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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“While as the world rolls on from age to age,
And realms of thought expand,
The letter stands without expanse or range,
Stiff as a dead man’s hand.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other great division of sentences is that of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2.) Majaz, or words which are used in a figurative sense, as “salat” in the sense of “namaz” a liturgical service.

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

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

The most important and most difficult branch of exegesis is istidlal, or the science of deducing arguments from the Quran. This too is divided into four sections, as follows:

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

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

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

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

The Quran is divided into:

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

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

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

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

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

(3). Shami verses. The Readers in Syria (Sham) followed Abd-ullah bin ’Umr, a Companion. They reckon 6,225 verses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Sipara a thirtieth portion. This is a Persian word derived from si, thirty, and para, a portion. The Arabs call each of these divisions a Juz. Owing to this division, a pious man can recite the whole Quran in a month, taking one Sipara each day. Musalmans never quote the Quran as we do by Sura and Ayat, but by the Sipara and Ruku’, a term I now proceed to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4). Jami’-i-Tirmizi. Abu Isa’ Muhammad Tirmizi was born at Tirmiz in the year A.. He was a disciple of Bukhari. Ibn Khallikan says this work is “the production of a well-informed man: its exactness is proverbial."

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

(6). Sunan-i-Ibn Majah. Ibn Majah was born at ’Irak A.. This work contains 4,000 Traditions.

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

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

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

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

The Traditions may be classed under two general heads:

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

Second. Hadis-i-Ahad. The authority of this class is theoretically somewhat less than that of the first, but practically it is the same.

This class is again sub-divided into two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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