The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bible and Islam
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Bible and Islam
        or, The influence of the Old and New Testaments on the religion of Mohammed

Author: Henry Preserved Smith


        
Release date: November 11, 2026 [eBook #79978]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79978

Credits: Tim Lindell, Turgut Dincer, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND ISLAM ***

                          The Bible and Islam




                             ELY LECTURES.


THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. By Rev. Albert
Barnes, D.D., LL.D.

CHRISTIANITY AND POSITIVISM. By Rev. James McCosh, D.D., LL.D.

COMPARATIVE EVIDENCES OF SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY. By Rev. A. P.
Peabody, D.D., LL.D.

THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY INDICATED BY ITS HISTORICAL EFFECTS.
By Rev. Richard S. Storrs, D.D., LL.D.

PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITY. By Professor George S. Morris, Ph.D.

THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT IN THE GOSPELS. By Professor A. W. Bruce, D.D.

THE EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE. By Rev. Lewis F. Stearns, D.D.

ORIENTAL RELIGIONS AND CHRISTIANITY. By Rev. Frank F. Ellinwood, D.D.

THE BIBLE AND ISLAM. By Rev. Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.




                          THE BIBLE AND ISLAM

                                   OR

              The Influence of the Old and New Testaments
                      on the Religion of Mohammed


                                 BEING
                       THE ELY LECTURES FOR 1897


                                   BY
                      HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.


                                NEW YORK
                        CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
                                  1897


                          COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY

                        CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

                             TROW DIRECTORY
                    PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
                                NEW YORK




                                   TO

                             THE MEMORY OF

                            PRESERVED SMITH
                                  AND
                            LUCY MAYO SMITH




                          _THE ELY FOUNDATION_


The lectures contained in this volume were delivered to the students of
Union Theological Seminary in the spring of the year 1897, as one of the
courses established in the Seminary by Mr. Zebulon Stiles Ely, in the
following terms:

    “The undersigned gives the sum of ten thousand dollars to the Union
    Theological Seminary of the City of New York to found a lectureship
    in the same, the title of which shall be The Elias P. Ely Lectures
    on the Evidences of Christianity.

    “The course of lectures given on this Foundation is to comprise any
    topics serving to establish the proposition that Christianity is a
    religion from God, or that it is the perfect and final form of
    religion for man.

    “Among the subjects discussed may be: The Nature and Need of a
    Revelation; The Character and Influence of Christ and His Apostles;
    The Authenticity and Credibility of the Scriptures, Miracles, and
    Prophecy; The Diffusion and Benefits of Christianity, and The
    Philosophy of Religion in its Relations to the Christian System.

    “Upon one or more of such subjects a course of ten public lectures
    shall be given, at least once in two or three years. The appointment
    of the lecturers is to be by the concurrent action of the Faculty
    and Directors of said Seminary and the undersigned, and it shall
    ordinarily be made two years in advance.”




                                PREFACE


The importance and the timeliness of the subject treated in these
lectures are sufficiently evident. As to the method of treatment, I
leave the reader to judge. The references given are sufficient to show
how far I have gone to the sources. The citations from the Koran may be
thought too extensive. My only defence is that I could not well have
left any out; in fact, I have considerably reduced the number contained
in the first draft of the lectures.

The Arabic words transcribed are not numerous, and the most of them are
already current in English. I have not thought it necessary to make any
change in these, nor to attempt an exact transliteration.

I have been favored with the loan of books from the Yale University
library, the library of Union Theological Seminary, and the library of
the Theological Seminary at Princeton. It gives me pleasure to
acknowledge this courtesy in this public manner.

LAKEWOOD, N. J.




                                CONTENTS


I. THE APOSTLE OF ALLAH ... 1

II. THE COMMON BASIS IN HEATHENISM ... 38

III. THE KORAN NARRATIVES ... 60

IV. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD ... 98

V. THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT ... 132

VI. REVELATION AND PROPHECY ... 166

VII. SIN AND SALVATION ... 199

VIII. THE SERVICE OF GOD ... 231

IX. THE FUTURE LIFE ... 266

X. CHURCH AND STATE ... 290




                          THE BIBLE AND ISLAM
                               LECTURE I.
                          THE APOSTLE OF ALLAH


In the seventh century of our era Christianity seemed triumphant over
its enemies in the Eastern Empire. Paganism was destroyed, the heresies
had been overcome, the faith had received its full definition in what
was supposed to be the final creed. The bishops and monks, at least,
might be justified in supposing that the kingdom of God was already
established. In the reign of Heraclius the political situation was
almost as promising as the ecclesiastical. For that monarch, with almost
Roman energy, repulsed the Persians, the hereditary foes of Byzantium,
and extended the bounds of the empire almost to the point which they had
reached in the days when the state was Roman in fact as well as in name.
In this period of triumph and of apparent prosperity no one could have
foretold the appearance of a new power upon the scene—a power which
would threaten the whole fabric of civilization and change the map of
the known world. Yet such a power appeared, overcame the armies sent
against it, and with unexampled rapidity took possession of the fairest
provinces of the East.

Until this time Arabia had not played a leading part in the drama of
history. All earlier knowledge of this country shows its inhabitants to
be scattered tribes separated by their deserts and by their mutual
hostility. Persia and Byzantium had indeed welded the clans nearest
their borders into petty kingdoms which they used each to annoy the
other. But of Arabia as a single power they did not dream. Occasional
forays of the bold desert dwellers in search of booty they were
accustomed to suffer. Now there came the invasion of a new created
nation. The scattered Bedawin were fired by a single purpose. Attila,
the Scourge of God, was overmatched by Chalid, the Sword of God, and
this terrible weapon hewed the devoted provinces of the East with
tireless energy. Syria and Egypt fell at a single blow. Babylonia and
Persia followed in an instant. In less than half a century from the time
when Mohammed fled with a single companion from Mecca, the arms of his
followers were triumphant from the Oxus to the site of Carthage. In
another half century they had crossed the borders of India on the east,
and to the west were checked only by the waves of the Atlantic. Their
conquest of Spain and invasion of France are facts familiar to you, as
is the battle of Tours or Poitiers by which Charles Martel preserved to
Europe Roman Christianity and the civilization with which it was allied.

That such a movement deserves the attention of all students of history,
is the merest truism. Its political importance alone, however, would not
make it the proper subject of this course of lectures. What makes it
appropriate for this place and this occasion is its religious character.
In this, to be sure, it is not unique. Many, I might say most, of the
great movements of history have been religious. But few if any have
shown their religious character so distinctly as the one before us. It
calls itself by a religious name when it calls itself _Islam_, for Islam
means resignation to the will of God. The war cry of the clans which
crushed the arms of Byzantium was a profession of faith—“There is no God
but Allah, and Mohammed is the Apostle of Allah.” Islam has never denied
or outgrown its religious character, for the same profession of faith is
to this day repeated by one-tenth of the human race. Politically we may
think it no longer formidable, but religiously it seems as strong as
ever. With obstinate confidence in its own possession of the truth it
resists the preaching of the Christian missionary, while itself sending
missionaries into heathen lands. Because of this tenacity it must be
reckoned with as a living force. Its dynasties may become extinct; its
kingdoms may fall into the hands of foreigners; but ideas do not yield
to force. They are not subjugated by the heavier artillery or crushed by
the stronger battalions. Material forces enable Great Britain to govern
the empire of the Great Mogul; they put Holland into possession of the
Malay archipelago, and give France control of Algiers. But the real
power which holds the hearts of the people in all these regions is the
idea of Allah and His Apostle. For a long time now we have flattered
ourselves with hopes of the regeneration of the East, because a few
young men in Constantinople have a varnish of Western education and of
Western manners. The illusion has vanished and we see that the mass of
the people are living in the ideas of a thousand years ago. There may be
a more agreeable, there could scarcely be a more convincing, example of
the tenacity of religion.

In a certain sense, our own time is able to appreciate the nature of
this force as no preceding age has appreciated it. We have begun to see
that there is a science of religion—a science which deals both with the
history and with the philosophy of religion. And yet it is too much to
say that this point of view is universally recognized. Even in the case
of Islam, the attempt is still made to account for the phenomena by
supposing some other force behind them. The most recent life of
Mohammed[1] tries to explain his movement as a social rather than a
religious revolution. Social distress bulks so largely in our own
philosophy that we are tempted to give it an equally large place in the
thoughts of other times. It is a sufficient present answer to this
theory to say that we hear nothing of social claims in connection with
the rise and spread of Islam. The cry of the hosts which subdued Asia
was not for freedom of land or for relief from feudal burdens, either of
taxation or service; it was not a demand for liberty or equality. Some
of these things were more or less distinctly involved; but they were
only indirectly involved. The formulated demand of the Moslem army was
for the recognition of Allah as the one God, and of Mohammed as His
Apostle. They brought a creed for their watchword, and offered a Bible
as their boon. This is where we may easily find the strength of Islam
to-day. You may talk to an intelligent Mohammedan of the benefits given
by modern progress. He will acknowledge that the civilization of Europe
has some material advantages; but, in his heart, he will say that these
are only the temporary enjoyments of a transitory world, and he will
thank Allah that He has given him the better part in the promise of the
world to come. To this day Mecca numbers among its inhabitants men who
have emigrated from the countries where they enjoyed peace and security
under Christian rule—emigrated because they could not feel at home under
such rule, in spite of its material advantages. These men desire more
than material advantages—“They desire to study the sacred sciences in a
sacred place, to live in the neighborhood of celebrated and pious
scholars or devotees, to do penance for former transgressions, to
cleanse their filthy lucre by using it partly in religious works, or to
spend their last days and to die on holy ground.” This is the testimony
of a man[2] who had unusual opportunities to know whereof he affirms.
And all observers who have become acquainted with the real life of the
people in Moslem lands confirm this testimony. The leading force in
Eastern society is still religion.

What has been said is enough to show the importance of a study of this
great religious movement. The inquirer into the history of mankind
cannot ignore this striking episode. In any of its numerous aspects,
Islam will repay investigation. But it is obvious that, for a single
course of lectures, we must limit our field; and, for the present
course, it is my purpose to consider only the beginnings. The history of
a quarter of the globe through a period of thirteen centuries, is an
immense subject. Internal and external wars, the rise and fall of
dynasties, revolutions, crusades, philosophies, and theologies—these
would require many volumes for their adequate treatment. To get a clear
impression, we must limit our field; and the best place to begin is at
the beginning. We do not ignore the fact that the Islam of to-day is in
many respects different from the Islam which emerged from the wilderness
twelve centuries ago. It may be true, as has been claimed, that one who
studies the Koran and thinks himself acquainted with the Islam of
to-day, is as far wrong as he would be who should study the Gospels and
think himself acquainted with the Christianity of Hildebrand or of Pius
the Ninth. We need to caution ourselves at this point, and not to assume
that what is true of Mohammed and Omar is true also of the now ruling
Sultan. But, when all is said, we know a good deal about a system when
we know its beginnings. The stream is purest at its source. Principles
are simpler when they first show their activity. Later developments may
obscure them, but cannot change their essence. The later developments
are better understood by the mastery of the earlier and simpler stages.
And what is true in general is true, in a very special sense, of the
movement before us. The religion of Mohammed developed with great
rapidity. During the lifetime of its founder it passed through the
stages which Christianity took three centuries to traverse. In one sense
this is a disadvantage. The growth would have been more healthy if it
had been more deliberate. But it adds to the importance of the earliest
period when this period contains so much. It is only the natural result
that the dogmatic system of Islam not only assumed its final shape at a
very early date, but that it adhered to one type with great tenacity.
Development there was; but the development early became sectarian. The
official, orthodox dogma overcame the sects, and this orthodox dogma was
only the codification of ideas already prevalent in the first century of
the Flight. For these reasons knowledge of the origin of Islam is the
knowledge of the whole system, more truly than is the case in any other
of the great historic religions.

But we must still further limit our inquiry. A general sketch of the
rise of Mohammedanism would no doubt be of great interest, but it would
still require more space than we can give it. We must choose some one of
its many aspects, and fix our attention upon this single point, in the
hope that the smallness of the field will conduce to clearness in the
picture. Now, the point which I propose to examine is the influence
which the Old and New Testaments have exerted upon this religion which
is neither Judaism nor Christianity, though it shows such curious
resemblances to both. These resemblances force themselves upon the
notice of even the most superficial observer. Never was there a religion
so little original as this one. The dependence of one religion upon
another is, however, not a rare phenomenon. Religious ideas emigrate
more rapidly than the religions of which they are a part. All the
religions of which we have competent knowledge, not excepting the
religion of Israel, show foreign influence. The gods and myths of Greece
were emigrants from Asia; Judaism borrowed from Babylonia; Christianity
built upon the foundation inherited from Judaism. It is not strange,
therefore, that Islam should use both Jewish and Christian ideas. So far
from the lack of originality being a reason for ignoring the study of
this religion, we may say that it is a special reason for studying it.
Here is a great fact—the migration of religious beliefs. It is set
before us in a striking example. Every consideration urges us to its
close and attentive examination.

In examining the dependence of Islam upon the earlier religions we are
met at the outset by one capital difficulty. Islam we know; the sources
flow for us with greater copiousness than is true of any other religion.
But the Judaism and Christianity of Arabia are almost unknown
quantities. There was Judaism in Arabia. We suppose that it conformed in
general to the type of other post-biblical Judaism. But how far it may
have been affected by its surroundings is hard for us to say. There was
Christianity in Arabia. But of its character we are even more ignorant
than we are of Arabian Judaism. It seems quite certain that it was not
the Christianity of the Greek Church. In all probability it existed in
the form of some of the sects stigmatized by the theologians as
heretical. The type of heresy represented, however, can be only faintly
conjectured. Now, in this state of ignorance, we are obliged to seek
some fixed point, and this fixed point can be no other than the Bible.
Whatever the Judaism of Arabia had, or had not, we are safe in assuming
that it had the Hebrew Bible. In like manner, it is true of the
Christianity of Arabia that it had a Bible, which, for the most part,
was the same as the one which we ourselves hold sacred. For the
comparison which we propose to make, the only practicable thing to do is
to note what Biblical features appear in the religion of Mohammed. It
is, of course, perfectly legitimate to note the form which these
features assume in their new combination. If these are such as appear
elsewhere in the Judaism of the Talmud, it will be perfectly legitimate
to assume that Talmudic influence was at work. If the New Testament
influences appear clouded by the tendencies which show themselves in the
Apocryphal Gospels, we shall conclude that these tendencies were at work
among the nominal Christians of Arabia. Nevertheless, the features which
we seek are Biblical in their substance and their origin. Our two known
quantities are the Bible and the sources of Islam.

It is significant at the very outset to notice that Mohammed, the
founder of Islam, designated himself by two words borrowed from the
Scriptures. One was borrowed directly in the Hebrew form—_naby_—and was
intended to rank him with the Old Testament organs of revelation, the
_prophets_ of that dispensation. The other, _rasul_, was the translation
of the New Testament word which we render _apostle_, and was equally
intended to class him with the organs of revelation in the Christian
Church. We see, therefore, that the very terms in which the founder of
the new religion announced himself expressed his adoption of Hebrew and
Christian ideas. And that, with the words which he adopted, he had the
Biblical idea is made plain by many passages of the Koran: “We have sent
thee with the truth, as a bringer of tidings and a warner.”[3] The
prophets and apostles are well described by this word, for it was their
work to warn their people of the judgments of God. It is evident,
therefore, that Mohammed’s starting-point was the fundamental position
of revealed religion—that God speaks through chosen men, to make His
will known to the world. This position is the key to his activity.

There are thinkers, however, to whom it is incomprehensible that a man
should, in all honesty, put forward a claim to speak as the messenger of
God. They are compelled to seek some ulterior motive for his activity.
The whole mediæval world was of course incapable of understanding the
Prophet of Islam. The only thing which those centuries could see was
that Mohammed was the deadly enemy of their civilization. They could
explain his impulse only as the direct act of Satan. In truth, the
hordes of fierce and savage warriors which poured from Arabia and
overran a large part of the known world, must have made upon their
victims the impression that hell had let loose all its demons. According
to the prevalent theory of Christian writers down to very recent times,
therefore, Mohammed was the most distinguished instrument of Satan.[4]
Antichrist is one of the names frequently applied to him. At the present
day we may fairly regard this view as antiquated. Satan is not a
preacher of truth, and we can hardly doubt that Mohammed was sincere in
preaching the truth.

The seventeenth century had another explanation of the career of
Mohammed. This explanation is explicitly stated in a treatise by the
celebrated Dr. Prideaux, entitled, “The True Nature of Imposture, Fully
Displayed in the Life of Mahomet.”[5] The polemic nature of this tract
(for it is little more) is sufficiently indicated in its title. The
author conceives Mohammed to be moved by a desire to regain ancestral
honors and wealth, which had been lost by his family. “These
considerations meeting with an ambitious, aspiring mind, soon put him
upon designs of raising himself to the supreme government of the
country; and being a very subtile, crafty man, after having maturely
weighed all ways and means whereby to bring this to pass, [he] concluded
none so likely to effect it as the framing of that imposture which he
afterward vented with so much mischief to the world.”[6] The author of
the treatise, therefore, supposes Mohammed to go deliberately to work
and frame a new religion as a means to the royal power. Substantially
the same theory was carried out in the Bampton Lectures of 1784, which
have for their subject: “A Comparison of Mahometanism and Christianity
in their History, their Evidences and their Effects.” In these lectures
it is throughout assumed that the founder of Islam was an impostor, who,
“by the mere force of a bold and fertile genius, assisted by a
concurrence of circumstances universally auspicious to his design, was
enabled to obtain the most unbounded empire over the minds, as well as
persons, of a very large portion of mankind.”[7] It is interesting to
note that the position taken by these writers, who were moved thereto by
the desire to defend Christianity, was also taken by Voltaire, who
embodied it in his tragedy: “_Le Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète_.”[8]
By the author’s own letter of dedication, this tragedy was directed
against an imposture which brought into play the hypocrisy of some and
the fury of others. In the play itself Mohammed is made to confess the
ambition that is his motive. He is made to see with the eye of a modern
historian, and discovers that Persia is feeble and Byzantium tottering.
It is now the turn of Arabia to step upon the scene of action, and erect
a monarchy upon the ruins of these. To secure this end a new religion is
the best means, and for this end it is invented.[9]

Neither the English churchman nor the French sceptic had the key to
Islam. Both judged the motive from the event. History shows us, however,
very few instances in which the course of great movements was foreseen
by those who originated them. Mohammed was no exception to the rule; in
fact, he had less than the average prescience of what was to come. To
show this, we need only look at the outline of his life.

It seems well established that throughout his early manhood, and until
middle life, Mohammed showed no special ambition and no special
capacity. We know very little of this period of his life, except that he
was an orphan and poor, until his marriage with Chadija placed him in
easy circumstances. He had established a character for honesty, for he
was called _the Faithful_. But his religion was the religion of his
city, as is abundantly shown by the fact that he named a son _Abd Menâf_
for one of the heathen deities. When about forty years old[10] the
crisis of his life came. He passed through a severe spiritual conflict,
and, at the end of it, came forth as a preacher. He began to reason with
his countrymen concerning righteousness and a judgment to come, and, at
real risk to himself, denounced their idolatry as contrary to the will
of God. Before attributing interested motives to such a man we should
have clear and convincing proofs. As to his personality, the impression
made upon us by the records of this early ministry, and to a
considerable extent confirmed by his later history, is that of a modest,
retiring man. He was, even when in possession of power, rather reticent,
shrinking from prominent activity, lacking in decision. The internal
conflict from which he suffered was brought about by what he felt was a
call to preach. His conscience urged him to obey, but his natural
timidity held him back. In all this he betrays no deep-laid scheme of
any kind. He would apparently have been satisfied with the conversion of
his native city, and would have been content to leave the government in
the hands of the chiefs who already possessed it. The singleness of his
motive was indicated moreover by his steadfastness through years of
neglect, contempt, abuse, and even persecution. The Meccans had no
special objection to his religion so long as it was simply a personal
matter. They would have been quite content to have him get salvation in
his own way, if only he would not preach against the publicly
established worship. But it was precisely this which Mohammed felt
called to do. The chiefs of the Meccans came to Abu Talib (Mohammed’s
uncle and protector) and complained of the preaching, whereupon the
uncle remonstrated with his nephew. Mohammed supposed that he was going
to lose the protection of the clan, in which case his life would not
have been safe for an hour. Nevertheless, he said, with tears in his
eyes: “Though the sun at my right hand and the moon at my left were to
command me to give up this matter, I would not give it up.”[11]

In this persistence in his calling Mohammed is not unworthy of being
compared with the Old Testament prophets. He reminds us of Jeremiah, who
was commanded to preach though he was told that the kings of Judah, and
the princes, priests, and people would fight against him. The parallel
with some of the Old Testament prophets is the more exact in that
Mohammed was apparently slow of speech. In his private life he was
taciturn. That when he spoke in public he had difficulty in expressing
his thought, seems evident from the phenomena of the Koran. The frequent
repetition of the same thoughts, and even the same phrases, shows lack
of facility. In many passages we are compelled to think that he was not
able to express his thought with clearness. He is fond of figures and
metaphors, yet he rarely succeeds in carrying one out consistently. He
was far from being a natural orator, and he would have been strangely
self-deceived if he had supposed that his eloquence would make his
countrymen subservient to his designs. And his experience is just in
line with the other evidence on this head. His countrymen had small
patience with his harangues. They stigmatized them as the ravings of one
possessed, or as the fables of the ancients. Putting these indications
together we must agree with an eminent authority on this subject[12]
when he says: “he was not a master of the language—which explains the
frequent repetitions in the Koran. He composed with difficulty; he
rarely found at once the word which correctly expressed his thought. He
tried it therefore in different ways, and hence we find the same ideas
recur continually in the Koran, only in different words. More than one
example shows us that the prophet did not find the appropriate form
until after repeated attempts.” The matter concerns us here only so far
as it affects the sincerity of Mohammed. All the indications point him
out as one of the last men to attempt a career which should make him
play the part of an orator.

Looking at him more closely, it may be confessed without hesitation that
Mohammed was not a man after the pattern which most commends itself to
us. His personality is one of the most difficult to comprehend in all
history, for it seems to us to unite contradictory traits. Frugality and
lavishness, temperance and sensual grossness, indecision and firmness,
gentleness and cruelty, piety and treachery, all appear by turns; and
the opposites are often in immediate juxtaposition. It is difficult for
us modern men of the Aryan race to combine these features in a single
picture. It is no more than a commonplace to say that a Semite, a
Bedawy, an Arab brought up in heathenism, must be measured by the
Semitic standard of twelve hundred years ago. That, measured by this
standard, he was no ordinary man is clear from the influence which he
exerted during his life, and which has only increased since his death.
To the present day, the Prophet enters into the life of his followers to
an extent difficult for us to imagine. Nearly all books written by
Moslems contain in the preface a eulogy of Mohammed—even works of the
imagination like the Arabian Nights. Once a year the birthday of the
Prophet is celebrated by the Moslem world, and it is the universal
custom to hear the story of his life, or poems in his praise. The number
of biographies of him is very great; almost every Arabic author of note
has written one. To cast a slur on the name of Mohammed in a Moslem
country will excite a mob much more certainly than blasphemy of the name
of Jesus will excite one in any Christian country. The Arabic press
continues to issue yearly new biographies or books of devotion, in which
the exemplary character of the Prophet is set forth for the imitation of
the faithful. Even in Mecca, where one would expect feeling to be made
callous to this theme by long use, the recitation of a poem in his honor
calls forth sighs and tears of longing:[13]

                “My heart yearns, O Apostle of God, to thee,
                But Ah! I am heavy laden with my sins.”

It need not be denied that in this devotion there is something of
superstition. The Bedawin, like most people in a comparatively low state
of civilization, are prone to reverence saints. And when we read how the
people in Mohammed’s campaigns would take the water in which he had
performed his ablutions and rub it on their hands and faces, we confess
that he was the object of an unreasoning devotion. But this is recorded
only of the later years of his life, when his following was increased by
the scarcely converted desert tribes, to whom a prophet was only a
soothsayer or magician under another name. The early and more intimate
companions of the Prophet were not of this class. Omar impresses us as
one of the sanest, clearest headed men that ever lived. Abu Bekr, also,
though a man of tender religious sensibilities, possessed a sober and
practical common-sense, far removed from fanaticism. That this was not
mere superstitious devotion to a supposed wonder-working wizard which
Mohammed called forth, is evident from others besides these intimate
friends. When Saad Ibn Rabia lay on the battle-field in the article of
death, he said to a friend who watched by him: “I am dying; greet the
Apostle of Allah for me and say: God reward thee for what thou hast done
for us, as He rewarded the other prophets. Greet also the Helpers for me
and say: God will not forgive them if harm comes to their prophet.” In
one of the campaigns Zeid Ibn al-Dathana was taken captive and brought
to Mecca, where he was put to death. Just before he was executed one of
the spectators asked: “Would you not rather be with your family and that
Mohammed should be in your place here?” The reply was: “I would not have
Mohammed pricked with a thorn if thereby I might be in safety with my
family.” Nowhere was this loyalty more evident than when there was a
real grievance. In one of his later campaigns Mohammed disposed of the
booty in a manner that quite overlooked the claims of his veteran
followers. Their murmurs came to his ears, and gathering them around him
he spoke a few words of recognition. All hearts turned to him and the
Helpers[14] broke down in tears, crying: We are content with our portion
and our lot. Another example recalls to us the chivalry of Uriah the
Hittite. Abu Chaithama came home from the army to fetch grain. The day
was hot, and his wives had pitched the tents in the shade of his garden.
They also sprinkled them for coolness and prepared refreshing meat and
drink. He looked at it all and said: “The Apostle of Allah is exposed to
the sun and the wind and the heat; and shall I spend my time with my
wife in the cool shade before a spread table? That is not right. I will
not enter your tent but follow Mohammed.” He turned away and as soon as
his grain was ready he mounted his camel and went his way.[15]

These examples, which might easily be multiplied, show that it was not
mere superstition which drew followers to the Prophet. They felt that
this man had brought them real benefit, and their hearts were drawn not
only by the benefit they had experienced but also by the qualities of
the man. Some of these qualities we can appreciate. For one thing, he
was modest in his opinion of himself. When he first came to Medina and
saw the people fertilizing the pistillate palms with sprigs of the
staminate blossoms, he remarked that it might be as well not to do it.
Hereupon some of the people left off, and when their crops of dates came
short, they naturally reproached him. He made no defence, but confessed
that he was fallible except where divinely guided. Although his
followers persisted in discovering miracles wrought by him, he expressly
declared his inability to work them, and that in a passage which reveals
his great desire to work them: “I cannot provide myself with what is
useful or [ward off] what is hurtful except as God wills. If I knew the
secret things I would desire great good, and evil should not touch me;
but I am only a warner and bringer of tidings to a people who
believe.”[16] According to an early tradition he deprecates extravagant
honors: “Praise me not as Jesus the son of Mary is praised; call me the
servant of God and His Apostle.”[17] When one of his followers and a Jew
were disputing about the comparative merits of their respective
prophets, Mohammed said: “Do not put me above Moses.” He had, moreover,
a distinct sense of his own sinfulness. Ayesha asked him: Do none enter
Paradise except through the favor of God? No! he replied, none enter but
through God’s favor. The question was asked and answered three times.
Then she said: You, also, O Prophet, will not you enter but by God’s
compassion? Putting his hand upon his head he replied: I also shall not
enter unless God cover me with His mercy.[18] The consciousness of sin
was, in fact, the starting-point of his religion. His prayers always
contained a petition for forgiveness. He desired the intercession of his
friends, as he in turn interceded for them. That he also laid the case
of his enemies before God, and invoked punishment upon them need cause
us no surprise.[19]

Mohammed was gentle and considerate in his intercourse with men. He
rebukes himself in the Koran because in his anxiety to conciliate a
nobleman, he once turned away from a poor blind man who wished to
inquire of him.[20] A poor negro who swept the mosque at Medina died and
was buried without the Prophet being informed. On hearing of it later,
he rebuked those who had neglected to tell him, inquired for the grave,
and prayed over it as he was accustomed to do for his friends.[21] The
support of his household was often a matter of anxiety to him, but he
was always mindful of those more needy, so that it was not without
ground that his followers called him the protector of orphans and the
defence of the poor. More surprising, in an oriental, is his kindness
toward animals. Although the dog is unclean of the Moslem, as he is to
the Jew, yet Mohammed praised the man who showed kindness to a thirsty
dog.[22] He promised a reward also to the man who watered a stray camel,
and, consistently with this, he threatened a woman with hell because she
had starved a cat.[23]

Quite as prominent as his kindness was the good sense he showed in
matters where, if he were a fanatic, he might be expected to be extreme.
At one time he inclined to ascetic devotion, and stood in prayer so long
that his feet swelled, or so long that their skin cracked and they bled.
But when his followers showed similar excess of zeal, he restrained
them, saying: The body has a claim on you.[24] Although not without
superstition himself, he discouraged it in others even where it might
have seemed to his advantage to connive at it. The day that his infant
son Ibrahim died, there was an eclipse of the sun. The Moslems were
inclined to connect the two events. But Mohammed said: “No! the sun is
not eclipsed for the death of any human being; eclipses are among the
miracles of God; when you see them, engage in prayer.”

If Mohammed shows many attractive personal characteristics, he shows
also many that are repulsive, especially to our age. That they were not
obnoxious in the eyes of his own age is evident from the very devotion
which we have been considering. The standard of the times was not very
elevated. After the battle of Ohod, Hind, the wife of one of Mohammed’s
enemies, sought out among the slain the body of Hamza, Mohammed’s uncle,
who had fallen in the Moslem cause. Having found it, she cut off the
nose and ears, which she made into bracelets. She then tore open the
trunk and cut out the liver, which she had vowed to eat. Although she
was not able to carry out the vow, the whole scene casts a lurid light
upon the state of society in which Mohammed grew up. In such a society,
the faults which are so prominent to us did not attract serious
attention. It is always difficult to say just how far a man should be
judged by the standard of his own times. But we may fairly claim that
any indulgence granted to Biblical heroes on this plea should be granted
also to Mohammed. The state of Arabia in the seventh century was not
unlike the state of Canaan two millenniums earlier. The assassinations
prompted by Mohammed should be judged as we judge the deeds of Ehud and
Jael. His slaughter of the Jews stands by the side of Joshua’s
extermination of the Canaanites. His indulgence in wives was not more
profuse than David’s, and fell far short of Solomon’s luxury. Like
David, he coveted his neighbor’s wife, but he did not murder her
husband, and he did not take possession of her until she had been
divorced. He cursed his enemies, but so did the Psalmist; and the plea
made for the Psalmist, that the objects of his imprecations were the
enemies of the cause of God, was precisely the plea that Mohammed would
have made in all sincerity.

These things are not said as a justification. Tried by any standard the
Prophet of Mecca falls short of perfection. But if we are to appreciate
his work we must not let his faults blind us to his real character. That
character is defined when we say he was a sincerely religious man. “Did
you know what I know (he is reported to have said)—did you know what I
know of the future state, you would laugh little and weep much.”[25]
This sentence gives us the key to his life and to his power. He had a
vivid sense of the great verities—the being of God, the evil of sin, the
future life. He succeeded in impressing these upon the movement of which
he was the head, and they make it what it is—one of the great religions
of the world.

