der Mystik._ Heidelberg, 1893.\n\n JOHN P. BROWN: _The Derwishes or Oriental Spiritualism._\n London, 1868. A valuable but uncritical description of modern\n Turkish and Persian Darwishes.\n\n SIR JAMES REDHOUSE: _The Mesnevi of Jelal eddin ar-rumi\n translated into English._ Book I. London, 1881. See, too, a\n translation by Whinfield, London, 1887, and an edition of\n selected ghazels from the Diwan with translation and valuable\n introduction by R. A. Nicholson, Cambridge University Press,\n 1898.\n\n E. J. W. GIBB: _A History of Ottoman Poetry._ Vol. i. London,\n 1900. A valuable statement of the later Persian and Turkish\n mysticism and metaphysic on pp. 13-70.\n\n E. H. PALMER: _Oriental Mysticism._ Cambridge, 1867.\n\n CARRA DE VAUX: _Avicenne._ Paris, 1900. Contains an\n introductory sketch of philosophy and theology up to the time\n of Ibn Sina. _Algazali._ Paris, 1902. A continuation of the\n first.\n\n A. VON KREMER: _\u00dcber die philosophischen Gedichte des Abul Ala\n Ma\u2018arry._ Wien, 1888.\n\n A. VON KREMER: _Gedichte des Abu-l-Ala Ma\u2018arri._ ZDMG, xxix,\n 304; xxx, 40; xxxi, pp. 471 ff.; xxxviii, 499 ff.\n\n ABU-L-ALA AL-MA\u2018ARRI: _Letters Arabic and English, with notes,\n etc., edited by D. S. Margoliouth._ Oxford, 1898. See, too,\n papers by R. A. Nicholson in JRAS, October, 1900, ff.; and by\n Margoliouth, for April, 1902.\n\n E. FITZGERALD: _The Ruba\u2018iyat of Omar Khayyam. With a\n commentary by H. M. Batson and a biographical Introduction by_\n\n _E. D. Ross._ New York, 1900. The biography by Ross is the\n only at all adequate treatment of the life and times of Umar\n which yet exists. Of the Ruba\u2018iyat themselves there are several\n adequate translations, _e.g._ by Whinfield, Payne and Mrs.\n Cadell.\n\n MARTIN SCHREINER: _Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden\n und Muhammedanern._ ZDMG, xlii, pp. 591 ff. Deals with Ibn Hazm\n and Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi.\n\n MARTIN SCHREINER: _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der theologischen\n Bewegungen in Islam._ ZDMG, lii, pp. 463 ff.; 513 ff.; liii,\n pp. 51 ff. A most valuable collection of materials with\n considerable gaps and imperfect digestion.\n\n D. B. MACDONALD: _The Life of al-Ghazzali._ In the Journal of\n the American Oriental Society, vol. xx, pp. 71-132.\n\n D. B. MACDONALD: _Emotional Religion in Islam as affected by\n Music and Singing. Being a translation of a book of the Ihya of\n al-Ghazzali._ In JRAS for April and October, 1901, and January,\n 1902.\n\n MIGUEL ASIN PALACIOS: _Algazel, dogmatica, moral, ascetica._\n Zaragoza, 1901.\n\n C. BARBIER DE MEYNARD: _Traduction nouvelle du Trait\u00e9 de\n Ghazzali_, _intitul\u00e9_ Le Preservatif de l\u2019Erreur. In JA, vii,\n 9, pp. 5 ff.\n\n T. J. DE BOER: _Die Widerspr\u00fcche der Philosophie nach\n al-Ghazzali und ihr Ausgleich durch Ibn Roshd._ Strassburg,\n 1894.\n\n A translation of al-Ghazzali\u2019s _Tahafut_ has been begun by\n Carra de Vaux in _Le Mus\u00e9on_, xxviii, p. 143 (June, 1899).\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Materialien zur Kenntniss der\n Almohadenbewegung in Nordafrika._ ZDMG, xli, pp. 30 ff.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Die Bekenntnissformeln der Almohaden._ ZDMG,\n xliv, pp. 168 ff.\n\n ROBERT FLINT: _Historical Philosophy in France and French\n Belgium and Switzerland._ New York, 1894. Contains an excellent\n estimate of Ibn Khaldun as a philosophical historian.\n\n A. VON KREMER: _Ibn Chaldun und seine Culturgeschichte der\n islamischen Reiche._ Wien, 1879.\n\n ERNEST RENAN: _Averroes et l\u2019Averroisme._ III edition. Paris,\n 1861. Reviewed by Dozy in JA, 5, ii, pp. 93 ff. This review\n contains a curious description of a Parliament of Religions at\n Baghdad about A.D. 1000.\n\n _Philosophie und Theologie von Averroes. Aus dem Arabischen\n \u00fcbersetzt von M. J. M\u00fcller._ M\u00fcnchen, 1875. The Arabic text was\n published by M\u00fcller in 1859.\n\n LEON GAUTHIER: _Ibn Thofail-Hayy ben Yaqdhan, roman\n philosophique. Texte arabe ... et traduction fran\u00e7aise._ Alger,\n 1900. There is an earlier edition of Ibn Tufayl\u2019s romance by\n the younger Pocock with a Latin version. Oxford, 1671.\n\n M. A. F. MEHREN: _Correspondance du Philosophe Soufi Ibn Sab\u2018in\n Abd oul-Haqq avec l\u2019Empereur Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric II. de Hohenstaufen._ In\n JA, vii, 14, pp. 341 ff.\n\n S. GUYARD: _Abd ar-Razzaq et son trait\u00e9 de la Pr\u00e9destination et\n du libre arbitre._ In JA, vii, 1, pp. 125 ff.\n\n A. DE KREMER: _Notice sur Sha\u2019rany._ In JA, vi, 11, pp. 253 ff.\n\n G. FL\u00dcGEL: _Scha\u2018rani und sein Werk uber die muhammadanische\n Glaubenslehre._ ZDMG, xx, p. 1 ff.\n\n IGNAZ GOLDZIHER: _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Litteraturgeschichte der Shi\u2018a._\n Wien, 1874.\n\n JAMES L. MERRICK: _The Life and Religion of Mohammed, as\n contained in the Sheeah Traditions of the Hyat-ul-Kuloob._\n Boston, 1850.\n\n J. B. R\u00dcLING: _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Eschatologie des Islam._ Leipzig,\n 1895.\n\n L. GAUTHIER: _Ad-dourra al-fakhira; la perle pr\u00e9cieuse de\n Ghazali._ Gen\u00e8ve, 1878. In Arabic and French; a valuable\n account of Muslim eschatology.\n\n M. WOLFF: _Muhammedanische Eschatologie._ Leipzig, 1872. In\n Arabic and German; an account of _popular_ Muslim eschatology.\n\n DEPONT ET CAPPOLANI: _Les Confr\u00e9ries religieuses Musulmanes._\n Alger, 1897.\n\n SNOUCK HURGRONJE: _Les Confr\u00e9ries religieuses, la Mecque et le\n Panislamisme_, in Revue de l\u2019histoire des religions, xliv, pp.\n 262 ff.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III\n\nFor typographical reasons the smooth guttural _Ha_, the palatals _Sad_,\n_Dad_, _Ta_, _Za_, and the long vowels are indicated by italic. The same\nsystem is followed in the index.\n\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\n\n A.H.\n\n 11 M.d.; Ab_u_ Bakr Kh.\n\n 13 \u2018Umar Kh.\n\n 14 Battle of al-Q_a_dis_i_ya; fall of Jerusalem; al-Basra\n founded; fall of Damascus.\n\n 17 Al-K_u_fa founded; Syria and Mesopotamia conquered.\n\n 20 Conquest of Egypt.\n\n 21 Battle of Nah_a_wand; Persia conquered.\n\n 23 \u2018Uthm_a_n Kh.\n\n 30 Final redaction of the Qur\u2019_a_n.\n\n 35 \u2018Al_i_ Kh.\n\n 36 Battle of Carmel.\n\n 40 \u2018Al_i_ d.\n\n 41 Mu\u2018_a_wiya I. Kh.; Herat.\n\n 49 Al-_H_asan d.\n\n 56 Samarqand.\n\n 60 Schism of Ib_ad_ites from Kh_a_rijites.\n\n 61 Karbala & d. of al-_H_usayn.\n\n 73 Storm of Mecca & d. of \u2018Abd All_a_h b. az-Zubayr.\n\n 74 Carthage.