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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Say: He is God alone:
God the eternal!
He begetteth not, and He is not begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.” (Sura cxii)

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

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

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

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

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

The first reading is the one adopted by the Ashab, the Tabi’in and the Taba-i-Tabi’in and the great majority of Commentators. The Sunnis generally, and, according to the testimony of Fakr-ud-din Razi (A.-606), the Shafa’i sect are of the same opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then, adopting scholastic methods, started a school of thought of his own, which was in the main a return to orthodoxy. The Asharian doctrines differ slightly from the tenets of the Sifatians of which sect Al-Asharis disciples form a branch. The Asharians hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1). Life. “There is no God but He, the Living, the Eternal.” (Sura i. “Put thy trust in Him that liveth and dieth not.” (Sura xx.

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

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

(4). Will. “God is worker of that He willeth.” (Sura lxxx. “But if God pleased, He would surely bring them, one and all, to the guidance.” (Sura v. “God misleadeth whom He will, and whom He will He guideth God doeth His pleasure.” (Sura xi, 32).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. THE BOOKS. Al Berkevi says:

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

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

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

4. PROPHETS. Muhammad Al Berkevi says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following passages refer to Muhammad. “Be thou steadfast and patient; for true is the promise of God; and seek pardon for thy fault." (Sura x. “Ask pardon for thy sin, and for believers, both men and women.” (Sura xlvi. The scandal caused by the Prophet’s conduct with the wife of Zeid, and with the Egyptian slave Mary, necessitated a pretended revelation of God’s will in reference to these events. The circumstances will be found fully detailed in Sura xxxii-38 and in Sura lxv-5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. THE RESURRECTION AND THE LAST DAY. These two articles of the faith may be considered together. The following is a summary of the remarks of Muhammad Al Berkevi on this point. It is necessary to acknowledge:

1. That the torments of the tomb are real and certain and that Munkir and Nakir (Ante will come and interrogate the dead person concerning his God, his Prophet, his faith and his Qibla. The faithful will reply: “our God is God; our Prophet is Muhammad; our religion, Islam; our Qibla, the Ki-’adataba.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following additional remarks are based on the Sharh-i-’Aqaid-i-Jami. They fall under four heads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Araf is situated between heaven and hell. It is described thus: On (the wall) Al Araf shall be men who know all, by their tokens, and they shall cry to the inhabitants of Paradise, Peace be on you! but they shall not yet enter it, although they long to do so. And when their eyes are turned towards the inmates of the fire, they shall say, O our Lord! place us not with offending people &c. (Sura vi, 45). Sales summary of the opinions regarding Al Araf in his Preliminary Discourse is exceedingly good. It is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many degrees of felicity in heaven to which the believers are admitted. The Prophet, according to Tirmizi, said there were one hundred. Some of these may possibly be meant by the eight names they give to Paradise. (1.) Jannat-ul-Khuld. “Say: Is this, or the Garden of Eternity which was promised to the God-fearing, best?” (Sura xx.) (2.) Jannat-us-Salam. “For them is a Dwelling of Peace with their Lord.” (Sura v.) (3.) Dar-ul-Qarar. “The life to come is the Mansion which abideth.” (Sura x.) (4.) Jannat-ul-’Adan. “To the Faithful, both men and women, God promiseth gardens and goodly mansions in the Garden of Eden.” (Sura i.) (5.) Jannat-ul-Mawa. “Near which is the Garden of Repose.” (Sura lii.) (6) Jannat-un-Na’im. “Amid delights shall the righteous dwell.” (Sura lxxxi.) (7) Jannat-ul-Illiyun. “The register of the righteous is in Illiyun.” (Sura lxxxii,) (8.) Jannat-ul-Firdaus. “Those who believe and do the things that are right, they shall have the Gardens of Paradise for their abode.” (Sura xvii.)

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

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

6. THE PREDESTINATION OF GOOD AND EVIL. I have already in the section in which the attribute will is described given some account of the dogmatic statements concerning the doctrine of predestination; but as it always forms a distinct chapter in Musalman books, I treat it separately here. Having, however, in the passage referred to, given Al Berkevis words on the attribute will, it is only necessary to make a short extract from his dogmatic statement concerning Predestination. He says:

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

Another confession of faith has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Asharians, who in this matter represent in the main orthodox views, formulate their objections to the Mutazilite system thus:

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

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

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

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

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

(vi). But better far than all argument, the orthodox say, is the testimony of the Book. “All things have we created under a fixed decree.” (Sura li. “When God created you and that ye make.” (Sura xxxvi. “Some of them there were whom God guided and there were others decreed to err.” (Sura xv. As God decrees faith and obedience He must be the causer of it, for “on the hearts of these hath God graven the Faith.” (Sura lvii. “It is he who causeth you to laugh and weep, to die and make alive.” (Sura lii. “If God pleased He would surely bring them, one and all, to the guidance.” (Sura v. “Had God pleased, He had guided you all aright.” (Sura v. “Had the Lord pleased, He would have made mankind of one religion.” (Sura x. “God will mislead whom he pleaseth, and whom He pleaseth He will place upon the straight path.” (Sura v.) Tradition records that the Prophet said: “God is the maker of all makers and of their actions."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE TO CHAPTER IV.

MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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