Before we proceed further it will be necessary to define the sources
from which we get our knowledge of Islam. The difficulty which confronts
us is the embarrassment of riches. Islam has a long history and a
copious literature. In the course of its history it has developed
sectarian differences, as great as those which divide professing
Christians. Seventy-three sects of Mohammedans were long ago counted,
and in the number was found the fulfillment of a prophecy ascribed to
Mohammed.[26] But as we have limited our inquiry to the origin and early
stages of Islam, sectarian differences do not concern us. For this
inquiry, one document is of the very first importance and that document
is, of course, the Koran. This book is recognized by all parties of
Moslems as the foundation of their faith. Even if there were doubt as to
its integrity and its authenticity it would still be of prime importance
for the history of Islam. But there is no reason to suspect either its
integrity or its authenticity. The assurances we have on this point are
very complete. The prime fact is that the revelations were committed to
memory by a large body of converts during the life of Mohammed. He
emphasized this as a meritorious act, and thereby increased the number
of living custodians of the word. The book was formally edited and
published soon after his death, and when divergences began to appear in
the copies of this edition, a new one was published with new safeguards
for its correctness. There can be no reasonable doubt that the copies in
our hands correspond very closely with this original, and that this
original does not vary in any important particular from the text recited
by Mohammed himself. This does not mean that we have the complete body
of what he published. Some revelations have probably perished; others
were worked over and changed by Mohammed himself. But we may rest
assured that what we have in this volume represents his thought as he
uttered it during some part of his career.

It is well known that the Koran is regarded as the Book of God, in the
strictest sense. God appears throughout as the speaker, and the devout
Moslem has the most exalted idea of its excellence. “People are not
assembled together in mosques to read the Book of God without light and
comfort descending upon them; the favor of God covers them, angels
encompass them round about, and God reckons them among His angels.”[27]
This tradition, ascribed to Mohammed, correctly represents his idea, and
that of his followers. He is reported to have said further: “The most
illustrious of my followers are those who know the Koran by heart, and
those who pray in the night.”[28] When a number of Moslems had fallen in
battle, those among them who knew the most of the Koran were most
honored in their burial. Omar expressed surprise that one of his
governors should appoint a freedman to an important office. When told
that the man knew the Koran, he approved the appointment. Mohammed
challenged his contemporaries to produce a single chapter equal to his
in excellence, and it is now an article of faith that the challenge
cannot be met. All these are indications of the fundamental importance
of this book.

When we come to the Koran for information, however, we are much
perplexed, for we find it to be a book without form or plan. It is a
collection of disconnected compositions, which were uttered at intervals
during a period of more than twenty years. When they were written down,
no pains were taken to indicate date or occasion of composition.
Fragments of different dates were joined to make a single chapter, or
new sections were interpolated in chapters already complete. When the
final redaction was made, it was altogether mechanical in its
arrangement. The only principle discoverable is that the longest
chapters come first and the shortest last. Within the several chapters
the transitions are abrupt and without apparent motive, and when we add
that the repetition of set phrases is a standing feature, we are not
surprised that, to the Western mind, the book is unattractive and its
study anything but a pleasure. For our present purpose, however, these
drawbacks do not weigh so heavily as they would if our purpose were
purely historical. For a life of Mohammed, it is a great disadvantage
not to be able to date the suras.[29] But our present inquiry is less
concerned with the progressive stages of the Prophet’s thought, than
with the total of his religion. We might almost say that it is not of so
much importance for us to discover what he meant as it is to discover
what his contemporaries supposed him to mean. For it is this which has
made Islam what it is. What they supposed him to mean we can generally
discover, for exegetical tradition is, in its main features, constant.
In one respect we are better off than the exegetes themselves, for they
are under a dogmatic bias from which we are free.

Second to the Koran—but second to it alone—we have another source for
the knowledge of Islam in a great body of traditions concerning the
Prophet. To understand the place which it occupies we need only recall
the position of the Moslem community after the death of Mohammed. Up to
that time, he had been accustomed to answer every question that arose.
_He was the law._ When he was taken away, they still had a law in the
Koran. But this was not enough. No book of rules can provide for every
case that may arise. Mohammed, moreover, had always left something to
oral teaching. It was not his intention that the Koran alone should be
the rule of life. His own example was to be a guide, as is expressly
stated in the Koran itself.[30] In a tradition, he is reported as
saying: “What I have commanded to believers outside the Koran is equal
in quality to the Koran itself, or even greater.”[31] Whether the
tradition is authentic or not, it undoubtedly represents the consensus
of Mohammedan opinion. From it we can understand the anxiety to preserve
the remembrance of Mohammed’s deeds and words.

The necessity of collecting the traditions was not simply private or
personal. Questions arose concerning the state. Public law and
administration had to be dealt with in just the same way as matters of
individual right and wrong. If these questions were not answered by the
Koran, they must be answered in some other way. Here, too, the most
natural recourse was the precedents set by the original ruler. There
was, to be sure, a possibility of arguing by analogy, and so of making
the written law cover cases which were not directly provided for. But
analogy is not always convincing, and the jurists early showed their
distrust of it.[32] Even with the best will in the world, the Koran
could not be made to decide every question that arose.

These considerations show the importance which tradition early assumed
in the public and private life of the Moslem. It is not different in
other religions. The Jews have their Talmud for an authority along with
the Bible. The early Church recognized Apostolic tradition as part of
the rule of faith, and even those modern churches which have discarded
tradition, find the need of Confessions, Canons, and Books of
Discipline. In like manner there stands by the side of the Koran a body
of tradition, almost equally venerated and more exactly obeyed. The
process in this case stands in the clear light of history. When,
immediately after the death of Mohammed, all Arabia seemed to revolt
from Islam, attempts were made to treat with Abu Bekr for new conditions
of peace. But the Caliph was like iron in maintaining what the Prophet
had imposed—“If they withhold a kid from that which the Prophet required
of them, I will declare war,” was his declaration.[33] The precedent was
decisive. Henceforth the example of the Prophet was law to the whole of
Islam.

The consequence could easily be foreseen. The intellectual activity of
the new religion was turned to two subjects—the study of the Koran and
the collection of traditions. This was the beginning of Moslem science,
and seldom has science had more devoted disciples. For two centuries the
traditionists pursued their task, undisturbed by the storm of war which
raged about them. They collected and preserved from the Helpers and
Companions all that these could remember of the sayings and deeds of the
Prophet. They took at second, third, and fourth hand all that was
alleged to have come from the Helpers and Companions. The result was an
enormous mass of material, which the more earnest and less biassed minds
saw must be proved and sifted. Of the zeal in collecting, we have an
example in Gabir Ibn Abdullah, who went a month’s journey to hear a
single tradition.[34] Not a few journeyed from one end of the Mohammedan
world to the other for the sake of this knowledge. What was done in the
way of testing and editing may be judged from the statement of Bochari
that from six hundred thousand traditions he had selected only a little
over seven thousand.[35]

It is apart from our present purpose to go at length into the subject of
tradition. Yet to illustrate the pains taken by Mohammedans in
preserving the recollections of their prophet, I will venture to quote a
single example. It reads as follows: “Adam Ibn Abi Iyās tells us that
Shaybān tells us from Mansur from Mujāhed from Taus from Ibn Abbās (God
be pleased with both of them) that the Prophet (God bless and save him)
said on the day of the surrender of Mecca: There is no more [duty of]
Flight, but the Holy War and the Intention; and when you are called to
the Holy War, then go!”[36] The substance of the tradition is here a
saying of the Prophet. But it might be as well, an action of his or a
refusal to act, or his silence. The meaning of the saying here given is
that, whereas before the conquest of Mecca, there rested upon believers
an obligation to flee from that city as Mohammed himself had done, the
obligation was now abrogated. But the merit of the action will be
acquired by him who engages in war with unbelievers, or who sets his
mind to accomplish the end which could formerly be reached only by
flight, that is, to avoid temptation to apostasy. The importance of
preserving such a _dictum_ will be seen at once.

Equally important is it that the dictum should be known to come from
Mohammed. And it was with the desire to assure this, that the
traditionists preserved in every case the chain of witnesses who
reported the tradition. In the case cited, the saying went through six
hands before it reached the author who put it on paper. It is obvious
that defective memory or lack of veracity on the part of any one of
these would vitiate the credibility of the tradition. The Mohammedan
authors are well aware of this, and the critical activity which resulted
in the rejection of so large a number of traditions consisted hugely in
an examination of the credibility of the narrators. That the editors
were not free from bias in their decisions is only what we might expect.
They were novices in the science of criticism, and could hardly be
expected rightly to weigh tendencies which our own time has only begun
to appreciate. In truth the Hadith[37] must be regarded with marked
scepticism, so far as it is used as a source for the life of Mohammed.
The forgery or invention of traditions began very early. The Companions
were not always too scrupulous to clothe their own opinions in the form
of anecdotes. The greatest number of traditions are related by men who
were very young when the Prophet came to Medina. One of these defends
himself for remembering so many things that others could not
recall[38]—a case where self-excuse is self-accusation. To invent what
would cast honor on the name of the Apostle of God would seem to those
times a meritorious fault, if fault at all, while there would be even
stronger temptation to suppress anything that would not comport with his
reputation. The same Companion (Abu Horaira) who defended himself for
the profuseness of his memory, also confessed that he had two sorts of
recollections; one sort he was accustomed to relate, but it would have
been as much as his life was worth to relate to others. These natural
tendencies were magnified by the party spirit which early became rife in
Islam. Each party counted among its adherents immediate followers of
Mohammed. Each was anxious to justify itself by an appeal to his words
and deeds. It is only the natural result that traditions with a
notoriously party bias were circulated at an early day. A traditionist
of the first rank admits that pious men were inclined to no sort of
fraud so much as to the invention of traditions.[39] The jurists
moreover found that new legal precedents were almost a necessity, and
(as in other systems of law) fiction was used as a means of adapting old
laws to new cases. The jurists therefore encouraged the multiplication
of traditions without any close inquiry into their authenticity.

From our point of view, therefore, many traditions, even if well
authenticated to external appearance, bear internal evidence of forgery.
For example, we read that the Apostle of Allah said: “The resurrection
will not take place until people kill their own Imam [or divinely
appointed ruler] and kill one another with swords and until a tyrannical
king shall reign.”[40] There is an evident reference here to the killing
of Ali and the succession of the Ommayads to the throne. An orthodox
Moslem would see no objection to the probability of Mohammed’s uttering
such a prediction. His criticism could hardly be expected to question
it; while to us it bears evident marks of a later date.

I may give here an anecdote which illustrates the way in which the pious
mind shrinks from too sharp criticism, or indeed from any criticism, of
the documents which it has been accustomed to regard as sacred. A
leading authority on the Hadith was once lecturing on the evidence for
and against doubtful traditions, when a friend dropped in at the
exercise. On being asked the subject of discussion, the lecturer
replied: I am inquiring into the reliability and unreliability of
certain scholars. “Are you not ashamed before God,” asked the intruder,
“to slander men who have already been in Paradise a hundred or two
hundred years?” The lecturer broke down in tears, and said: “Oh! if my
ears had only heard these words before I began my work, I would never
have composed it!” The book fell from his hand and he was so much moved
that he could not continue the lecture.[41]

Where the pious feeling enlists itself on the side of tradition we can
hardly expect criticism to be very radical. The leading Moslem
traditionists were men of this cast. Bochari never recorded a tradition
without performing the ablution, and a prayer of four prostrations. He
sincerely desired to get at the truth, and it is greatly to his credit
that he brought himself to reject so large a proportion of the
literature which he had been taught to regard with reverence. But we
cannot suppose that his work or that of other editors like-minded with
him is final.

Our conclusion is that for the life of Mohammed this great body of
material must be used with great caution. But when the interest is
rather in the first generations of Moslems than in Mohammed
individually, the case is somewhat better. It has already been remarked
of the Koran, that what the early believers supposed it to mean is
nearly as valuable to us as what it actually means, or as what Mohammed
intended it to mean. In the same way we can say of the traditions—what
the early Moslems suppose Mohammed to have said is nearly as valuable
for us as what he actually did say. For we are concerned with the
formative period of his religion, and this period extends beyond his
death. Let me suppose in illustration that some Christian at the end of
the second century had gathered and recorded for us all that oral
tradition had to say of the words and actions of Jesus Christ. Seven
thousand such fragments would be of priceless value. We could not be
sure that in more than a small fraction of cases the tradition was
reliable. The material could not be used for a life of Christ without
great caution. Oral tradition is a doubtful thing. It is liable to
suspicion in an increasing ratio as it passes through three, four, or
five mouths. Yet such a collection would reveal to us the thoughts,
beliefs, and customs of the early Church, and in this regard it would be
beyond price. Such a collection we have for Islam. Bochari, the editor
to whom I have alluded, lived through the first half of the third
century of the Mohammedan era (he died A.H. 256). We cannot doubt that,
with the care he took, the material he gathered was all considerably
older than himself. It is not too much to assume that the traditions
represent the views of the first hundred years after the death of
Mohammed, and we may therefore use them to form our picture of primitive
Islam.

So much it was necessary to say in order to justify the use of the
traditions in our inquiry. We must not come to them, however, with
extravagant expectations. We are inclined to suppose that the Biblical
element in these will be large from the fact that so many converts were
early made from both Judaism and Christianity. But the expectation is
disappointed. For one thing, the interest of the compilers of tradition
is very different from our own. They have preserved what is of secondary
importance to us, while doubtless much of what they have discarded would
be to us a welcome source of light. It seems, moreover, that the Koran
had already, even in the first century of Islam, fully impressed itself
as the supreme law, so that the tradition, while it illustrates, does
not often add anything to its essential contents. The Koran remains the
chief source of our knowledge.

The purpose of this lecture is fulfilled if it has set before you the
nature of the problem with which we have to deal. The plan of the
lectures sufficiently shows the order which the inquiry will follow. The
plan itself indicates the close connection of Islam in its structure
with the system which prevails in Judaism and in Christianity. If the
plan proves to be in accordance with the facts presented by the sources
already described, I shall consider that the inquiry is both interesting
and profitable.

Footnote 1:

  Grimme, _Mohammed_, Erster Teil, Das Leben, Münster, 1892.

Footnote 2:

  Snouck-Hungronje, _Mekka_, II., p. 5.

Footnote 3:

  Koran 2^{113}, cf. 48^8, 6^{48}. It should be noticed that God is
  uniformly the speaker in the Koran.

Footnote 4:

  The reverse opinion—that the Mohammedans were God’s instruments of
  punishment for heresy or schism—was also maintained. Cf. Keller, _Der
  Geisteskampf des Christentums gegen den Islam_, 1896, pp. 12, 56.

Footnote 5:

  My copy is of the seventh edition, London, 1818, but the preface is
  dated 1696-97.

Footnote 6:

  Prideaux, _l. c._, p. 7.

Footnote 7:

  Joseph White, _Sermons preached before the University of Oxford_ in
  the year 1784 at the Lecture founded by the Rev. John Bampton, M.A.
  Second Edition, London, 1811, p. 47. Cf. also p. 85, where Mohammed is
  described as the impostor “whose false and impious pretences to divine
  revelation were ... crowned with success.”

Footnote 8:

  _Œuvres Complètes_ de Voltaire, 1785, Tome III. The Tragedy was first
  acted August 9, 1742.

Footnote 9:

  _Op. cit._ Acte II., Scène V.

Footnote 10:

  I give the traditional data. Great uncertainty hangs over Mohammed’s
  early life, especially over the chronology. For the epithet _Faithful_
  see: _Das Leben Mohammed’s nach Mohammed Ibn Ishak bearbeitet von Ibn
  Hischam, übersetzt von Dr. Gustav Weil_, Stuttgart, 1864, I., p. 94,
  and Sprenger, _Leben Mohammeds_, I., p. 526. The name Abd Menâf for
  Mohammed’s son is given by Müller, _Der Islam im Morgen- und
  Abendlande_, I., p. 48; and the tradition that Mohammed offered a
  white sheep to the goddess Uzzah, by Wellhausen, _Skizzen und
  Vorarbeiten_, III., p. 30.

Footnote 11:

  Weil, _Ibn Hischam_, I., p. 125.

Footnote 12:

  Dozy, _Essai sur l’Histoire de l’Islamisme_, Traduit par Chauvin,
  Leyde et Paris, 1879, p. 119.

Footnote 13:

  Snouck-Hurgronje, _Mekka_, II., p. 74.

Footnote 14:

  The Helpers (_Ançar_) are the people of Medina who welcomed Mohammed
  when he fled from Mecca.

Footnote 15:

  These examples are taken from Weil, _Ibn Hischam_, pp. 31, 71, 252,
  261.

Footnote 16:

  Koran 7^{188}, and cf. 6^{35} _et al._ In _Bochari_, III., p. 149,
  Mohammed intimates that his judgment in legal decisions is not
  infallible.

Footnote 17:

  Cited by Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, II., p. 279.

Footnote 18:

  _Mishcat ul Masabih_ (English translation), I., p. 280.

Footnote 19:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 140; II., p. 14.

Footnote 20:

  Koran 80^{1 f}. This is the traditional occasion for the passage.
  Grimme objects to the tradition, but I see no sufficient reason for
  rejecting it.

Footnote 21:

  _Bochari_, II., p. 84.

Footnote 22:

  “When a man journeys and his thirst consumes him and he comes to a
  well and drinks, then comes away and sees a famished dog gnawing the
  dirt in his thirst, and says: This animal is in the condition in which
  I was; then fills his boot and holds its mouth and comes and gives the
  dog to drink—God rewards such a man and forgives him. The people said:
  O, Apostle of Allah, do we receive a reward in the matter of animals?
  He replied: For every animal [literary: _for every moist liver_] there
  is a reward.”—_Bochari_, III., p. 71. Cf. also Wellhausen’s _Vakidi_,
  p. 327.

Footnote 23:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 42.

Footnote 24:

  _Bochari_, II., pp. 41, 226.

Footnote 25:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 327.

Footnote 26:

  The tradition appears in different forms: “The Banu Israel were
  divided into seventy-two tribes, and my people will be seventy-three.
  Every one will go to hell except one.”—_Mishcat_, I., p. 50. The more
  elaborate form gives the Zoroastrians seventy sects, the Jews
  seventy-one, Christians seventy-two, and Islam seventy-three. Dozy,
  _l’Islamisme_, p. 196. Haarbrücker, _Schahrastani’s Religionsparteien
  und Philosophenschulen_ (1850), I., p. 3. The tradition is no doubt an
  invention.

Footnote 27:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 55.

Footnote 28:

  Ibid., p. 264.

Footnote 29:

  A _sura_ is one of the divisions (chapters) of the Koran. The word
  seems to be borrowed from the Hebrew, where it meant a row of stones
  in a wall. The principle of arrangement, if we may call it so, is not
  applied with absolute rigor. The first sura is a short one.

Footnote 30:

  “The Apostle of Allah is an excellent pattern to him who fears Allah
  and the Last Day.” (33^{21}.) The tradition confirms this.—_Bochari_,
  II., 152.

Footnote 31:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 48.

Footnote 32:

  Cf. Goldziher, _Die Zahiriten_ (1884), p. 5 ff.

Footnote 33:

  Kremer, _Kulturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen_ (1875), I.,
  p. 14.

Footnote 34:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 25.

Footnote 35:

  The system of traditional science is set forth by Professor Salisbury
  in a paper entitled _Contributions to our Knowledge of the Science of
  Muslim Tradition_ in the Journal of the American Oriental Society,
  Vol. VII. (1860), pp. 60-142.

  Six collections of traditions enjoy favor among the Moslems. I cannot
  claim acquaintance with any but Bochari, for which I have used the
  vocalized version, Bulak, without date. I cite from this by volume and
  page, as the traditions are not numbered. I have read, also, Captain
  Matthew’s English translation of the _Mishcat-ul-Masabih_, Calcutta,
  1809, 1810, two volumes, quarto.

Footnote 36:

  _Bochari_, IV., p. 35. The same tradition, II., p. 197.

Footnote 37:

  _Hadith_ is the technical term for a tradition of whatever kind.
  _Sunna_ is customary _law_, generally, but not necessarily, based on
  tradition. Cf. Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, II., p. 11.

Footnote 38:

  _Bochari_, III., p. 2.

Footnote 39:

  See the citation, Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, II., p. 47.

Footnote 40:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 533.

Footnote 41:

  Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, II., p. 272 f.




                              LECTURE II.
                     THE COMMON BASIS IN HEATHENISM


No religion has been successful which did not borrow something from the
predecessor which it tried to displace. The Church discovered this when
it adopted and consecrated heathen festivals, heathen shrines, and even
heathen divinities, making them into Christian feasts, Christian altars,
and Christian saints. Islam had a similar experience. Its immediate
predecessor was a heathenism from which Mohammed turned away and which
he would have entirely suppressed had it been possible. But, without
himself realizing what he did, he was driven to borrow from heathenism.
We readily see how this came about. He was brought up in
heathenism—until he was forty years old he conformed to its customs.
Whatever religion he had until that time was connected with the worship
of the Meccans. We have no reason to doubt that he was a sincerely
religious man, when he sacrificed a kid to Uzza at the Kaaba, or when he
called a son Abd Menâf for one of the false gods. When his new
convictions came, he gave up whatever was contradictory to them.
Probably he tried at first to make a clean sweep of the old religion. He
gave up the sanctuary, for at Medina he made Jerusalem the point toward
which the prayers of the believers should be directed. But even this was
a strain on his habit. So after a time the Kibla was changed to the
Kaaba again. Partly this may be accounted for by his experience with the
Jews. When he came to Medina he felt that he could gain them to his
party. He was convinced that his religion and theirs were one in
substance, and of course he saw no reason why they should not at once
unite with him. In this he overrated his knowledge of their religion,
and underrated the obstinacy of their convictions. When he saw that his
hopes were not likely to be realized, he changed the Kibla. That his
motive was to gratify his affection for the ancestral sanctuary rather
than to alienate the Jews, is evident from the Koran, which says: “We
have seen thee turning thy face about towards the [different parts of
the] heavens, and We will cause thee to turn to a Kibla that will please
thee. Therefore turn thy face in the direction of the sacred House,[42]
and wherever you are, turn your faces in its direction, and those who
receive the Book will know that this is the truth from thy Lord; and God
is not ignorant of what they do.” The plain implication of the passage
is that Mohammed was restless under his own ordinance which fixed the
Kibla at Jerusalem. His heart yearned toward the ancient sanctuary. His
desire was gratified by the command to make that again the central point
of his religion.

Although the motive in this was so largely personal, yet there is no
doubt that it was a real step toward gaining the Arabs. The new Kibla
was to them a notification that the new religion was to be national. The
reconciliation between Mohammed’s belief in the genuineness of Judaism
and his belief in the genuineness of the Kaaba, was effected by an
ingenious use of Abraham. How he came to this is difficult to make out.
The theory of Moslem writers that the heathen Arabs already knew Abraham
as the builder of the Kaaba must be viewed with suspicion. Still there
is a possibility that Abraham, or _an_ Abraham was known to the Meccans
and connected with their worship.[43] The motive of Mohammed is evident.
All great religious leaders have sought points of union with the past.
It seems to them evident that a purer faith was accepted in the earlier
ages, and they claim therefore to be restorers rather than originators.
Such was the claim of Mohammed. Christianity and Judaism both had made
Abraham the Father of the Faithful. The Old Testament account makes him
a builder of altars. What more natural than that Mohammed should suppose
him the founder of the Kaaba? Later tradition was not content with even
this antiquity. It supposes the sacred building to have been first
erected by Adam in imitation of the heavenly sanctuary which he had seen
in Paradise before his expulsion. It also affirms that this heavenly
House is located just over the earthly Kaaba. But these refinements are
later than the time of Mohammed, who was satisfied to carry the sacred
place back to Abraham.[44]

The Kibla—that is, turning the face to a particular point of the compass
in worship—is itself an institution of great antiquity. It is perhaps
never absent from early religions. When men have a distinct place in
which their Deity dwells, they naturally turn toward that place in
paying their devotions. One of the gravest accusations against Israel is
that they turn their faces to the sun and their backs to the Temple of
Yahweh.[45] The prayer of Solomon intimates that worshippers even in
distant lands would pray toward the temple.[46] The custom of Daniel is
well known. The institution of the Kibla is therefore ancient in Judaism
and very likely goes back to Semitic heathenism. In Islam it is really a
survival. For Mohammed made God’s dwelling-place to be heaven, and there
was no real meaning in an earthly sanctuary. He himself says: “To God
belongs the East and the West; wherever you turn, there is the face of
God.” And again: “Piety does not consist in turning your faces toward
the East or toward the West. Pious is he who believes in God and the
Last Day.”[47] But custom was too strong for logic, as has often been
the case in other religions.

To custom also, aided by a sense of expediency, we must attribute the
retention of the Kaaba itself as a fetish—I know of no other word that
will fit the case. For the Kaaba is one of the sacred stones of which
Semitic religion knows so many. The process by which they become sacred
is vividly brought before us by the experience of Jacob. The wayfarer
has a dream in which a divine being appears to him. On waking, he
associates the divinity with some conspicuous stone—perhaps the one
which he has used as a pillow. The stone becomes an object of worship.
It receives the oblation of oil or a vow of the tithes. From this time
on, the stone and the God are identified; the more ignorant worshippers
identify them absolutely, the more intelligent say that the God dwells
in the stone, which therefore becomes a Beth-El. A number of such idols
or fetishes are known to have existed in Arab heathenism. Dhu-l-Chalaça,
a white stone, once an idol, is now the threshold of a mosque at Tabala,
where it was formerly worshipped. Dusares of Petra, a still more ancient
example, is described as a black, rectangular, uncut stone four feet
high and two feet thick. One of the names for it seems to have been
_kaaba_.[48] The prevalence of stone worship among the heathen Arabs is
attested by the Moslem writers, in that they were compelled to invent a
theory to account for it. The theory is thus given by the earliest
biographers of Mohammed whose work has come down to us:[49] “Others
believe that the beginning of idolatry among the sons of Ishmael was
that the Meccans, when their land became too straight for them, spread
abroad over the country, and all took stones from their sanctuary [the
Kaaba], out of reverence for their temple, and they set them up wherever
they formed a settlement; and they walked around them as they used to go
about the Holy House. This led them at last to worship every stone that
pleased their fancy; and their descendants, who forgot the earlier
faith, abandoned the religion of Abraham and Ishmael and worshipped
idols and fell into the errors of the people who had preceded them.” The
tradition is interesting as showing how easily historical theory exactly
reverses the facts, and also as showing the Moslem’s inability to
comprehend the religion of his ancestors. But here it interests us
especially as giving unbiassed testimony to the existence of stone
worship before Islam.

The Kaaba is such a Beth-El. It is in fact called the House of God. But
let us not be misled by this name, and by the fact that the Kaaba is a
_building_, into supposing that it was a temple. The God resided in it
only as Uzza resided in the tree which was identified with her. The four
walls which constituted the original building were only an extension or
enlargement of the sacred stone. No special emphasis was ever laid upon
the room within these walls. The walls themselves were the _sacrum_.
And, when the roof was added, the building was a cube—simply an enlarged
block. The black stone near one corner was most sacred, but the whole
cube was an object of worship.[50] The _house_ of the God was added in
the curtain which was stretched over the structure, and which is still
annually renewed. In all this—the sacredness of the stone, the cubical
form of the sacred object, and the tent which was stretched over it—we
see remarkable resemblances to Hebrew antiquity. Jacob’s stone at Bethel
has already been alluded to. But this is not the only sacred stone of
Hebrew history. In Jacob’s covenant with Laban we find another, and in
fact the _Maççeba_ appears to have been a regular accompaniment of the
altar of Yahweh down to a comparatively late period.[51] We remember
also that the Most Holy part in both Tabernacle and Temple was a cube in
form; that over it was spread a tent in the desert; and that the central
point even in the Temple of Solomon was a peculiar rock.

All these remarkable parallels are due to survival from early Semitic
heathenism. Mohammed in his rejection of the idols should have rejected
the Kaaba as well. Omar used to say, after the death of the Prophet,
when he stroked the black stone of the Kaaba: “I know thou art only a
stone and canst neither harm nor help; and had I not seen the Apostle of
Allah do this I would never do it.” But custom was too strong for logic.
The reverence with which Mohammed had learned to regard the sanctuary in
his youth clung to him in his manhood, and it carried the sanctuary and
the Kibla into Islam. Various puritan sects have arisen in Islam which
have tried to carry out the logic of the Prophet, to do away with the
sacred stone, and to destroy the whole sanctuary. But the result has
been only to establish the superstition the more strongly.[52]

The rites of the pilgrimage are also an instance of resemblance which is
not dependence. They originate in Semitic heathenism, from which common
source they passed over into Hebraism and into Islam. The pilgrimage is
called by the name _haj_—the same word was used by the Hebrews for the
yearly festivals.[53] The Arabic lexicographers define it as a _visit_.
But it seems originally to have been the procession or dance around the
sacred stone or the altar. A Psalmist speaks of going about the altar,
and another was accustomed to lead the procession on festival
occasions.[54] David danced before the ark. So we find in Arabia that
the worshippers walk around the Kaaba and run between Safa and Merwa,
two other sacred spots in Mecca.[55] The number of circuits is
_seven_,[56] which reminds us of the prominence of seven as a sacred
number in Judaism. The theologians are ready with a theory that Adam was
the originator of this custom, having seen the angels march about the
throne of God in Paradise.

Other customs of the pilgrimage show notable analogies with those
enjoined in the Old Testament, the analogies being duo to their common
heathen source. One of these is the shouting of the pilgrims. When the
Haj reaches the sacred territory its members shout _Labbaika_—at Thy
service! This shouting is called by a name derived from the root from
which we find in the Bible _Hallelujah_. The Hallelujah also is a shout
of greeting. The verb means _to shout_ just like the corresponding
Arabic verb. If the circuit of the sacred object was originally a dance,
the shouting was the song that accompanied it. But all festivals are
noisy occasions. So late as the time of the Psalms, worship is described
as “shouting aloud to God.”[57] In the sacrificial ritual both of Arabia
and of Phenicia, the name of the God was shouted by the worshippers. The
Arabic custom therefore was not borrowed (as Sprenger thinks), from
Israel, but was a part of primitive Semitic worship which passed over
into Israel and into Islam.

To our view the characteristic rite of the Hebrew religion was
sacrifice, and this rite, as we know, is found in nearly all religions.
In Arabic heathenism it existed in a very primitive form. The victim was
not burned upon an altar—the blood was smeared on the sacred stone or
poured out at its base. The application of the blood to the altar (or on
the most sacred occasions to the Ark, the special seat of the divinity),
continued in the Old Testament religion down to its latest development.
In Islam, though the rite was retained,[58] the application of the blood
to the sacred object (the Kaaba itself, of course, would have been the
proper object), was lost. The meaning of sacrifice is therefore totally
obscured. For we can hardly doubt that its early significance was in
making the God partake of the feast, either by himself, or in the
communion with the worshippers. In rejecting this idea, Mohammed was
consistent with the general trend of his theology. God is, to him,
supersensuous, and He cannot partake of food. On this the Koran has a
very explicit declaration. The sacredness of the blood disappears—except
that it cannot be eaten. There is no longer any idea either of expiation
or communion connected with the rite. We should expect the rite to be
done away. But it survives. Its merit is in fact emphasized, as is
usually the case with unmeaning rites. But its merit is solely that it
is obedience to a command of God.[59] It does not disprove Mohammed’s
independence of Judaism in this matter, that the theologians bring the
great sacrifice at Mecca into connection with Abraham’s willingness to
sacrifice his son.[60]

In connection with the pilgrimage we notice, as another survival, the
shaving of the head. For Islam, it is assumed to be a part of the
pilgrimage (Kor. 2^{192}). The references to it in Arabic heathenism are
unambiguous,[61] and we see that the shorn hair is an offering to the
God of the worshipper. In the Old Testament also the Nazarite shaved his
head at the completion of his term of devotion, and the hair was burnt
upon the altar. In Islam the rite now completes the pilgrimage, and its
significance is apparently exhausted in marking the passage from the
“holy” to the “common” state of life. This was true to a certain extent
in Judaism, where shaving the head marked the accomplishment of any vow.
The original sacrificial meaning still shows itself in another rite,
which has survived in Islam and is enjoined in tradition though not in
the Koran. When a child is seven days old its head is shaved, and a goat
is sacrificed, that is, slain, and the flesh distributed to the poor. We
are expressly told that in heathenism the same custom prevailed, and
that the blood of the slain animal was rubbed on the child’s head.[62]
This points to a dedication of the child to the God, and the shaving of
the head must have had the same meaning. An analogue is circumcision,
which also has survived in Islam though not enjoined in the Koran.