\n\n 80 Ma\u2018bad executed.\n\n 81 M. b. al-_H_anaf_i_ya d.\n\n 93 Toledo.\n\n 99-101 \u2018Umar II. Kh.\n\n 110 _H_asan al-Ba_s_r_i_ d.\n\n 114 Charles the Hammer at Tours (A.D. 732).\n\n 121 Zayd b. Zayn al-\u2018_A_bid_i_n d.\n\n 124 Az-Zuhr_i_ d.\n\n 127-132 Marw_a_n II. Kh.\n\n 130 Jahm b. _S_afw_a_n killed?\n\n 131 W_a_sil b. \u2018At_a_ d.\n\n 132 Fall of Umayyads; as-Saff_ah_ first \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh.\n\n 134 First Ib_a_dite Im_a_m.\n\n 135 R_a_bi\u2018a d.\n\n 136-158 Al-Man_su_r Kh.\n\n 138-422 Umayyads of Cordova.\n\n 140 Ibn al-Muqaffa\u2018 killed.\n\n 143 Halley\u2019s comet.\n\n 144 \u2018Amr b. \u2018Ubayd d.?\n\n 145 Baghd_a_d founded; \u2018_A_\u2019isha d. of Ja\u2018far a_s_-_Sa_diq d.\n\n 147 Homage to al-Mahd_i_ as successor in Kh.\n\n 148 Ja\u2018far a_s_-_Sa_diq d.\n\n 150 Ab_u_ _H_an_i_fa d.; trace of _Su_f_i_ monastery in\n Damascus.\n\n 157 Al-Awz_a_\u2018_i_ d.\n\n 158-169 Al-Mahd_i_ Kh.; John of Damascus d.?\n\n 161 Sufy_a_n ath-Thawr_i_ d.; Ibr_a_h_i_m b. Adham d.\n\n 165 D_a\u2019u_d b. Nu_s_ayr d.\n\n 167 Bashsh_a_r b. Burd killed.\n\n 170-193 H_a_r_u_n ar-Rash_i_d Kh.\n\n 172-375 Idr_i_sids.\n\n 179 Malik b. Anas d.\n\n 182 The Q_adi_ Ab_u_ Y_u_suf d.\n\n 187 Fall of Barmecides; al-Fu_d_ayl b. \u2018Iy_ad_ d.\n\n 189 M. b. al-_H_asan d.\n\n 198-218 Al-Ma\u2019m_u_n Kh.\n\n 200 Ma\u2018r_u_f of al-Karkh d.; trace of _Su_f_i_ monastery in\n Khur_a_s_a_n.\n\n 204 Ash-Sh_a_fi\u2018_i_ d.\n\n 208 Ab_u_ \u2018Ubayda d.; the Lady Naf_i_sa d.\n\n 211 Theodorus Abucara d.\n\n 212 Decree that the Qur\u2019_a_n is created.\n\n 213 Thum_a_ma b. Ashras d.\n\n 215 Ab_u_ Sulaym_a_n of Damascus d.; 2nd decree.\n\n 218-234 The Mi_h_na; Al-Mu\u2018ta_s_im Kh.\n\n 220 Ma\u2018mar b. \u2018Abb_a_d.\n\n 223 F_at_ima of Nays_a_b_u_r d.\n\n 226 Ab_u_ Hudhayl M. al-\u2018All_a_f d.\n\n 227 Bishr al-_Ha_f_i_ d.; al-W_a_thiq Kh.\n\n 231 An-Na_zza_m d.\n\n 232 Al-Mutawakkil Kh.\n\n 234 Decree that Qur\u2019_a_n is uncreated; Scotus Erigena transl.\n pseudo-Dionysius, A.D. 850.\n\n 240 Ibn Ab_i_ Duw_a_d d.\n\n 241 A_h_mad b. _H_anbal d.\n\n 243 Al-_Ha_rith al-Mu_ha_sib_i_ d.\n\n 245 Dh_u_-n-N_u_n d.; al-Kar_a_b_i_s_i_ d.\n\n 250-316 \u2018Alids of Zaydite branch in north Persia.\n\n 255 Al-J_ah_i_z_ d.\n\n 256 Ibn Karr_a_m d.\n\n 257 Al-Bukh_a_r_i_ d.; Sar_i_ as-Saqa_ti_ d.\n\n 260 Al-Kind_i_ d.? M. b. al-_H_asan al-Munta_z_ar vanished.\n\n 261 Muslim d.; Ab_u_ Yaz_i_d al-Bis_ta_m_i_ d.\n\n 270 D_a\u2019u_d a_z_-_Za_hir_i_ d.\n\n 273 Ibn M_a_ja d.\n\n 275 Ab_u_ D_a\u2019u_d as-Sijist_a_n_i_ d.\n\n 277 Qarma_t_ians hold fortress in Arab \u2018Ir_a_q.\n\n 279 At-Tirmidh_i_ d.\n\n 280 Zaydite Im_a_ms at as-Sa\u2018da and San\u2018_a_.\n\n 289 \u2018Ubayd All_a_h al-Mahd_i_ in North Africa.\n\n 295-320 Al-Muqtadir \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh.\n\n 297 First F_at_imid Kh.; al-Junayd d.\n\n 300 Return of al-Ash\u2018ar_i_.\n\n 303 An-Nas_a\u2018i_ d.; Al-Jubb_a\u2018i_ d.\n\n 309 Al-_H_all_a_j executed.\n\n 317 Umayyads of Cordova take title of Commander of the\n Faithful; Qarma_t_ians in Mecca.\n\n 320-447 Buwayhids; al-Ash\u2018ari d.?\n\n 322 Ibn ash-Shalmagh_a_n_i_.\n\n 331 A_t_-_T_a_ha_w_i_ d.\n\n 333 Al-M_a_tar_i_d_i_ d.\n\n 333-356 Sayf ad-Dawla.\n\n 334 Buwayhids in Baghd_a_d; ash-Shibl_i_ d.\n\n 339 Return of Black Stone by Qarma_t_ians; al-F_a_r_a_b_i_ d.\n\n 356 F_at_imids conquer Egypt; Cairo founded.\n\n 360 Ikhw_a_n a_s_-_S_af_a_ fl.\n\n 362 Ibn H_a_ni d.\n\n 381-422 Al-Q_a_dir Kh.\n\n 386 Ab_u_ _Ta_lib al-Makk_i_ d.\n\n 388-421 Ma_h_m_u_d of Ghazna.\n\n 403 Al-B_a_qil_a_n_i_ d.\n\n 408 Persecution of Mu\u2018tazilites under al-Q_a_dir.\n\n 411 Al-_Ha_kim F_at_imid Kh. vanished; Firdaws_i_ d.\n\n 428 Ibn S_i_n_a_ d.\n\n 434 Ab_u_ Dharr d.\n\n 440 Al-B_e_r_u_n_i_ d.\n\n 447 _T_ughril Beg, the Saljuq, in Baghd_a_d.\n\n 449 Ab_u_-l-\u2018Al_a_ al-Ma\u2018arr_i_ d.\n\n 450 Persecution of Ash\u2018arites.\n\n 455 Alp-Arsl_a_n; Ni_za_m al-Mulk Waz_i_r; end of persecution\n of Ash\u2018arites.\n\n 456 Ibn-_H_azm a_z_-_Za_hir_i_ d.\n\n 465 Al-Qushayr_i_ d.\n\n 478 Im_a_m al-_H_aramayn d.\n\n 481 N_a_sir b. Khusraw d.\n\n 483 _H_asan b. a_s_-_S_abb_ah_ seizes Alam_u_t.\n\n 485 Ni_za_m al-Mulk assass.\n\n 488 Al-Ghazz_a_l_i_ leaves Baghd_a_d.\n\n 505 Al-Ghazz_a_l_i_ d.\n\n 515 \u2018Umar al-Khayy_a_m d.\n\n 516 Al-Baghaw_i_ d.\n\n 524 Ibn T_u_mart al-Mahd_i_ d.\n\n 524-558 \u2018Abd al-Mu\u2019min.\n\n 524-667 The Muwa_hh_ids.\n\n 533 Ab_u_ Bakr b. B_a_jja d.\n\n 537 Ab_u_ _H_afs an-Nasaf_i_ d.\n\n 538 Az-Zamakhshar_i_ d.\n\n 540 Yehuda Halevi d. = A.D. 1145.\n\n 546 Ab_u_ Bakr b. al-\u2018Arab_i_ d.\n\n 548 Ash-Shahrast_a_n_i_ d.\n\n 558 \u2018Abd al-Mu\u2019min the Muwa_hh_id d.\n\n 558 \u2018Ad_i_ al-Hakk_a_r_i_ d.\n\n 558-580 Ab_u_ Ya\u2018q_u_b the Muwa_hh_id.\n\n 561 \u2018Abd al-Q_a_dir al-J_i_l_a_n_i_, founder of order of\n darw_i_shes, d.\n\n 567 Conquest of Egypt by Saladin and end of F_at_imids.\n\n 576 Order of Rif_a_\u2018ites founded.\n\n 580 Ab_u_ Ya\u2018q_u_b d.\n\n 580-596 Ab_u_ Y_u_suf al-Man_su_r.\n\n 581 Ibn _T_ufayl d.\n\n 587 As-Suhraward_i_ executed.\n\n 589 Saladin d.\n\n 590 Ab_u_ Shuj_a_\u2018 d.?\n\n 595 Ibn Rushd d.; Ab_u_ Y_u_suf al-Man_su_r the Muwa_hh_id d.\n\n 601 Maimonides d. = A.D. 1204.\n\n 606 Fakhr ad-D_i_n ar-R_a_z_i_ d.\n\n 620 Ab_u_-l-_H_ajj_a_j b. _T_uml_u_s d.; Fakhr ad-D_i_n b.\n \u2018As_a_kir d.; St. Francis of Assisi d. = A.D. 1226.\n\n 625-941 _H_afsids at Tunis.\n\n 630-640 _A_r-Rash_i_d the Muwa_hh_id.\n\n 632 \u2018Umar b. al-F_a_ri_d_.\n\n 638 Ibn \u2018Arab_i_ d.\n\n 648 Frederick II. d. = A.D. 1250.\n\n 654 End of Assassins by Mongols; Ash-Sh_a_dhil_i_, founder of\n order of darw_i_shes, d.\n\n 667 Ibn Sab\u2018_i_n d.; end of Muwa_hh_ids.\n\n 672 Jal_a_l ad-D_i_n ar-R_u_m_i_ d.\n\n 675 A_h_mad al-Badaw_i_, founder of order of darw_i_shes, d.\n\n 681 Ibn Khallik_a_n d.\n\n 685 Al-Bay_da_w_i_ d.\n\n 693, 698-708, 709-741 Mu_h_ammad An-N_as_ir, Maml_u_k Sul_t_an,\n reg.\n\n 719 An-Na_s_r al-Manbij_i_ d.?\n\n 724 Ibn Rushd is still studied at Almeria.\n\n 728 Ibn Taym_i_ya d.; Meister Eckhart d. = A.D. 1328.\n\n 730 \u2018Abd ar-Razz_a_q d.\n\n 756 Al-\u2018_I_j_i_ d.; Heinrich Suso d.\n\n 791 At-Taft_aza_n_i_ d.; an-Naqshband_i_, founder of order of\n darw_i_shes, d.\n\n 808 Ibn Khald_u_n d.\n\n 857 Capture of Constantinople by Ottomans and office of Shaykh\n al-Isl_a_m created = A.D. 1453. Thomas \u00e0 Kempis d. = A.D. 1471.\n\n 895 M. b. Y_u_suf as-San_u_s_i_ d.\n\n 907 Accession of _S_afawids.\n\n 922 Conquest of Egypt by Ottoman Turks.\n\n 945 Death of al-Mutawakkil, last \u2018Abb_a_sid.