The list of customs which have survived from Semitic heathenism in both
Hebraism and Islam is not yet complete. One of them is the changing of
clothes by the pilgrim when he enters the sacred territory. This is not
expressly enjoined upon Israel, but when they appear before God at
Sinai, they are commanded to consecrate themselves and wash their
clothes. The Psalmist exhorts to worship in “the beauty of holiness,” by
which he means vestments consecrated to the service. It is an expression
of the same idea, when the priests are commanded to conduct their
service in sacred garments. Ezekiel is especially clear, for he enjoins
that when the priests go into the outer court to the people, they shall
put off the garments in which they minister and put on others.[63] The
same regulation passed into the priestly Tora. We cannot doubt that we
have here a custom of Semitic heathenism which has survived into the
later religions. In Israel it was specialized because a distinct order
of priests was developed. Originally it was the whole people who were
subject to this regulation. Islam has therefore more nearly preserved
the original usage. We may note, in this connection, the law which
forbids intercourse of the sexes during the pilgrimage—a law which has
its counterpart in the Old Testament.[64]

The sacredness of a particular territory is one of the ideas originating
in Semitic heathenism and surviving into the revealed religions. In his
farewell pilgrimage, Mohammed said: “God consecrated this land in the
day in which he made heaven and earth, and it is consecrated with His
consecration until the day of resurrection. And killing was not lawful
in it to any before me, and it was lawful to me for one hour of one day
only. And it shall be consecrated with God’s consecration until the day
of Resurrection—its brambles shall not be cut, nor its game hunted, nor
shall one pick up a lost article without advertising it, nor shall its
fresh herbage be gathered.”[65] This was simply the continuation of the
heathen regulation. We find, besides Mecca, other sacred tracts
mentioned in heathen times—_hima_ is their name—within which animals
could pasture at will and none could molest them. Not even stray animals
could be reclaimed when they had once crossed the boundary of the
_hima_. The land was sacred to the God who had his dwelling in it, and
whatever came into contact with the land partook of the sacredness. It
was not only the property of the God; it partook of his inviolability,
so that whoever injured it was guilty of sacrilege. As we are not
studying Arabic heathenism, we need not stop to inquire whether the
earliest idea was that the God dwelt in the territory and therefore made
it sacred, or whether it was the territory that was sacred, and
therefore, the God dwelt in it. What interests us is that the primitive
idea passed over into Judaism and Islam—and, indeed, into traditional
Christianity. The sanctuary of God is a sanctuary for men—those in
danger find an asylum there. Joab, when he knows his life to be
threatened, flees to the altar and lays hold of it, and although in his
case the asylum was not respected, this is the exception that proves the
rule. The cities of refuge humanely provided in the later legislation
for the protection of the manslayer, were doubtless originally seats of
worship. The asylum has in them survived the sanctuary. It is not
improbable that the provision for the cattle of the Levites in the
“suburbs” of their cities is a relic of the same idea.[66] The Levites
are consecrated persons. Their cities with the territory about them are
sacred. The only cattle that can be allowed there must be the property
of the sacred persons. It does not seem far-fetched to suppose that the
Sabbatic year rests upon the same basis. The whole land of Israel
belongs to Yahweh; His property in it is, therefore, shown by its being
left uncultivated—the _hima_ was always left in its natural state. To
plough the _hima_ is profanation. It was, of course, impossible to
ordain that the land of Israel should be left uncultivated all the time,
for its people had become cultivators. But the recognition of its
sacredness might be made one year out of seven. This ordinance has had
no influence on Islam; but the idea of holiness, or sacredness, which
shows itself in Islam is evidently the same which appears in these
various provisions of the Hebrew Law.

There are a number of heathen customs which have maintained their place
in Islam, but which are tolerated rather than authorized. Sacred trees
still have a sort of worship paid them. There are traces of such also in
the Old Testament. It is, at least, a curious coincidence, that the tree
of Uzza was an oracle, and that in Israel we have a _tree of the
diviners_.[67] The worship of the dead has left traces in the customs of
Israel and in the customs of Islam. The Jews builded the tombs of the
prophets, and so do the Moslems to the present day.[68] With the sacred
_fountains_ at Kadesh and elsewhere, we may compare the sacred well
Zemzem at Mecca, whose character was left undisturbed by Mohammed.

We shall have occasion to notice that the name of God adopted by
Mohammed is one of the names current in Arabia before his time, and that
it is the same name used in Hebrew and Syriac. He had no need to borrow
it from any other source than Arab custom. The name must have existed
among the primitive Semites before the rise of the Hebrew religion.

The characteristic greeting of Islam is _Salaam_! This is well known to
be identical with the Hebrew _Peace_! (_Shalom._) Our first impulse is
to derive Mohammed’s custom from Judaism. But this would probably not be
correct. In the desert the state of nature is a state of war, and every
stranger is taken for an enemy. The most appropriate assurance when men
meet is that _it is peace_. So we explain the custom in Hebraism, and we
suppose the state of Arab society had given rise to the same custom in
primitive times. The salutation would be a survival in both Judaism and
Islam. The Meccans were accustomed to use another form;[69] but this
does not prove that Mohammed adopted his from the Jews.

The fact that the Arabic and the Hebrew are so closely related, and that
the state of society in which the two languages were spoken was so
nearly the same, causes a similarity in phraseology which may deceive
us. We are likely to suppose there was borrowing, when, in fact, there
was none. Or, again, there may have been borrowing before the time of
Mohammed. In either of these cases it would be wrong to argue for
Biblical influence on Mohammed, on the ground of resemblance. For
example, the conjunction of riches and children as marks of prosperity
is found in the Koran:[70] “Like those who were before you—they were
more powerful than you and surpassed you _in riches and in children_.”
This and similar expressions remind us of the Psalmist’s language:
“Whose belly thou fillest with treasure, they are satisfied with
children,” and other passages to the same intent. The resemblance is the
more marked in that both Bible and Koran thus describe the wicked in
their prosperity. But there is probably no dependence. It is the
_Semitic idea_ which puts large possessions and numerous offspring side
by side as elements of good fortune. Another resemblance is found in the
following:[71] “Those who deny Our signs [_or_ accuse Our verses of
falsehood] and show themselves proud against thee—for these the gates of
heaven shall not be opened, nor shall they enter Paradise _until a camel
shall enter the eye of a needle_.” In spite of the similarity to a
well-known saying of the Gospel, it is probable that there is no direct
influence to be assumed. The proverbial phrase was current before
Mohammed (perhaps even before Christ), and Mohammed used it without any
knowledge of the Gospel precedent. The same caution which is advisable
in arguing from these cases is true of such resemblances in language as
the following: “Every soul must _taste of death_.”[72] “God puts before
you as a parable a man who is the slave of [two or more] incompatible
masters, and the one who belongs to a single master—are they alike?”[73]
This readily suggests the assertion that it is impossible to serve God
and mammon. Again, the comparison of those who hear and obey with those
who hear but do not obey, seems to find an echo in the following: “Is he
who has founded his walls upon the fear of God and His power better, or
he who has founded his walls upon the edge of a crumbling precipice and
falls with it into the fire of hell?”[74] With the Psalmist’s assertion
that God derides the plotters against His Anointed, compare: “_God mocks
at them_, and leaves them perplexed in their disobedience.”[75] We must
admit that in such passages there is always a possibility of Biblical
influence. But the other possibility—that the resemblances are due to
the other causes I have named—is constantly to be kept in mind. The
strength of the argument to be based upon the resemblances depends
somewhat upon the context of each particular passage. When we read in
the account of Pharaoh,[76] that Moses said: “Your hearts became hard
after this, and were like the rock or harder,” we suspect from the
connection that Mohammed’s language is affected by Biblical influence.
But in the other cases cited we are not warranted in assuming, as the
cause of the resemblance, anything more than the general Semitic cast of
thought and language in both Bible and Koran.

Before we leave this part of the subject it will be legitimate to
inquire what narrative material Mohammed took from Arabic heathenism.
The Koran is a book nearly as large as the New Testament.[77] It would
be difficult to fill so large a book with the simple dogmas and maxims
of Islam. We are not surprised to find in it considerable narrative
material. But very little of this material is drawn from Arabic
sources—that is, from sources outside of Judaism and Christianity.
Except two stories of some length there is nothing more than brief
allusions. Among the brief allusions, I count what is said of Lokman the
Sage.[78] For although this extends to ten verses, the verses are filled
with a sermon of Mohammed’s rather than with the story of Lokman. The
verses throw no light upon the source of Mohammed’s information, but it
is evident that Lokman had already received in tradition a place among
Arab heroes.

Scarcely more than an allusion is what is said concerning the army of
the elephant. The event to which the account refers, is the destruction
of the Abyssinians, which took place some forty years before the call of
Mohammed—tradition dates it in the year of the Prophet’s birth. The
Abyssinians had a tributary kingdom in southern Arabia, and attempted to
extend their power. In the vicinity of Mecca the army was compelled to
halt, apparently by an epidemic of small-pox, by which, and by the
Bedawin, it was wholly destroyed. Mohammed’s account, which is contained
in one of his early suras, is as follows:[79]

    “Dost thou not see how thy Lord wrought with the army of the
    elephant? Did He not turn their cunning into confusion? And send
    upon them birds in companies, Which threw upon them stones [like]
    graven seals, And left them like stubble where cattle have grazed?”

Later writers have enriched the story with many details, none of which
can be considered historical. The only historic fact we discover is that
the army was defeated. Popular story ascribed their destruction to an
army of birds which threw pebbles upon them. Whether the
language—_graven seals_—implies that Mohammed believed the stones to be
engraved with the names of those for whom they were destined is not
certain. But it is evident that he was interested in the history solely
for its religious bearing. A concern for history as history would have
been unintelligible to him. What he valued was the illustration of the
power of God.

He was moved by the same religious interest in selecting the two longer
stories from Arabic history to which I referred above. These are the
stories of Ad and Thamud which he uses a number of times. It is indeed
almost an abuse of language to speak of these legends as history. Ad,
described as a people of southern Arabia, may be wholly mythical.
Thamud, on the other hand, is the name of a tribe which really existed.
The feature of their civilization which stands out prominently in
Mohammed’s description, is that they make rock dwellings like those of
Petra: “And ye hew the mountain into houses.”[80] From the traditions of
Mohammed’s expedition to Tabuk, it seems quite certain that these
“houses” are the rock tombs at Medain Salih, visited and described by
Doughty.[81] They had probably been seen by Mohammed in one of his
earlier journeys, for they lie on the caravan road from the Hejaz to
Syria. The impression made upon his mind was very strong. A people once
powerful enough to sculpture the mountains has disappeared by an act of
God—this was the fact that was so startlingly told by these wonderful
remains. This fact exactly suited his scheme of history. His was not the
first religious mind to despise details and to construct history to fit
a theory. In this case he filled in the bare outlines given by tradition
with details suggested by his theory. Ad and Thamud are made to conform
to the scheme already impressed upon him by the Biblical narratives.
What this scheme is, is told us in his own words:[82]

    “Have they not travelled in the land and seen the end of those who
    preceded them, though they were more numerous than they, and more
    powerful, and [though they] had more imposing monuments in the land?
    But what they had gained was of no avail. When Our Apostles brought
    them clear credentials, they rejoiced in what knowledge they
    [already] possessed; but that which they scoffed at came upon them.
    And when they saw the pain sent by Us, they said: We believe in God
    alone, and we disbelieve in what we [hitherto] associated with Him.
    But the faith which they professed when they saw the pain sent by
    Us, did not profit them. Such was God’s method with those of His
    creatures who have passed away, and thus the unbelievers perished.”

This is the philosophy of history according to Mohammed. It needs no
argument to show that it is suggested by the Bible. What interests us
here is that it is applied not only to the Bible stories, but also to
the legends received from Arabic tradition. Like the Kaaba, the
pilgrimage, the Kibla, the narrative material taken from heathenism was
transformed by the new theology. The theology was strong enough to weld
the apparently incongruous material into one system.

Footnote 42:

  Literally, _Mosque_, or place of prostration. The passage is 2^{139}.

Footnote 43:

  The Station of Abraham is mentioned in tradition as though it were a
  part of the Kaaba (or possibly a name for the whole Kaaba) before the
  conquest of Mecca. Cf. _Bochari_, I., p. 97, where Omar says that he
  suggested to Mohammed the words (Kor., 2^{119}): “And take the Station
  of Abraham as a place of prayer.” The Station of Abraham is the name
  now given to a part of the area of the Haram at Mecca.

Footnote 44:

  Judaism also locates the heavenly throne just above the earthly
  Temple, and this seems to have been adopted by Mohammed. For in the
  Night Journey he went first to Jerusalem and thence ascended to
  heaven. The Mohammedan tradition which ascribed the first building to
  Adam, allows that this structure was destroyed in the Deluge and
  rebuilt by Abraham.

Footnote 45:

  Ezek. 8^{17}, where the text has been purposely changed to obscure a
  drastic phrase.

Footnote 46:

  1 Kings 8. Cf. Dan. 6^{10}.

Footnote 47:

  Koran 2^{109}, ^{172}.

Footnote 48:

  The examples are from Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_, III., pp.
  42 f., 46; cf. also pp. 50, 54.

Footnote 49:

  _Ibn Hischam_, Uebersetzt von Weil, I., p. 39.

Footnote 50:

  On other instances in which the sacred object was a building, cf.
  Wellhausen, _l. c._, p. 39 f.

Footnote 51:

  Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 185 ff.

Footnote 52:

  Snouck-Hurgronje, _Mekka_, I., pp. 49, 60. The later tradition
  declares that Allah gave Adam a model of the Kaaba in curtains of
  light, pitching it on the spot on which the Kaaba now stands. This
  tradition is doubtless influenced by the Biblical account of the
  command given to Moses concerning the Tabernacle and the pattern which
  was showed him in the mount. Ex. 25^{40}. Cf. Prideaux, _Life of
  Mahomet_, p. 56. On the covering of the Kaaba in heathen times,
  Snouck-Hurgronje, _Mekka_, I., 5. The theologians find a reason for
  kissing the black stone in the legend that it was originally a jewel
  from Paradise, which has become black by contact with sinful men. At
  the last day it will receive eyes and tongue and will bear witness for
  the believers.

  It is interesting to note that the Heavenly Jerusalem is also a cube
  (Apoc. 21^{16}).

Footnote 53:

  Exod. 12^{14}, 23^{14}, Lev. 23^{41} and often.

Footnote 54:

  Ps. 26^6, 42^5.

Footnote 55:

  On the rites of the pilgrimage as now performed, cf. Burton, _Personal
  Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina_. I have only the
  Tauchnitz edition (1874), in which the third volume is devoted to
  Mecca.

Footnote 56:

  Mohammed used to make three out of the seven with a quick step, the
  others more deliberately.—_Bochari_, II., p. 148.

Footnote 57:

  Ps. 81^2. On the word _hallal_ and its meaning, cf. Wellhausen,
  _Skizzen_, III., p. 107; Sprenger, _Leben Muhammed’s_, III., p. 527;
  W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 411.

Footnote 58:

  Cf. below, on the Service of God.

Footnote 59:

  The traditions on the merit of sacrifice are given by Hughes,
  _Dictionary of Islam_, p. 552.

Footnote 60:

  Mohammed said (according to a tradition) that the sacrifices are
  conformable to the laws of Abraham.—Hughes, p. 552^b. The complete
  divorce of the rite from its early meaning is seen in the fact that
  the sacrifice of the Haj is offered in the valley of Mina—not at the
  Kaaba.

Footnote 61:

  Cf. Krehl, _Ueber die Religion der Vorislamischen Araber_, p. 14.

Footnote 62:

  Buraida, cited by Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_, p. 554.

Footnote 63:

  Ezek. 44^{19}.

Footnote 64:

  Kor. 2^{193}, cf. Ex. 19^{15}. The priest at Nob refuses to give David
  the sacred bread until assured that the young men have kept themselves
  from women.—1 Sam. 21^4.

Footnote 65:

  _Bochari_, II., p. 197. At the suggestion of Abbas, the Prophet made
  an exception in favor of the cutting of certain fragrant rushes; cf.
  W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 134; Snouck-Hurgronje,
  _Mekka_, I., p. 23.

Footnote 66:

  Num. 35^2.

Footnote 67:

  Judges 9^{37}. The coincidence is pointed out by Krehl, _Religion der
  Vorislam. Araber_, pp. 75, 78 f.

Footnote 68:

  Images of Abraham and Ishmael are said to have been worshipped in the
  Kaaba.—_Bochari_, II., p. 147. This is perhaps a deduction from the
  alleged foundation of the sanctuary by them. On saint-worship in
  Islam, cf. Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, II., p. 281 ff., and
  I., p. 229 ff.

Footnote 69:

  According to Wakidi, Umair, who came from Mecca to Medina ostensibly
  to treat with Mohammed for the ransom of prisoners, used the
  salutation: “A Pleasant Morning;” Wellhausen, _Mohammed in Medina_, p.
  75; cf. Goldziher in the Z. D. M. G., 46, p. 22.

Footnote 70:

  Koran 9^{70}, cf. Ps. 17^{14}.

Footnote 71:

  _Ibid._ 7^{38}, cf. Matt. 19^{24}.

Footnote 72:

  _Ibid._ 3^{182}.

Footnote 73:

  Koran 39^{30}, cf. Matt. 6^{24}.

Footnote 74:

  _Ibid._ 9^{110}, cf. Matt. 7^{24-27}.

Footnote 75:

  _Ibid._ 2^{14}.

Footnote 76:

  _Ibid._ 2^{69}.

Footnote 77:

  It contains about eighty-five per cent. of the number of words in the
  Arabic translation of the New Testament published by the Am. Bible
  Society.

Footnote 78:

  Koran 31^{11-18}. On the speculations of the commentators, cf.
  Maracci, _Refutationes_, p. 547.

Footnote 79:

  Koran 105. The Abyssinian King rode an elephant, whence the title of
  his army.

Footnote 80:

  Koran 7^{72}.

Footnote 81:

  Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_.

Footnote 82:

  Koran 40^{82-85}.




                              LECTURE III.
                          THE KORAN NARRATIVES


The dependence of the Koran upon the Bible—whether the dependence be
mediate or immediate we do not now inquire—is evident at a glance. There
is not a page whose language does not remind us of the Old Testament or
of the New. This is partly accounted for by the similarity of the Arabic
language to the Hebrew, and also by the resemblance of the civilizations
represented in the two books. As was noticed in the last lecture, not
every verbal parallel can be taken as an evidence of dependence. To the
examples there given we might add the following: We read in one instance
a threat against evil-doers, which will be accomplished “though their
cunning were such that mountains would be moved by it.”[83] We need not
suppose a reminiscence of a New Testament phrase. The figure is natural
to one who lives in a mountainous country. Again, the evil-doers are
said to _devour the heritage of the orphan_.[84] The phrase is
strikingly like some of those with which we are familiar in the Now
Testament, but it does not follow that it is borrowed from that source.
So _those who expend their money in the sight of men_ are strikingly
like those who do alms _that they may be seen of men_,[85] but the
phenomenon of ostentatious almsgiving is probably witnessed in all
religions, and the identity of phenomena has produced the resemblance of
language.

These reservations are not numerous or important. For considerable
portions of the Koran we cannot be in doubt. Nearly all its narratives
are Biblical stories. But in no case are they exact translations of the
Biblical text. Quotations even of a single verse are not easy to find.
The most diligent search does not discover more than two or three. The
reasons for this are obvious. For one thing, there existed no Arabic
translation of the Scriptures in the time of Mohammed. The Jews or
Christians from whom he got his information were obliged to give the
stories in their own words. But besides this, the Prophet evidently
worked over the material he received, to fit it to his own purpose. He
was not a historian, but a preacher. He used the history to convey a
lesson. He may have had the idea that he could entertain his hearers and
attract them by relating these histories. If so, he was disappointed.
The Meccans openly preferred a reciter of fairy-stories who set up as
his rival—perhaps a lesson to those who think the pulpit succeeds if it
entertains its hearers. How far Mohammed indulged the hope of making his
message attractive by putting it in the form of stories, it is not easy
to say. For the most part the narratives were made strictly subordinate
to his main purpose, and we can understand the narratives only as we
keep the purpose in mind. _To warn his hearers of the wrath to
come_—this is his main aim, and this explains his choice of material, as
well as the form in which the material is presented. As has already been
remarked, this purpose is seen in his use of material from other than
Biblical sources. The two histories which he takes from Arab antiquity
are cast by him in Biblical form. As he tells them, both relate that a
prophet was sent to his tribe. The tribe rejects the prophet and is
punished. These brief sentences give the key to a large part of what we
find in the Koran. His own experience is the light in which the author
sees all history. The only proof necessary to adduce for this
proposition is the choice of material.

The Old Testament stories used by Mohammed are those of Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Lot, Joseph, and Moses. These are all from the Pentateuch, and
some of them are repeated a number of times. The destruction of Sodom is
given eight times, as is the account of the flood. The creation and fall
of Adam are recounted five times, while there are no less than thirteen
somewhat extended references to Abraham. It must be evident from this
that the Pentateuch furnishes the largest part of the material borrowed
for narrative purposes. From the rest of the Old Testament he takes
Saul, David, and Solomon, and he has allusions to Elijah, Job, Jonah,
and Gog and Magog. But none of these receives anything like the space
given to the characters taken from the Pentateuch.

To illustrate what I have said of Mohammed’s motive and his method of
treatment I will quote one of the accounts concerning Noah. It reads as
follows:[86]

    “We sent Noah to his people [to say]: I am a plain-speaking warner,
    to tell you that you must not serve any but Allah. I fear for you
    the punishment of a distressing day. The chiefs of his people who
    disbelieved, said: We see that thou art nothing but a man like us,
    and we see that thy followers are only the basest of us, men of rash
    resolution. We do not discover that you are better than we—in fact
    we think you to be liars. He replied: O my people, if I have
    received a commission from my Lord, and He has given me a special
    grace which is unknown to you, do you think that I shall force it
    upon you when you are unwilling? O, my people, I do not ask
    riches—my reward depends on God alone, and I will not drive away
    those who have believed; they shall meet their Lord. But I see you
    to be a people in ignorance. Moreover, O my people, who will be my
    helper against God if I drive these away? Will you not consider? I
    do not say that I have the treasures of God [at my command], and I
    do not know the secret things; nor do I say that I am an angel, nor
    do I say [as you would have me] that God will not bring good to
    those whom your eyes despise—God knoweth what is in their hearts. In
    case I should do this thing I should be a wrong-doer. The chiefs
    replied: O, Noah, thou hast disputed persistently with us—bring now
    upon us what thou hast threatened, if thou art truthful! He said:
    God alone can bring it upon you when He will, and you cannot thwart
    it. My advice will not profit you, if I wish to advise you, when God
    wills to lead you astray. He is your Lord and unto Him you shall be
    brought [at the last Day]. Do they say: He hath invented it [_i.
    e._, his message]? If I have invented it, then the guilt of it rests
    upon me—but I am innocent of what you do. Then it was revealed to
    Noah: No more of thy people will believe than have believed already,
    but do not be distressed at what they do. Make an ark in Our sight
    and according to Our revelation and do not speak to Me concerning
    those who sin—they shall certainly be drowned. Then he made the ark,
    and whenever the chiefs of his people passed by, they scoffed at
    him. He said: If you scoff at us, we shall scoff at you as you are
    scoffing—then shall you know upon whom shall come a punishment that
    shall disgrace him, and upon whom an abiding punishment shall fall.
    [So they scoffed] until Our command came and the fountain broke
    forth.[87] We said: Place in it two of every kind, and thy family
    (except the one on whom the decree has passed) and those who have
    believed—but the believers were few. Noah said: Embark! In the name
    of God shall be its sailing and its mooring; my Lord is the
    Forgiving, the Compassionate. And it sailed with them on the
    mountain-like waves, and Noah called his son who stood aloof: My
    son! come with us and be not of the unbelievers. He replied: I will
    betake myself to a mountain which will save me from the water. Noah
    said: Nothing to-day will save from the decree of God unless He take
    pity. Then the waves came between them and he was drowned. Then came
    the command: O, Earth, swallow up the water, and, O Heaven, cease
    [from rain]: and the water was diminished and the decree was carried
    out, and [the ark] rested on al-Judee,[88] and it was said: Away
    with the wrong-doers!

    “Then Noah called to his Lord and said: My Lord, my son belonged to
    my family; and Thy promise is true and Thou art the most just of
    judges.[89] God replied: O Noah, he was not of thy family. It were
    an unrighteous deed [to spare him], so do not ask of me that of
    which thou hast no knowledge; I warn thee lest thou be of the
    ignorant. Noah said: My Lord, I take refuge in Thee from asking that
    of which I have no knowledge; unless Thou forgive me and take pity
    on me I shall be lost. Then the command was given: O Noah, descend
    in peace from Us, and blessings upon thee and upon peoples yet to
    come from those with thee—but there are peoples whom We shall
    create, upon whom a grievous punishment shall come.”

You will agree with me that the Bible story is used in this passage only
to furnish a framework for a sermon to Mohammed’s contemporaries. The
details of the story, those which in the Old Testament make it so
realistic, are absent. We hear nothing of the wickedness of the sons of
God in marrying daughters of men—which in Genesis gives a reason for the
corruption of the earth. The violence, which is the specific sin
mentioned there, does not appear in the Koran. We hear nothing of the
size of the ark, or its material. The duration of the rain, the time of
the subsidence of the waters, the sending out of the birds, the
sacrifice at the end of the voyage, and the gift of the rainbow are all
passed over in silence. On the other hand we hear an extended dialogue
between Noah and his people, of which the Bible gives us no hint. One
hint indeed we find which might give rise to this conception. It is
contained in the New Testament where we find Noah described as a _herald
of righteousness_.[90] It is this hint, as I suppose, which was worth
more to Mohammed than all the Old Testament details. With this hint he
reconstructed the history along the lines of his own experience. The
sinfulness of the antediluvians now becomes idolatry. Noah is the Warner
sent to turn them to the one God. In the dialogue we hear the voices of
Mohammed and the Meccan aristocracy. As in the case of Mohammed, it is
the aristocracy who oppose the preached word. Noah is told that only the
lowest men hear him—just as at Mecca it was mostly slaves and freedmen
who made up the infant church. Noah must hear that he is a man and not
an angel—the implication being that he is not fit to be a divinely sent
messenger. Such was one of the objections made to Mohammed. He is
obliged to declare that he is not seeking earthly reward—an avowal
elsewhere made by Mohammed for himself. He is urged to dismiss his
followers; he refuses, and then is challenged to bring the threatened
punishment. It is scarcely necessary to read between the lines to
discover that Mohammed had just this experience. So far does this go
that Mohammed really falls out of the _rôle_ in one verse, where he
replies to the accusation that he had invented his message. At least it
sounds as if he had forgotten for the moment that he was personating
Noah. In one of the parallel passages he shows a similar lack of
historic imagination where the aristocracy of Noah’s time are made to
say to the people: “Do not abandon your Gods, do not abandon Wadd and
Suwā’, and Yaghuth and Ya’uk and Nasr.”[91] But these false Gods are
Gods of the Arab tribes who lived in the time of Mohammed. The
commentators, who could not suppose their Prophet guilty of an
anachronism, have had great difficulty in explaining how the Gods of
Noah’s time survived the Flood and continued to be worshipped in
Arabia.[92] The problem causes us no perplexity. We see how Mohammed
identifies himself with his predecessor Noah so fully that he hardly
distinguishes what is proper to each personage. It is an artistic fault.
But it testifies to the religious earnestness of the man, that he cannot
get out of his mind the idolatry which is the crying sin of his people.

In another verse Mohammed reveals to us something of his experience—I
mean the one where God commands Noah not to be distressed at the small
number of those who believed. He himself was no doubt often perplexed
and grieved at the smallness of his following. In his perplexity he
could only say that it was the will of God and therefore must be right.

So far, the story has been freely remodelled on the Biblical basis. But
now we come to a feature which really contradicts the Biblical _data_.
Noah is represented as having an unbelieving son. To this we may add
that in another passage his wife is also represented as unbelieving and
as perishing: “God sets forth as an example to those who disbelieve the
wife of Noah and the wife of Lot; they were married to two of Our
righteous servants, and were unfaithful to them—their husbands did not
avail for them with God, and the command went forth: Enter the Fire with
those who are entering therein.”[93] These divergences show how freely
Mohammed treats his sources. For the _preaching_ of Noah and the
scoffing of his contemporaries he had authority in Jewish or Christian
tradition. But no one has yet pointed out a precedent for the
particulars we are now considering. We are authorized in supposing that
the preacher drew on his own experience for these as for other matters
of detail. And we do not have far to seek for the experience. Doubtless
there were families in Mecca which were divided—father against son. In
fact, we hear of such in the traditions, and we know that Mohammed’s own
nearest relatives did not believe on him. It is not unlikely that he
found here the only precedent he needed in order to suppose members of
Noah’s family unsaved in the great catastrophe.

The Biblical character which next claims our attention is Abraham, whose
importance to Mohammed is greater than that of any other Biblical
character. Whether he were already adopted in the legends of the heathen
Arabs, as has been supposed, is very doubtful. Mohammed makes him the
builder of the Kaaba, and therefore the founder of Mecca; but this may
be a construction of his own. The other incidents of Abraham’s history
given in the Koran are the following: He disputed with someone about the
true God, and was the victor; he prayed for evidence of the
resurrection, and was commanded to cut four birds in pieces, to lay the
pieces on separate hill-tops, and then to call the birds. On following
out the directions, the pieces flew together and the birds were restored
to life. He entertained the angels who were sent to destroy Sodom,
received from them the promise of a son, and interceded for the
preservation of Sodom, though without success. He refused to adore the
idols of his father; for this he was thrown into the fire, but came out
unharmed. He was driven from home by his father. He was commanded in a
dream to sacrifice his son (whose name is not given), and was about to
consummate the sacrifice when he was allowed to substitute an
animal.[94] A point emphasized is that he was neither Jew nor Christian,
but (if I may so say) a simple believer without the sectarian marks
which distinguish, and therefore divide, these: “O People of Scripture!
Why do you dispute concerning Abraham? The Tora and the Gospel were not
revealed until after his time—do you not comprehend? Abraham was neither
Jew nor Christian, but he was a _hanif_, he was resigned, and he was not
one of the idolaters.”[95] The word _hanif_ has given rise to much
speculation. For our present purpose it is enough to note that in the
Koran it means _turning aside from idols_. It is the appropriate word to
describe a man like Abraham who abandoned the false Gods and became a
monotheist. It is this characteristic which makes Abraham of so much
importance to Mohammed. He sees in him his predecessor and model. The
Jews and the Christians had received revelations in written form—this is
what he recognizes in calling them people of the Book. But the result
had been to produce division and mutual recrimination. “The Jews (he
says) say: The Christians have no firm foundation; and the Christians
say: The Jews have no firm foundation. Yet they read the Scripture.”[96]
The only way to put an end to the disputes of these sects is to go back
to the simple monotheism of Abraham. In this theory Mohammed was the
pioneer of church union, and his is not the only attempt to unite two
bodies of believers which has resulted in forming a third.

But this is aside from our main purpose. Mohammed regards Abraham as his
model, and describes himself in the terms which he applies to Abraham:
“Who has a more excellent religion than one who resigns himself to God
while doing good works, and who follows the faith of Abraham as one who
turns aside from idols [literally, _as a hanif_]—for God took Abraham as
His friend;” “The nearest of men to Abraham are those who follow him,
and this prophet [Mohammed] also is one of them.”[97] In taking this
position, Mohammed was only following the precedent set by the Apostle
Paul. In justifying himself for giving up the Jewish Law, while still
claiming to belong to the true seed of Abraham, Paul argued by the
example of Abraham. It was conceded that Abraham was a true believer,
the Father of the Faithful. But if this be so, religion cannot consist
in the observance of the Law, for the Law came into force long after
Abraham’s death. For the true believer it must be enough to go back to
the simplicity of Abraham’s religion. The argument of Mohammed is just
the same, only he does not set it forth with the same array of logic. To
the Jews who insisted that he must become a Jew in order to be saved,
and to the Christians who insisted that he must become a Christian in
order to be saved, Mohammed made the pertinent reply that Abraham lived
the life of faith before the coming of either of their codes. The
essentials of religion must consist in such faith as Abraham had, and
this (according to his light) Mohammed adopted and preached. To him,
just as truly as to Paul, Abraham was the Father of the Faithful.

How much direct New Testament influence led to this view of Abraham? In
the meagreness of the sources we are not able to answer this question
with positiveness. In general, Mohammed does not show much familiarity
with the thought of the Apostle Paul. But I am inclined to think that
some New Testament hint concerning the position of Abraham as the Father
of Believers had come to him. It needs only a hint of that with which we
are in sympathy to give us a flood of light. As showing that there was
New Testament influence we may note that we find Mohammed calling
Abraham the Friend of God—a point mentioned both in the Old Testament
and in the New, but more distinctly brought out in the New.[98]

For other features of the Koran picture we must consult both Bible and
tradition. Even then we discover that Mohammed dealt freely with his
sources. The incident of the birds and the night covenant was
unintelligible to him, as it doubtless is to many a Christian reader as
well. But he could use it as a proof of the resurrection—something of
which he felt the need in his preaching. He therefore transformed it
into something quite different from the Biblical story. In regard to the
dispute concerning the power of God, the Koran tells us only of an
anonymous opponent who claimed to be the giver of life and of death—and
therefore to be God. Abraham replied: My Lord makes the sun to rise in
the East, do thou make it rise in the West?—whereat the infidel was put
to confusion. In this story we have the tradition of Abraham’s dispute
with Nimrod, which was current among Jews and Christians before
Mohammed’s time. It was especially pat to Mohammed’s purpose because it
confounded the idolater.

Another legend current among both Jews and Christians was useful in the
same line. It makes Terah, Abraham’s father, to be a dealer in idols.
One day Abraham was left in charge of the shop, and a woman came with an
offering of food. Abraham set it before the largest idol, broke all the
other idols and put a club in the hands of the large one. When his
father asked about it he said: the idols quarrelled over the food; then
the largest one became angry, took the club and broke the rest in
pieces. Terah declared this to be impossible because the images could
not move, whereupon Abraham convicted him out of his own mouth, which
confessed him to be a worshipper of that which had no power.
Nevertheless Abraham was brought before Nimrod and thrown into a fiery
furnace, from which he was saved by a miracle. Mohammed had no objection
to taking a story from tradition rather than from the Biblical text—if
indeed he knew the difference. That he took this one from a Christian
source is indicated by the fact that he calls Abraham’s father by the
name _Azar_, which is quite similar to what we find in a Christian
writer, though quite unlike the Hebrew Terah.[99] The Book of Jubilees,
which circulated largely among both Jews and Christians, knows the story
of Abraham’s controversy with his father about the idols, so that there
is no difficulty in attributing Mohammed’s knowledge to Christian
tradition.[100]

But it is clear that we cannot trace all the features of Mohammed’s
Abraham to preceding authorities, either Jewish or Christian. The main
incidents came originally from the Bible—so much is evident. Some of the
variations or additions can be accounted for on the theory that they are
borrowed from Jewish or Christian sources outside the Bible. But others
cannot be so accounted for, and can, in the present state of our
knowledge, be attributed only to Mohammed himself, working under the
belief that Abraham was for him a predecessor and a model.

As we have seen, Mohammed’s scheme of history is writ large in these
stories of former prophets. According to him, the past ages are a series
of prophetic crises. In each one, a prophet has been sent to his people
to warn them against sin. His usual experience is that his hearers
refuse the message and mock or persecute him. Not long after, the
calamity overtakes them and they perish. The prophet, with a few
followers, is spared. In each of these cycles, the account is colored by
Mohammed’s own experience. Even the tribes of Arabia which have
perished, have perished for the same reasons, and their prophets speak
the language of rebuke and warning just like their brethren of the
Biblical history. This constant iteration is one reason for the
tediousness of the Koran. But a little reflection will show us that
something of the same monotony is found in all preaching. The truths of
religion are comparatively few and simple. The prophet is not
infrequently accused of repeating himself. Even an Isaiah was mocked for
bringing line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little and
there a little, as though he were teaching children just weaned from the
milk. We shall not be surprised to find in the Koran the same lesson
repeatedly enforced when we remember how long the prophet of Mecca
addressed deaf ears and unbelieving hearts. The sameness of the lesson,
whatever the particular incident which illustrates it, makes it
unnecessary for us to go at length into all the material. There is one
character, however, to which we must devote a little time, and that is
Moses.

From what has been said about Abraham, it is evident that Mohammed would
have formulated his scheme of the world’s history about as follows:
There has always been in the world one true religion. This has been
revealed without substantial variation to different prophets from Adam
down: “[God] has established for you the religion which He commanded
Noah, and that which We revealed to thee, and that which We commanded
Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Observe the true religion and do
not be divided among yourselves.”[101] When the Jews and Christians
insisted on the confession of their faith as necessary for salvation,
Mohammed instructed his followers to say: “We believe in God and in what
has been revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael
and Isaac and Jacob and the twelve tribes, and in what was given to
Moses and to Jesus, and what was given to the prophets by their Lord. We
make no difference between them and we are resigned to Him.” The
position could scarcely be stated more clearly, and the choice of Noah,
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is a particularly happy one, and shows that
Mohammed had really grasped the Biblical scheme—for these men stand at
the opening of the great epochs of sacred history.

The name of Moses, the one to whom we now come, occurs in thirty-four
suras of the Koran, and his history is given at length in a number of
these.[102] The fact that it is given so many times should caution us
against seeking the origin of the variations from the Biblical text in
Rabbinical or Patristic sources. It is not likely that Mohammed received
the account from an informant more than once. Having it once in his
possession, he felt at liberty to treat it according to the varying
exigencies of different times. The account which is earliest in point of
time (to all appearance) is comparatively brief, and it shows that the
Prophet was moved, as in all his earlier preaching, by the thought of
God’s judgment: “Has the story of Moses come to thee? When his Lord
called him in the sacred valley of Tuwa [He said]: Go to Pharaoh the
arrogant and say to him: Wilt thou become pure? I will guide thee to thy
Lord, and thou shalt fear Him. Then he showed him a great miracle. But
Pharaoh accused him of deceit and was rebellious. He turned his back,
exciting disorder. Then he collected the people and said: I am your Lord
most high! But God destroyed him with the punishments of this world and
of the world to come. Verily this is a warning to him that fears
God.”[103] For the purpose of the speaker this is an admirable epitome
of the story of Moses. It shows just the points which Mohammed wished to
emphasize, that is: those parallel with his own case. Even here he does
not adhere strictly to the Biblical account, for we nowhere read that
Pharaoh claimed to be God. This is borrowed evidently from Mohammed’s
informant, and the same feature is found in fact in Jewish authorities.

In the more extended accounts which Mohammed elsewhere gives, we find
details taken from Christian as well as Jewish sources, besides some
which are due to the narrator’s own imagination. From Jewish tradition
he asserts: that Moses refused all Egyptian nurses; that the people at
Mount Sinai demanded to see God, and on seeing Him fell dead, but were
revived by divine power; and that they refused to accept the covenant
until the mountain was lifted up bodily and held over them.[104] The
information that the golden calf, through the magic of its maker,
_bellowed_, is found in Rabbinical sources, and a similar affirmation is
made of another golden calf in a Christian writer of the tenth
century.[105] Mohammed makes the magicians of Pharaoh repent and confess
the true God. This is perhaps a legitimate deduction from the Old
Testament account, in which they are said to recognize the finger of
God.[106] No Jewish document has been found which makes the deduction,
but we know of a Christian apocryphon, now lost, which was entitled:
_Liber Pœnitentiæ Jamnæ et Mambræ_. Jamnes and Mambres, I hardly need
say, are the traditional names of the magicians.[107] We are justified,
therefore, in supposing this item borrowed from a Christian source.

There remain a number of data which are due to Mohammed’s own
imagination, or which simply witness to his ignorance of the Bible
account. Thus: he gives the plagues at one time as five and again as
nine in number;[108] he makes Haman one of the counsellors of
Pharaoh;[109] he supposes the buildings of Pharaoh to have been
destroyed, and that the murmurers against Moses returned to Egypt;[110]
yet, in another passage, he seems to affirm that Israel possessed the
country of Pharaoh after him.[111] That Moses repented of having killed
the Egyptian is a minor addition which we can easily account for, and it
is not a serious error that Pharaoh’s wife is made to care for Moses,
instead of his daughter.[112] Confusion of Moses with Jacob is the
evident cause of the assertion that Moses served eight years for a wife,
and a similar confusion of Egypt with Babylon shows itself when Pharaoh
orders the people to make brick: “that I may make a lofty building, so
as to become acquainted with the God of Moses—though, indeed, I think
him to be a liar.”[113]

Almost all these departures from the Biblical narrative occur in late
chapters, and they show what has already been remarked, that as time
went on, the preacher became less careful (if, indeed, he ever was
careful) of historical accuracy, and adapted his material more freely to
the purpose in hand. In the use of this material we can see the
influence of his own changed circumstances. Few characters in history
have experienced a greater change of fortune than fell to the lot of
Mohammed in going from Mecca to Medina. At Mecca he was the proscribed
preacher of a new religion. His followers were few in number, and the
majority of these had fled to Abyssinia. His persecution by the leading
men of the city took away from him every occupation of a secular nature.
Even the public proclamation of his message was forbidden after a time.
All that was open to him was meditation, prayer, and the encouragement
of a very narrow circle of friends. With the removal to Medina all this
was changed. The cares of administration were thrust upon him. His life
became a life of activity instead of contemplation, and his sermons
necessarily dealt with the concrete issues of the hour.

The reason for calling attention to this fact at just this point is that
one of the longer histories of Moses in the Koran can be understood only
from this situation of the Prophet. It is really a polemic against the
Jews. We have reason to believe that Mohammed came to Medina with great
expectations, based on the fact that a considerable part of the
population was Jewish. He sincerely believed his religion to be the same
as theirs. He was sure that he was the legitimate successor of their
prophets. What would be more natural than that they should join his
community, or at least that his followers and they should unite on a
common basis of recognition? With this idea he made Jerusalem his
_Kibla_, and assimilated his doctrine to theirs. But he was speedily
undeceived. The Jews were wholly guided by their Rabbis, who had no mind
to a prophet born out of Palestine. They refused to see the marks of
their expected Messiah in the Meccan adventurer. They were, moreover,
conscious of their intellectual superiority. They had studied the sacred
Books which were in their hands. Mohammed conceded the authority of
these Books, but he was only slightly acquainted with their contents. In
arguing from them the Jews had an evident advantage, and often put the
Moslems to silence. At last Mohammed was obliged to forbid his followers
to argue with the Jews, and he accused these of concealing portions of
their revelation.

This certainly could not conduce to harmony, and Mohammed early realized
that he had to deal with men less open to conviction than the heathen.
The Jews, on their part, did not see the danger of trifling with a man
who was in dead earnest, and who now had the sword in his hand. Their
more instructed men would lay traps for Mohammed in their talks with
him, and when he betrayed his ignorance, as he would naturally betray it
in such circumstances, they would go away and in their own circle make
merry over his laughable blunders. Arab satire travels fast, it travels
far, and it bites hard. We can easily conceive the situation of a
prophet in a mixed community, ridiculed in couplets that were in the
mouths of all who were hostile or who were lukewarm. The insults were
the harder to bear in that they were directed against beliefs which had
become sacred to him. They seemed to him blasphemies against the Holy
Ghost and he never forgave them. The expatriation of one Jewish tribe,
and the extermination of another, were only part of his answer.

It was before the open breach came that the following review of the
history of Israel was delivered:

    “O Children of Israel! Remember My grace which I conferred upon you
    [when I said]: Keep the covenant with Me and I will keep the
    covenant with you; and fear Me and believe in what I have revealed
    in confirmation of what you already possess,[114] and be not the
    first to disbelieve. And do not sell My wonders for a small
    price[115] but fear Me. Do not cover up the truth with falsehood,
    nor conceal the truth which you know.[116] But observe prayer and
    give alms and bow with those who bow down. Will you command men good
    actions but forget them yourselves?[117] Yet you read the
    Scriptures; do you not comprehend? Practise therefore patience and
    prayer—this is difficult except for the humble, who are mindful that
    one day they must meet their Lord and that they are to return to
    Him.

    “O, Children of Israel! Remember My grace which I have conferred
    upon you, in that I have distinguished you above the worlds; and
    fear the day when one soul shall not pay the debt of another, nor
    shall its intercession be received nor a ransom be accepted nor aid
    be given. And [remember] when We saved you from the tribe of Pharaoh
    who inflicted upon you a grievous calamity in that they slew your
    sons while they preserved alive your daughters (this was a severe
    trial from your Lord); and when We divided the sea for you and
    delivered you, but drowned the host of Pharaoh while you looked on.
    But when We gave the promises to Moses forty nights, then you took
    the calf in his absence and transgressed. Yet We forgave you,
    thinking perhaps you would be grateful. We gave Moses the Book and
    the Distinction,[118] that you might be rightly led; and Moses said
    to his people: O, my people! you have wronged your own souls in
    taking the calf; repent in presence of your Creator or else kill
    each other[119]—this were better for you with Him—He will forgive
    you, He is the Forgiving, the Compassionate. And when you said: O,
    Moses, we will not believe in thee unless we see God clearly, the
    thunderbolt struck you while you gazed, but We brought you to life
    after you had died, thinking perhaps you would be grateful. And We
    shaded you with the cloud[120] and sent you the manna and the
    quails, saying: Eat of the good things with which We nourish you
    (they did not harm Us but it was their own souls that they harmed).
    And when We said: Enter this city and eat of it abundantly whenever
    you choose, but enter the gate bowing down and asking forgiveness—We
    will forgive your sins and will certainly prosper those who do
    well—then the evil-doers substituted a word different from the one
    which was commanded them, and we sent upon the evil-doers a
    pestilence for their iniquity. And when Moses asked water for his
    people, We said: Strike the rock with thy staff; and there broke
    from it twelve fountains, every one knew his drinking place [and We
    said]: Eat and drink of the sustenance given by God, and do not deal
    unjustly in the earth, creating disorder. And when you said: O,
    Moses, we cannot bear this one kind of food, ask of thy Lord that He
    bring forth for us of the fruits of the earth, vegetables and
    cucumbers, and garlic and lentils, and onions, he said: Will you
    prefer the worse to the better? Return to Egypt and you shall have
    what you ask. And they were smitten with abasement and poverty and
    returned with the anger of God upon them. This was because they
    disbelieved in the signs of God and killed the prophets wrongfully;
    this it was in which they rebelled and transgressed. Those who
    believe, though they be Jews or Christians or Sabeans—whoever
    believes in God and the Last Day, and does good, receives a reward
    from his Lord. Fear shall not come upon them nor shall they be
    grieved.

    “And when We made a covenant with you and lifted the mountain above
    you, saying: Receive with steadfastness what We have brought you and
    remember what it contains—perchance you will be God-fearing—then you
    turned back; and had not the grace of God been upon you and His
    mercy, you would have been lost. You know who of you transgressed
    the Sabbath, and We said to them: Become abhorred apes! Thus We made
    them an example to their fellows, and to those who should come after
    them and a warning to those who feared God. And when Moses said to
    his people: God commands you to sacrifice a heifer; they replied:
    Art thou making a mock of us? He said: I take refuge in God from
    being one of the ignorant! Then they said: Pray thy Lord for us that
    He would explain to us what sort of a heifer it should be. Moses
    replied: She is to be neither old nor young, but of a medium age,
    therefore do what you are commanded! They said: Pray thy Lord to
    tell us plainly of what color she should be. He replied: It is
    commanded that she should be of a bright red, a color which pleases
    the beholder. Then they said: Pray thy Lord to describe her plainly
    to us—we have cattle that look alike, and we would be guided if God
    please. Moses replied: It is commanded that she be not broken to
    till the ground or to water the fields, sound,[121] and without
    spot. They said: Now thou bringest a true message. So they
    sacrificed her, but they were near not doing it. And when you killed
    a man, and quarrelled concerning the deed (but God brought to light
    what you were concealing), then We said: Touch the dead man with a
    part of the heifer; thus God brings to life the dead, and shows you
    His signs—perchance you will comprehend.[122] But even after this
    your hearts were hard, even like rock or harder, for there are rocks
    from which streams spring, and there are those which open and let
    the water flow; and there are [hearts] which bow in fear of God, and
    God is not unmindful of what you do.”[123]

When we read this tremendous indictment we see that the Biblical facts
are used for a purpose. And they are used with skill. The Jews could not
deny the most of the facts here recited. They were guilty, or at least
their fathers were guilty—as charged. The position of Mohammed is
precisely the position of the New Testament, as shown in the speech of
Stephen. Mohammed had no such orderly knowledge of the history as
Stephen had, but he uses what knowledge he had in just the way in which
Stephen used his. The climax of Stephen’s discourse is the real burden
of Mohammed’s: “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! Ye
do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did so do ye. Which of
the prophets did not your fathers persecute ... ye who received the Law
as it was ordained by angels and kept it not!” Whether there was some
knowledge of the New Testament position on Mohammed’s part we cannot
certainly say. As a case of history repeating itself, the parallel is
certainly interesting and instructive. The similarity extends further
than the two discourses. In each case the discourse showed that the
breach was at hand. The Jews could not deny the guilt charged by
Mohammed or by Stephen. It did not follow that they would be converted.
The divergence was already hopeless.[124]

Turning now to the New Testament, we discover that only two of its
histories are known to Mohammed. These are the history of John the
Baptist, and the life of Jesus. John is a prophet, and, like the other
prophets, receives a book, that is, a revelation.[125] Zachariah, his
father, is also once mentioned in the list of prophets. Elsewhere he
comes in incidentally, in connection with the birth of his son.
Zachariah’s prayer and its answer are recounted somewhat at length,
following in the main the narrative of Luke. John is a prophet entirely
after the pattern of those already known to us from the Old
Testament.[126]

Concerning Jesus, the first fact that we meet is that he is not
mentioned in the earliest group of suras. But as very few Biblical
characters are mentioned in this period, the fact may have no special
significance. Mohammed’s thought at this time was much upon the
approaching judgment. The few histories to which he alludes are those
which enforce the lesson of God’s chastisement, the destruction of
Sodom, the overthrow of Pharaoh, the judgments on Ad and Thamud, the
catastrophe of the Lord of the Elephant. These are almost the only
events to which he alludes. The life of Jesus presents no feature which
would bring it into relation with these events, so that although there
are distinctively Christian features in these early revelations, they
present no natural opening for a life of Jesus.

Again: it is noticeable that Jesus is nearly always mentioned in
connection with Mary. It almost seems as if Mohammed were more impressed
with Mary than with Jesus: “[Remember] her who kept her virginity, and
We made her and her son a sign for the worlds” is said in one of the
earliest passages in which either one is mentioned.[127] In another, of
the same period, Mohammed gives an account of the Annunciation and of
the birth of Jesus without mentioning him otherwise than as _the
infant_,[128] until at the close, apparently as an afterthought, he
adds: “This [that is, the infant] is Jesus, son of Mary, the Word of
Truth, concerning whom they are in doubt.”[129] Still another reference
of this period is the following: “And We made the son of Mary and his
mother a sign, and We gave them an asylum in a lofty place, still and
well-watered.”[130] We can hardly be mistaken in finding here a
reference to the Revelation of John, where the woman who gives birth to
the man child, flees into the wilderness where “she has a place prepared
of God that they may nourish her.” Perhaps this passage of the
Revelation was already brought into connection with the Flight into
Egypt. In any case, up to this point there is no indication of the
pre-eminence of Jesus, but rather a tendency to hold up Mary as the
chief character. A further evidence of this is the space given to the
life of Mary. In relating this, Mohammed draws from sources outside the
Canon. His own property we can see only in his calling her the daughter
of Imran and the sister of Aaron[131]—doubtless a confusion of Mary with
Miriam, the names being identical in Arabic.

Concerning her, we hear that she was dedicated by her parents to the
service of God, and thus came into the care of Zacharias, to whom she
was assigned by the sacred lot.[132] She resides in the Temple, where
she is fed by the angels. She is visited by the angel, who announces
that she is to become the mother of Jesus. A spring of water breaks
forth at her feet and a palm-tree supplies her with dates. The infant
Jesus speaks to vindicate his mother.[133] The most of these details can
be identified in the Apocryphal Gospels which have come down to us.
According to these, Mary was dedicated to God by her parents when three
years old and taken to live in the Temple. There she was fed by the
angels. When fourteen years old she was assigned to Joseph, from whose
rod there came forth a dove. In her need, a palm bends down to supply
her with dates and a spring flows at her feet.[134] We do not find in
any of these sources that Jesus speaks immediately after his birth, but
a similar incident is narrated in a Syriac Christian source,[135] by
which (indirectly) Mohammed was possibly influenced.

The prominence of extra canonical sources seen in the life of Mary is
less marked in the life of Jesus. When we are told, however, that he
made birds of clay and that when he blew upon them they became alive, we
remember the similar account in the Apocryphal Gospels. Mohammed has
also an extended account of Jesus bringing a table with food from heaven
for his disciples. On the face of it, this seems to be derived from the
institution of the Supper, with reminiscences of Peter’s vision at
Joppa. We hear in general of Jesus’s miracles, that he healed a man
blind from his birth, and a leper, and that he raised a dead man to
life. Beyond this, Jesus is affirmed to be a prophet, the Word of God
and His Spirit, and one who received a Book of revelations.

Mohammed was compelled to define his position in regard to Jesus, first
by the assertions of the Meccans and then by the claims of the Jews. We
know of the dilemma proposed by the Meccans from the following
passage:[136]

    “And when the son of Mary is proposed as a likeness, then thy people
    turn their backs to him and say: Are our gods better, or is he? They
    say this only out of contention, and verily they are a contentious
    people. In truth he was only a servant on whom We bestowed Our
    grace, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. (If We
    had willed, We would have produced from you angels to succeed you in
    the earth.) And he is a sign of the [approach of the] Hour.[137]
    Therefore do not dispute concerning this but follow—this is the
    straight path—and let not Satan turn you away; he is your declared
    enemy. When Jesus brought signs and wonders he said: I bring you
    true wisdom, and I will make plain to you a part of that concerning
    which you dispute; fear God and obey. God is my Lord and your Lord,
    therefore serve Him—this is the straight path. But the sects
    disputed among themselves. Woe to those who do evil; for them is the
    punishment of a day of torture.”

The most natural interpretation of this passage is the one suggested by
the commentators. Mohammed had threatened that the idolators should be
cast into hell and with them their false gods. The Meccans knew enough
of Christianity to say that Jesus also was an object of worship. They
therefore held up the dilemma—either all objects of worship besides
Allah were _not_ cast into hell, or else Jesus, whom Mohammed held up as
an example, must go with them. In either case Mohammed had spoken
falsely. This is the meaning of their question whether Jesus was better
than their gods.

The reply is, in effect, that Jesus was only a man like the other
prophets, and that he himself called men to the worship of the one God.
As to his alleged divinity, not all even of the Christians are agreed
about it, and in the difference of opinion it is best to adhere to that
of which we are fully convinced, namely: that there is but one God, and
that Jesus was an Apostle like Abraham and Moses, but not worthy of
higher honor than they.

The temptation at Medina was of another sort. There Mohammed was trying
to win the Jews, to whom Jesus was an abomination. It would have been
one obstacle removed if he could have taken Jesus out of the company of
Abraham and Moses. But Mohammed was firm in the position once taken.
While still denying the divinity of Jesus, he reaffirmed his
Apostleship. The following are all from Medinan suras:

    “And Jesus the son of Mary, said to his people: O, Children of
    Israel! I am the Apostle of God to you, testifying to the truth of
    what you have already received in the Tora, and bringing you tidings
    of an Apostle to come after me whose name is Ahmed. But when he
    showed them miracles they said: This is evident magic.”[138]

    “Then [after Noah and Abraham] We sent Jesus the son of Mary, and We
    gave him the Gospel, and We placed in the hearts of those who
    followed him, tenderness and compassion.”[139]

    “[The Day when God assembles the Apostles] He will say: O, Jesus,
    Son of Mary! Remember My grace bestowed upon thee and thy Mother,
    when I strengthened thee with the Spirit of Holiness, that thou
    shouldst speak to men when in the cradle and when full grown. And I
    taught thee the Book and the Wisdom and the Tora and the
    Gospel.”[140]

This passage is followed by an account of the miracles; other passages
of this period also affirm that Jesus performed miracles, that he
received the Holy Spirit, and that he was an Apostle sent with a Book.

Mohammed adhered therefore to the position once taken. But with the same
persistency he refused to go further and acknowledge that Jesus was more
than a prophet. The knowledge that the Christians affirmed a Trinity in
the Godhead found no response in his heart except one of denial. We can
scarcely wonder at this. The knowledge seems not to have come to him
until his system was settled in his own mind. His mind was unschooled in
theological definition and could apprehend the doctrine only as
Tritheism, and therefore as a modification of the polytheism which he
was opposing. Some have indeed found a Trinitarian tendency in his
adoption of the name Rahman for God. But this is unlikely, for the vigor
with which he rejected the Christian doctrine is evident. The following
passages cannot leave any doubt in our minds:

    “The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The
    Messiah, Son of Mary, is the son of God. This word of theirs in
    their mouths is like the word of those who were unbelieving in old
    time. God has declared war against them. Why should they lie?”[141]

    “They are unbelievers who say that the Messiah, the son of Mary, is
    God. The Messiah said [on the contrary]: O, Children of Israel,
    serve God, my Lord and your Lord; whoever associates anything with
    God [as an object of worship], God has shut Paradise against him,
    and his abode is the Fire, and the evildoers have no helper. They
    are unbelievers who say: God is one of three. There is no God but
    One, and if they do not cease saying this a painful punishment shall
    overtake the unbelievers.... The Messiah, Son of Mary, was only an
    Apostle who was preceded by other Apostles. His mother also was
    truthful [and would not permit such an assertion]. They were both
    accustomed to eat [mortal] food.”[142]

    “O, ye who possess the Scriptures! Be not extravagant in your
    religion, and do not say concerning God anything but the truth. The
    Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was the Apostle of God and His Word
    which He communicated to Mary, and a spirit from Him. Believe
    therefore in God and His Apostles and do not say: Three! Cease doing
    it, that will be better for you. One God alone is God. Far be it
    from Him that He should have a son! To Him belongs what is in heaven
    and what is on earth—and God suffices us as an administrator. The
    Messiah, Son of Mary, did not disdain to be a servant to God, nor do
    the angels who draw near to him.”[143]

These passages, with others, show the sharp recoil in the Prophet’s mind
from the doctrine of the Trinity. But we should remember that the
Trinity, as he supposed the Christians to teach it, was made up of
Father, Son, and Mary. Thus only can we interpret his constant
association of Mary and Jesus, and his very sparing mention of the Holy
Spirit. Among the Christian sects of the East, Mary was early lifted to
the throne of heaven. “Her cultus is [still] equally in vogue among
orthodox and heretics.”[144] It was in Arabia that the Collyridians
invested her with the name and honors of a goddess.[145] This reflection
throws light upon a passage of the Koran where God is represented as
saying to Jesus at the Last Day: “O, Jesus, Son of Mary! didst thou say
to men: take me _and my mother_ as gods besides Allah? He will reply:
Far be it! It does not belong to me to say what is not true. Thou
knowest whether I have said it. Thou knowest what is in my soul.”[146]
This passage seems to show conclusively that Mohammed conceived of the
Christian Trinity as made up of Allah, Mary, and Jesus.

Now such a Trinity would seem the more distinctly heathen to him,
because the heathen also related their gods in families. The Meccans had
a considerable pantheon. The question of the relationship existing
between its members had probably already occurred to them. If not, it
was forced upon them by Mohammed’s claim that two Gods could not coexist
without war. The natural theory, as we see in other polytheistic
religions, is that the gods make a family. Not only was this the theory
of the Meccans, it was a point at which Mohammed at one time made
concessions to them, though he afterward retracted. This experience made
him more than ever determined to maintain the absolute unity of God. A
number of passages which deny that God has children are directed
primarily against the Meccan doctrine. It is probably so with the early
profession of faith: “God is One; the self-existent God; He begets not
and is not begotten; and nothing is to be likened to Him.” And again:
“He it is to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven and of earth, and He has
not taken any as son, nor has He an associate in the kingdom. He created
all things, and determined them by His decree; yet they take as gods
besides Him things which do not create, but are themselves
created.”[147] And once more: “They say: The Compassionate has a son.
Far be it from Him. Nay, these are honored servants. They do not
anticipate Him in speaking, and they perform His commands. He knows what
is before and what is behind them, and they can intercede only so far as
He gives permission, and they tremble with fear of Him. Should one of
them say: I am a God besides Him—such an one We will reward with
Gehenna. Thus we reward the evildoers.”[148] It is abundantly evident
that this is directed against the gods of the Meccans. But having taken
this position in regard to the daughters of God, as they called their
goddesses, no way was open to him to acknowledge the sonship of Christ.
In truth, he shows no desire to recognize it, and in one place goes so
far as to say that, at the affirmation that God has a son, the heavens
are ready to be rent in twain, the earth to cleave asunder, and the
mountains to fall into ruin.[149]

One thing more must be noticed in this connection. In regard to the
death of Jesus, Mohammed took what is known as the Doketic position. His
language is this: “They [that is, the Jews] say: We slew the Messiah,
Jesus, the son of Mary, the Apostle of God.[150] But they did not slay
him, and they did not crucify him, but a likeness was presented to them,
and they who disputed concerning him were in doubt—they had no certain
knowledge, but followed an opinion. They did not kill him in reality;
God raised him to Himself. God is almighty and wise. There are none of
the people of the Scriptures who will not believe on him before their
death, and in the day of resurrection he will be a witness against
them.”[151] It is clear from this language that the doctrine adopted by
Mohammed came from those Gnostic sects which denied that Jesus was
really crucified, holding that Judas was substituted for him, and nailed
to the cross, while Jesus ascended directly to heaven.[152] The
variations of this view held by the different sects do not here concern
us. What interests us is the motive of Mohammed in adopting it, as he
did, at a comparatively late date. In earlier chapters he alludes to the
death of Jesus in the same terms which he employs in speaking of the
other prophets.[153]

It is perhaps significant that Mohammed so often reproaches the people
of the Scriptures with their differences and disputes. He had primarily
in mind, we may suppose, the disputes between Jews and Christians. But
it is not unlikely that he also knew of the differences between the
Christian sects. If so we may conclude that he had become aware of the
different views of the death of Jesus, and that he was compelled to
choose between them. The motive in adopting the one on which he finally
settled was furnished by the Jews at Medina. The passage before us shows
that the Jews taunted him with the claim that they had put to death one
of the Apostles whom he claimed as a predecessor.[154] Now, in his
general scheme, Mohammed found no room for the early death of a prophet.
In the cases already discussed, the prophet was uniformly delivered,
while the _unbelievers_ were destroyed. The life of Jesus as it is given
in the Gospels does not conform to this scheme. The theory that Jesus
_offered himself_ for His people did not commend itself to him if he
ever heard of it, nor would it really answer the argument of the Jews.
The relief sought was found in the Doketic doctrine, which was therefore
adopted. In this way the life of Jesus was brought into harmony with
Mohammed’s general scheme of history as already exemplified in the
account of the earlier prophets.

Our study of this evening has shown us the method and the aim of one
religious leader. It shows him willing to take historical material
wherever he could find it, to serve the great end he had at heart. It
shows him moulding the material according to his own experiences, and
making it serve the edification of his own followers. In all this I
conceive that we are discovering something like a law of spiritual
progress.

In the next lecture we shall approach the more distinctly theological
part of our subject, in looking at Mohammed’s doctrine of God.

Footnote 83:

  Koran 14^{47}.

Footnote 84:

  Ibid. 4^{11}, I cite the Koran always from Flügel’s edition.

Footnote 85:

  Koran 4^{42}, cf. Matt. 6^1.