\n\n 951 Beginning of Shar_i_fs of Morocco.\n\n 973 Ash-Sha\u2018r_a_n_i_ d.\n\n 1201 \u2018Abd al-Wahh_a_b d. = A.D. 1787.\n\n 1205 Sayyid Murta_da_ d.; al-Fu_da_l_i_ fl. circ. 1220.\n\n 1252 Foundation of Brotherhood of as-San_u_s_i_ = A.D. 1837.\n\n 1260 Ibr_a_h_i_m al-B_a_j_u_r_i_ d.; Decree of Porte that\n apostate Muslims should not be put to death.\n\n 1275 Death of founder of Brotherhood of as-San_u_s_i_ = A.D.\n 1859.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] For Muslim eschatology reference may still be made to Sale\u2019s\nintroduction to the Qur\u2019an, \u00a7 4. The punishment of the grave is what,\nin the case of unbelievers, follows the inquisition by the two angels\n_Munkar_ and _Nakir_; see on them Lane\u2019s _Modern Egyptians_, chap.\nxxviii; on the whole subject, see translations by Gautier and Wolff and\ntractate by R\u00fcling (Bibliography, p. 367).\n\n[2] This, one of the dividing questions between Sunnites and Shi\u2018ites,\nbelongs to theology as well as law. See p. 314 and Goldziher, _Zur\nLiteraturgeschichte der Si\u2018a_, p. 87.\n\n[3] The Mu\u2018tazilites held that articles of sustenance of a forbidden\nnature, such as pork or wine, could not be called _rizq_ in this\ntechnical sense; that God could not so use them. The orthodox retorted\nthat a man might live his life out on forbidden things; had he then been\nindependent of God as to his sustenance? The Mu\u2018tazilites defined _rizq_\nas \u201ca possession which its possessor eats\u201d and as \u201cthat from which one is\nnot hindered from profiting\u201d; the orthodox, as a name for that which God\nsends to man and the other animals and they eat it and profit by it.\n\n[4] Some will run into the fire and find themselves immediately in\nParadise; these would have been believers. Others will refuse, and will\nbe treated as their parents.\n\n[5] This is not the normal doctrine of Islam and the commentators have to\nexplain this passage away. Consult in the chapters on theology, the whole\nSufi development and especially the views of al-Ghazzali. Al-Mataridi was\ngreatly influenced by Abu Hanifa, who was hostile to mystics. Notice,\ntoo, the philosophical basis and beginning of this creed.\n\n[6] A sect of the Mu\u2018tazilites held that a man could have two _ajals_,\none his end by a natural death appointed by God, the other his end by\na violent death, not so appointed. The \u201cPhilosophers\u201d are said to have\nheld that one _ajal_ would be when the mechanism of the body ceased to\nwork through the failing of its essential moisture and heat, and another\n_ajal_ might come through sicknesses and accident generally.\n\n[7] See in bibliography, S. Keijzer, _Pr\u00e9cis, etc_. Much help as to\ndetails of religious ritual and law will be found in Hughes\u2019s _Dictionary\nof Islam_, Sachau\u2019s _Muhammedanisches Recht_, Lane\u2019s _Modern Egyptians_,\nand commentary to his translation of the _Arabian Nights_, Burton\u2019s\n_Pilgrimage_, and Sell\u2019s _Faith of Islam_.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF NAMES AND ARABIC WORDS\n\n\n Abad_i_, 300\n\n Al-\u2018Abb_a_s, 10, 32\n\n \u2018Abb_a_sids, 10, 32, 34, 39, 45, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 91, 92-94, 97,\n 98, 132-135, 153, 154, 167, 169, 174\n\n \u2018Abd, 294\n\n \u2018Abd All_a_h, father of Mu_h_ammad, 350, f.\n\n \u2018Abd All_a_h ibn az-Zubayr, 23, 25\n\n \u2018Abd All_a_h ibn Maym_u_n, 40, 42-44\n\n \u2018Abd All_a_h ibn \u2018Umar, 298\n\n \u2018Abd al-Mu\u2019min, 248, 252\n\n \u2018Abd al-Mu_tt_alib, 351\n\n \u2018Abd al-Q_a_dir al-J_i_l_a_n_i_, 267\n\n \u2018Abd ar-Ra_h_m_a_n, the Umayyad, 33\n\n \u2018Abd ar-Razz_a_q, 271, f.\n\n \u2018_A_bid, 173, 174\n\n \u2018_A_bida, 174\n\n Abkam, 340\n\n Abraham, also Ibr_a_h_i_m, 43, 226, 345\n\n Ab_u_ \u2018Abd All_a_h ibn Karr_a_m; see Ibn Karr_a_m\n\n Ab_u_-l-\u2018Al_a_ al-Ma\u2018arr_i_, 199\n\n Ab_u_ Bakr, 1st Kh., 13-16, 23, 24, 36, 56, 71, 165, 200, 250, 268, 297,\n 307, 313, 346\n\n Ab_u_ D_a_\u2019_u_d as-Sijist_a_n_i_, 81\n\n Ab_u_ Dharr, 207\n\n Ab_u_-l-_H_ajj_a_j ibn _T_uml_u_s, 260\n\n Ab_u_ _H_an_i_fa, 94-102, 106, 121, 127, 193, 309\n\n Ab_u_ H_a_shim, 159, f.\n\n Ab_u_ Hudhayl, 136-139, 159, 248\n\n Ab_u_ Sahl, 325\n\n Ab_u_ Shuj_a_\u2018 al-Ispah_a_n_i_, 351\n\n Ab_u_ Sufy_a_n, 22\n\n Ab_u_ Sulaym_a_n of Damascus, 175\n\n Ab_u_ _Ta_lib, 10\n\n Ab_u_ _Ta_lib al-Makk_i_, 176, f.\n\n Ab_u_ \u2018Ubayda, 150\n\n Ab_u_ Ya\u2018q_u_b ibn \u2018Abd al-Mu\u2019min, 252-255\n\n Ab_u_ Y_u_suf, the Q_adi_, 96-99\n\n Ab_u_ Y_u_suf al-Man_su_r, 252, 255\n\n Active Intellect, 236, 250-253, 256, 265\n\n \u2018_A_da, 113\n\n \u2018Adad, 326\n\n _A_dam, 42, 43, 171, 232, 312, 332, 346\n\n \u2018Adam, 316\n\n \u2018Ad_i_ al-Hakk_a_r_i_, 267\n\n \u2018_A_dil, 356\n\n \u2018Adl, 291\n\n Africa, 59\n\n Africa, East, 24, 26\n\n Africa, North, 26, 35, 45, 46, 62, 243\n\n Ahl al-ahw_a_, 122, 299\n\n Ahl at-taw_hi_d wal-\u2018adl, 136\n\n Ahl kit_a_b, 24\n\n A_h_mad al-Badaw_i_, 267, 269\n\n A_h_mad al-Malaw_i_, 331\n\n A_h_mad ar-Rif_a_\u2018a, 267\n\n A_h_mad ibn \u2018Abd All_a_h ibn Maym_u_n, 44\n\n A_h_mad ibn Ab_i_ Duw_a_d, 156\n\n A_h_mad ibn _H_anbal, 79, 103, 110, 157, 158, 172, 175, 176, 187, 274,\n 277, 293\n\n \u2018_A_\u2019isha, wife of Mu_h_ammad, 10, 13, 21\n\n \u2018_A_\u2019isha, daughter of Ja\u2018far a_s_-_Sa_diq, 173\n\n Ajal, 298, 311\n\n Al-Ajh_u_r_i_, 346\n\n \u2018Ajz, 317, 339\n\n Al-Akh_t_al, 89\n\n \u2018_A_lam al-jabar_u_t, 234\n\n \u2018_A_lam al-malak_u_t, 234, 235\n\n \u2018_A_lam al-mulk, 234\n\n Alam_u_t, 49, 169, 224\n\n Alastu bi-rabbikum, 171\n\n Aleppo, 162\n\n Alexandria, 241\n\n Algeria, 24, 26, 62\n\n \u2018Alids, 18, 32-35, 37, 51, 155, 157, 166, 187\n\n \u2018Al_i_ ibn Ab_i_ _Ta_lib, 18-31, 36, 37, 44, 45, 88, 121, 155, 182, 249,\n 259, 275, 297, 307, 313, 314, 346\n\n \u2018_A_lim, 337;\n cf. \u2018ulam_a_\n\n All_a_h, 127, 161, 321, 327\n\n Almeria, 260\n\n Alp Arsl_a_n, 213\n\n Alphonso the Wise, 233\n\n Al-\u2018Alqam_i_, 346\n\n A\u2018m_a_, 340\n\n \u2018Am_a_, 340\n\n \u2018Amal, 294, 296, 312\n\n Am_a_na, 347\n\n \u2018Amr ibn \u2018Ubayd, 129\n\n Am_i_na, mother of Mu_h_ammad, 351\n\n Anima Mundi, 232\n\n An_sa_r, 9, 13, 18\n\n \u2018Aq_i_da, 316\n\n \u2018Aq_i_qa, 356\n\n \u2018Aql, 120, 136, 148, 157, 214, 269, 272, 292, 308, 316\n\n Al-\u2019aql al-fa\u2018 \u2018_a_l; see Active Intellect\n\n Arabs, 8, 14, 17, 24, 40, 44-46, 50, 51, 60, 67, 68, 74, 124, 125, 127,\n 133, 134, 150, 157, 243, 305\n\n Arabia, 15, 23, 25, 36, 37, 131\n\n Arabia, South, 28, 36, 37, 45, 59\n\n Arab \u2018Ir_a_q; see al-\u2018Ir_a_q\n\n \u2018Arad, 159, 309, 320\n\n Ar_h_amu-r-r_ah_im_i_n, 210\n\n Aristotelians, Aristotelianism, 134, 140, 144, 161-163, 168, 196, 198,\n 201, 202, 286\n\n Aristotle, 134, 138, 140, 144, 161-164, 198, 221, 232, 236, 248, 253,\n 255, 256, 260, 264\n\n \u2018Arsh, 301\n\n Asal, 253, 254\n\n A_s_amm, 340\n\n Al-asharatu-l-mubashshara, 268, 297, 314\n\n Al-Ash\u2018ari, 187-190, 192, 193, 200, 208, 214, 217, 218, 220, 226, 229,\n 230, 293, 308, 319, 341\n\n Ash\u2018arites, 191, 201, 207-213, 241-247, 272, 273, 276, 280, 291, 292, 338\n\n \u2018_A_sh_u_r_a_, day of, 28\n\n A_s_l, 107, 109\n\n A_s_la_h_, 190, 292, 311;\n see, too, _s_al_ah_\n\n Al-asm_a_ al-_h_usn_a_, 210, 280, 321, 341\n\n Assassins, 27, 49, 53, 59, 169, 170, 196;\n see, too, Ism_a_\u2018_i_lians, B_at_inites, Ta\u2018l_i_mites\n\n \u2018At_a_ ibn Yass_a_r, 128\n\n Athos, Mount, 178\n\n Augustine, 132, 215, 216\n\n Avenpace, 250;\n see, too, Ibn B_a_jja\n\n Averroes, Averroism, 251;\n see, too, Ibn Rushd\n\n Avicenna, 197;\n see, too, Ibn S_i_n_a_\n\n Awl_a_d \u2018Ilw_a_n, 268\n\n Awwal_i_y_a_t, 260\n\n Al-Awz_a_\u2018_i_, 98\n\n \u2018Ayn, 191, 309, 319, 341\n\n Azal_i_, 291, 300, 309, 322, 343\n\n\n B_a_bism, 5\n\n Bad_a_ha, 308\n\n Badakhsh_a_n, 170\n\n Badan, 141\n\n Badawite darw_i_shes, 267\n\n Al-Baghaw_i_, 81, 207\n\n Baghd_a_d, 5, 50-53, 56, 111, 133, 159, 162, 166-168, 175, 184, 185,\n 190, 194, 195, 207, 213, 217, 220, 226, 267\n\n Baghd_a_d, Pashalik of, 60\n\n Bakam, 340\n\n Bal_a_da, 347\n\n Balkh, 174\n\n Baq_a_, 323\n\n Al-B_a_qil_a_n_i_, 200, 201, 207\n\n Barmak, Barmecides, 50\n\n Ba_s_ar, 294, 333\n\n Bashsh_a_r ibn Burd, 150\n\n Ba_s_ir, 337\n\n Al-Ba_s_ra, 18, 23, 25, 83, 150, 159, 167, 174, 187, 188\n\n Ba\u2018th, 296, 311, 329\n\n B_at_in, 314\n\n B_at_inites, 42, 196\n\n Ba_t_n, 42\n\n Bay\u2018, 353\n\n Al-Bay_da_w_i_, 195, 241\n\n Al-Bayj_u_r_i_, 315\n\n Baytu-l-\u2018izza, 335\n\n Bedaw_i_s, 62\n\n Berbers, 45, 243, 244, 248, 249\n\n Al-B_e_r_u_n_i_, 170, 197\n\n Beyrout, 84\n\n Bid\u2018a, 74, 78, 148, 186, 297, 299, 307\n\n Bil_a_ kayfa wal_a_ tashb_i_h, 147, 171, 191, 208, 294, 344;\n cf. kayfa\n\n Bil-fi\u2018l; see Fi\u2018l\n\n Bishr al-_Ha_f_i_, 175, 176\n\n Bishr al-Mar_i_s_i_, 155\n\n Bishr ibn al-Mu\u2018tamir, 142, 143, 151, 152\n\n Al-Bis_ta_m_i_, Ab_u_ Yaz_i_d, 183, 188, 225, 268\n\n Brotherhood of as-San_u_s_i_, 61, ff.\n\n Buddhists, 134\n\n Al-Bukh_a_r_i_, 79, 80, 147, 148\n\n Burgundy, 83\n\n Burh_a_n, 259, 260\n\n Buwayhids, 51, 52, 167, 194, 195, 197, 208\n\n\n C\u00e6sarea, 84\n\n Cairo, 49, 166, 173, 195, 241, 244, 277\n\n Camel, Battle of the, 21\n\n Carthage, 82, 243\n\n Charles the Hammer, 83\n\n Chinese Muslims, 59\n\n Christians, Christianity, 24, 47, 48, 125, 130-134, 137, 144, 147, 151,\n 181, 194\n\n Companions; see _Sah_ibs\n\n Code Napol\u00e9on, 114\n\n Constantine in Algeria, 45\n\n Constantinople, 54, 113\n\n Crusaders, 49\n\n\n Ad-Dajj_a_l, 298, 315\n\n Dal_i_l, 109, 315\n\n _D_am_a_n, 354\n\n Damascus, 14, 82, 88, 131, 175, 177\n\n D_a_r al-_H_arb, 55\n\n D_a_r al-Isl_a_m, 55\n\n _D_ar_u_r_i_, 308\n\n Darw_i_shes, 5, 61, 179, 182, 183, 203, 244, 266, 268\n\n D_a_\u2019_u_d a_z_-_Za_hir_i_, 103, 108-110\n\n D_a_\u2019_u_d ibn Nusayr, 174\n\n Dauphin\u00e9, Le, 83\n\n Dawr, 323\n\n Dhikrs, 174, 178, 179\n\n Dhuh_u_l, 340\n\n Dh_u_-l-faq_a_r, 20\n\n Dh_u_-l-Kifl, 346\n\n Dh_u_-n-N_u_n, 176\n\n Dh_u_-n-N_u_rayn, 313\n\n D_i_n, 293, 297, 298, 305, 307\n\n Diya, 355\n\n Diy_a_na, 293\n\n Druses, 27, 48, 59, 170\n\n\n Eckart, the mystic, 180\n\n Edict of the Pr\u00e6tor, 87\n\n Egypt, Egyptians, 14, 21, 23, 30, 45-49, 53, 62, 82, 187, 244, 277, 287\n\n Emessa, 163\n\n Erigena, Scotus, 182\n\n Euchites, 178\n\n Euclid, 134\n\n Euphrates, 133\n\n\n Fakhr ad-D_i_n ar-R_a_z_i_, 241\n\n Fakhr ad-Din ibn \u2018As_a_kir, 273\n\n Fan_a_, 338\n\n Faq_i_h, fuqah_a_, 73, 85, 270\n\n Faq_i_rs, 268\n\n Al-F_a_r_a_b_i_, 162-164, 165, 167, 169, 181, 196, 215, 221, 236, 250\n\n Far_a_gh, 317\n\n Far_d_, 73\n\n Far_id_a, 354\n\n Al-F_a_r_u_q, 313\n\n Fa_ta_na, 347\n\n F_at_ima, daughter of Mu_h_ammad, 20, 30, 36, 346, 347\n\n F_at_ima of Nays_a_b_u_r, 173\n\n F_at_imids, 27, 36, 45, 47, 49, 165-167, 169, 173, 184, 197, 224, 241,\n 244, 251\n\n Fatw_a_, 115, 184, 276, 277\n\n Fay\u2019, 356\n\n Bil-fi\u2018l, 328\n\n F_i_ ma_h_all; see ma_h_all\n\n Fiqh, 77, 87, 116, 132, 208, 209, 245, 252, 261, 270, 279, 282;\n cf. faq_i_h\n\n Firdaws_i_, 170\n\n St. Francis of Assisi, 180\n\n Frederick II., the Hohenstaufen, 263\n\n Friday, 35, 51, 235, 298, 313\n\n Al-Fud_a_l_i_, 191, 315\n\n Al-Fu_d_ayl ibn \u2018Iy_ad_, 174, 175\n\n Fus_tat_, 83\n\n\n Galen, 134\n\n Ghafala, 340\n\n Al-Gh_a_n_i_, 327\n\n Ghan_i_ma, 356\n\n Gha_s_b, 354\n\n Al-Ghayb, 139, 281, 314\n\n Al-Ghazz_a_l_i_, 139, 165, 176, 183, 195, 199, 207, 215-241, 245-249,\n 253, 257, 260-264, 267, 270, 284-286, 300, 309\n\n Gh_i_ba, 349\n\n Ghusl, 352\n\n Gond_e_sh_a_p_u_r, 134\n\n Greek monks, 178\n\n Greek philosophy, science, etc., 133, 138, 140, 144, 159, 161, 162\n\n\n _H_ab_i_b, 175\n\n _H_add, 314, 355\n\n _H_ad_i_th, 75, 77, 78, 87, 94, 121, 190, 209, 261, 270\n\n _Ha_dith, 320, 322, 328, 332\n\n _H_ad_i_th an-nafs, 273, 336, 350\n\n _H_a_d_ramawt, 60\n\n _H_af_s_ids, 265\n\n _Ha_\u2019il, 60\n\n _H_ajar as-saf_i_h, 354\n\n _Ha_jj, 275, 278, 292, 353\n\n Al-_H_ajj_a_j, 209, 298\n\n Al-_Ha_kim Bi\u2019amrillah, 47, 48\n\n Al-_H_akam ibn ab_i_-l-\u2018_As_, 17\n\n _Ha_l, 160, 176, 227, 310, 319, 322, 337\n\n _Ha_l nafs_i_, 319\n\n _H_al_a_l, 298\n\n Al-_H_all_a_j, 183-185, 298\n\n Halley\u2019s comet, 34\n\n Hamd_a_nids, 162, 165\n\n Hamilton, Sir William, 237\n\n _H_anbalites, 115, 121, 158, 167, 190, 191, 200, 207, 208, 212-214, 237,\n 273, 274, 278\n\n _H_an_i_f, 125\n\n _H_anifites, 115\n\n _H_aq_i_qa, 328, 329\n\n _H_aqq, 356\n\n _H_ar_a_m, 73, 298, 311\n\n Al-_H_ar_a_m_a_n, 56, 213\n\n Al-_Ha_rith al-Mu_ha_sib_i_, 175, 177, 187, 225\n\n Harr_a_n, 133, 134\n\n H_a_r_u_n ar-Rash_i_d, 50, 97, 98, 144, 153, 155, 175\n\n _H_asad, 349\n\n Al-_H_asan, 20, 27, 28, 35\n\n Al-_H_asan al-Ba_s_r_i_, 128, 129, 130, 172, 173\n\n _H_asan ibn a_s_-_S_abb_ah_, 224\n\n H_a_shim, 10, 17, 32, 313, 351\n\n _H_aw_a_la, 354\n\n _H_aw_d_, 249, 296, 306, 311, 349\n\n _H_ay_a_h, 332\n\n _H_ayy, 337\n\n Al-_H_ayy, 211\n\n _H_ayy ibn Yaq_za_n, 253, 254\n\n Hebron, 226\n\n Hegel, 143, 233\n\n Her_a_t, 82, 207\n\n Hesychasts, 178\n\n Hiba, 354\n\n _H_id_a_na, 355\n\n Hidden Im_a_m, 31, 37, 41, 56, 116;\n cf. Im_a_m, Im_a_mites\n\n Hierotheos, 181\n\n Al-_H_ij_a_z, 212\n\n Hippocrates, 134\n\n H_u_d, 346\n\n _H_ud_u_th, 320, 338;\n cf. _ha_dith, mu_h_dath\n\n _H_ukm, 292\n\n H_u_l_a_g_u_, 49, 53\n\n _H_ul_u_l, 228\n\n Hume, 229, 230\n\n Al-_H_usayn, 20, 28\n\n Huwa-l-_h_aqq, 203\n\n\n I\u2018_a_ra, 354\n\n Ib_ad_ites, 5, 26, 54, 115, 117, 126\n\n Ibn\u2018Abd al-Wahh_a_b; see Mu_h_am, mad ibn \u2018Abd al-Wahh_a_b\n\n Ibn Ab_i_ \u2018Awj_a_, 80\n\n Ibn al-\u2018Arab_i_, 316, 322, 323, 328\n\n Ibn \u2018Arab_i_, 241, 261, 264, 271, 277, 280\n\n Ibn ash-Shalmagh_a_n_i_, 185\n\n Ibn B_a_jja, 250, 252, 255, 257\n\n Ibn H_a_ni, 170\n\n Ibn _H_azm, 209-212, 245-248, 261, 275, 280\n\n Ibn Ib_ad_, \u2018Abd All_a_h, 25, 26, 116\n\n Ibn Karr_a_m, 170, ff.