Footnote 86:

  Koran 11^{27-50}.

Footnote 87:

  Literally, _until the oven boiled_. As the word which ordinarily means
  _oven_ also means a _fountain_ on occasion, there is no need to
  suppose Rabbinic or Persian influence.

Footnote 88:

  A mountain in Mesopotamia.

Footnote 89:

  Noah is pleading for his son, though he does not express his petition
  in so many words. God replies to the unspoken prayer, intimating that
  the son has cut himself off by his unbelief.

Footnote 90:

  II. Pet. 2^5. The Christian tradition in the Apocalypse of Paul
  (Walker, _Apocryphal Gospels_, 1873, p. 491; _Antenicene Fathers_,
  1886, Vol. VIII., p. 581), where Noah says: “I ceased not to proclaim
  to men: Repent, for, behold, a deluge is coming; and no one paid heed,
  but all derided me.” For Jewish tradition, Wünsche, _Midrasch
  Koheleth_, p. 130.

Footnote 91:

  Koran 71^{22f.}

Footnote 92:

   Cf. Wellhausen, _Skizzen_, III., p. 11 ff.

Footnote 93:

  Koran 66^{10}.

Footnote 94:

  Koran 2^{260 ff}, 11^{72 ff}, 15^{51 ff}, 51^{24-36}, 21^{68 f},
  37^{95}, 19^{47}, 37^{100 ff}. Abraham is mentioned in twenty-six
  different suras.

Footnote 95:

  Ibid. 3^{58-61}.

Footnote 96:

  Koran 2^{67}.

Footnote 97:

  Ibid. 4^{124}, 3^61.

Footnote 98:

  Is. 41^8; James 2^{23}.

Footnote 99:

  _Athar_ is the name of Abraham’s father in Eusebius according to Sale,
  note on 6^{74}. He probably got his knowledge from Maracci, _Prodromus
  ad Refutationem Alcorani_ (1698), Pars IV., p. 90, which is also cited
  by Geiger, _Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum Aufgenommen_ (1833), p.
  128. Maracci only says: _apud Eusebium in Historia Ecclesiastica_. The
  story of Abraham and the idols is found in _Midrasch Bereschith
  Rabba_, Uebersetzt von _Wünsche_, Par. 38 (p. 173). It is quoted also
  by Geiger, _l. c._, p. 124. Among Christian authorities Jerome,
  _Questiones Hebraicæ in Genesim_ (on Gen. 11^{28}), Op. ed. Vallarsius
  (1767), III., c. 323, cf. IV., c. 779, speaks of Abraham’s being
  thrown into the fire.

Footnote 100:

  Ewald, _Jahrbücher_, III., p. 3. Grünbaum, _Neue Beiträge zur
  Semitischen Sagenkunde_ (1893), p. 96, says that the story is also
  given by Ephraem Syrus.

Footnote 101:

  42^{11}, cf. 2^{130}.

Footnote 102:

  2^{38-103}, 7^{101-154}, 20^{8-97}, 26^{9-66} are the most extended.
  Somewhat briefer are 27^{7 ff}, 28^{2-38}, 10^{76-92}.

Footnote 103:

  79^{15-26}.

Footnote 104:

  28^{11}, 2^{53, 60}, 7^{170}.

Footnote 105:

  7^{146}, 20^{90}. On the Rabbinical authorities cf. Geiger, _Was hat
  Mohammed_, etc., pp. 155-172. The lowing of the golden calf at Gilgal
  on the day of Elisha’s birth is spoken of in the _Book of the Bee_,
  Budge’s translation, p. 70.

Footnote 106:

  Ex. 8^{15}, English version 8^{19}; Koran 20^{73 ff}.

Footnote 107:

  II. Tim. 3^8, cf. Dillmann in P. R. E.^2, XII., p. 365.

Footnote 108:

  7^{130}, 17^{103}.

Footnote 109:

  28^{38}.

Footnote 110:

  7^{133}, 2^{58}.

Footnote 111:

  26^{57-59}.

Footnote 112:

  28^{8-14 f}.

Footnote 113:

  28^{27, 38}.

Footnote 114:

  That is, the Scriptures.

Footnote 115:

  An accusation elsewhere made against the Jews, reminding us of Paul’s
  charge that the idolaters exchange the truth of God for a lie.
  Possibly Mohammed thought the Jewish scribes forged verses which they
  sold as Biblical.

Footnote 116:

  This means: the Jews deny that their Scriptures contain what Mohammed
  says they contain.

Footnote 117:

  Paul also accuses the Jews of teaching the Law to others, at the same
  time violating it themselves, Rom. 2.

Footnote 118:

  The book which distinguishes between right and wrong. Possibly
  Mohammed thinks of the Mosaic tradition (the Mishna) which expounds
  the regulations of the Law more exactly.

Footnote 119:

  Or, _Kill yourselves_. The sense is obscure. The Arab commentator
  makes it mean _mortify your lusts_, but that is hardly Mohammed’s
  intention. I suspect a reminiscence of the fact that the Levites fell
  upon the idolatrous people and slew them.

Footnote 120:

  Evidently the pillar of cloud.

Footnote 121:

  Not approached by the male.

Footnote 122:

  The implication is that the murdered man was raised to life long
  enough to testify against his murderer.

Footnote 123:

  2^{39-69}.

Footnote 124:

  For the sake of completeness, we may notice that Mohammed has some
  other incidents not yet traced to their original. He knows of a time
  when the Children of Israel were commanded to enter a city in a
  certain way, but they changed the word which was commanded. The
  Mohammedan commentators say that out of wantonness they went in in an
  indecent posture and instead of saying _hitta_ (forgiveness) they said
  _hubba_, a grain of corn. For this they were punished, apparently with
  a pestilence. This is simply a conjecture on the basis of the Koran
  text. I am inclined to see in the passage the incident of the spies.
  The people were commanded to enter the land (the distinction between
  land and city is easily lost) and to act righteously there. The spies
  _substituted_ their evil report _for the command_ of God. The people
  then, having first refused to go, insisted upon going wilfully and
  were smitten. The resemblances are not very marked, but the Biblical
  story might give rise to what we find in the Koran. (This
  identification is not original with me.)

  Again we have the story of the violators of the Sabbath who were
  changed into apes. The only Rabbinical parallel yet pointed out is the
  Midrash that a part of the people of the Tower of Babel were changed
  into apes, demons, and evil spirits. Cf. _Hirschfeld_, _Jüdische
  Elemente im Koran_ (1878), p. 65, who cites Talmud, Sanhedrin 109 a.
  Possibly the Arabs in Medina had turned this story against the Jews
  before the coming of Mohammed. It is scarcely necessary to point out
  that the narrative of the red heifer has mixed two Mosaic
  ordinances—the sacrifice of the red heifer in the Book of Numbers
  (chap. 19) and the Deuteronomic enactment (chap. 21) that a heifer
  should be slain to atone for a murder the author of which is unknown.

Footnote 125:

  19^{13}, 3^{34}.

Footnote 126:

  It may be, as supposed by Sprenger (_Leben Muhammed’s_, II., 184),
  that Mohammed thought John the founder of the sect of the Sabæans (or
  Mandæans). But this is not proved by the fact that he describes John
  as receiving a book. He conceives that all the prophets receive sacred
  books: “If they accuse thee of falsehood [remember that] the apostles
  before thee were accused of falsehood, they who brought signs and
  Psalms and an enlightening Book,” 3^{181}.

Footnote 127:

  21^{91}.

Footnote 128:

  19^{16-34}.

Footnote 129:

  This translation makes a slight change in the pointing. I suppose the
  sense to be the same as in 4^{169}.

Footnote 130:

  23^{52}, cf. Rev. 12^{1-6}.

Footnote 131:

  19^{29}.

Footnote 132:

  “Thou wast not among them when they threw their reeds to see which of
  them should care for Mary, nor wert thou with them when they
  disputed,” 3^{39}.

Footnote 133:

  The main references are 3^{30-52}, 19^{16-34}.

Footnote 134:

  These incidents are narrated in the various Apocryphal Gospels, cf.
  the volume in the _Antenicene Christian Library_ containing
  translations of these by Walker, American edition of the _Antenicene
  Fathers_, Vol. VIII. Some of them are also found in the _Book of the
  Bee_, translated by Budge.

Footnote 135:

  The Life of Ephraem contained in Uhlemann’s _Syrische Chrestomathie_
  gives a similar incident.

Footnote 136:

  43^{57-65}.

Footnote 137:

  Jesus’s second coming will precede the judgment.

Footnote 138:

  61^6.

Footnote 139:

  57^{27}.

Footnote 140:

  5^{109}.

Footnote 141:

  9^{30}.

Footnote 142:

  5^{72-75}.

Footnote 143:

  4^{169}.

Footnote 144:

  Kattenbusch, _Lehrbuch der Vergleichenden Confessions-Kunde_ (1892),
  I., p. 464.

Footnote 145:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, Chapter L. Cf. Sale, Preliminary
  Discourse, § II.

Footnote 146:

  5^{116}.

Footnote 147:

  Sura 112, and 25^{2, 3}.

Footnote 148:

  21^{26-30}.

Footnote 149:

  19^{92 f}.

Footnote 150:

  Of course the Jews would not call him either the Messiah or the
  Apostle of God. Mohammed gives the sense of their claim as it lay in
  his mind.

Footnote 151:

  4^{156 f}.

Footnote 152:

  Cf. Herzog, P.R.E.^2, IX., p. 247.

Footnote 153:

  19^{15}.

Footnote 154:

  An interesting parallel is found in the language used by the Jewish
  King Dhu Nowas to the Christian inhabitants of Nagran: “The Greeks
  know that our fathers, who were priests and Pharisees and lawyers in
  Jerusalem, crucified a man in Jerusalem; and they smote and mocked and
  killed him because they saw and were convinced that he was not God.
  Why will you cherish your delusion concerning this man?” The siege of
  Nagran was in the century before Mohammed’s call, and while the
  (Ethiopic) account from which this language is quoted is comparatively
  late, we have no reason to suspect Moslem influence. Cf. Fell, _Die
  Christenverfolgungen in Südarabien_, Z.D.M.G., XXXV., p. 56.




                              LECTURE IV.
                          THE DOCTRINE OF GOD


Mohammed, like other reformers, raised his voice in conscious opposition
to the existing system. In one of his first revelations he is bidden to
say: “O, you that disbelieve; I will not serve what you serve, nor do
you serve what I serve.... You have your religion and I have mine.”[155]
The point at which he was consciously and most distinctly in opposition
to his contemporaries was the unity of God. _There is no God but Allah_,
was, and continues to be, the watchword of Islam. The infidels are most
often described as those who associate other beings with Allah as
objects of worship. In the sura just quoted Mohammed seems, indeed, to
say that the Meccans did not worship the same God which he worshipped.
But it is plain from other passages that he did not deny that Allah was
_one_ of the deities in their pantheon. He meant that their worship was
so vitiated by its polytheistic character that it was no true worship.
Allah, like Yahweh, tolerates no partners. “Thou shalt have no other
gods in My presence” was with him, as with the Hebrews, the first
commandment, and he appreciated it to the full. The declaration of God’s
unity: “God is One; the Self-existent God; He begets not and is not
begotten; and there is none like to Him,” may be put beside the
declaration of Moses: “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One;
and thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with _all_ thy mind and with _all_
thy soul and with _all_ thy strength.” The oneness of God is a reason
for the exclusive nature of the worship paid to Him. The Biblical
statement that Yahweh is a jealous God is simply the affirmation of the
truth known to Mohammed, that Allah admits no partners. With him, as
with the Hebrew law-giver, there was a conviction of the infinite
worthiness of the one God, a worthiness which admits none to comparison
with Him.

Mohammed was not the first of the Arabs to recognize this truth. There
is a very strong current of tradition to the effect that in this case
also there were Reformers before the Reformation. Reflecting men had
become dissatisfied with the popular religion. Some of them had sought
refuge in Judaism or Christianity. Others were not drawn to these
religions, but adopted monotheism and abandoned the worship of idols. An
example is Zaid Ibn Amr, of whom Mohammed’s earliest biographer says:
“He adopted neither Christianity nor Judaism, but he gave up the
religion of his people; he abandoned the idols, kept himself from what
was strangled, from blood, from what was offered to idols and from
infanticide. He professed to worship the Lord of Abraham.”[156] This
Zaid was known to Mohammed, who, on hearing of his death, said: In the
Resurrection he will form a communion by himself.[157] Several such
_hanifs_ as they are called—the same word is applied to Abraham as we
saw—are mentioned in the time of Mohammed. Some of them joined him, some
rejected him. They are an indication that the more earnest spirits were
already breaking away from heathenism.

The difference between them and Mohammed is that they were content to
work out their own salvation and let other people alone—to go to heaven
their way, and let the others go to the other place their way, as a
modern writer describes toleration—whereas Mohammed felt the impulse to
preach against idolatry. This it was which roused the Meccans. Their
religion was a part of the standing order, and to change it meant
revolution. Mecca owed its importance and its wealth to the fact that it
was an emporium. Its trade was secured by its being an asylum in which
tribes otherwise hostile could meet in safety. The visible pledge of
asylum was the presence of the gods of all the tribes at the Meccan
sanctuary. To demand that these gods should be destroyed and Allah alone
worshipped, was to demand the overthrow of their social and political
institutions, and, as they regarded it, such a movement would be
followed by financial ruin. Their first theory was that the demand could
come only from a man possessed by a devil. But as Mohammed showed much
method in his madness, they took active measures against him, so that at
last he found safety only in flight.

Mere negations, however, do not triumph. The creed of Islam is indeed
_there is no God but Allah_. But behind this creed, which is negative in
form, there lies a positive conception of the character of Allah—a
conception which was clearly set forth by Mohammed, which attracted his
followers, and which is still the real belief of all reflecting Moslems.
Even in the earliest suras, Allah is a definite and active personality.
Mohammed would heartily have accepted the statement of the Westminster
Shorter Catechism: “There is but one only, the _living and true God_.”
Note the following Koran passages:

    “He is God, besides whom there is no God. He is the Knower of the
    secret and of the manifest. He is the Merciful, the Compassionate.
    He is the King, the All-Holy, the Complete, the Protector, the
    Guardian, the Almighty, the Ruler, the Glorious. Far from Him be
    that which they associate with Him. He is God, the Creator, the
    Maker, the Fashioner—all excellent names are His. Whatever is in
    heaven and on earth praises Him. He is the Almighty, the
    All-wise.”[158]

    “Say to them: To whom belongs the earth and all that is in it—do you
    know? They will say: It belongs to Allah. Answer them: Will you not
    then praise Him? Who is the Lord of the seven heavens, and the
    spacious canopy? They will say: Allah. Answer them: Will you not
    then fear Him? In whose hand is the rule of the universe, who
    protects, but against whom no one protects—do you know? They will
    say: It is Allah. Answer them: Then why will you be bewitched [by
    idolatry]? Verily, we have sent them the truth, but they are
    liars.”[159]

Biblical parallels to several of these predicates readily suggest
themselves. But in order to get a clearer view of the doctrine of the
Koran, we shall be obliged to adopt some sort of arrangement under which
we can group together the great variety of _dicta probantia_. Let us
note, then:

1. The God of Mohammed is _Allah_, the God already known by name to the
Arabs. In the passage just quoted, Mohammed conducts a dialogue with his
adversaries in which they show themselves no strangers to Allah. It
would be precarious to build on such a passage a theory that Allah was
already recognized as the supreme God of the pantheon. But it at least
shows that the heathen knew Him by name, and that they could not
seriously object to the doctrine of the Prophet as new and unheard of.
Probably they had never reflected on the subjects on which he questioned
them. In early religions the question of creation, for example, is not
raised; the world is taken as it is, and no theory of its origin is
formulated. When the question is raised, the Meccans are more likely to
answer Allah than anything else, because Allah is the most general name
for God. The word means simply _the divinity_, and could be applied to
any God. Hobal was Allah at Mecca, and another God was Allah at Taif.
Two Arabs might swear by Allah, and each have his own divinity in mind,
just as Abraham and Abimelech might both swear by Elohim, though the
Elohim of Abraham was Yahweh and the Elohim of Abimelech was another.

It is not necessary to assume, therefore, as some have done, that there
was already a fully developed doctrine of _Allah Taala_—God Most
High—among the Arabs before Mohammed.[160] The case was not different
from that of the Hebrews. When Yahweh announced His proper name, he was
careful to identify Himself with the Elohim already known to the people
and to their fathers. The only difference is that Mohammed contented
himself (at least finally) with the general name, while the Hebrew kept
both names, though insisting that Yahweh is the only Elohim.

As a visible and substantial evidence that Allah was not an unknown God,
Mohammed retained the ancient sanctuary of the Kaaba. So long as he was
at Mecca he seems to have had no hesitation in this. When he went to
Medina he tried to make a change. But he was obliged to return, after no
long time, to his original position. As evidence that it was his
original position, we have Sura 106, apparently an early one, in which
he exhorts the Koreish to invoke _the Lord of this house_. In other
religions we see the tendency to identify the newly revealed God with
one already known. Even the Apostle Paul intimates that the God whom he
preaches at Athens is one already worshipped there.

The proposition that Allah is the only God does not necessarily mean
that the other so-called gods have absolutely no existence. This was too
radical a step to take all at once. Mohammed conceded the existence of
spirits or demons who had seduced men to their worship. The Arabic word
for these beings is _Jinn_ (collective), and as we have no exact
equivalent it is better to retain this word in translation: “But they
give associates to God, the Jinn, whom He created; and out of ignorance
they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters. Far be this from Him!
He is exalted above what they ascribe to Him.”[161] In another passage,
the false gods are questioned by Allah at the Judgment, and avow that
they have misled their worshippers; and again we are told that the
idolaters worship only Satan the rebellious.[162] It is not mere
dramatic imagery intended to emphasize the evil of polytheism that is
presented in these passage. Mohammed admitted that the false gods have a
real existence. What he denied was not their reality but their
divinity—their power to help or harm.

We find in this a distinct parallel to both Old Testament and New. It
will suffice to quote Leviticus 17^7: “They shall no longer sacrifice
their sacrifices to the satyrs (_se’irim_, the desert demons) after
which they have [heretofore] gone astray.” In Deuteronomy also we read
that they sacrificed to demons (_shedim_) instead of God.[163] For the
New Testament, we have Paul’s assertions that the things which the
Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God.”[164] The
belief in spirits which infest the desert is very old among the
Semites—indeed beliefs of this kind are found among all nations. It was
therefore natural that Mohammed should identify these beings with the
divinities worshipped by the heathen Arabs. It is not unlikely, however,
that he was also influenced remotely by the Biblical statements just
quoted.

2. The God of Mohammed is also the God of Jews and Christians. This also
is indicated by the name (Allah, Al-ilah), which is found in Hebrew
(Eloah, Elohim) and in the Christian Syriac. The identity is not only
clear from the name itself, but from direct assertions of the Koran:
“Debate with those who have the Scriptures only in the most honorable
manner ... and say: We believe in what is revealed to us and in what is
revealed to you; your God and our God are one God, and we are resigned
to Him.”[165] The doctrine of Mohammed is like the doctrine of
Christianity in its universalism. Allah is not the God of a particular
race only; He is God of the whole earth. This was also the doctrine of
the Old Testament in its latest stages. The religious impulse seems to
find in the oneness of God the unifying principle of human history.
Hence comes the necessity of finding our God in the God of the fathers.
The parallel between Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which Mohammed extended
to himself was another expression of the continuity of the one God—a God
who has never left Himself without witness. By some one of His prophets
He has repeatedly called men to repentance and obedience. That in this
respect Mohammed occupies ground which is more distinctly Christian than
Jewish, needs no demonstration.

3. This God enters into personal relation with those who believe on Him.
He Himself is a person—there is no pantheism in the Koran. The Gnostic
sects which swarmed in the farther East had not penetrated Arabia with
their emanistic speculations. At least we find no trace of their
influence in the theology of Mohammed. God and the universe appear to
him as sharply distinguished as man and the world. Not even in polemic
does he betray any suspicion of pantheism. The whole impression made by
what he says, and by what he does not say, is to the effect that he
could not even conceive of a God without personality.

To a certain extent, his view was anthropomorphic. If we mean by
anthropomorphism every ascription of thought or feeling to God, then all
religions except Buddhism are infected with anthropomorphism. Islam, or
at least the Koran, is not extreme in attributing a human form to God.
To speak of His hands (as is done a few times) is almost unavoidable in
describing His activity. Beyond this He does not receive bodily members.
That the traditions are more pronounced than the Koran, is only what we
should expect, but how far we can rely upon these is difficult to
decide. We shall have no hesitancy in accepting tradition where it makes
Mohammed say that in Paradise the believer shall see God, for this is a
hope common to other believers. On the whole the anthropomorphism of the
Koran is not more pronounced than that of the Bible.

Now, as to the communion which exists between God and his worshippers—we
must recognize this also as a principle of all religion. Even in
heathenism the gods enter into personal relations with their
worshippers: “They take the Satans _as their protectors_ besides Allah,
yet think they are guided aright;” “Allah is the protector of those who
believe; He brings them from darkness into light. But as for those who
disbelieve, their protectors are the devils; they bring them from light
to darkness.”[166] The word translated protector (_wali_) means the next
of kin, who has the right and the obligation of blood revenge—the
_go’el_ of the Old Testament. Mohammed’s conception is precisely that of
Job, who regards God as his “Redeemer” in exactly the sense in which
this passage speaks of protectors. Mohammed allows that the idolaters
have entered into the relation of clientage (if I may so say) to their
gods. The protection promised is of no avail, not because the relation
does not exist, but because the protectors have no power to carry out
what they have promised. In the next world the worshipped and the
worshippers shall alike be brought to confusion. On the other hand the
God and Protector of Mohammed is all powerful, and therefore, able to
carry out His promise.

The sense of loyalty to God is expressed in the frequent use of the term
_my Lord_, in which the speaker embodies his claim on God, and God’s
claim on him. In the earliest group of suras this term is used about
three times as often as the name Allah, and thus shows the vivid sense
of God’s presence with which the Prophet entered on his mission. In the
choice of the term he was doubtless under Scriptural influence, for God
is _Lord of all_ both in the Old Testament and in the New.[167] The
vividness of Mohammed’s faith, which impels him to say _my Lord_ does
not cause him to forget the claims of others. God is the Lord of
Abraham, of Moses, even of the unbelievers.[168] In the prayer which in
Islam takes the place of the Lord’s Prayer—the _Fatiha_—He is the _Lord
of the worlds_.[169] But He is also the one to whom the believer cries
for help.

4. Allah is the Creator. This is a conception which can be adequately
held only in a monotheistic religion. Polytheism, so far as it has a
doctrine of creation, thinks of the universe as modified by the strife
of many gods. But where God is one, creation and lordship go together.
Mohammed followed Biblical precedent in emphasizing their union. One of
his most frequent arguments is that Allah is Creator and therefore Lord,
or even that He is Creator and therefore the only true God. There is no
suspicion of the eternity of matter in the Koran. In a tradition we find
this question put to Mohammed: “O, Apostle of Allah, where was our
Cherisher before creating His creation?” He replied: “God was, and
nothing was with Him, and God created His imperial throne upon
water.”[170] The reference of the last clause is so obviously to the
account in Genesis, where the Spirit of God brooded on the face of the
waters, that we may assume Biblical influence on the tradition. Probably
the influence extended to Mohammed himself, for his account of the
creation is largely borrowed from the Bible. For example, we are told
that: “God creates what He will; when He decides upon a thing He says:
Be! and it is.”[171] The Biblical parallel is familiar. Another feature
of the Biblical account found in the Koran, is the accomplishment of the
work in six days: “And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in
the space of six days, while His throne was on the waters.”[172] An
evidence of Mohammed’s freedom in treating Biblical materials is found,
however, in his assertion that God was not affected by fatigue[173]—an
evident rejection of the Old Testament word that God _rested_ the
seventh day. Moreover he does not seem to be clear as to the order of
the six days’ work: He says in one passage: “Will you disbelieve in God
who made the earth in two days ... and made the mountains which tower
above it, and Who arranged provision upon it in four days, sufficient
for those who ask. Then He ascended to the heavens when they were yet
smoke, and said to them and to the earth: Come, willingly or
unwillingly! They replied: We come willingly. And He divided them into
seven heavens in two days, and communicated to each heaven its order,
and We decked the lower heaven with lamps and guardians—this was the
decree of the Almighty, the Wise.”[174] By counting the two days first
mentioned as part of the four, we can make out the requisite total of
six. But even then it is impossible to find traces of the Biblical
arrangement, in which the creation of the heavenly bodies takes place on
the fourth day. But from the religious point of view Mohammed had
thoroughly adopted the doctrine of the Bible, as the following somewhat
extended quotation will make plain:

    “It is God who raised the heavens without visible pillars; then He
    ascended to the throne, and made the sun and moon obedient [to His
    will], so that each runs to its appointed goal. He regulates affairs
    and makes plain His signs, that you may be sure of the meeting with
    your Lord. And it is He who spread out the earth and made in it
    mountains and rivers; and of every fruit He made two kinds. He makes
    the night succeed the day—in this are signs for people who reflect.
    And in the earth are tracts [different though] bordering on each
    other: vineyards and fields and palms, in groups or isolated. They
    are supplied with the same water, yet We make the quality of one
    better than that of another—verily in this are signs for people who
    understand.... It is He who shows you the lightning, an object of
    terror and of desire, and who brings up the clouds heavy with rain.
    The thunder celebrates His praise, the angels also, moved by fear of
    Him. He sends the thunderbolts and smites whom He will. Yet all the
    while men are disputing concerning God, though He is the mighty in
    power. To Him sincere prayer should be made, and those whom men
    invoke besides Him shall not answer them in any respect, any more
    than one stretching out his hands to the water which he cannot reach
    to bring it to his mouth. The prayer of the unbelievers is only
    loss. All that are in heaven and in earth bow to God willingly or
    unwillingly—even their shadows bow morning and evening. Who is Lord
    of heaven and earth? It is God. And will you take as protector those
    who cannot benefit or harm even themselves? Are the blind and the
    clear-eyed alike? Is the darkness the same as the light? Will they
    give God associates who create as He creates, so that the creation
    is confused between them? [Nay!] God is the Creator, He is the One,
    the Victorious.”[175]

The passage shows how creation and government are intertwined. Although
not parallel to any single Biblical text, it is full of Biblical
allusions. God is in both Old Testament and New, the Creator of heaven
and earth; He makes the sun run its appointed course; He spreads out the
earth and what grows upon it; and He also makes fast the mountains.
Further: it is He who created the fruit trees, as well as herb for the
service of man, bringing forth bread out of the earth. He brings up the
thunder-storms also, and smites the Egyptians with this as one of His
visitations; and He is of course the giver of rain.[176] The figure of
the thunder as the _voice_ of God which we find in the Old Testament is
not repeated by Mohammed, but in every other respect his conception of
Allah as the master of the storm is parallel to that of the Bible. And
so we may say of the conception that the creation is for the benefit of
man, whose gratitude should lead him to worship his Creator. All created
things adore Him. Not only does the thunder chant His praise, and the
angels bow before Him, all things on earth join with them: “All that are
in heaven and on earth praise God, His is the kingdom and He is the
Ruler over all.”[177]

It is also in accord with Biblical ideas that the creation should be
used as evidence of the character of God. It is, first of all, an
evidence of His power. When men scoffed at the idea of a resurrection as
being a thing impossible, Mohammed pointed out that to bring men from
dust the second time would not be difficult for Him who created them out
of clay at the first. The creation is an evidence that God can do (and
therefore will do) what He promises or threatens. The argument is the
same used by Deutero-Isaiah. When the people are faint-hearted
concerning the promises of God, this prophet reminds them that the
promises come from the One “who made all things, who stretched out the
heavens alone, and spread abroad the earth by Himself.” Mohammed was
more concerned with the doubts of unbelievers than with the
discouragements of believers, but in bringing his message to his people,
he reminds them that the power shown in creation may be turned upon them
in chastisement.

The creation is, further, an evidence of God’s knowledge. He that made
all things must certainly know all things. There is perhaps no attribute
which is more frequently mentioned than this. _He is the Knowing, the
Wise_, or, _God is a discerner of what they do_, have become to Mohammed
stereotype phrases with which he rounds off his periods. That he was not
unmindful of their significance is seen from the more extended
propositions such as the following: “Do they not know that God knows
what they conceal and what they discourse about in private, and that God
is the knower of secrets.”[178] Again: “Three do not sit in secret
converse except that He makes the fourth, or five without His being the
sixth; and whether there be few or more, He is with them whereever they
are. In the day of resurrection He will tell them what they have
done—verily God is omniscient.”[179] The Biblical parallels are too
numerous to quote. The particular kind of knowledge which the Psalmist
finds wonderful when he says: “Thine eyes saw my formless substance and
in Thy book all was written in the days when it was taking shape”[180]
is also emphasized by Mohammed. And where the New Testament gives the
fall of a sparrow as within the omniscient eye, Mohammed adduces the
fall of a leaf.[181]

5. God not only creates, He also governs. The kingdom of heaven and
earth is His: “Verily your Lord is the God who created the heavens and
the earth in six days; then He took His seat upon the throne, making the
night darken the day, which [in its turn] follows swiftly; and the sun
and moon and the constellations are obedient to His command. Do not
creation and rule belong to Him? Blessed be God, Lord of the
worlds.”[182] The mind of the speaker sees in God the great efficient
cause of all. He is the active mover of the constellations and the
seasons. In another passage he is said to sit upon the throne
_conducting the affairs_ of the universe. He not only gives rain,
driving the clouds as He will; He rules in the affairs of men: “O God,
Ruler of the Kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou wilt, and
Thou takest away the kingdom from whom Thou wilt. Thou strengthenest
whom Thou wilt, and Thou humblest whom Thou wilt, and in Thy hand is
good; Thou art omnipotent.”[183] We are reminded of the Song of Hannah;
“Yahweh makes poor and makes rich: He makes low and also raises on
high.” How far God employs second causes we need not now stop to
inquire.

6. As the ruler of the universe, God is also the God of history. The
principle of His government is very simple: He rewards those who obey
and He punishes the disobedient. This implies some revelation of His
will. As we saw in Mohammed’s treatment of his narrative material, all
history falls into epochs, each of which rounds out the same cycle. God
first makes His will known by a prophet. Men either receive the message
and obey, or they reject it and are destroyed. It may not always be
necessary that a prophet interpret the will of God. Creation is itself a
revelation: “In the heavens and the earth are signs for those who
believe; in your creation also and in the animals which are dispersed
[over the earth] are signs for those who are firm in their faith, and in
the succession of night and day, and in the portion which God sends down
from the heavens, with which He revives the earth after its death, and
in the direction of the winds—in these are signs for people of
intelligence.”[184] There is in nature therefore a revelation of God.
Whether this alone is a sufficient guide does not appear. The Prophet
seems not to have raised this question. In history, as he saw it, God
was accustomed to send additional revelations by the hand of His
messengers. From this point of view His justice becomes manifest—He
gives men the alternative of obedience or disobedience. He can rightly
punish those who disobey and He can rightly reward those who obey.

It follows therefore that Allah is a God of justice. Here again,
Mohammed had a practical rather than a speculative interest. It had
never occurred to him (apparently) to inquire whether right or wrong are
dependent on the will of God. If the question had been put to him he
would very likely have answered in the affirmative. God is an absolute
monarch; He does what He pleases. So far Mohammed would have said that
the will of God is the ground of right and wrong. But it is nevertheless
the constant assumption of the Koran that God is a morally perfect
character. His action is such that it meets our idea of right.[185]
Though none can restrain or call Him to account, yet He does not punish
without cause. If we fail to find perfect justice in His dealings with
men in this present life, we must turn to the future when all will be
made plain. The thought of the Day of Judgment is therefore
indispensable to our idea of God’s justice. That day completes the
purpose of creation. “Did you reckon that We created you in sport, and
that you would not appear before Us?”[186] This is one of God’s
questions at the Judgment. It implies that the purpose of creation is
attained only in the final apportionment of reward and punishment.
Without this, the creation of man would have been a vain act.