\n\n Ibn Khald_u_n, 50, 81, 242, f.\n\n Ibn Khallik_a_n, 185\n\n Ibn M_a_ja, 81\n\n Ibn al-Muqaffa\u2018, 150\n\n Ibn Rushd, 161, 163, 195, 206, 215, 236, 248, 252, 255, 256-261, 264-286\n\n Ibn Sab\u2018_i_n, \u2018Abd al-_H_aqq, 263, 264, 267, 277\n\n Ibn S_i_n_a_, 163, 171, 197, 221, 228, 236, 241, 250, 257\n\n Ibn Taym_i_ya, 270-278, 283-285\n\n Ibn _T_ufayl, 252-256, 261\n\n Ibn T_u_mart, 207, 245-248, 252, 275\n\n Ibr_a_h_i_m ibn Adham, 174, 268\n\n Al-id_a_fatu-l-\u2018_a_mm lil-kh_ass_, 337\n\n Al-id_a_fatu-l-bay_a_n_i_ya, 337\n\n \u2018Idda, 355\n\n Idr_i_s, 346\n\n Idr_i_s ibn \u2018Abd All_a_h, 35\n\n Idr_i_sids, 34, 102\n\n I_hat_a, 332\n\n I_h_s_a_n, 293\n\n I_h_tiy_a_j il_a_ ma_h_all, 339\n\n I_h_y_a_, 338\n\n I_h_y_a_ of al-Ghazz_a_l_i_, 285, 300\n\n I_h_y_a_ al-maw_a_t, 354\n\n Ij_a_ra, 354\n\n I\u2018j_a_z, 151\n\n Al-\u2018_I_j_i_, 241, 269\n\n Ijm_a_\u2018, 57, 58, 72, 94, 101, 105, 209, 292, 328, 351\n\n Ijm_a_l_i_, 316\n\n Ikhtil_a_f, 116\n\n Ikhtiy_a_r, 192, 310, 339, 345\n\n Ikhw_a_n a_s_-_s_af_a_, 167, 169, 194, 196, 199\n\n Iktis_a_b, 280;\n cf. kasb\n\n Iktis_a_b_i_, 309\n\n _I_l_a_, 355\n\n Il_ha_d, 314\n\n Ilh_a_m, 281, 309\n\n Ilj_a_m al-\u2018aw_a_mm\u2018an \u2018ilm al-kal_a_m of al-Ghazz_a_l_i_, 260\n\n \u2018Illa, 107, 319, 337;\n cf. ta\u2018l_i_l\n\n \u2018Ilm, 201, 294, 332\n\n \u2018Ilw_a_n, the Shaykh, 268\n\n Im_a_m, 26, 29, 31, 36-38, 41-43, 46, 54, 57, 142, 155, 165, 167, 188,\n 197, 212, 224, 286, 292, 293, 297-299, 311, 313, 318, 350\n\n Im_a_m al-_H_aramayn, 212, 213, 217, 230, 317\n\n Im_a_mites, 37, 57, 59, 116, 126, 142, 247\n\n _I_m_a_n, 126, 127, 292-296, 311, 312, 318, 350\n\n Im_a_ta, 338\n\n Imd_a_d_a_t, 330\n\n Imti_ha_n, 148;\n cf. mi_h_na\n\n India, 51, 55, 56, 59, 61\n\n India, Emperor of, 55\n\n Indian Mu\u2018tazilism, 286\n\n Inj_i_l, 304\n\n In sh_a_\u2019 All_a_h, 272\n\n Iqr_a_r, 312, 354\n\n Ir_a_da, 330\n\n Al-\u2018Ir_a_q, 209\n\n \u2018Ir_a_q, Arab, 44\n\n Ir_da_, 355\n\n Irj_a_, 292;\n cf. Murji\u2019ites\n\n \u2018_I_s_a_; see Jesus\n\n Isl_a_m, 7, 13-15, 19-27, 37, 40-48, 52-55, 58, 59, 68, 71-74, 118-120,\n 124, 130, 136, 141, 142, 149, 151-154, 158-161, 167, 173, 176, 177,\n 180-183, 186, 190, 191, 206, 212-215, 218, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233,\n 235, 238-244, 248, 261, 262, 270, 278, 282-284, 292, 296, 312\n\n \u2018I_s_ma, 247, 292, 314, 347\n\n Ism_a_\u2018_i_l, 41, 42, 43\n\n Ism_a_\u2018_i_lians, 42, 44, 57, 59, 169, 170, 196\n\n Isn_a_d, 75, 78, 79\n\n Ispahan, 195\n\n Istaw_a_, Istiw_a_, 186, 294, 301\n\n Istidl_a_l_i_, 308\n\n Isti_h_s_a_n, 87, 94, 96\n\n Isti_s_l_ah_, 87, 100, 101\n\n Isti_ta_\u2018a, 310\n\n Istiw_a_; see Istaw_a_\n\n I\u2018tazala \u2018ann_a_, 130\n\n Ithn_a_ \u2018Ashar_i_ya, 38\n\n I\u2018tib_a_r, 201, 341\n\n I\u2018tib_a_r ikhtir_a_\u2018_i_, 342\n\n I\u2018tib_a_r intiz_a_\u2018_i_, 342\n\n I\u2018tid_a_l, 221\n\n I\u2018tik_a_f, 353\n\n \u2018Itq, 357\n\n Itti_ha_d, 228, 277\n\n\n Ja\u2018_a_la, 354\n\n Jabarites, 292, 344\n\n Jabr, 291, 344\n\n Jacob, 350\n\n Jadl_i_ya, 259\n\n Ja\u2018far a_s_-_Sa_diq, 42, 173\n\n Al-Jafr, 249\n\n Jahannam, 306\n\n Al-J_a_hil_i_ya, the Barbarism, or the Ignorance, 8, 74, 77, 173\n\n Al-J_ah_i_z_, 160, 161\n\n Jahl, 340\n\n Jahm ibn _S_afw_a_n, 126, 138, 146, 150\n\n Jahmites, 294, 299\n\n J_a_\u2019iz, 73, 316, 348\n\n Jal_a_l ad-D_i_n ar-R_u_m_i_, 267\n\n J_a_mi\u2018, 80\n\n Jarab_u_b, 62\n\n Jawhar, 159, 309\n\n Jawhar r_uha_n_i_, 231\n\n Jerusalem, 14, 40, 42, 146, 226\n\n Jesus, \u2018_I_s_a_, 42, 146, 315, 345\n\n Jews, 24, 47, 68, 70, 133, 134, 144, 194\n\n Jibr_i_l, 292, 293, 335, 336\n\n Jih_a_d, 55, 63, 246, 356\n\n Jin_a_ya, 355\n\n Jinn, Jinn_i_, J_a_nn, 76, 281, 283, 286, 299, 304, 305, 324\n\n Jirm, 317, 320\n\n Jism, 143, 309\n\n Jizya, 15, 356\n\n John of Damascus, 89, 131, 132, 137, 146\n\n Al-Jubb_a_\u2018_i_, 159, 160, 172, 188-190\n\n Al-Junayd, 176, 177, 183, 187, 225, 282\n\n Jurisprudentes, 85, 86\n\n Juththa, 334\n\n Al-Juwayn_i_; see Im_a_m al-_H_aramayn\n\n\n Ka\u2018ba, 149, 268, 278\n\n Kab_i_ra, 127, 296, 311, 349\n\n Kaf_a_la, 354\n\n Kaf_i_r, 295, 316, 328, 350;\n cf. kufr, takf_i_r\n\n \u201cKalila and Dimna,\u201d 150\n\n K_a_hin, 314\n\n Kal_a_m, 147, 149, 151, 157, 175, 186, 188, 193, 200, 206, 208, 214,\n 216, 241, 242, 245, 276, 278, 286, 294, 309, 315, 335\n\n Kal_a_m All_a_h, 146\n\n Kal_a_m nafs_i_, _h_ad_i_th fi-n-nafs, 273, 336\n\n Kalimat_a_-sh-shah_a_da, 300\n\n Al-kalimat_a_n, 30\n\n Kallima-ll_a_hu M_u_s_a_ takl_i_m_a_, 149\n\n Kamm munfa_s_il, 325\n\n Kamm mutta_s_il, 325\n\n Kant, 191, 200, 201\n\n Al-Kar_a_b_i_s_i_, 187\n\n Kar_a_ha, 339\n\n Kar_a_ma, 174, 213, 228, 230, 274, 281, 282, 313\n\n Karbala, 28\n\n Karr_a_mites, 170, 191, 195, 291, 292\n\n Kasb, 179, 192, 292;\n cf. iktis_a_b\n\n Kashf, 120, 172, 179, 215, 269\n\n Kashsh_a_f of az-Zamakhshar_i_, 195\n\n Kawn, 309;\n cf. takw_i_n\n\n Kawn \u2018_a_jiz, 340\n\n Kawn j_a_hil, 340\n\n Kawn k_a_rih, 340\n\n Kawn mayyit, 340\n\n Kawn mur_i_d, 337\n\n Kawn q_a_dir, 336\n\n Al-Kawthar, 306, 349\n\n Kayfa, 297\n\n Kayf_i_ya, 309, 334\n\n Kempis, Thomas \u00e0, 177, 180\n\n Khabar, 308\n\n Khad_i_ja, 347\n\n Al-Kha_d_ir, 281, 283\n\n Khal_i_fa, Khalifate, 13-28, 32-38, 45, 47, 51-58, 297, 313;\n cf. al-Khulaf_a_\n\n Khalq, 338\n\n Kh_a_nq_a_h, 229, 266\n\n Khar_a_j, 15\n\n Kharas, 340, 341\n\n Kh_a_rijites, 23-27, 32, 40, 44, 57, 59, 123-126, 131, 172, 212, 292,\n 294, 296\n\n Kha_t_ar_a_t, 331\n\n Khi_ta_b_i_ya, 259\n\n Khi_t_ba, 355\n\n Khiy_a_na, 347\n\n Khuffs, 298, 314, 347, 352, 355\n\n Khul\u2018, 355\n\n Al-Khulaf_a_-ar-r_a_shid_u_n, 22, 87, 99, 105, 114\n\n Khur_a_s_a_n, 171, 174, 177\n\n Khu_t_b_a_, 56\n\n Khuzist_a_n, 25, 134\n\n Kibr, 349\n\n Kidhb, 347\n\n Al-Kind_i_, 155, 161, 187\n\n Kit_a_ba, 357\n\n Kitm_a_n, 347\n\n Kubr_a_ of as-San_u_s_i_, 316\n\n Al-K_u_fa, 18, 23, 28, 83\n\n Kufr, 157, 296, 311, 332, 349;\n cf. takf_i_r, k_a_fir\n\n\n Lab_i_d, 149\n\n Laf_z_, 147, 335\n\n Laqab, 347\n\n Laq_it_, 354\n\n L_a_ shay\u2019, 328\n\n Al-law_h_ al-ma_h_f_uz_, 335\n\n Laylatu-l-qadr, 335\n\n Lebanon, 48\n\n Leibnitz, 192, 200, 203\n\n Li\u2018_a_n, 355\n\n