God does not always act according to our desires or hopes. This is a
matter of universal experience. The explanation of it in the Koran, as
in the Bible, is that God proves men: “Verily, We proved them as we
proved the owners of the garden, who swore that they would gather its
fruits the next morning. They swore without reservation, but while they
slept there came a visitation from the Lord, and in the morning it [the
garden] was like a field of stubble.”[187] Such an experience is sent to
try the state of man’s heart; he must learn from it that he is not
independent of God. The conclusion is plain, and is expressed in
language which agrees almost verbally with an exhortation of the New
Testament: “Do not say concerning anything: I will do it to-morrow,
without adding _if God will_, and remember thy Lord when thou hast
forgotten Him, and say: Perhaps my Lord will guide me to the
accomplishment of this affair.”[188] The alternations of fortune in the
experience of the Moslem community are explained as a part of their
probation: “We make the days [of good and evil fortune] to alternate
among men, that God may know those who believe, and may take from you
martyrs for Himself.”[189] Were constant good the lot of man he would
become insupportable: “If God gave provision in abundance to His
servants they would act insolently in the earth. He therefore apportions
according to His will—He knows and sees His servants.”[190] God’s
purpose is plain: “We will prove you by ill fortune and by good, as a
test, and unto Us shall you be brought.”[191] The thought is distinctly
Biblical. Abraham is tested by the command to offer his son. So the
Koran says in giving an account of the same incident.[192] That Mohammed
so understood the experience of Job, to which he also alludes, is made
probable by the concluding sentence of that passage: “We found him
possessed of patience.”[193] How thoroughly Mohammed adopted the
doctrine is seen in his statement that even the game which came in sight
of the pilgrims to Mecca was sent to prove them, to discover whether
they would obey the law: “That God may know him who fears Him in his
heart.”[194] Apparent cases in which God’s actions cannot be explained
on our ideas of justice are therefore only apparent. He acts in a
mysterious way sometimes, but in the end all will be plain, and we shall
see the wicked punished and the good rewarded.

The reward of those who do well is affirmed on almost every page of the
Koran. The great burden of Mohammed’s preaching is the Day of Judgment.
This day will result in endless pleasure for the good, as it will bring
endless pain to the evil: “Shall I tell you what is better [than the
pleasures of this world]? Those who fear God shall possess in the
presence of their Lord Gardens in which are perennial streams, and pure
wives, and the good favor of God; God has regard to His servants.”
“Those who fear God shall dwell in the midst of gardens and fountains,
partaking of what their Lord gives them; they are the ones who did well
in their earlier [that is, their earthly] life.”[195] God, therefore,
does not desire to bring men into evil. After speaking of the future
life, the speaker adds: “These are the wonders of God which we recite to
thee; God does not desire injustice to the universe.”[196] The passage
reminds us of Ezekiel’s declaration, that God does not desire the death
of the wicked, and the resemblance is the more marked in that both cases
imply that the prophet is sent _because_ God does not desire to do
injustice. His desire is rather that man may have opportunity to repent.
Nevertheless, He must take cognizance of men’s actions. This is one
evidence of His superiority over the idols: “He who is mindful of every
soul with regard to what it has earned—will they take others besides
such a God?”[197] Here is where His omniscience most nearly concerns us.
Because He is all-seeing, He can vindicate justice: “How will it be when
We assemble you to a Day concerning which there is no doubt, and every
soul shall be paid what it has earned, and none shall be treated
unjustly?”[198]

As for God’s justice in punishing, we may find it even in the present
world. Historically it appears in the destruction of Pharaoh and other
wrong-doers in the past: “God seized them for their sins, and God is
strict in taking account.”[199] Elsewhere God is described as quick in
reckoning, so that He does not fail in determining the just dues of each
one: “We will establish the scales of equity in the Day of Resurrection,
and no soul shall be wronged in any matter; were it the weight of a
grain of mustard seed, We will pay it, and We are sufficient as
accountants.”[200] The phrase _grain of mustard seed_ makes us suspect
New Testament influence, but it may be only a proverbial phrase, of
whose New Testament origin Mohammed had no knowledge. The conception of
the scales of justice is found in the Bible, though also found in
extra-Biblical sources. In the Bible it is generally the _men_ who are
weighed instead of their actions. The figure is natural and appropriate
in either form. The specific statement that God calls men to account is
also Biblical.[201]

Because of His justice God hates the evil: “Those who disbelieve will be
summoned [and told]: The hatred of God is greater than your hatred of
each other [was] when you were invited to the faith and
disbelieved.”[202] The path in which the believer desires to be led is
the path of those with whom God is _not angry_. The Israelites who
murmured at the manna, returned with the anger of God upon them. When a
believer kills another believer, his portion will be hell fire: “God is
angry with him and curses him and prepares for him a grievous
punishment.”[203] Similar language is used of the Israelites who were
changed into apes and swine, and also of the hypocrites at Medina.[204]
How closely it follows Biblical precedent, I need scarcely say. In the
Old Testament, God is a just judge, and as such is angry every day. When
the people worship the golden calf His anger burns against them.[205] In
the New Testament also, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

7. Strict justice would result in the extermination of the race: “If God
should take men in their sin, He would not leave upon the earth a living
creature. But He grants them delay till a fixed term. When their term
shall come it will not be delayed or advanced an hour.”[206] God is
therefore _long-suffering_; He does not hasten His punishment. This is
the explanation of a fact which probably perplexed Mohammed as it had
perplexed the Biblical writers. We see that in this world wicked men
often enjoy good fortune for a long time. The perplexity does not arise
merely from the inequality in the lot of the good and the bad. The
prolongation of the life of a wicked man gives him a prolonged
opportunity to do the evil things that God hates. Why does not God
speedily cut such men off? Two answers are possible. God may be giving
them the opportunity to repent; or, on the other hand, He may be
allowing them to fill up the measure of their iniquity, so as to earn
the more complete and exemplary punishment. Both these solutions of the
problem are presented in the Bible, and Mohammed also seems to have
entertained both, though he does not sharply distinguish between them.
The passage quoted above seems to say only that a strict administration
of justice cannot be carried out, because no one could stand before it.
It agrees with the Psalmist who says: “If Yahweh should closely watch
iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?”[207] On this side, God’s mercy is
simply a concession to human weakness. But that He also spares men in
order that they may repent, while not directly stated, is implied in
many passages which speak of Him as merciful and gracious, as inviting
men to repentance and Himself loving to turn to those who turn to Him.
But we find also the theory that the wicked are spared in order that
they may (like the Amorites) fill up the measure of their iniquity: “Let
not those who disbelieve reckon that the long life which We grant them
is a good to them. We grant it only that they may increase their guilt,
and they shall receive a shameful punishment.”[208]

Although this threat is uttered against those who persist in their
iniquity, there is a distinct doctrine of forgiveness taught in the
Koran. Sins committed before the coming of the revelation are passed
over with indulgence, because allowance is made for the state of
ignorance. There is here a very close parallel to Paul’s declaration
that God overlooked the times of ignorance, but _now_ calls on all men
everywhere to repent.[209] A striking parallel with a Biblical passage
is found again where the justice and the mercy of God are placed side by
side: “The revelation of the Book from God, the Mighty, the Wise; the
one who forgives sin, accepting repentance, strict in His punishments,
the Bountiful, besides whom there is no God.”[210] The Biblical parallel
which I have in mind is of course the Name proclaimed before Moses in
Horeb: “Yahweh, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and plenteous
in kindness and truth, keeping kindness for thousands, forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin; but who will not pronounce
innocent—visiting the iniquities of fathers upon children and
grandchildren, upon the third generation and upon the fourth.”[211] In
the case of Mohammed, at any rate, there seems to be no consciousness
that justice could conflict with mercy. In other words, there is no
theory of an atonement. The words expiation and redemption may be said
to exist in Arabic but they have sunk to almost trivial importance. In
certain cases of transgression, a sort of equivalent must be paid. If a
man breaks his oath, he must, as an _expiation_,[212] feed or clothe ten
poor men, or free a slave. If either of these be beyond his power he
must fast a certain number of days. _Redemption_ is used of a similar
fine or satisfaction. In no case is there an intimation that this is
more than a punishment inflicted for the sin. It is nowhere brought into
relation with the wrath of God. Atonement or propitiation in the sense
in which they are understood in Christian theology do not appear in the
Koran.

That goodness is one of the attributes of God must be evident from what
has already been said. This goodness extends to all His creatures:
“There is not a living thing in the earth whose nourishment is not
dependent upon God. He knows its abiding place and its resting.”[213]
Even the birds are sustained in their flight by Him.[214] He adapts His
burdens to those who carry them: “We do not lay upon any soul more than
it can bear.”[215] The consequence is given in the words: “If you
remember the favors of God, you will not be able to count them.”[216] In
a number of passages the Koran rises to the affirmation of the love of
God. But the objects of His love are those who do well. The sublime
declaration of the New Testament: “God commendeth His love toward us in
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” seems to be
without parallel in the sacred book of Islam.

Here is where Mohammed and Christianity (at least in the orthodox form)
part company. Up to this point, his idea is essentially the theism of
the Bible. He may be said (as he has been said) to maintain the
separation of God from the world with more precision and rigor than does
Judaism even.[217] But in substance he holds the Biblical idea of God,
and he would not have objected to the definition current among us—that
God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being,
wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Moreover he holds
to God as a present personality, “nearer to man than the vein of his
neck.”[218] But he was not led to the thought that God could or would
come to man by an incarnation. As we saw in the last lecture, this
doctrine was probably not fairly presented to him. He learned of it as
the deification of a man, rather than as the incarnation of God. In this
form he could not help rejecting the doctrine. Nor on the side of the
mediatorial work of Christ did he have any leaning toward the Christian
view. The necessity of bridging over the chasm between God and the
world—a necessity that appeals very strongly to some minds—seems not to
have existed for him. We should remember that the doctrine of mediation
was associated with what he must class as idolatry. In the Eastern
Church, the mediation of saints and angels is held very strongly even to
the present day, and leads to the excessive devotion paid to them and to
their pictures.[219] In heathenism the subordinate divinities are
intercessors with the higher gods. The whole idea of mediation therefore
presented itself to Mohammed under an unfavorable aspect. This was
especially true after he had made his experiment at compromise with the
Meccans. There was a time when he tried to make use of this doctrine of
mediation, to produce something on which he and his countrymen could
unite. His plan was to recognize the three Goddesses, upon whose worship
the Meccans laid the most stress, as daughters of Allah and mediators
with Him. Every worldly motive urged him to such a compromise, and he
probably flattered himself that he would thereby secure the essentials
of his system. The Arabs have been willing to forget what actually took
place. It seems probable that a formal agreement was made, by which the
Meccans recognized the supremacy of Allah, while Mohammed and his
followers were to allow the worship of the three Goddesses as
intercessors with Allah. All that has come down to us, is a tradition to
the effect that Mohammed, in reciting the fifty-third sura of the Koran,
included in it these words: “Do you not see Lat and Uzza and Manat, the
third besides? These are the exalted maidens[220] and their intercession
is to be hoped for.” The Meccans who were present were surprised and
delighted at the mention of their divinities and at the close of the
recitation all prostrated themselves, following the example of the
Prophet. The tradition goes on to say, that in the evening he was
visited by Gabriel who heard him repeat the sura and disavowed the
compromising words. Mohammed was convinced that he had been misled by
Satan and he at once adopted the true reading and published it the next
day in the words: “Do you not see Lat and Uzza and Manat the third
besides? Shall you have sons and He have daughters?[221] That were,
indeed, a wrong division. These are but names which you and your fathers
have named; God has not delegated to them any power. [The unbelievers]
follow only conjecture and what their souls desire, though there has
come to them guidance from their Lord.”[222] So far tradition; whatever
the actual course of events, it seems probable that Mohammed made a
serious attempt to introduce authorized mediators of a divine character
into his religion. But the scheme would not work. His idea of the unity
of God was too absolute to admit even subordinate divinities. After this
experience, he was careful to defend the strict oneness and
transcendentality of God.

The incarnation and the mediatorial work of Christ, therefore, fall (for
him) under the same condemnation with the heathen ideas which he
rejected: “Men serve, besides God, that which cannot harm nor profit
them, and they say: These are our intercessors with God. Say to them:
Will you inform God concerning what He does not know either in the
heavens or in the earth? Praise be to Him; He is exalted above what they
associate with Him.” “Men say: The Compassionate has taken a son. Far be
it from Him! Rather, these are honored servants; they do not speak to
Him before He speaks to them, and they do according to His commands. He
knows what is before them and what is behind them, and none intercede
except for the one for whom permission is given, and they constantly
tremble in fear of Him.”[223] Intercession is here denied on two
grounds: the intercessors cannot tell God anything He does not already
know; and no created being dares to speak to Him without His permission,
which permission will not be given in case the intercession concerns a
man with whom He is already displeased. It is in accord with this that
we read: “And warn those who fear God that they shall be gathered to
their Lord; besides Him they have neither protector nor
intercessor.”[224]

But, like the most of us, Mohammed was not always entirely consistent.
On this point he was led to modify his position. Probably his own
experience furnishes the explanation. He was himself often asked by his
followers to pray for them. He found satisfaction also in praying for
those he loved. His experience of the value of intercession in this
world led him to believe that in the other world he would be allowed
thus to help his followers. The traditions report him as saying that in
the Day of Judgment he will intercede even when the other prophets
declare their inability. It is possible that these traditions[225] are
colored by the views of later times. But we are tempted to allow them
some weight, because some Koran passages seem to allow the intercession
of those to whom God gives permission, by which he means the greater
prophets—those who had founded religions. These would be allowed to
intercede for their followers and to bring them into Paradise.

All this shows how far Mohammed was from entertaining the ideas of
incarnation, atonement, or mediation, as these have been developed in
Christian theology. It has been supposed by some that he made one
attempt at postulating a difference of persons (to use the established
theological term) in the Godhead. In one group of suras, he uses
predominantly the name Rahman as a name of God. As the word occurs in
Hebrew and Aramaic, it is probable that he borrowed it. It is a
perfectly good Arabic form however, and occurs in inscriptions from
southern Arabia which are apparently older than the time of
Mohammed.[226] It means _the Compassionate_ and is used as an exact
equivalent for the name Allah. Thus: Rahman punishes the wicked; He sits
on the throne; His signs [or revelations] are recited to men; to Him
Satan is disobedient; and at the Last Day men shall be congregated to
Him.[227] There is here no trace of a second person of the Godhead, a
Divine Mediator, or an Emanation from the Supreme. All we can base on
the phenomena, is the theory that Mohammed wished to introduce another
name for God, perhaps because _Allah_ was the name associated with the
old heathenism. Possibly the mistake he made in the concession to the
Meccans, caused in his mind a revolt even against their vocabulary.
Rahmānān was the name of God the Father among the Christians of Southern
Arabia. Its meaning was appropriate to his purpose. The choice was
therefore a good one, and the motive of the choice was honorable. But
the obstacles were too many. The small but earnest band of Moslems were
already attached to the old name. They had taken up the cause of Allah
and His Apostle. Rahman they knew not. In their perplexity and in the
renewed and bitter persecution which came upon them, Mohammed had enough
to do to hold on to what he had already attained. The attempt to
introduce the new name was therefore abandoned with the words: “Call
upon Allah, or call upon Rahman; by whatever name you call upon Him [He
hears]; all beautiful names are His.”[228] In all this there was no
inconsistency, and no near approach to Christian doctrine.

One thing more must be said. The name which our Lord adopted and by
which He taught us to call upon God was _our Father_. Mohammed nowhere
rose to this assurance of faith. God was his Lord, his Protector, his
Cherisher, but so far as I can discover, he never calls Him Father. It
is likely that, in this respect also, the Prophet was restrained by the
heathen conceptions which expressed themselves in similar language. We
have some evidence that the primitive religions of the Semites, like
those of other races, looked upon the God of a particular tribe as the
father of the tribe.[229] The physical and material sense in which this
was understood, would prevent Mohammed’s adoption of a similar
conception. And it is doubtful whether the Christianity of his day was
capable of giving him a clear presentation of the Biblical idea. To the
early Church, God was the supreme Lord who, so far from condescending to
man, must be invoked through the saints, the martyrs, and the angels.
The confession of faith was “the recognition of God as the One, the
Supramundane, the Spiritual, the Almighty. God is the Creator and Ruler
of the world and therefore the Lord.”[230] This was probably as much as
Mohammed ever heard from Christian sources. To this height he rose; we
can hardly blame him for not rising higher.

Reviewing what has been said in this lecture, we are entitled to say
that Mohammed made a great advance over the doctrine of God (if we may
call it so) held by his contemporaries. All the indications point to the
low esteem in which the heathen Arabs hold their gods. “When the oracle
at Tabāla forbade the poet Imraulcais to make war on the slayers of his
father, he broke the lot and dashed the pieces in the face of the god,
exclaiming, with a gross and insulting expletive: ‘If it had been thy
father that was killed, thou wouldst not have refused me
vengeance.’”[231] The incident is characteristic of heathenism. The
gods, being gods of particular tribes, are of limited power, and,
consequently, limited reverence is paid them. They stand on much the
same plane with their worshippers, whose kinsmen, fellows, allies, they
are. Mohammed had the view of a God more exalted, more powerful,
infinite in His perfections (or at least beyond any human standard),
and, therefore, more worthy of reverence and adoration. When Mohammed
first came to Medina, his new followers used to say in their prayers,
“Peace be to Allah,” using the salutation with which they were
accustomed to greet their friends. Mohammed commanded: “Do not say:
Peace to Allah! for Allah Himself is peace. Say, rather: Eternal life
belongs to Allah, and mercies and goodness.”[232] The incident
illustrates how the converts brought with them the old familiar way of
regarding God, and how Mohammed inculcated a worthier estimation, and a
more becoming devotion. It is no doubt a mistake to put God too far away
from us, and Islam, especially in its rigid theological system, as
developed after the death of Mohammed, made this mistake. But, on the
other hand, familiarity breeds contempt, and the light-minded Arabs were
inclined to this extreme. The old fear of the gods had largely
disappeared. Mohammed renewed the fear of God by showing a God worthy of
being feared, the fear of whom could become genuine reverence. The idea
of this God came to him from the Bible, but colored by the Jewish or
Christian conceptions current in that age. It was perhaps inevitable
that his idea should fall short of the Biblical fulness. Had it been
more adequate, it would perhaps have been less adapted to the people to
whom he made it known. The wonder is that, unlettered as he was, himself
the child of heathenism, and receiving the Biblical conception through
so imperfect a medium, he was able to assimilate so much, and to present
it so powerfully to his equally rude and untaught countrymen.

Footnote 155:

  Sura 109.

Footnote 156:

  Weil, _Das Leben Mohammed’s nach Mohammed Ibn Ishak bearbeitet von Ibn
  Hischam_ (1864), I., p. 108.

Footnote 157:

  Sprenger, _Leben Muhammed’s_, I., p. 83.

Footnote 158:

  59^{22-24}.

Footnote 159:

  23^{86-92}.

Footnote 160:

  Dozy, _Essai sur l’Histoire de l’Islamisme_ (1879), p. 5.

Footnote 161:

  6^{100}.

Footnote 162:

  28^{62f} and 4^{117}.

Footnote 163:

  With Lev. 17^7 cf. 2 Chron. 11^{15}. With Deut. 32^{17} cf. Ps.
  106^{37}. Gunkel combines with these Ps. 40^5 where the idols are
  called _rehabim_: “evil beings, enemies to man.”

Footnote 164:

  I. Cor. 10^{20}.

Footnote 165:

  29^{46}.

Footnote 166:

  7^{28} and 2^{258 f}. The word _Taghut_ used for the false gods is
  obscure; but there can be no doubt of its meaning in this context.

Footnote 167:

  The word _Rabb_, Mohammed’s word for _Lord_, is not used of God in
  Hebrew. In Aramaic it is said to be so used by the Mandæans
  (Michaelis, _Lexicon Syr._ sub voce). This is another indication that
  Mohammed’s ideas were derived from some “heretical” source.

Footnote 168:

  51^{30}, 79^{16}, 51^{44}, cf. 69^{10}.

Footnote 169:

  1^1, cf. 69^{13}. The word for _worlds_ (or _ages_ it may be) is
  borrowed from the Aramaic, whether Christian or Jewish is impossible
  to tell. Cf. I. Tim. 1^{17}.

Footnote 170:

  _Mishcat_, II., 650.

Footnote 171:

  3^{42}, 16^{42}.

Footnote 172:

  11^9, cf. 50^{37}, 57^4.

Footnote 173:

  50^{37}.

Footnote 174:

  41 (8-11).

Footnote 175:

  13^{2-4, 13-17}.

Footnote 176:

  For the Biblical phraseology consult Gen. 1^{1, 11}, Ps. 19^5,
  104^{19}, Is. 42^5, Ps. 65^7, 104^{14}, 29. Other passages will
  suggest themselves to the reader.

Footnote 177:

  64^1.

Footnote 178:

  9^{79}, cf. 21^{110}.

Footnote 179:

  58^8, cf. 3^{27}.

Footnote 180:

  Ps. 139^{16}, cf. Koran 13^9.

Footnote 181:

  6^{59}, cf. Matt. 10^{29}.

Footnote 182:

  7^{52}.

Footnote 183:

  3^{25}, cf. I. Sam. 2^7.

Footnote 184:

  45^{2-5}.

Footnote 185:

  “The Apostle of God said: When God created the creation He wrote a
  book which is near Him upon the imperial throne, and what is written
  in it is this: Verily My compassion overcomes My anger.”—_Mishcat_,
  I., p. 563.

Footnote 186:

  23^{117}.

Footnote 187:

  68^{17 ff}.

Footnote 188:

  18^{23}, cf. James 4^{15}.

Footnote 189:

  3^{134}.

Footnote 190:

  42^{26}.

Footnote 191:

  21^{36}.

Footnote 192:

  37^{106}, cf. 2^{118}.

Footnote 193:

  38^{43}.

Footnote 194:

  5^{95}.

Footnote 195:

  3^{13} and 51^{15 f}.

Footnote 196:

  3^{104}.

Footnote 197:

  13^{33}.

Footnote 198:

  3^{24}.

Footnote 199:

  3^9.

Footnote 200:

  21^{48}.

Footnote 201:

  Compare Rom. 14^{12}, I. Sam. 2^3, Ps. 62^{10}, Dan. 5^{27}.

Footnote 202:

  40^{10}.

Footnote 203:

  4^{95}, cf. 2^{58}.

Footnote 204:

  5^{65} and 48^6.

Footnote 205:

  Ex. 32^{10}, Ps. 7^{12}, and Rom. 1^{18}.

Footnote 206:

  16^{63}.

Footnote 207:

  Ps. 130^3.

Footnote 208:

  3^{172}, cf. Gen. 15^{16}.

Footnote 209:

  Acts 17^{30}, cf. Kor. 5^{96}.

Footnote 210:

  40^{1-3}.

Footnote 211:

  Ex. 34^{6, 7}.

Footnote 212:

  The word used is _Kaffara_, corresponding to the Hebrew Kapporeth.
  _Fidya_, redemption, is also from a root used in Hebrew. But Arabic
  usage seems independent of Old Testament influence in this case.

Footnote 213:

  11^8.

Footnote 214:

  67^{19}.

Footnote 215:

  6^{153}.

Footnote 216:

  16^{18}, cf. Ps. 40^6.

Footnote 217:

  Dozy, _L’Islamisme_, p. 315.

Footnote 218:

  50^{15}.

Footnote 219:

  Cf. Kattenbusch, _Confessionskunde_, I., p. 461.

Footnote 220:

  The word is obscure and the Arabs themselves are divided as to its
  meaning. I choose among the meanings (or conjectures) the word most
  appropriate to the context. The authorities are given by Sprenger,
  _Leben Muhammed’s_, II., p. 45 ff.; Muir, _Life of Mahomet_, II., p.
  150 ff.

Footnote 221:

  Daughters are inferior to sons in the view of the Arabs, cf. 43^{16}.

Footnote 222:

  53^{19-23}.

Footnote 223:

  10^{19}, 21^{26-29}.

Footnote 224:

  6^{51} and cf. 2^{15}.

Footnote 225:

  Cf. _Mishcat_, II., p. 603 ff.

Footnote 226:

  The adjective form _rahmani_ occurs once in the Old Testament, Lam.
  4^{10}. For the Talmud cf. Levy, N. H. W. B. _sub voce_, and Geiger in
  Z. D. M. G., XXI., p. 488 ff. The latter also discusses the Syriac
  use. For the inscriptions, Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte Arabiens_
  (1889), pp. 4, 13.

Footnote 227:

  19^{46}, 20^4, 19^{59, 45, 88}.

Footnote 228:

  17^{110}.

Footnote 229:

  W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 31 ff.

Footnote 230:

  Harnack, _Grundriss d. Dogmengeschichte_^2, p. 35.

Footnote 231:

  W. R. Smith, _op. cit._, p. 47.

Footnote 232:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 187.




                               LECTURE V.
                         THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT


In the last lecture we saw that in the system of Mohammed, God is the
Ruler of the universe. He is the King, the Lord of the ages. Like the
Biblical writers, Mohammed conceived this very literally. To him God is
the active mover of the constellations and the seasons. Our notion of
second causes or of a fixed law of nature had not entered his mind. God
works by means of His creatures, but His direct command passes upon them
for each of their acts. In this sense he delegates a part of His power
to man. In the account of the creation of man, God says that He is about
to place a vicegerent on the earth; and again: “Do you not see that God
has made subservient to you what is in the heavens and what is in the
earth?”[233] The doctrine, as you discover, is that of the Bible. Man is
the ruler over nature, and nature is created for man’s use and benefit.

The existence of intelligent creatures who are strictly obedient to God
makes no difficulty with His government. But when we assert the freedom
of these creatures, there is implied a possibility that they may act
contrary to His command, and a problem emerges. As soon as we assert the
existence of sin the problem becomes acute. For sin is the freedom of
the created will asserting itself against the will of the Creator. This
is the great question with which philosophy has wrestled since first man
began to reflect upon his relation to the universe.

The question assumes its largest proportions in monotheism. In
polytheism there is no single will which claims to rule the sum of
things. The gods are necessarily limited in power, because there are
several of them. In dualism the solution is found by assuming an eternal
conflict between two powers—a solution which projects the shadow of evil
into the infinite both before and behind. For Mohammed, with whom we
have now to deal, this solution had no attractions, and he does not
betray an acquaintance with it even in his polemic.

The most religious minds seem to answer our problem by determinism—that
is, they cling to the sovereignty of God and let the freedom of the
creature exist only in appearance. Even in heathenism this theory
asserts itself. The Greeks in their theology found room for an
all-deciding fate against whom Zeus himself was powerless. The heathen
Arab saw in what went on around him the working of Destiny—a power that
rules the world and accomplishes its will in spite of gods and men. The
Bedawy (says Wellhausen) is the independent man—“his own arm helps him,
and his brother; no god assists him; he commends his soul to no saint.
Allah is to him fate, and nothing more: Fate is generally spoken of
without qualification—not as the decree of Allah. But the conviction
that all is decreed and predestined spurs on the Arab hero and poet to
do what he has undertaken without consideration of danger. ‘Fear not to
march against danger, for the danger which a man tries to avoid is just
the one that he meets’—the dog bites the one who is afraid of him.
Fatalism, if we may call it so, does not lead the Arab to fold his hands
in his bosom. On the contrary, it is the source of desperate energy—it
is of no use to avoid death; therefore Forward! And, further, the
certainty of death is a motive to give freely and not to be anxious for
the morrow; ‘I know that an evening is coming, after which no fear and
no want can befall me; then I shall make the House of Truth a long
visit. Why, then, should I take care for that which decays and falls
into ruins? Let others foul their watering-places; I will keep my camels
ready to slay for the guest.’”[234]

We have heard so much of _Moslem_ fatalism that we are accustomed to
ascribe this doctrine to Mohammed. But this extract shows that it was
already current before his time. Not unlikely the popular idea of it is
derived from later literature. You remember the story of Ajeeb in “A
Thousand and One Nights.” Ajeeb was shipwrecked on an uninhabited
island. Seeing a boat approach, he screened himself from observation and
watched. He saw a party land and enter a subterranean dwelling, prepared
with great care. There they left a young man and departed, concealing
the only door to the hiding-place. The young man is one for whom an
astrologer has predicted death at the hands of Ajeeb on a day
certain—now near at hand. The father takes this means of protecting his
son. But fate is inexorable. Against his own will, Ajeeb strikes the
fatal blow and the prophecy is fulfilled to the letter. As the writer
says in an apt quotation:

    “We trod the steps appointed for us: and the man whose steps are
    appointed must tread them.

    He whose death is decreed to take place in a certain land, will not
    die in any land but that.”[235]

More impressive perhaps, and preserving more of the primitive sense of
that Destiny which broods over the world, are such stories as that of
the City of Brass. The traveller through the desert sees in the distance
a lofty city wall. He approaches it, but meets no living being. He
enters its streets and walks through its palaces. Spacious halls open
before him, shaded courts, lofty pavilions. But all are empty. If the
inhabitants can be said to exist, they exist only in the form of
statues, having been turned into stone by an inexorable decree. And the
visitor fails not to find a tablet graven with an admonition which
recites the shortness of life, the vanity of worldly pomp and pleasure,
and the certainty of fate. He reads and is overcome by emotion. He
bursts into tears or falls in a swoon. And when he recovers, he goes
forth in sadness reflecting on the lot of man.[236]

What I am trying to show is that the fatalistic doctrine of which we now
speak runs through Arab literature. It is found in the early poets; it
is found in the later story-tellers. The latter are, to be sure,
influenced by the theologians, and these claim to represent the mind of
Mohammed. But we must not too readily assume that they correctly
represent the mind of Mohammed. It is not impossible that they are under
a bias. In Islam, as in other religions, the fiercest battles have been
fought over this very question of predestination and freedom. The two
elements of the problem being really irreconcilable, two parties arose,
according as one factor or the other was emphasized. When Greek
philosophy was made known to Moslem thinkers under the Abbaside Caliphs,
there came into prominence a rationalistic school of theologians called
the Motazilites, that is: the Seceders. We are not here concerned with
their theology in general. The point which interests us is that they
denied an absolute decree or predestination on the part of God. They did
this with the desire to protect the responsibility of man as a free
agent, and also with the desire to establish the justice of God. For
they reasoned that, if the actions of man are done in accordance with an
unalterable decree, there is no justice in punishing. They call
themselves therefore _believers in the Unity and Justice of God_. Their
teaching on this point is set forth by a native authority[237] in these
words: “They affirm that man has freedom and that he is the originator
of his actions, both good and bad, and that he is therefore a being who
deserves reward and punishment in the next world for what he has done.
But [they affirm] that God cannot be brought into connection with evil
and unrighteousness and unbelief and disobedience [as their cause]. For
as He is righteous when He brings forth righteousness, so He would be
unrighteous if He were the cause of unrighteousness.” So far the
Motazilites. Their opponents took their stand on the divine omnipotence
and did not shrink from the conclusion that God is the author of sin,
and that man has no power over his own acts.[238] Although the school
which finally prevailed tried to mediate, its members rescued for man
only the semblance of freedom. The accepted Mohammedan theology is
undoubtedly deterministic.