Logos, 146-148, 151\n\n Lucretius, 200\n\n Luq_t_a, 354\n\n Lu_t_f, 292\n\n\n Ma\u2018bad al-Ju_h_ani, 128\n\n Al-Mad_i_na, 7, 8, 18, 35, 56, 67, 69-71, 72, 82, 87, 88, 99, 101, 102,\n 165, 213, 216, 226, 278, 284, 346\n\n Madrasa, 229\n\n Ma\u2018d_u_m, 159, 314, 319;\n cf. \u2018adam\n\n Maf_a_t_ih_ al-ghayb of ar-R_a_z_i_, 241\n\n Magians, 144\n\n Al-Maghrib, 243\n\n Ma_h_all, 317, 325\n\n Mahall (fi), 137\n\n Al-Mahd_i_, 27, 34, 45, 63, 114, 244-249\n\n Al-Mahd_i_, the \u2018Abb_a_sid Khal_i_fa, 35, 134\n\n Al-Mahd_i_ya, 165, 244\n\n M_a_h_i_ya, 309\n\n Ma_h_m_u_d of Ghazna, 170, 195, 197\n\n Mahr, 355\n\n Maimonides, 237\n\n Maine, Sir Henry, 65, 85, 114\n\n Maj_a_z_i_, 329\n\n M_a_j_u_j, 315\n\n Makhl_u_q_a_t, 324\n\n Makr_u_h, 73, 347\n\n Malay Archipelago, 62\n\n M_a_lik ibn Anas, 35, 78, 99-103, 106, 147, 186, 245, 346\n\n M_a_likites, 115\n\n Ma\u2018mar ibn \u2018Abb_a_d, 143\n\n Maml_u_ks, 53, 54, 275\n\n Al-Ma\u2019m_u_n, 50, 110, 140, 144, 154-159, 162, 166, 277\n\n Mand_u_b, 73, 347\n\n Manich\u00e6ans, 133, 134\n\n Mansel, H. L., 237\n\n Al-Mans_u_r, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 33, 34, 50, 134, 153, 154\n\n Maq_a_ma, 176\n\n Al-Maq_a_sid, 346\n\n Maqb_u_l_a_t, 259\n\n Mar\u2019an, 314\n\n Ma\u2018rifa, 201, 350\n\n Mar_i_ya the Copt, 347\n\n Ma\u2018r_u_f of al-Karkh, 175\n\n Marw_a_n II., 32\n\n Marw_a_n ibn al-_H_akam, 17\n\n Mas_a_b_ih_ as-sunna of al-Baghaw_i_, 81\n\n Mas_h_, 298, 314\n\n Mashh_u_r_a_t, 259\n\n Mashya, 294\n\n Ma_s_la_h_a, 101\n\n Masy_a_f, 49\n\n Al-M_a_tar_i_d_i_, 187, 193, 207, 308\n\n M_a_taridites, 200, 207, 337, 338\n\n Matn, 75, 78\n\n Maw_a_qif of al \u2018_I_j_i_, 241\n\n Mawj_u_b, 347;\n cf. w_a_jib\n\n Mawj_u_d, 159, 191, 314, 319;\n cf. wuj_u_d\n\n Mawlawite darw_i_shes, 267\n\n Mawqif, 296, 349\n\n Maw_s_il, 267\n\n Mawt, 340\n\n Maym_u_n, 40\n\n Ma_z_n_u_n_a_t, 259\n\n Mecca, 9, 17, 23, 25, 32, 46, 56, 62, 68, 174, 184, 213, 217, 226, 265,\n 285, 296, 346\n\n Merv, 217\n\n Mesnev_i_, The, 267\n\n Mesopotamia, 23, 44, 82, 131, 187\n\n Mi_h_na, 156, 157\n\n Minister of Justice, 114\n\n Mi\u2018r_a_j, 298, 312\n\n Mongols, 49, 52, 53, 169\n\n Monophysites, 181\n\n Morocco, 35, 62\n\n Moses, 42, 149, 192, 295, 296, 304, 336, 345\n\n Mu\u2018_a_wiya, 21-23, 28, 88\n\n Mub_ah_, 73, 348\n\n Mubtadi\u2018, 307;\n cf. bid\u2018a\n\n Muft_i_, 115;\n cf. fatw_a_\n\n Muh_a_jirs, 8, 13, 20\n\n Mu_h_ammad, the Prophet, 7-13, 16-22, 28, 30, 35, 37, 42-45, 56, 57, 58,\n 67-75, 83, 86-89, 95, 104-106, 112, 120-133, 140-150, 155, 160, 161,\n 164, 165, 171, 172, 175-180, 188, 210, 227-231, 243, 245, 249, 253,\n 254, 263, 270, 275-278, 284, 285, 292-294, 298, 305, 308, 312, 335,\n 336, 345, 346, 349, 350, 351\n\n Mu_h_ammad II., Ottoman Sul_ta_n, 113\n\n Mu_h_ammad al-\u2018All_a_f; see Ab_u_ Hudhayl\n\n Mu_h_ammad al-Munta_z_ar, 187\n\n Mu_h_ammad an-Naqshband_i_, 267\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn \u2018Abd al-Wahh_a_b, 60, 283\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn Ab_i_ Bakr, 18\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn al-_H_anaf_i_ya, 29, 31\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn al-_H_asan, 38, 96, 102\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn \u2018Al_i_ as-San_u_s_i_; see as-San_u_s_i_\n\n Mu_h_ammad ibn Ism_a_\u2018_i_l, 42, 43, 45\n\n Mu_h_arram, 347\n\n Al-Mu_ha_sib_i_; see Al-_Ha_rith\n\n Mu_h_dath, 309;\n cf. _ha_dith, _h_ud_u_th\n\n Mu_h_dith, 309, 321\n\n Mu_h_san, 355\n\n Mu_h_y_i_ ad-D_i_n ibn \u2018Arab_i_; see Ibn \u2018Arab_i_\n\n Al-Mu\u2018izz, F_at_imid Khal_i_fa, 170\n\n Mujassim, 191, 291;\n cf. jism\u2019, tajs_i_m\n\n M_u_jid, 325\n\n Mu\u2018jiza, 141, 151, 313, 345\n\n Mujtahid, 38, 116, 275, 287, 315\n\n Mujtahid_u_n bil-fatw_a_, 113\n\n Mujtahid_u_n fi-l-madh_a_hib, 113\n\n Mujtahid_u_n mu_t_laq, 112\n\n Mukallaf, 280, 317, 318, 321, 323, 342, 345;\n cf. takl_i_f\n\n Muk_a_shafa, 227\n\n Mukh_a_bara, 354\n\n Mukh_a_lafa lil-_h_aw_a_dith, 205, 210, 232, 280, 324\n\n Mukha_ss_i_s_, 325\n\n Mum_a_thala, 338\n\n Mu\u2019min, 126, 130, 350\n\n Mumkin_a_t, 330\n\n Munkar, 296, 298, 305, 311\n\n Munazzah, 324\n\n Munta_z_ar, 313;\n see, too, Mu_h_ammad al-Munta_z_ar\n\n Muqallad, 316, 350;\n cf. taql_i_d\n\n Al-Muqanna\u2018, 30\n\n Munqidh min a_d_-dal_a_l of al-Ghazz_a_l_i_, 216, 225, 239\n\n Muqarrab, 306\n\n Al-Muqtadir, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 184\n\n Mur_a_bi_t_s, 246, 251\n\n Marji\u2019ites, 122-127, 129, 131, 132, 171, 193, 214, 292\n\n Murtadd, 24, 297\n\n M_u_s_a_, see Moses\n\n M_u_s_a_ al-Qazam, 42\n\n Mus_a_q_a_t, 354\n\n Musallam_a_t, 259\n\n Musannaf, 79\n\n Musaylima, 150\n\n Mushabbih, 191;\n cf. bil_a_ kayfa\n\n Mush_a_hada, 327\n\n Mushrik, 284, 299;\n cf. shirk, shar_i_k\n\n Muslim, 80\n\n Musnad, 79, 110\n\n Al-Mu_st_af_a_, 300\n\n Musta_h_abb, 73\n\n Musta_hi_l, 316\n\n Mustan_s_ir, F_at_imid Kh., 170\n\n Mutakallims, 147, 186, 193-196, 215, 231, 262, 276, 337\n\n Al-Mu\u2018tasim, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 157, 158, 162, 163\n\n Mutaq_a_bil_a_t, 330\n\n Al-Mutawakkil, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 157, 162\n\n Mutaw_a_tir, 308\n\n Mu\u2018tazilites, 37, 57, 120, 130, 135-138, 140, 143-146, 151-159, 166,\n 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 184-196, 200, 207, 208, 211-214, 220-226,\n 241, 248, 291-294, 298, 299, 311, 336, 337, 343, 344\n\n Muwa_hh_ids, 179, 207, 246-257, 261-265, 284, 296, 307\n\n Muwa_tt_a\u2019 of M_a_lik ibn Anas, 78, 82, 101, 102\n\n Al-Muzd_a_r, 151\n\n Mzab in Algeria, 26, 59\n\n\n Nabateans, 44\n\n Nab_i_, 263, 312, 345\n\n Nab_i_dh, 314\n\n Nadhr, 356\n\n Nafaqa, 355\n\n Naf_i_sa, The Lady, 173\n\n Nafs, 234, 272, 334\n\n Nah_a_wand, 14, 133\n\n Naj_a_s_a_t, 352\n\n Najd, 60\n\n Najj_a_rites, 292\n\n Nak_i_r, 296, 298, 305, 311\n\n Naq_i_b, 268\n\n Naql, 120, 148, 157, 214, 269, 297, 310\n\n Naqshbandite darw_i_shes, 267\n\n Narbonne, 83\n\n An-Nasaf_i_, 193, 207, 277, 308\n\n An-Nas_a_\u2019_i_, 81, 152\n\n N_a_sir ibn Khusraw, 170\n\n An-N_as_ir, Maml_u_k Sul_ta_n, 277\n\n An-Na_s_r al-Manb_i_j_i_, 277\n\n Na_ss_, 29, 95, 292\n\n Nays_a_b_u_r, 217, 229\n\n Na_z_r, 208\n\n An-Na_zza_m, 140, 143, 152\n\n Neo-Platonism, 163, 164, 168, 180, 181, 196, 232, 235, 236, 253, 255,\n 264, 272\n\n Nik_ah_, 354\n\n Nisba, 337\n\n Ni_za_m al-Mulk, 213, 217, 218\n\n Ni_za_mite Academy, 213, 217\n\n Noah, or N_uh_, 42, 43, 345\n\n Nu_s_ayrites, 59\n\n\n Old Man of the Mountain, Shaykh al-jabal, 49\n\n Ottoman Sul_ta_n, 10, 56, 58, 59\n\n Ottoman Turks, 36, 52, 53, 54, 60\n\n Pan-Isl_a_mic movement, 59\n\n Parsees, 194\n\n People of Paradise, 139\n\n People of the Sunna, 336, 337\n\n Persia, Persian, 14, 23, 31, 36-41, 44, 49, 50, 51, 82, 131-134, 150,\n 155, 157, 184\n\n Persian Gulf, 60\n\n Persian mysticism, 5\n\n Plato, 134, 162-165, 235\n\n Plotinus, Plotinian, 163-165, 182, 231, 256, 269, 280\n\n Porphyrius, 163\n\n Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, 181, 182\n\n Ptolemaic system, 233\n\n Ptolemy, 134\n\n Pythagoreanism, 168, 170\n\n\n Qa_da_, 291, 295, 342, 356\n\n Qadar, 128, 135-137, 242, 291, 293, 295, 342\n\n Qadarites, 122, 127-132, 135, 137, 140, 292, 344\n\n Q_adi_, 115, 156, 245, 356\n\n Qad_i_m, 143, 300, 322, 343\n\n Al-Q_a_dir, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 193-195\n\n Q_a_dir, 319\n\n Q_a_dirite darw_i_shes, 267, 269\n\n Al-Q_a_dis_i_ya, 14, 133\n\n Q_a_n_u_ns, 114\n\n Qarma_t_ians, 44, 46, 170, 184, 188\n\n Qasm, 356\n\n Qatt_a_t, 350\n\n Qawl, 296\n\n Qidam, 322\n\n Qir_ad_, 354\n\n Qi_sas_, 355\n\n Al-Qiy_a_ma, 349;\n cf. Yawm\n\n Qiy_a_m bin-nafs, 325\n\n Qiy_a_s, 87, 94, 209, 247, 347\n\n Qub_d_a, 329\n\n Qudra, 192, 234, 294, 310, 319, 322, 328, 344\n\n Al-Qudra al-azal_i_ya, 234\n\n Qur\u2019_a_n, 24, 42, 62, 69-71, 76, 77, 85, 94-96, 99, 103-106, 109, 117,\n 121, 128-130, 135, 138-141, 145-152, 155-158, 161-163, 171, 178, 188,\n 190, 195-198, 206, 209, 210, 231, 235, 238, 241, 245-249, 252, 253,\n 257-259, 263, 271, 272-275, 282-284, 295, 297, 303, 304, 310, 335,\n 345, 346\n\n Quraysh, 10, 57, 305, 313\n\n Al-Qushayr_i_, 213\n\n Qu_t_b, 268, 282\n\n Q_u_wa, 328\n\n\n Rabelais, 199\n\n R_a_bi\u2018a, 173\n\n R_a_fi_d_ites, 212\n\n R_a_hib, 125, 172\n\n Rahn, 354\n\n Rama_da_n, 188, 292, 293\n\n Ar-R_a_shid, the Muwa_hh_id, 263, 264\n\n Ras_a_\u2019il ikhw_a_n a_s_-_s_af_a_, 168\n\n Ras_u_l, 263, 308, 312, 345\n\n Ra\u2019y, 86, 94\n\n Razq, 338\n\n Red Sea, 60\n\n Responsa prudentium, 85\n\n Ri_da_, 310\n\n Rif_a_\u2018ite darw_i_shes, 267, 268\n\n Ris_a_la, 292\n\n Ris_a_la of al-Qushayr_i_, 213\n\n Ritschl, 238\n\n Rizq, 179, 298, 299, 311, 317\n\n R_uh_, 141, 231, 272\n\n Rukh_s_a, 283\n\n Ru\u2019ya, 310, 344\n\n\n As-s_a_\u2018a, 293, 294, 315\n\n Sab_i_l All_a_h, 18\n\n Sab\u2018_i_nite darw_i_shes, 267\n\n Sab\u2018_i_ya, 42\n\n Sa\u2018da, 36\n\n Sa\u2018d ad-D_i_n; see at-Taft_a_z_a_n_i_\n\n _S_afawids, 38\n\n As-Saff_ah_, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 32\n\n _S_agh_i_ra, 127, 311, 349\n\n Sahara, 62\n\n _Sah_iba, 294\n\n _Sah_ibs, 9, 16, 19, 71, 72, 75, 79, 88, 101, 105, 147, 180, 275, 276,\n 282, 283, 293, 297, 307, 314, 346\n\n _S_a_h_\u2019fa, 75, 77, 335\n\n _S_a_hi_fa of al-Bukh_a_r_i_, 35, 79-81\n\n _S_a_hih_ of Muslim, 80, ff.\n\n Sa\u2018_i_d ibn A_h_mad ibn \u2018Abd All_a_h, 45\n\n Sa\u2019i_h_s, 172\n\n Saladin; see _S_al_ah_ ad-D_i_n\n\n As-salaf, 157, 190, 297\n\n _S_al_ah_, 292, 343;\n cf. A_s_la_h_\n\n _S_al_ah_ ad-D_i_n, 49, 241\n\n Salam, 353\n\n Salam_a_n, 253, f.\n\n Salam_i_ya, 44\n\n _S_al_a_t, _S_alaw_a_t, 178, 292, 293, 352\n\n _Sa_li_h_, the prophet, 346\n\n Sal_i_m, Ottoman Sul_ta_n, 56\n\n Salj_u_qs, 207\n\n _S_al_uhi_ qad_i_m, 328\n\n Sam\u2018, 292, 294, 333\n\n Sam_a_\u2019 ad-Dunya, 297\n\n _S_amam, 340\n\n S_a_m_a_nids, 36\n\n Samarqand, 82, 187, 207\n\n Sam_i_\u2018, 337, 349\n\n _S_an\u2018_a_, 36\n\n As-San_u_s_i_, Mu_h_ammad ibn \u2018Al_i_, 61, 120, 244, 269, 273, 284\n\n As-San_u_s_i_, Mu_h_ammad ibn Y_u_suf, 315-318, 322, 323, 328, 334,\n 341, 347\n\n Sar_i_ as-Saqa_ti_, 175-177, 268\n\n Satan, 298, 299;\n cf. shay_ta_n\n\n _S_awm, 292;\n cf. _S_iy_a_m\n\n Sayf ad-Dawla, the Hamd_a_nid, 162, 165\n\n Sayyid Murta_da_, 285, 300\n\n Semites, Semitic, 5, 51, 125, 126, 182\n\n Sergius, father of John of Damascus, 131\n\n Seth, 43\n\n Ash-Sh_a_dhil_i_, 267, 269\n\n Sh_a_dhilite darw_i_shes, 267\n\n Shah_a_da, 356\n\n Shaf_a_\u2018a, 174, 296, 307, 311, 349\n\n Ash-Sh_a_fi\u2018_i_, 67, 103-111, 173, 187\n\n Sh_a_fi\u2018ites, 110, 115\n\n Sh_a_hs of Persia, 38\n\n Shakk, 332\n\n Shar\u2019, 345\n\n Ash-Sha\u2018r_a_n_i_, 279, 281, 283, 285\n\n Ash-Sh_a_hrast_a_n_i_, 213, 224, 291, 293\n\n Shar_i_\u2018a, 282\n\n Shar_if_s of Mecca, 58, 265\n\n Shar_if_s of Morocco, 35, 59, 247\n\n Shar_i_k, 300, 321, 326;\n cf. shirk, mushrik\n\n Shay\u2019, 159, 314, 322\n\n Shaykh, 177\n\n Shaykh al-Isl_a_m, 113\n\n Shaykh \u2018_I_lw_a_n, 268\n\n Shay_ta_ns, 304\n\n Shem, 43\n\n Ash-Shibl_i_, 176, 177, 225\n\n Shih_a_b ad-D_i_n as-Suhraward_i_, 241\n\n Sh_i_\u2018ites, Sh_i_\u2018a, 5, 13, 19, 26-36, 39-41, 48, 51, 52, 56, 59, 115,\n 116, 121, 123, 131, 159, 165, 184, 185, 193-195, 212, 247, 249, 292,\n 298\n\n Shirk, 123, 127;\n cf. shar_i_k, mushrik\n\n Shirka, 354\n\n Shu\u2018ayb, 346\n\n Shuf\u2018a, 354\n\n A_s_-_S_idd_i_q, 313\n\n _S_idq, 347\n\n _S_ifa nafs_i_ya, 319\n\n _S_if_a_t, 136, 151, 291, 309\n\n _S_if_a_t adh-dh_a_t, 291\n\n _S_if_a_t al-fi\u2018l, 291, 338\n\n _S_if_a_t al-ma\u2018_a_n_i_, 337\n\n _S_if_a_t \u2018aql_i_ya, 190\n\n _S_if_a_t at-ta\u2019th_i_r, 333\n\n _S_if_a_t ma\u2018naw_i_ya, 337\n\n _S_if_a_t salab_i_ya, 328\n\n Sijist_a_n, 171\n\n A_s_-_S_ir_at_, 296, 306, 311, 349\n\n _S_iy_a_m, 353\n\n Solomon, 286\n\n Spain, 33, 82, 132, 194, 209, 246\n\n Spanish Isl_a_m, 132\n\n Stephen bar Sudaili, 181\n\n Stewart (Balfour) and Tait, 235\n\n Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, 48\n\n _Su_f, 130\n\n _Su_f_i_, _Su_f_i_ism, 130, 172, 173, 176-178, 185, 213, 216-219, 222,\n 225-229, 232, 235, 236, 239, 248, 250, 252, 253, 261, 262, 264, 267,\n 268, 274, 276-278, 282, 284, 309\n\n S_u_fis_t_iq_i_ya, 308\n\n _Su_f_i_ya, 173\n\n Sufy_a_n ath-Thawr_i_, 97, 98\n\n _S_ughr_a_ of as-San_u_s_i_, 341\n\n As-Suhraward_i_; see Shih_a_b ad-D_i_n\n\n Sulaym_a_n the Great, 54\n\n _S_ul_h_, 354\n\n Sunna, 74, 75, 88, 190, 282, 293, 297, 298, 307, 345\n\n Sunan, 75, 81\n\n Sunnites, 19, 35, 38, 51, 52, 59, 116, 194, 247, 298\n\n _Su_ra, 232\n\n Suso, the mystic, 180\n\n Syria, 21-23, 28, 45, 46, 49, 50, 82, 84, 98, 131, 226\n\n\n Ta\u2018addud, 339\n\n Ta\u2018allaqa, 328\n\n Ta\u2019alluqu-l-qab_d_ati, 329\n\n Tab\u2018, 328, 339\n\n Tabarist_a_n, 36\n\n Tabi\u2018_i_y_u_n, 161, 221, 293, 346\n\n Tabl_i_gh, 347\n\n Tabor, Mount, 178\n\n Tadb_i_r, 357\n\n Ta_d_l_i_l, 292\n\n Taf_si_l_i_, 316\n\n At-Taft_a_z_a_n_i_, 242, 269, 308, 318, 345, 346\n\n Tah_a_fut of al-Ghazz_a_l_i_, 229, 237, 240, 257, 286\n\n _T_ah_a_ra, 351\n\n A_t_-_T_a_ha_w_i_, 187, 193\n\n Ta_h_l_i_l, 276\n\n Ta_h_s_i_n, 292\n\n Tajs_i_m, 209, 246\n\n Takallam, 147\n\n Takf_i_r, 292\n\n Takl_i_f, 137, 310\n\n Takw_i_n, 310, 338\n\n _T_al_a_q, 355\n\n _T_al_h_a, 21, 25\n\n Ta\u2018l_i_l, 339\n\n Ta\u2018l_i_m, 197\n\n Ta\u2018l_i_mites, 197, 219, 224, 228\n\n Tanj_i_z_i_, 328\n\n Taqb_ih_, 292\n\n Taq_i_ya, 126\n\n Taql_i_d, 209, 217, 246, 261, 270, 286, 316, 318, 323, 350\n\n _T_ar_i_qa, 282\n\n Tasalsul, 201, 322\n\n Tasd_i_q, 312, 350\n\n Tawallud, 142, 144\n\n Tawakkul, 179, f.