For this reason we must look with suspicion on some of the traditions
which ascribe to Mohammed high predestinarianism. We have already found
reason to believe that traditions were invented by the adherents of the
different theological schools, in order to secure the Prophet’s name for
their doctrine. One such tradition, as I believe, has done much to form
our idea of Moslem fatalism. It is the one given by Palgrave in these
words: “When God resolved to create the human race, He took into His
hands a mass of earth—the same whence all mankind were to be formed, and
in which they after a manner pre-existed. Having divided the clod into
two parts, He threw the one-half into hell and said: These to eternal
fire and I care not; and projected the other half into heaven, adding:
These to Paradise and I care not.”[239] So far as this tradition makes
the impression of brutal indifference on the part of God, we need not
hesitate to say that it misrepresents the mind of Mohammed. The
impression made by the whole body of traditions on this subject is very
different. Even the one which is nearest in form to the one just quoted,
and which may be a modification of the same tradition, has a different
tone: “God created Adam and struck him on the right side and brought out
white children—you would say they were pearls; then He struck his left
side and brought out black children, you would say they were coals. Then
God said: Those of the right side are towards Paradise, and I have no
fear; and He said of those of the left side: They are towards hell and I
have no fear.”[240] The words translated _I have no fear_ may indeed
mean _I have no concern in the matter_. But they may mean also: I have
no fear that their actions will not bear out what I have determined
concerning them. This latter is at least a plausible interpretation, as
we see from another tradition, which is given in immediate connection
with the foregoing, and which is reported thus: “God took an engagement
from the family of Adam, and brought out a family from the back of Adam
and scattered them before Him. After that God spoke to them in his
presence saying: Am not I your Creator? They said: Yes, we bear witness
to Thy Godhead—_that they might not plead ignorance_ on the Day of
Resurrection.” This tradition is quite opposed to the doctrine of
arbitrary election. The evident endeavor is to supply a reason for men’s
final sentence. The reason why the unbelievers are condemned is that
they have acted contrary to the profession which they made in their
pre-existent state—hence God can justly punish them for apostasy. This
tradition is moreover almost identical with a Koran verse: “God took the
descendants of the sons of Adam from their backs, and made them testify
against themselves: Am not I your Lord? They replied: Yea, we testify.
This was that you might not say at the Resurrection: We were forgetful
in this matter, or should say: It was only that our fathers were
idolaters aforetime and we are their posterity; wilt Thou destroy us for
what the liars have done?”[241] We may also cite here another tradition:
“Mohammed was asked about the children of idolaters, whether they would
go to heaven or hell. He replied: God knows best what their actions
would have been; it depends upon this.” In another place he says that
infants are born with natural religion; their parents give them the
special turn of Jew or Christian.[242] Once more we are told that when a
believer is examined after death, he is shown the place prepared for him
in the Fire, which God has exchanged for a seat in Paradise. Here is no
absolute predestination, but provision for a double possibility, the
final decision depending on the actions of the individual.

Mohammed, according to these indications, was not what we should call a
fatalist. In fact, he was not a systematic theologian. He knew nothing
of philosophy, and the endeavor to teach it to him would probably have
failed. But he was a man of religious conviction. His statements on the
doctrine before us are to be interpreted by his religious, not by any
dogmatic, faith. All of us who have a living faith in a living God
accept His sovereignty over the universe. So far as this is in us, we
interpret the experience of our daily lives in conformity with His rule
over the universe. Our comfort in adversity is that our Father does all
things well, and our joy in prosperity springs from the thought that it
is He who is active in providing for our wants. The religious leader
encourages and comforts his followers by this faith. If they lose heart,
he points them to God who is able to help, and who surely will not
abandon the right. If they meet misfortune, he gives them the assurance
that even this is in God’s plan for them. When they are successful he
makes the success confirm their faith that God is working for them. In
all this, emphasis is naturally laid upon the almighty power and the
all-determining will of God. Mohammed’s declarations on this point are
to be explained along these lines. They are not philosophical
propositions concerning the universal scheme of things. They are the
application of a living faith to the particular circumstances of an
individual experience. When his situation was gloomy or even (to human
eye) desperate, he was compelled to take strong hold on the power and
grace of God. He says: “Every condition is best for the believer.... If
he is pleased, he thanks God; and if his condition is bad he has
patience, for which he is rewarded.” This is _not_ the statement of a
theory of the universe. It is an expression of religious trust, a trust
which traces one’s individual lot to the goodness of God. It reminds us
of the Biblical assertion that all things work together for good to them
that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.[243]
Again we read in a tradition: “Seek for that which will benefit you, and
ask God for assistance, and do not tire in so doing; and if any
misfortune befalls you do not say: If I had done so and so; but say: God
ordained it, and He does what He will—because the word _if_ opens the
Devil’s business.”[244] This was a practical philosophy of human life.
It was not intended to be a speculative reconciliation of sovereignty
and freedom.

If the speculative question was ever forced upon Mohammed, he probably
declined to answer it. He came once upon a company engaged in debating
about fate; and he became angry, so that he was red in the face, and
said: “Has God ordered you to debate of fate, or was I sent to you for
this? Your forefathers were destroyed for debating about fate and
destiny. I adjure you not to argue on these points.”[245] This tradition
seems to me much less likely to have been invented than some of the
others we have been considering, and it therefore seems to me more
nearly to represent the mind of the Prophet. He had no idea of laying
upon the doctrine of the divine decrees the emphasis which was afterward
laid upon it by the dogmatic theologians. We shall bear this in mind in
examining the statements of the Koran—and the Koran is here, as
elsewhere, our most valuable source.

At the beginning of his mission the mind of Mohammed was occupied with
the great thought of the Day of Judgment. Nearly all the earliest suras
dwell upon this subject. The terrors which usher in the Day are
described with great variety of imagery, and these descriptions are
followed by a picture of Paradise with its bliss, or of Gehenna with its
torments. The implication of this whole series of revelations is that
man is responsible. He is punished or rewarded for his actions, and
these (we may conclude) are within his own power. The terms in which the
evil-doers are described generally express an activity. When the angels
say that they are sent against a people of _evil-doers_, we notice that
it is an active participle of the most active form of the verb that is
used. The same people are described a little later on as
_transgressors_—those who pass beyond the due bounds. Thamud _turned
with disdain_ from the commandment of their Lord; Pharaoh, and before
him, the people of the cities which were overturned for their sin,
_disobeyed_ the messenger of their Lord.[246] He who receives his book
in his left hand at the Judgment has his indictment formulated in these
terms: “He did not believe in God Most High, nor did he emulate others
in feeding the poor.”[247] It agrees with these words of action that
jinn and men are created only _to serve God_ but that they
disobeyed.[248] Man was created upright, therefore, but sought out many
inventions. Even where it is said that man was created with natural
infirmities, it is implied that these do not interfere with his
responsibility. The plain and obvious interpretation of these passages
is in line with the declaration of Ezekiel, who rejected with
indignation the thought that the children are punished for the sins of
the parents, and who proclaimed with all his energy: The soul that
sinneth it shall die.

We find it distinctly asserted in a second group of passages, that
recompense is according to works: “Those who believe and do good works
receive an unstinted reward”—“these receive a garden in which the
streams flow perennially.”[249] This is set forth figuratively in the
words: “He whose scale is heavy shall have a life of delight, but he
whose scale is light, his dwelling is the abyss.” “On that day a man
shall be told what he brought forward and what he kept back—yea a man
shall be witness against himself, though he proffer his excuses.”[250]
Whether there is a specific reference here to sins of commission and
sins of omission as is sometimes supposed, it cannot be doubted that the
enumeration of sins is in order to a proportionate punishment. Those who
are condemned will know that it is because of what they have done:
“Every soul is a pledge for what it has gained—but the men of the right
hand when in the garden shall ask the evil-doers: What thrust you into
the Fire? They will reply: We were not in the habit of prayer and we did
not feed the poor, and we used to enter into idle discourse with the
vain talkers, and we used to deny the coming of the Judgment Day.”[251]
Quite in accord with this is the following: “Has [the unbeliever] not
been told of what is in the rolls of Moses and of Abraham, who was
faithful, _namely_: that no soul is burdened with the burden of another,
and that a man receives only that which he has wrought, and that he
shall certainly be shown his work? Then shall he be recompensed with a
complete recompense.”[252] As Mohammed professes to quote here from the
earlier Scriptures we may look for a Biblical reminiscence. And we find
a close parallel in a New Testament passage which declares that _each
man shall bear his own burden_, and in that connection we read:
“whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

The same doctrine is virtually contained in the frequent exhortations to
repent which we find in this early period. There have been preachers who
called men to repentance, though convinced that men had no ability to
follow the call. But we must remember that Mohammed had no theological
training. With him the natural supposition is that when he called men to
turn from their evil ways, they had some power of choice in the matter.
So we interpret the questions addressed to the unhappy inhabitants of
hell—“Why did you not believe?” or, “Why did you not reflect?” or again,
“Why were you not grateful?”[253] Even Pharaoh has the possibility of
repentance, for Moses says to him: “Wilt thou purify thyself, that I may
direct thee to thy Lord and thou shalt fear Him?”[254] It is to the same
effect when we find two alternatives set before man, that he may make a
choice: “We led him to the two roads, but he does not climb the ascent.
How wilt thou know what is the ascent? It is the setting free of the
slave, and the nourishment of one’s orphan kinsmen in the day of famine,
or the feeding of the poor who cleaves to the dust.”[255]

If at this period of his activity the Prophet had had the doctrine of
absolute predestination in mind, it is probable that he would have
asserted it in connection with some of these passages. But he does not
assert it, even in expressing his idea of God’s method of working. What
we find emphasized is not God’s decree, but His knowledge: “Does not the
unbeliever know that God sees?”—“Doth he not know that when what is in
the graves comes forth and what is in the breasts is brought to light,
in that day their Lord will be informed concerning them?”[256] Another
expression of the same thing is the figure of the heavenly book. There
are passages in which this is apparently the book of fate, but these are
later. The primary conception was of a book of record. It is said of the
one who receives his book behind his back: “He thought indeed that he
would not be put to grief; but his Lord was observant of him.” This
record is made by the angels: “And verily there are over you guardians,
holy scribes who know what you do.”[257] In a passage which probably
refers to the actions of men, God says: “They indeed did not fear an
accounting, and accused Our revelation of falsehood. But we registered
everything in a book. Taste then! We will only increase your
punishment.”[258] To the same effect are the passages already alluded
to, in which God is said to try men. For this period further, the
assertion that God _directs_ men does not mean that He exerts
irresistible grace. The verb is used of one who puts travellers in the
desert on the right path. He points out the road, as Moses pointed it
out to Pharaoh. It does not follow that the direction will be effectual.
In the early revelations, which we are now considering, God is not said
to lead men astray. He knows those who go astray and He knows those who
let themselves be guided,[259] is the utmost that is affirmed.

As we turn to the later sections of the Koran we notice first, that the
view we have been considering is still affirmed: “Observe prayer and
give alms; whatever good you lay up in store for yourselves you shall
find in the presence of God.”[260] The verse reminds us of the New
Testament exhortation to lay up treasures in heaven. “O, you who
believe, you have the care of your own souls; do yourselves no harm!
Whoever goes astray after you have been rightly guided—you shall all be
brought to God and He will inform you of your actions.”[261] The
doctrine of recompense is here sharply asserted, and it is assumed that
there is a possibility of going astray even after once being guided into
the right path. Again we hear: “O, Men, the truth has come to you from
your Lord; whoever lets himself be guided does so to his own benefit,
and whoever goes astray does so to his own hurt.”[262] That God is a
ready reckoner is frequently affirmed and also that He is just—not
wronging one “even to the snapping of the fingers.”[263] God tests men
moreover, and He puts their actions upon record just as was affirmed in
the earlier period.[264]

But in this later period we find a distinctly more pronounced theory
that God’s activity extends even into the sphere of human choice. We can
see to a certain extent how this problem became more complex as the
Prophet advanced in his career. At first he was controlled by the great
thought of the Judgment and its near approach. This thought and the
consequent duty of warning men, absorbed him. For the world about him,
he assumed one simple thing—that every one should repent and accept his
message. But as time went on, he was perplexed not only by the delay of
the Judgment—he never claimed to know its exact date—but by the
obstinacy of the unbelievers. A few men recognized his mission—enough to
show that there was something in his message. But the majority were
rendered apparently more obstinate, for they passed from simple
indifference to active hostility. The problem of the divine will and the
human will assumed a practical meaning. It was now a question whether
God could allow His designs to be thwarted. The little communion of
Moslems looked to their Prophet to answer them this question. For their
relief and to strengthen his own soul, he was compelled to assert that
even the evil actions, unbelief, and persecutions, of the wicked are
within the plan of God.

This ground was apparently taken even at Mecca. The experience at Medina
only fortified the position. For at Medina an infant state was
struggling into existence. The little community had frequent occasion to
realize that God’s ways are not as our ways. Sometimes, indeed, His care
was notably manifest. But quite as often the expectations of the
believers were disappointed. They were visited by fever; they suffered
from famine; they were disappointed by the lukewarmness or even
hostility of some in whom they trusted. The Jews were a thorn in their
side. Instead of becoming converts or, at least, allies of the Prophet,
they plotted against him, murmured at his claims, insinuated doubts of
his mission, and provoked his followers to break the peace. It is
evident that the problem of the universe was becoming more complicated.

We are able to trace the working of the Prophet’s mind on one phase of
this problem with considerable distinctness. In the second year after
the Flight he fought a successful battle against the Meccans at a place
called Bedr. As the first pitched battle of Islam, this encounter
deserves a place among the decisive battles of the world; for had the
Moslems been defeated it is not unlikely that their movement would have
ceased to be important; and in this case the face of the world’s history
would have been entirely changed. The victory was the more remarkable,
in that Mohammed had only three hundred men against nine hundred and
fifty of the Meccans. The decisive victory was taken at Medina to be a
pledge of God’s presence and approval, and at the same time as a
foretaste of His judgment on His enemies. The eye of faith even saw the
angels engage in the battle on the side of truth, and we may be sure
that no questions were raised when the Prophet used the event as an
illustration of God’s will toward the believers.

The difficulty came when, a year later at Ohod, the Moslems suffered a
humiliating defeat at the hands of the same foe, upon which they had
seen the vengeance of God take effect at Bedr. On human reasoning,
indeed, the defeat was easily accounted for. The Moslems were
overconfident. They disregarded the advice of the wiser heads, and,
instead of acting on the defensive, rushed to the conflict against large
odds.[265] At the first appearance of success, the archers posted by
Mohammed to defend his left flank deserted their station in the hope of
booty. All this makes us wonder that the defeat was not more complete
than it actually was. But, in any case, it was a bitter experience to
men who had counted on the continued favor of God. It became necessary
for Mohammed to explain the ways of God and this he does, as follows:
“If you suffer from wounds, so have other peoples suffered from the
like; and We make the fortune of men in battle vary, that God may know
those who believe and may take from you witnesses[266] (God loves not
the evil-doers); and that God may try those who believe, and may destroy
the unbelievers. Or do you think to enter Paradise before God knows
those of you who are zealous and steadfast?... A soul does not die
except by the permission of God [contained in] a definite decree.”[267]
The speaker then points out that God is faithful to His promise, but
that the believers had been seduced by the booty and had disobeyed their
leader. He then adds: “Their desires mislead them to think unjustly of
God—thoughts of heathenism—in that they said: Have we any part in this
affair? Say to them: The whole belongs to God. They conceal in their
hearts what they do not reveal to thee, saying: If we had had our way in
the matter we [that is, our brethren] had not been slain here. Say: Had
ye remained in your houses, yet those whose death was decreed would have
gone forth to the places where they lie, that God might search what is
in your breasts and might try what is in your hearts. God knows what is
in the breasts of men. As for those who turned back on the day of
encounter, Satan made them slip for something which they had done. But
God has pardoned them—God is forgiving and forbearing. O Believers! Be
not like the unbelievers, who say concerning their brethren, when they
travel or are on a raid: If they had remained with us they had not died,
or they had not been slain. [This came to pass] that God might place
grief in their hearts—God giveth life or giveth death, and God knows
what you do.”[268] Making allowance for a little incoherence, we find
here a full statement of the later position of Mohammed, a position
which we may summarize under two heads.

1. All comes to pass by the decree of God. He has ordained even the
defeat of the believers, as He inflicted similar defeat upon other
generations: “How many a prophet has there been with whom many thousands
have fought, yet they did not faint at what came upon them in the cause
of God, nor did they grow weak nor submit—God loves the persevering.
Their only word was: Our Lord, forgive our sins and our transgressions
in the cause committed to us; establish our footsteps and help us
against the unbelievers.”[269] The old point of view, that this is for
the purpose of testing believers, is still held, but new points of view
are opened. The decree is made more absolute. It sets the term of a
man’s life, so that he will go to meet death at the appointed time, no
matter what efforts are made to detain him. Other men might have
remained at home on the day of Ohod, but those whose death was decreed
would have gone forth to the field of death in spite of all. So we find
in other places: “Death will overtake you, even though you be in lofty
fortresses.” The book of record now becomes a book of fate: “None
receives long life, and the life of no one is cut short, except it is
[recorded] in a book.”[270]

2. We find more distinctly affirmed that God is active in the unbelief
of man. He now leads some astray, as well as leads some into the right
path. As we had reason to suppose that His guidance is simply the
pointing out of the right path, in which men are free to walk or not, we
might also think that even if He presents misleading indications, men
have the ability to disregard these and still to find the right path.
But the weakness of man is such that when God misleads him he is sure to
go wrong. In such a case there is no hope of the man, he is irrevocably
lost. Such is evidently the teaching of the Koran in the period we have
now reached. “If thy Lord had willed, all that are in the earth would
have believed. Wilt thou then force men to believe? It is not possible
for a soul to believe except by permission of its Lord.” “God leads
astray whom He will and leads aright whom He will; He is the Powerful,
the Wise.” “Whom God leads astray, for him thou wilt not find a road.”
“And why should you be divided concerning the hypocrites, when God has
overturned them on account of what they have done? Wilt _thou_ direct
those whom God has led astray?”[271] Yet, although the action of God may
be supposed to be irresistible in such cases, we find a certain
synergism (to use a theological term) allowed. Man co-operates in his
own salvation, and man also has part in his own destruction. God
conducts to Himself _him who repents_,[272] but the wicked are not
directed because they will not be: “How shall God guide aright a people
who disbelieve after once believing and testifying that the Apostle is
true, when [also] evident proofs have come to them? God will not guide
the people who do evil.”[273]

On this last point we find a variety of statements. In some cases men
are said to be blinded by the seductions of the world: “Cease from those
who use their religion as a sport and a pastime, whom the life of the
world has beguiled; and remind them that a soul is corrupted by what it
has acquired.”[274] But this life of the world is ordained of God for
this purpose. Moses prays thus: “O Lord, Thou hast given Pharaoh and his
nobles pomp and riches in this world _to make them wander_ from Thy
path; Our Lord, destroy their riches and harden their hearts, that they
may not believe until they see exemplary punishment.”[275] In other
passages God is more directly active on the hearts of the wicked: “There
are those who come to listen to thee, but on whose hearts _We have
placed veils_ lest they should understand, and in whose ears deafness;
and if they should see every kind of sign they would not believe in
it—so that they would [even then] come disputing with thee and saying:
Verily this is nought but old wives’ fables.” “These are they whose
hearts and hearing and sight _God has sealed_: they are the heedless and
without doubt they shall be the losers in the world to come.” And again:
“When thou recitest the Koran, We place between thee and those who do
not believe in the world to come, a thick veil, and We have placed on
their hearts coverings that they may not understand, and in their ears
deafness; and when thou namest thy Lord, the Only One, in the
recitation, they turn away in disgust.”[276] In these and other passages
we must not lose sight of the possibility that God’s activity is
conceived of as the infliction of _judicial_ blindness. By the divine
ordering, the man’s sin becomes a cause of further sin: “That which they
have done has covered their hearts” we read in one place; and again: “We
turn away their hearts and eyes [from the truth] _because_ they do not
believe in it at the first, and We leave them to wander about in their
disobedience.”[277]

On the other hand, Satan is the agent who brings men into sin, though
not without the divine permission. He himself was tried by God and
disobeyed. He then asked a reprieve from his sentence for a time, that
he might become the tempter of men. He received permission and began his
career with our first parents: “Satan made them slip from Paradise and
brought them out from the place where they were.”[278] And he is still
active: “Those of you who turned their backs in the day of
encounter—this was only because Satan caused them to slip, for something
which they had done.”[279] The passage is noteworthy because the new
temptation was a penalty for sin already committed. But whatever takes
place, all is so thoroughly in the plan of God that He is said to have
created men for this purpose: “If thy Lord had willed He would have made
mankind one people. But [as it is] they will not cease disputing, except
the one on whom thy Lord has mercy. And for this He created them, and
the word of thy Lord shall surely be accomplished [to wit]: “Verily I
will fill Gehenna with men and with jinn.”[280]

If what has been said is correct, we must admit that Mohammed held both
sides of the doctrine we are considering. He had the religious sense
which affirms God’s absolute sovereignty; at the same time he had the
moral sense which declares man’s responsibility for his sin and the
justice of his punishment. The latter judgment was more prominent in his
earlier life, the other was added to it at a later time. But at no time
was he a fatalist, for we mean by fatalism the assertion of God’s
activity to the entire extinction of human freedom. In holding on to the
two apparently contradictory propositions, he was in line with most
religious leaders—certainly in line with the Biblical writers. Every one
of the sentences quoted from the Koran can be paralleled by a verse from
the Bible. The prophets, as preachers of righteousness, emphasize the
self-origination of the sinner’s acts. They describe the evil-doers in
the same terms of activity which we have read in the Koran. Israel is “a
sinning nation ... children who corrupt their way; they have forsaken
Yahweh, they have rejected the Holy One of Israel, they have estranged
themselves, turning backward.”[281] Elsewhere the wicked are described
as violent, as corrupters, as oppressors, as shedders of blood, as
transgressors of the commandments. The resemblance to the terms cited
above is striking. Another parallel is in the call to repent and in the
assertion of the justice of God, both which could be abundantly
illustrated by quotation. God’s knowledge of men’s actions is spoken of
in almost the same terms employed by Mohammed—including the book of
record: “I saw a great white throne and Him that sat upon it, from whose
face earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne;
and books were opened ... and the dead were judged out of the things
which were written in the books, according to their works.”[282] So
thoroughly had Mohammed adopted the Biblical idea that we should have no
sense of incongruity were we to find this passage incorporated bodily in
the Koran. In this, as in some other matters that we have considered, he
had apprehended and adopted the Biblical position.

And in his later doctrine he was also in line with Biblical assertions.
The perplexities which beset him were not unlike what the Prophets of
Israel met. It seems ludicrous to compare the battle of Ohod to the
capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar. And yet, on a small scale, the
battle of Ohod was a test of faith to the infant Islam quite similar in
its effects to the capture of Jerusalem as it appeared to believing
Hebrews. The Prophets were driven in this great crisis to take a firmer
hold on God as the ruler of the universe. They were compelled to clarify
their view of the test imposed by calamity; and they came out of the
conflict with the conviction that if God’s ways are not our ways, this
is because His ways are higher than our ways. Mohammed’s declarations
are a weaker echo of these. But they are enough to show that he had
apprehended and appropriated their thought.

In other particulars than those just mentioned we may discover Biblical
influence. The sinner’s destruction of himself, for example, is affirmed
in those passages which speak of him that digs a pit and falls into it
himself, or of him whose violence comes down on his own head. Again: it
is “because men do not like to retain God in their knowledge” that God
gives them up to a reprobate mind.[283] If men are said in the Koran to
be beguiled by the world so they are in the New Testament: “The cares of
the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the Word.”[284] In both
documents also, Satan is the tempter. Where the part of God is
prominently in the mind of the Biblical writer, he does not hesitate to
say that God blinds those who sin. Isaiah is commanded: “Make the heart
of this people fat [that is, stupid] and make their ears heavy, and shut
[literally, plaster over] their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and
hear with their ears and understand with their heart, and turn again and
be healed.”[285] The Biblical passage goes beyond Mohammed in making the
blindness an effect of the preaching. The familiar texts which speak of
God’s hardening men’s hearts also have their parallel in the Koran, and
to the declaration of the latter that God leads men astray we may
compare: “Why, O Yahweh, dost Thou make us to wander from Thy way—dost
harden our hearts so as not to fear Thee.”[286] Finally, the purpose to
fill Gehenna with men and jinn reminds us that the wicked are sent to
the eternal fire _prepared_ for the devil and his angels.[287]

Our consideration of the divine government up to this point has been
mainly occupied with the problem of sovereignty and freedom. Concerning
these, we find that Mohammed holds positions strictly analogous to those
held by Biblical writers. He had apprehended the Biblical doctrine.
Before leaving the subject we may briefly consider his doctrine of
demons and angels. For it is evident that these also are subjects of the
government of God, and their activity furnishes problems similar to
those presented by the freedom of man. In its strong sense of the
reality of intelligent beings other than man, Islam is in line with
mediæval Christianity and Judaism. With the luxuriant fancy which has
crowded Arabic literature with superhuman agencies we have nothing to
do. But so far as they form a part of Moslem religion we cannot pass
them by.

Arabic heathenism peopled the desert with a class of beings called
collectively _jinn_ (the singular is _jinnee_). We have no word which is
exactly equivalent, so that it is best to retain the Arabic term. The
belief in the jinn goes back to the time when animals were an object of
superstitious reverence. The word _jann_[288] is applied in the Koran to
serpents, and the identity of serpents and jinn was endorsed by Mohammed
himself. At least a tradition tells us of a young Moslem who on return
from the wars had this experience: He found his young wife standing
outside the house, and in jealous anger lifted his spear against her.
She told him to enter the house and see what had driven her forth. He
entered and found a serpent coiled upon the bed. Transfixing it with the
spear he brought it into the court, where it writhed awhile about the
shaft and then died. But at the same time the young man who was holding
the spear also fell dead, though not having received a visible wound.
Mohammed on being questioned declared that this was a _jinnee_, and that
many such who were true believers came into the houses of the Moslems.
The proper method of treating them, he said, was politely to entreat
their departure. Only after three days (the time for which it is
obligatory to entertain a guest) was it lawful to use violence against
them. We see that the line between animals and demons (in the Greek
sense) was not clearly drawn.

Of the belief in this class of beings in the primitive Semitic religion
we have traces in the Old Testament. The satyrs who danced among the
ruins are clearly allied to the jinn, and so are the _shedim_ which we
have already had occasion to mention. In the account of the battle of
Ohod a jinnee named _Hairy-heels_ is said to have proclaimed the death
of Mohammed. As the satyrs of the Hebrew are also hairy beings, this is
a noteworthy coincidence. The night monster Lilith which is mentioned
with the satyrs and which later Judaism classed with the Ghûl belongs in
the same company, and so does Azazel of whom we hear in the book of
Leviticus.[289] Mohammed had therefore a precedent for retaining this
popular superstition in his religion. It enabled him plausibly to
account for some things in heathenism, as we have already seen; and it
furnished a basis for the more complete scheme of angels and devils
which he adopted from Judaism and Christianity.

The early Church had an elaborate theory concerning angels and demons.
An authority on Church history defines the position of the Fathers as
follows: “In regard to the heavenly spirits who belong to the upper
world, and in fact constitute it, the orthodox Fathers hold fast to the
following points: (1) that they were created by God; (2) that they are
endowed with freedom but are without material bodies; (3) that they had
passed through a probation in which part of them had persevered in good,
others had fallen; (4) that the good spirits are organs of the divine
government, and their actions are useful and helpful to man and, indeed,
belong to the means of grace; (5) that the actual evil in the world is
to be attributed to the evil spirits, especially to their chief, the
Devil, and that these have almost unbounded power on earth, but can only
_tempt_ man to sin, not compel him; and that they can be put to flight
by the name of Christ, the sign of the cross, and the sacraments.”[290]
This describes exactly the position of Mohammed except that, for the
means of defence here named, he would substitute _prayer_. This scheme
was combined with the belief in the jinn in such a way that it is not
always easy to distinguish between the various classes of supernatural
beings. Sometimes all are classed as jinn. Iblis is said to be an angel
and he is also said to be of the jinn.[291] In general, however, the
angels appear to be of higher rank.

From the allusions to the jinn in the Koran we make out that Mohammed
carried into their world the division of believers and unbelievers.
They, like men, were created to serve but have disobeyed, and their
reprobation is described in the same terms as the reprobation of men:
“We have created for Gehenna a great number of the jinn and of mankind,
who have hearts with which they do not comprehend, and who have eyes
with which they do not see, and who have ears with which they do not
hear—they are like the brutes, yea, even more wayward: these are the
heedless.”[292] The enmity of the evil ones among them toward mankind,
shows itself in leading men to idolatry: “In the day when He shall
gather them together [He shall say]: O people of the jinn, you have had
too much advantage from men. Then will their devotees say: Our Lord, we
profited each other, and we have reached the term Thou has set for us.
Then will He reply: The Fire is your abode forever.”[293]

We have already noticed the Biblical parallel to this doctrine. Another
point of resemblance is the theory of demoniacal possession. The _Kahin_
or soothsayer in heathen Arabia spoke under the influence of a jinn. The
Old Testament belief that a man could prophesy by means of a familiar
spirit is well known. It is also well known that to the present day in
Mohammedan countries an insane person is supposed to be possessed by a
jinnee. No clear line can here be drawn between the jinn and the Satans.
The latter, however, are certainly borrowed from the older religions.
Their chief is Iblis, whose name is a corruption of _Diabolos_, and
therefore from a Christian source. Iblis was an angel; he refused to bow
to man because he was created of fire, while man was created of
clay—therefore, in his view, man was the inferior. For this disobedience
he was banished from Paradise. In his further career, he became the
tempter of man, and will continue to practise his arts until the final
Judgment. The Satans are his helpers: “They turn men from the path, when
these think they are guided aright.”[294] We are told that Satan says to
a man: Disbelieve! “But when he disbelieves [Satan] says: Verily I am
innocent of thy transgressions: I fear God, the Lord of the worlds.” In
the New Testament also we hear of devils who believe and shudder. Satan
tried Job by sending calamities upon him.[295] Although he has no power
over those who commit themselves to God,[296] he insinuates evil
thoughts into the minds of believers when they are careless, so that he
made even Mohammed forget part of his message.[297] “He makes promises
and excites desires, but Satan promises only in order to deceive.”[298]
All this is done in order to destroy men, though it is not done without
the permission of God; and God’s aim in permitting it, is to prove men’s
faith and steadfastness. That this is in accord with New Testament
teaching, I need not stop to point out.[299] The mind of Mohammed, like
that of the Biblical writers, was concerned with this as a practical
matter. He, like they, saw in the temptation to sin an evil personality
arrayed against the believer. Satan is a wolf to a man, “as a wolf to
the sheep which seizes one separated from the flock”[300]—just as in the
New Testament he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

And if we find the Biblical doctrine adopted for this class of beings,
so we find it adopted for their counterpart, the angels. These were
created to adore God, and they fulfil the purpose of their creation: “To
Him belongs what is in heaven and on earth, and they who are in His
presence are not too proud to serve Him, nor do they tire; they utter
praise by night and by day and do not cease.”[301] How thoroughly
Biblical this is, we see from Isaiah’s vision (where the Seraphim adore
God) and from several passages in the Apocalypse. It is probably a
reminiscence of Isaiah’s vision when the angels are described as having
two, three, or four pair of wings.[302] They carry the throne of God, as
do the living creatures of Ezekiel’s vision.[303] They are, moreover,
the messengers of God and the organs of revelation; and the Biblical
influence goes so far that Mohammed borrows the names Gabriel and
Michael. In the traditions it is uniformly Gabriel who brings the Koran,
and this is apparently the mind of the Prophet, though only once in the
Koran itself does he name Gabriel in connection with the revelations.
You will remember that Gabriel appears in the New Testament as the
bringer of God’s messages.

Besides this, the angels have charge of the believer: “Each one has
attendants who succeed each other, who guard him by the command of
God.”[304] They keep the record of man’s actions: “When the two beings
meet seated at the right and left [of a man], he does not utter a word
that there is not for it a watcher ready.”[305] They are especially
interested in the believer’s worship. When one is praying in the mosque,
the angels do not cease interceding for him, and the Amen of the leader
in worship is taken up and repeated by them.[306] In heaven they
intercede for the believers: “The angels repeat the praise of their Lord
and ask pardon for those on earth.”[307] This goes further than the
Biblical statements, which only say in general that the angels have
charge over the believer and minister to him.[308] But the development
is the same which we find in post-Biblical Christianity.