\n\n Tawba, 292, 349\n\n Taw_hi_d, 156, 175, 176, 246, 291, 300, 315, 349;\n cf. muwa_hh_id\n\n Ta\u2019w_i_l, 246\n\n Tawl_i_d, 142\n\n Tawr_a_t, 303\n\n Tayammum, 352\n\n Theodoras Abucara, 132\n\n Thiqa, 293, 296\n\n The Thousand and One Nights, 97, 286\n\n Thum_a_ma ibn Ashras, 144\n\n Tigris, 50, 133\n\n At-Tirmidh_i_, 81\n\n Toledo, 82\n\n Tours, 82, f.\n\n Tripolis, 62\n\n _Tu_f_a_n, 329, f.\n\n Tughril Beg, 52, 207, 212, f.\n\n Turkish mysticism, 5\n\n _Tu_s, 216, 229, 230, 267\n\n The Twelve Tables, 85\n\n\n \u2018Ubayd All_a_h al-Mahd_i_, 45, 46, 244\n\n U_dh_iya, 356\n\n \u2018Ulam_a_, 54, 233, 307\n\n Ul_u_h_i_ya, 326\n\n Ul_u_-l-\u2018azm, 345\n\n \u2018Um_a_n, 24, 26, 59\n\n \u2018Umar ibn \u2018Abd al-\u2018Az_i_z, Umayyad Kh., 104\n\n \u2018Umar ibn al-Kha_tta_b, 2nd Kh., 13-19, 23, 24, 36, 44, 56, 86, 93, 165,\n 275, 297, 307, 313, 346\n\n \u2018Umar al-Khayy_a_m, 198, 199\n\n \u2018Umar ibn al-F_a_ri_d_, 266\n\n Umayya, 10, 16\n\n Umayyads, 9, 17-19, 22, 25, 27, 32, 33, 53, 77, 78, 88-93, 104, 123,\n 131, 133, 153, 209\n\n Umayyads of Cordova, 45\n\n Umm walad, 357\n\n \u2018Urf, 94, 113\n\n \u2018Uthm_a_n ibn \u2018Aff_a_n, 3rd Kh., 17-22, 25, 36, 71, 297, 307, 313, 346\n\n\n Vincent of Lerins, 101\n\n Volubilis, 35\n\n\n Wa\u2018d, 292\n\n Wad_i_\u2018a, 354\n\n Wa_h_d_a_n_i_ya, 325\n\n Al-Wahh_a_b, 211\n\n Wahh_a_bites, 60-62, 109, 113, 115, 120, 273, 278, 279, 283-285\n\n Al-W_a_hib, 211\n\n Wa_h_y, 281\n\n Wa\u2018_i_d, Wa\u2018_i_dites, 129, 292\n\n W_a_jib, 73, 316, 318\n\n Wak_a_la, 354\n\n Wal_a_, 357\n\n Walad, 294, 330\n\n Wal_i_, 139, 173, 263, 267, 268, 274, 275, 281-285, 313, 326\n\n Wal_i_ma, 355\n\n Wal_i_ya, 173\n\n Waqf, 354\n\n W_a_rith, 354\n\n W_a_sil ibn \u2018At_a_, 37, 129, 135, 136, 150\n\n Wa_si_ya, 354\n\n Wa_si_ya of Ibn S_i_n_a_, 198, 228\n\n Al-W_a_thiq, \u2018Abb_a_sid Kh., 157\n\n Wu_du_, 318, 352\n\n Wuj_u_d, 159, 191, 316-319, 352\n\n Wu_su_l, 228\n\n\n Y_a_j_u_j, 315\n\n Al-Yaman, 60, 284\n\n Yam_i_n, 356\n\n Ya\u2018q_u_b; see Jacob\n\n Yathrib, 67\n\n Yawm al-qiy_a_ma, 295, 349\n\n Yaz_i_d, 19, 28\n\n Yehuda Halevi, 237\n\n\n Zabb_u_r, 304\n\n Zab_i_d in Tih_a_ma, 285\n\n Z_a_hid, 173, 180\n\n Z_a_hida, 173\n\n _Za_hir, 314\n\n _Za_hirites, 110, 112, 208, 209, 247, 249, 252, 261, 264, 287\n\n _Za_hr, 42\n\n Zak_a_t, 292, 293, 353\n\n Az-Zamakhshar_i_, 195\n\n _Z_ann, 332\n\n Zanzibar, 26, 59, 115\n\n Zaydites, 36, 37, 46, 57, 59, 116, 188\n\n _Z_ih_a_r, 355\n\n Zin_a_, 355\n\n Zind_i_qs, 134\n\n Zoroastrianism, 133, 134, 183\n\n Az-Zubayr, 21, 25\n\n Az-Zuhr_i_, 91\n\n\n\n\nThe Semitic Series\n\nEdited by JAMES ALEXANDER CRAIG, Professor of Semitic Languages and\nLiterature and Hellenistic Greek, University of Michigan\n\nAn important new series of standard handbooks on the Babylonians,\nAssyrians and allied Semitic races of ancient history.\n\n_Now Ready_\n\nThe Social Life of the Hebrews\n\n By the Rev. EDWARD DAY. Price $1.25 net, postpaid\n\nBabylonians and Assyrians Life and Customs (With Special Reference to the\nContract Tablets and Letters)\n\n By the Rev. A. H. SAYCE, Professor of Assyriology at Oxford.\n Price $1.25 net, postpaid\n\nThe Early History of Syria and Palestine\n\n By LEWIS BAYLES PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament\n Exegesis and Criticism, and Instructor in Assyrian, in Hartford\n Theological Seminary. Price $1.25 net, postpaid\n\nThe Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews\n\n By ARCHIBALD DUFF, M.A., LL.D., B.D., Professor of Old\n Testament Theology in the Yorkshire United Independent College,\n Bradford, England. Price $1.25 net (postage 11c.)\n\nDevelopment of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory\n\n By DUNCAN B. MACDONALD, M.A., B.D., Sometime Scholar and Fellow\n of the University of Glasgow; Professor of Semitic Languages in\n Hartford Theological Seminary. Price $1.50 net (postage 12c.)\n\nCHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n\n153-157 Fifth Avenue, New York\n\n\n\n\nThe Historical Series For Bible Students\n\nEdited by Professor CHARLES F. KENT, Ph.D., of Yale University, and\nProfessor FRANK K. SANDERS, Ph.D., of Yale University\n\nIn response to a wide-spread demand for non-technical yet scholarly and\nreliable guides to the study of the history, literature, and teaching\nof the Old and New Testaments, and of the contemporary history and\nliterature, this series aims to present in concise and attractive form\nthe results of investigation and exploration in these broad fields.\nBased upon thoroughly critical scholarship, it will emphasize assured\nand positive rather than transitional positions. The series as a whole\nis intended to present a complete and connected picture of the social,\npolitical, and religious life of the men and peoples who figure most\nprominently in the biblical records.\n\nArrangement of Volumes\n\nHistory of the Hebrew People:\n\nI. History of the United Kingdom. (_Now Ready._)\n\nII. History of the Divided Kingdom. (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Prof. CHARLES FOSTER KENT, Ph.D. Each volume with maps, 12mo.\n\nHistory of the Jewish People:\n\nIII. The Babylonian, Persian and Greek Periods. (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Prof. CHARLES FOSTER KENT, Ph.D.\n\nIV. The Maccabean and Roman Periods (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Prof. J. S. RIGGS, D.D., of Auburn Theological Seminary.\n\nContemporary Old Testament History:\n\nV. The Egyptians.\n\n By Prof. JAMES HENRY BREASTED, Ph.D., of the University of\n Chicago.\n\nVI. The Babylonians and Assyrians. (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Prof. GEORGE S. GOODSPEED, Ph.D., of the University of\n Chicago.\n\nNew Testament Histories:\n\nVII. The Life of Jesus. (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Pres. RUSH RHEES, D.D., of the University of Rochester.\n\nVIII. Christianity in the Apostolic Age. (_Now Ready._)\n\n By Rev. GEO. T. PURVES, Ph.D., D.D.\n\nOutlines for the Study of Biblical History and Literature:\n\nIX. From Earliest Times to the Captivity.\n\nX. From the Exile to 200 A.D.\n\n By Prof. FRANK K. SANDERS, Ph.D.\n\n10 volumes. 12mo, $1.25 each, net (postage 12c.)\n\nSpecimen Pages and Full Descriptive Circular sent free on request\n\nCHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n\n153-157 Fifth Avenue, New York","title":"Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110824}