The results of our inquiry may be summed up in a very few words. In
Mohammed we see the religious conception of a single Ruler of the
universe united with the moral conception of the Supreme Judge. Without
attempting to reconcile these, the Prophet does not hesitate to affirm
them and to apply them to his own circumstances. He extends them also to
the extra-human communities which he adopts partly from Arabic
tradition, and partly from Jewish and Christian belief. Throughout, he
shows dependence on Biblical ideas though without verbal quotation of
Biblical language.

Footnote 233:

  Koran 31^{19}, cf. 2^{28}.

Footnote 234:

  Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_, III., p. 195.

Footnote 235:

  Lane, _A Thousand and One Nights_ (1877), I., p. 136; Beirut edition
  of the text, I., p. 42.

Footnote 236:

  Ibid., III., p. 109 ff.

Footnote 237:

  Schahrastani’s _Religionspartheien und Philosophenschulen_, übersetzt
  von Dr. Th. Haarbrücker (1850), I., p. 43.

Footnote 238:

  Schahrastani, I., pp. 92, 102. Dugat, _Histoire des Philosophes et des
  Théologiens Musulmans_ (1878), p. 45.

Footnote 239:

  I have cited from Hughes’s _Dictionary of Islam_, p. 148, where the
  passage is ascribed to Palgrave, who gives the reference, _Mishcat_,
  Bab-ul-Qadr. I do not find the tradition in the English _Mishcat_.

Footnote 240:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 36.

Footnote 241:

  Koran 7^{171 f}.

Footnote 242:

  _Bochari_, II., p. 95.

Footnote 243:

  Rom. 8^{28}.

Footnote 244:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 517.

Footnote 245:

  _Ibid._, I., p. 31.

Footnote 246:

  Koran 51^{32, 34, 44.} 69^9 73^{16}.

Footnote 247:

  69^{23 f}.

Footnote 248:

  51^{56}.

Footnote 249:

  84^{25}, 85^{11}.

Footnote 250:

  101^{5 f}, 75^{13 f}.

Footnote 251:

  74^{41 ff}.

Footnote 252:

  53^{37 ff}, cf. Gal. 6^{5, 7}.

Footnote 253:

  56^{57, 62, 69}.

Footnote 254:

  79^{19}.

Footnote 255:

  90^{10-16}.

Footnote 256:

  96^{14} and 100^{9 ff}.

Footnote 257:

  84^{14 f}, 82^{10}.

Footnote 258:

  78^{28 ff}.

Footnote 259:

  68^7. There is an apparent exception to this statement in 74^{34}
  where God is said actively to lead astray. But this is an
  interpolation of a later date. In another instance (91^{7, 8}) as
  commonly interpreted, God is said to create the soul and inspire it
  with evil and with good. But as the word translated _inspired_ may
  also mean _taught_, it is safer to suppose that the verse is no
  exception to the consensus of these early suras; and that the meaning
  is simply that God gives the soul a knowledge of good and evil.

Footnote 260:

  2^{104}.

Footnote 261:

  5^{104}.

Footnote 262:

  10^{108}.

Footnote 263:

  4^{123}.

Footnote 264:

  29^2, 54^{52}.

Footnote 265:

  Seven hundred Moslems against three thousand Meccans, the latter also
  better armed.

Footnote 266:

  Or, _martyrs_ as it is ordinarily translated. Those who die in battle
  are especially distinguished.

Footnote 267:

  3^{134-139}.

Footnote 268:

  3^{148 ff}.

Footnote 269:

  3^{140 f}.

Footnote 270:

  4^{80}, 35^{12}.

Footnote 271:

  10^{99 f}, 14^4, 4^{142, 90}, cf. 76^{29 f}, “Whoever will, let him
  take the path to his Lord; but ye _will not_ unless God wills,” and
  Jno. 12^{39}: “Therefore they could not believe.”

Footnote 272:

  42^{12}.

Footnote 273:

  3^{80}.

Footnote 274:

  6^{69, 130}.

Footnote 275:

  10^{88}.

Footnote 276:

  6^{25}, 16^{110}, 17^{47 ff}.

Footnote 277:

  83^{14}, 6^{110}.

Footnote 278:

  2^{34}.

Footnote 279:

  3^{149}.

Footnote 280:

  11^{120}, cf. 32^{13}.

Footnote 281:

  Is. 1^4.

Footnote 282:

  Rev. 20^{11-13}.

Footnote 283:

  Rom. 1^{28}.

Footnote 284:

  Matt. 13^{22}.

Footnote 285:

  Is. 6^{10}.

Footnote 286:

  Is. 63^{17}.

Footnote 287:

  Matt. 25^{41}.

Footnote 288:

  Used also interchangeably with _jinn_. The passage is 28^{31}.

Footnote 289:

  Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 113 ff. The Biblical
  references are Lev. 17^7, Deut. 32^{17}, Is. 13^{21}, 34^{14}, Ps.
  106^{37}.

Footnote 290:

  Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, II., p. 125 f.

Footnote 291:

  Koran 2^{32}, 7^{10}, 18^{48}.

Footnote 292:

  7^{178}.

Footnote 293:

  6^{128}.

Footnote 294:

  43^{36}.

Footnote 295:

  38^{40-42}.

Footnote 296:

  16^{101}.

Footnote 297:

  6^{67}.

Footnote 298:

  4^{119}.

Footnote 299:

  An extra-Biblical assertion is that Solomon had power over the demons.
  This apparently comes from a Jewish source, though Geiger points out
  nothing earlier than the Second Targum to Esther.

  While on this subject I may mention a theory which appears in the
  Koran, that the shooting stars are heavenly darts thrown to drive away
  the jinn who lurk near heaven to get information (Kor. 37^{6 f}). A
  Christian source is pointed out by Harnack (_Texte und
  Untersuchungen_, VIII., p. 117) in the words of Tertullian: “Since the
  demons dwell in the air, near the stars, and in connection with the
  clouds, they know what is preparing there, and so are able to
  prophesy.” In the clear air of Arabia, the shooting stars naturally
  fitted into this view.

Footnote 300:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 51.

Footnote 301:

  21^{19 f}.

Footnote 302:

  Koran 35^1.

Footnote 303:

  40^7, 69^{17}.

Footnote 304:

  13^{12}.

Footnote 305:

  50^{16 f}.

Footnote 306:

  _Bochari_, I., pp. 146, 170.

Footnote 307:

  Koran 42^3.

Footnote 308:

  Ps. 91^{11}, Heb. 1^{14}.




                              LECTURE VI.
                        REVELATION AND PROPHECY


The present lecture will examine conceptions fundamental to all
religions, at least to all the higher religions. Granted the existence
of a God, how is His will made known to man? It is obvious that He does
not speak audibly to all men. Although He makes Himself known in nature,
the majority of mankind are too blind or too heedless to attend to this
word. If men are to know God they must have a more distinct message. And
this message is given by the voice of men to whom God has communicated
it, and whom He calls to the office of His heralds. The doctrine of such
a message is fully adopted in Islam. Along-side of the declaration that
there is no God but Allah, we hear the equally emphatic declaration that
Mohammed is the Apostle of Allah. Mohammed so described himself, having
borrowed the title, as well as the idea, from the earlier revealed
religions.

The conception of prophecy is, in the case of Mohammed, complicated by
the further idea that the revelations given by a prophet constitute a
book. The two do not necessarily go together. Take the earlier prophets
of Israel. Elijah and Elisha seem to have felt no impulse to put their
utterances into permanent form. Their expectation was probably the same
to which the Book of Deuteronomy gives expression—that God would provide
a succession of prophets for His people. Their guidance would be
continuous and constant; the people would always be able to appeal to a
living organ of revelation. God would always be in touch with them and
they with Him.

Curiously enough the publication of the very Book which formulated this
expectation of a constant succession of prophets, introduced another
conception, which has now displaced the former both in Judaism and in
Christianity. Instead of looking to the man of God and inquiring: what
saith the Lord?—we now open the pages of the Book of God and inquire:
what do we find written? The spoken word of God has become the recorded
Book of God. Mohammed received the idea in this form. With him
revelation and Scripture belonged together. Allow me to show this in a
few words.

In the first place, it is very doubtful whether Mohammed himself could
read or write. The question has been debated more fully than its
importance warrants. The zealous Moslem is very willing to argue that he
could not, because the miracle of the Koran seems thereby to be made the
greater. Modern scholars, whose culture is inseparably connected with
books, cannot conceive of a man of such influence being ignorant. All
that we know is, that when Mohammed had occasion to write, he employed
an amanuensis, and that in one place in the Koran he is addressed thus:
“Thou wast not accustomed before this to read a book nor to write with
thy right hand—then the deceivers were in doubt.”[309] As in the
immediate context he is speaking of sacred books, he may mean no more
than that he had not been a reader of such books; though the general
terms which he uses naturally imply that he had no acquaintance with any
books.

But if we hesitate to draw this conclusion, and so leave the general
question undecided, we may yet accept the plain statement of the
passage: Until a time when he was fairly launched upon his career,
Mohammed had not read the Bible.

This conclusion is confirmed by the contents of the Koran. Although (as
we have seen) a large part of this book is derived ultimately from the
Bible, yet in no instance does it show, on the part of the author, such
exact knowledge as would come from the study, or even the reading, of
its text. He makes but one or two quotations from it. Even when he
professes to give the substance of certain parts of it—as the covenant
between God and Israel—he reproduces them very imperfectly. The stories
he takes from it, vary in a multitude of details from their originals.
He makes gross chronological blunders, as where he identifies the Virgin
Mary with the Old Testament Miriam. He so misunderstood Judaism that he
says the Jews make Ezra the son of God—something which even superficial
acquaintance with the Old Testament would have prevented. In a tradition
it is related that when he built his mosque at Medina, he was asked why
he did not make it of more substantial materials. He replied: “My temple
shall be like the tabernacle of Moses, which was made of wood and
straw.”[310]

All the evidence, then, goes to show that Mohammed’s acquaintance with
the Bible came from oral communication with Jews and Christians.
Although our knowledge of Mecca during Mohammed’s early life is very
imperfect we are tolerably certain that there was no considerable number
of either Jews or Christians there. Of the Jews at Medina we have ample
knowledge, and if there had been either synagogue or church at Mecca the
fact would doubtless have been preserved by tradition. All that
tradition tells us is that there were a very few Christians at Mecca,
the most of them slaves. It speaks also of Waraka, a cousin of Chadija,
Mohammed’s first wife, who was a Christian “and accustomed to write the
Gospels in Hebrew”—by which, no doubt, Syriac is meant. This Waraka is
made by tradition to recognize Mohammed as a prophet at the very
beginning of his career; and it is possible that such a man existed, and
that he influenced Mohammed.[311] But the desire of tradition to secure
Christian recognition and endorsement for Mohammed is so strong, that we
are obliged to be cautious in receiving this account as though it was a
historic fact. More weight may be allowed to the assertion that there
were Christian slaves[312] at Mecca to whom Mohammed’s attention was
called by their chanting of the Scriptures.

Let us imagine a religious inquirer led to converse with such slaves. We
may assume that they had no Arabic translation of the Bible. Their Bible
was probably in Syriac. Besides this, it is extremely unlikely that they
had any books, even Syriac books, in their possession. Books were a rare
commodity and not owned by slaves. But Christian slaves would have some
knowledge of the Bible, especially of those parts of the Bible most
frequently used in the public service. This would include the Psalms and
Gospels quite certainly, for these were used in the churches from very
early times. Let us suppose their knowledge to be limited in amount and
crude in quality. The question with us is: What effect would their use
of Scripture have upon an inquirer like Mohammed?

For one thing it would satisfy a want of his soul. We can hardly help
supposing that he was already religiously awakened. He was dissatisfied
with the ancestral religion and longing for something better. This
desire would lead him to inquire for a worthy service of God. Liturgy is
an important part of every religion. Mohammed is dissatisfied with
heathenism; he is seeking a way in which to serve God. He comes across
these young men and hears their chant. Asking what it means, he is told
that they are celebrating the praises of God. On further inquiry he is
told that the words they use are forms supplied by God Himself from His
holy Book. It seems to me that he would recognize in this service just
what he was looking for; that he would find this an entirely worthy
service, and would have a great desire to adopt such a service for
himself.

Now tradition assures us that for some time before his call, Mohammed
used to retire to a cave near Mecca, and give himself, for days at a
time, to exercises of devotion. It does not seem fanciful to suppose
that he was endeavoring to serve God after the manner just described. In
this endeavor we can see that he would meet with some perplexities. The
service of Jews and Christians, he had learned, is based upon a divine
book. This book was inaccessible to him. If he could get a copy it would
be useless to him because in a foreign language. The broken Arabic of
his Christian friends would be inadequate in form. In this perplexity,
he would naturally throw himself upon God. If God in His mercy would
only send him portions of His Book, as He had sent portions to the
prophets, how gladly would he receive them and use them in a service of
praise!

Such desires would raise the further question—why may not God send an
Arabic prophet? To Mohammed all the world was organized in tribes like
those of Arabia. The tribe of the Jews had been favored by God with more
than one prophet. The tribe of the Christians had had Jesus. It would
not be strange if Arabia should be visited by the divine grace. If such
a prophet were to arise he would be furnished with such divinely
appointed liturgical compositions as the Psalms. Not that Mohammed would
lay any special stress upon their being written down. His conception of
a book was not like ours. We think of a book as something to be read in
a quiet corner, and studied, and pondered over. To him a book was a
repository of words that were to be _read aloud_ or _recited_. If its
contents were known by heart, the written document was unnecessary.

As we well know, Mohammed called his revelations _Koran_. A single
chapter is a Koran, and the whole collection is the Koran. The verb from
which this name is derived does not mean _to read_ in our sense, but to
_read aloud_, to _recite_, or to _chant_—precisely the act which is
performed in the public service of the Church, the Synagogue, and the
Mosque. The presence or absence of a written exemplar makes no
difference. The recitation is a _qur’an_ just the same. The words
recited may be called a book, even although they are not committed to
paper. Mohammed makes the infant Jesus in the cradle speak and describe
himself thus: “I am the servant of God, He has given me the Book and
made me a prophet.”[313] It would be absurd to suppose the new-born babe
holding a material book in his hand. What is meant is that the infant
prophet had the truth _in his heart_. With this agrees the description
of the Koran as “clear verses _in the breasts_ of those who have
received knowledge”; and in another passage the revelation is sent _upon
the heart_ of the Prophet himself that he should become one of the
warners.[314]

Let us look now at the tradition of the call of Mohammed. We must use it
with a certain reserve, for Ayesha, from whom it is received, was only
eighteen years old at the time of her husband’s death, and the event of
which she speaks took place before her birth. All she could have heard
was Mohammed’s recollections of his call; and whether she was capable of
understanding clearly what he attempted to describe, or of repeating his
account without additions suggested by her own lively imagination, is a
question. However, the information is the best we have, and we must make
the best we can out of it. It reads as follows:

“The first of the revelations which came to the Apostle of Allah was a
good dream; and he did not have a dream without there coming something
like the break of day. Then he liked to be alone and he used to go to
the cave of Hira and purify himself—this [purification] was a
performance of religious exercises several nights—until he desired [to
return to] his family. And he used to provide himself with food for
these periods and did so again and again, until [finally] the truth came
to him. And he was in the cave of Hira, and the angel came to him and
said: Recite! He replied: I cannot recite.[315] Then, said he [that is,
Mohammed] he took hold of me and squeezed me to the utmost of my
endurance. Then he let me go and said again: Recite!” The same answer
was given and the same action repeated a second and a third time. At the
last the angel repeated these verses, which now constitute a part of the
Koran:

              “Recite in the name of thy Lord who created,
              Created man from a clot of blood;
              Recite! Thy Lord is bountiful;
              He who has taught man by the pen:
              Taught him what he did not know.
              But man is rebellious
              As soon as he sees himself becoming rich;
              Yet verily to thy Lord they shall return!”[316]

The verses are in rhymed prose—a form which extends throughout the
Koran. We should note however that in the earlier suras we have a much
nearer approach to a regular metre than in the later compositions. In
the revelation before us, the verses are nearly equal in length and also
short, so that the rhyme and the rhythm strike the ear at once. These
early suras are all well adopted for the cantillation or intonation
which prevails in the public service of the Oriental Church as well as
in that of the Synagogue.

It must be confessed that the account of Mohammed’s call is not
altogether clear. But the main facts seem worthy of credence. The first
of these is that Mohammed was deeply concerned on the subject of
religion. This is evidenced by his frequent and prolonged visits to the
lonely cave. There is a tradition which even affirms that his religious
anxiety brought him to the verge of suicide. If this be true, it only
shows more clearly the depth of his emotion. The next fact indicated is
that he had a vision of the night. This is not the only indication that
his early revelations were received in the night. For the present it is
sufficient to note that tradition brings his earliest experience of this
kind into connection with a vivid dream. Lastly we notice that the
vision brings him something which we suppose he would greatly desire,
that is, a form which he could use for the worship of God.

The endeavor to make the experiences of a religious mind psychologically
intelligible is one frequently made but rarely successful. It is
doubtful whether if we could cross-question Mohammed himself, we could
explain all his experiences. But tentatively we may be allowed to
construct from the data before us a story such as he would tell us, and
which would be logically consistent. We suppose him anxious on the
subject of religion, convinced that the one true God does reveal Himself
to His servants, and possessed by a strong desire to know His way more
perfectly. With this on his mind Mohammed spends days in his cave,
meditating on these things and calling upon God. At last in the midst of
the little sleep he allows himself, he has a vivid dream. A bright light
seems to break upon him. He sees a radiant form, which speaks and gives
him what he has sought. The evidence of the truth of the vision is the
stanza which remains in his memory after he awakes, a form of words
which he can use in the praise of his Lord. If this were Mohammed’s
experience it was an experience which brings him into the company of
many others. For many seekers after truth and beauty have confessed that
after long striving—a striving which has brought them to despair—the
object of their search has come to them suddenly like the rising of the
dawn.

The next sura in point of time is said to be one that begins: “O Thou
who art wrapped in a garment!” Tradition has fastened on these words,
and has invented a situation for them. It tells us that Mohammed was
subject to epileptic fits, and that, when he felt these coming on, he
would have Chadija wrap him in a covering so that he would be protected
from the air, or from the gaze of curious visitors. On the basis of this
tradition a modern scholar[317] has built up an elaborate theory of
Mohammed’s epileptic or hysterical disease. But the foundation is
insufficient. The tradition is built upon the single phrase just quoted
which describes the one addressed as wrapped in a garment. But every
oriental wraps himself in a garment when he lies down to sleep. All that
we can legitimately conclude from the words is that the revelation came
to the Prophet when he was asleep. “Awake, thou that sleepest!” is the
natural meaning of the address, and we have here another evidence that
these earlier revelations came as visions of the night. The famous night
journey to Jerusalem is evidence in the same direction.[318]

Because his first visions were visions of the night, it does not follow
that all the later ones were of the same kind. The statements are many
to the effect that the Prophet had visions also in his waking hours. He
would become apparently unconscious; breathed heavily; the perspiration
broke out upon him even in a wintry day.[319] After such a fit, he would
give an answer to a question that had perplexed him, or would recount a
vision that he had seen. How far he was subject to physical disease, and
how far these extraordinary states may be explained as the result of
mental excitement, is difficult to say. We can readily see the strong
emotion which any one would feel at the approach of a heavenly
messenger. Any man of ordinary sensibility, if convinced that he was
about to receive a superhuman revelation, would become excited, and his
emotion might produce physical effects such as are here described for
us. In order to account for them, it is not necessary to suppose either
that Mohammed was epileptic or that he was playing a part.

It is to our present purpose to point out that, both in the matter of
dreams and of waking visions, Mohammed’s experience was similar to that
of the Biblical organs of revelation. The importance of dreams is
evident upon the face of the Old Testament narrative. Jacob has a
decisive revelation in a dream. Joseph’s dreams foreshadowed God’s
dealings with him. The author of the Book of Job assumes that God speaks
to men “in thoughts from the visions of the night when deep sleep
falleth on men.” So in the New Testament; the angel which encouraged
Paul stood by him in the night, the most natural interpretation of the
words being that he appeared in a dream. Without laying stress upon the
cases where the dream is sent to startle the unbeliever (as Pharaoh or
Nebuchadrezzar) it is clearly made out that, to the Old Testament
writers, the dream was one method of revelation. Jeremiah, to be sure,
speaks slightingly of dreams and seems to contrast them with the voice
which came to the prophet. But this we must explain as a reaction
against the abuse of dreams by the prophets of his time.

And if the waking vision produced extraordinary physical manifestations,
or was accompanied by extraordinary physical manifestations in Mohammed,
the same is seen in the Old Testament prophets. Balaam speaks of himself
as falling down when he had the vision of the Almighty. Ezekiel fell
upon his face when he saw the chariot of glory. So did Daniel at the
appearance of Gabriel; and John, when he had a revelation of the Son of
Man, fell at his feet like one dead. The phenomena are strikingly alike,
though a direct connection does not seem to exist.

But it is time to look beyond these externals to the substance of
Mohammed’s revelations. What was it to which he was called? To answer
this question we may look at one or two of these early chapters. One has
been already quoted. Another, to which allusion has been made, reads as
follows:

                 “O, thou who art wrapped in a garment;
                 Rise and warn!
                 And magnify thy Lord,
                 And cleanse thy garments,
                 And flee iniquity!
                 And do not spend with the desire of gain;
                 And wait patiently for thy Lord!
                 When a blast is blown upon the trumpet
                 That will be a distressful day,
                 Not easy for the unbelievers.”[320]

The message is evidently a command to preach. “Arise and warn” is its
key-note. The rest is interpreted by this. In order to warn, he must
himself be an example of faith. That is, he must worship in an
acceptable manner, purifying his garments and calling upon the name of
his Lord. It is this which was emphasized in the first revelation. The
Prophet is there called upon to recite the praises of God, that is, to
spend the time in worship. In both, the command is motived by the
thought of the approaching judgment. Man is rebellious and will be
brought to an account. The trumpet will be blown and a distressful day
ensue. These are evidently reasons for the command to warn men of their
danger. In this respect, the call of Mohammed is like the call to the
Old Testament prophets. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the prophets in general,
are sent to rebuke a sinful nation, to declare the wrath of God, and to
threaten approaching calamity.

If we desire further light upon what Mohammed felt called to do, we may
examine others of his early compositions, for we may be sure that in
them he tries to carry out the command of God. What we find on such
examination is, that some of these are forms of prayer. Thus:

             “Praise be to God, Lord of the Ages,
             The Compassionate, the Merciful,
             King of the Day of Judgment:
             Thee we serve and to Thee we cry for help,
             Lead us in the straight path,
             The path of those to whom Thou art gracious,
             Upon whom is no wrath and who do not stray.”[321]

A profession of faith is a part of worship, so that we put here the
following:

                     “God is one,
                     The Self-existent;
                     He begets not and is not begotten,
                     And none is equal to Him.”[322]

Evidently designed to be used in worship are some others, as the
fifty-fifth, which with its recurring refrain reminds us of Psalm 136.
Far more numerous are the addresses designed to warn men of their
danger. For example:

      “The desire of gain absorbs you,
      Until you visit the tomb.
      Yet you shall certainly know,
      Then shall you certainly know!
      Nay! If you knew with clear knowledge
      You would certainly see the flame;
      Then would you see it with clear eye,
      In that day you shall be asked concerning your pleasures.”[323]

This one is somewhat vague in its description of the expected
punishment, though it is interesting for its accusation of covetousness
as the root of men’s evil actions. Usually the judgment is depicted with
vividness, as in the following:

    “When the heavens shall open,
    And shall hear their Lord and obey;
    When the earth shall be laid flat,
    And shall cast away what is in it and be empty,
    And shall hear its Lord and obey—
    O, man though thou strive hard against thy Lord, yet shalt thou meet
       Him.
    And he who receives his book in his right hand
    Shall be judged leniently,
    And shall return to his friends with joy.
    But he who receives his book behind his back
    Shall wish for annihilation,
    And shall suffer the Fire.
    Once he rejoiced amid his friends—
    He thought he should not be moved.
    Yet verily, thy Lord was observing him.



    But what ails them, that they do not believe?
    And, when the Scripture is recited, do not bow?
    The unbelievers even accuse it of being false!
    But God knoweth their secret thought.
    Therefore bring them tidings of a severe punishment,
    But those who believe and do well receive an unstinted reward.”[324]

These citations are enough to show what Mohammed understood to be his
mission. He had received a call to worship God and to preach. This call
he obeyed to the best of his ability. Doubtless he had some shrinking
before appearing in public, as is indicated in the tradition—where the
angel uses force before he secures obedience. In this also he will be
found in line with the Biblical prophets. Moses seeks to be excused from
the work to which he is called, on the ground of inability to speak, and
Jeremiah pleads his youth as a reason why he should not be sent to
Judah. This is, of course, a natural experience; we can hardly suppose
that Mohammed was influenced here by his Biblical knowledge.

In his later life, however, he elaborated the theory of revelation more
distinctly, and in the additional details we can clearly trace Biblical
ideas. Up to this point we have had only tradition to go upon, for the
mode of revelation. For the later period we have more positive
assertions in the Koran. As to the objective reality of what he saw he
never had any doubt. But he was sometimes obliged to assure his
followers of it. So we have a description of his experiences in the
following:

          “By the Pleiades when they set!
          Your fellow-citizen is not astray or erring.
          He does not speak his own fancy.
          [What he speaks] is a revelation sent to him.
          The Mighty in power taught it to him,
          The Possessor of strength. He stood erect
          In the upper horizon;
          Then he drew near and condescended,
          And was two bows’ lengths [from him] or nearer.
          And he made known to his servant what he made known.
          The heart did not deceive concerning what it saw;
          And will you dispute concerning what he saw?
          He saw him another time,
          By the _sidra_ tree of the border,
          Near which is the garden of abode;
          Then covered the _sidra_ tree that which covered it,
          The eye did not turn aside nor refuse [to look],
          And he saw the greatest of the signs of his Lord.”[325]

The language is obscure in places and is made more so, rather than less,
by the commentators. These suppose the sidra tree spoken of, to be
located in heaven. It seems to me, on the contrary, to be on earth, in
fact to be a well-known tree at Mecca, mentioned for the purpose of
locating the experience of which the Prophet speaks. He saw this tree
covered with something—he purposely does not describe it more
exactly—probably a bright light such as was spoken of in tradition and
compared to the daybreak. This miracle, upon which his eye was able to
look steadfastly, was one of the theophanies in his experience. It is
impossible not to see in it a reminiscence of the burning bush in
Exodus. At another time, the Prophet tells us, he saw a figure appear in
the horizon which descended to the place where he himself was, and
talked with him. So in Israel the angel of Yahweh calls out of
heaven,[326] or descends thence, as is evidenced by his ascending in the
flame of the sacrifice when his errand is performed.[327] These
analogies would lead us to suppose the nameless being of Mohammed’s
vision also to be an angel. So he is called by the interpreters, and
later by Mohammed himself. But I suspect that in the original meaning of
this sura, the one Mighty in power is Allah Himself. If, however,
Mohammed did not clearly distinguish between Allah and His Angel, we
have another Biblical resemblance. For, as we know, the Old Testament
presents the Angel of Yahweh speaking and acting like Yahweh Himself.

In his later revelations Mohammed speaks distinctly of the angel who is
sent to him. In one instance only is this angel called Gabriel: “Say to
them: Who is the enemy of Gabriel? It is he who brought down [the
revelation] to thy heart by the command of God, to confirm what was
before revealed, a guidance and good tidings to the believers.”[328] We
recall that Gabriel is the messenger of God both in the Old Testament
and in the New. That it was New Testament influence, rather than Old,
which led Mohammed to adopt him is evident from this very passage. The
Jews had the theory that Gabriel was the angel sent with bad tidings to
Israel, while the bringer of good tidings was Michael. They therefore
refused to accept Mohammed, or rather made this the ostensible ground of
their refusal. Had he been under Jewish influence he would have called
the angel Michael rather than Gabriel.

We must note again that Mohammed in some cases attributes his
revelations to the Spirit: “This is a revelation of the Lord of the Ages
with which the faithful spirit came down into thy heart that thou
shouldst be one of the warners;” “The spirit of holiness brought it down
from thy Lord in truth to strengthen those who believe.”[329] As
Mohammed refused to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity, he could have no
idea of the Spirit as a distinct person of the Godhead. He seems to have
wavered between the conception that the Spirit is one of the angels, and
the conception that it is an influence carried by the angels to the
prophets. The variations in his doctrine do not concern us here. All
that we need to bear in mind is, that he had adopted the Biblical
teaching—that the Spirit is the Revealer—so far as this doctrine agreed
with his theology in general.

The fact once established in his mind that he was commissioned as a
Prophet, Mohammed drew certain inferences, which became important parts
of his system, and which we cannot ignore in treating his doctrine of
revelation. The first of these was that by his call he became one in the
line of prophets and religious leaders, of which the world had already
seen several. This point has been already touched upon in our discussion
of the narrative material in the Koran. As we there saw, the characters
most prominently in his mind were the great founders of religion, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. These formed the chain of which now, by his
election, he became the concluding link. It went with this that his
religion was not new. He only claimed to reproduce what had been
revealed to his predecessors. Every religious movement seems naturally
to seek itself in the past. Thus the Hebrews saw faith exemplified in
Noah and Abraham; Judaism claimed Moses as its founder; the Apostles
pointed back to David and Isaiah; the Reformers renewed the Christianity
of the Apostles. Mohammed’s course is parallel with these. And, like
them, he tried to link his religion with earlier ones not only by his
renewal of their principles, but by their supposed prophecies of him.
This claim—that he was predicted in the earlier Scriptures—is
unmistakably, though not very frequently, put forward in the Koran. In a
comparatively late sura we find: “Jesus the son of Mary said: O,
Children of Israel, verily I am the Apostle of God to you confirming the
Tora which you already have, and bringing tidings of an Apostle to come
after me whose name is Ahmed.”[330] In another place he is spoken of as
“the vernacular[331] prophet whom they find described in their own
[books], in the Tora and the Gospel.” What predictions Mohammed himself
had in mind in these declarations seems impossible to make out. The
Arabic commentators do not hesitate to refer to him all the Messianic
passages of the Old Testament. The Messianic hope, as we know, did not
cease with the coming of Christ, and we can scarcely wonder that
Mohammed applied it to himself. For the words of Jesus which he claims
in the passage quoted, tradition points to the promise of the Paraclete
in the Gospel of John. It is significant that this promise had already
been appropriated by _Mani_,[332] for there are some indications that
Mohammed got his Christianity from a heretical source. What interests us
here is not the particular passage in the Prophet’s mind, but the
general claim that he was not only the legitimate successor of the
earlier Messengers of God, but was also foreseen and expected by them as
the “seal” or culmination of their mission.

Another inference from the firmly held belief that he was a prophet, is
prominently put forward in the Koran, to wit: that his revelation, as
embodied in the Koran, is the same in substance with the sacred books
which had preceded. Remember that he made _the Book_ an abstraction. He
made it at least an intellectual and spiritual entity, not a material
thing of paper and ink. His revelations were generally written down, to
be sure; they were collected at last from fragments of papyrus and
parchment and bones, but also from the breasts of men. The record upon
which Mohammed relied however was the memory of his followers.
Nevertheless he regarded his detached fragments as parts of a
transcendental unity which he called the Book, and whose real existence
was in heaven.

Looking more narrowly at what he says of this Book, we discover that he
has combined two conceptions originally separate. In connection with the
great thought of the judgment, he had adopted the theory of a book of
record kept in heaven. In the early suras there are several references
to this book, which seems to be either a record of actions or a record
of names.[333] It needed only a little expansion of this to make the
book a book of fate containing the whole of God’s will for all history.
But a book of God was also revealed to the Jews and Christians. They
meant by it, to be sure, an earthly codex. Yet the earthly codex might
be but the transcript of a heavenly original. According to Jewish
tradition,[334] the Tora was created before the creation of the heavens
and the earth. Indeed we see that the natural implication of the phrase
_Book of God_ is that the original is written in heaven. The inference
was made by Mohammed: “This is a noble Koran, in a carefully guarded
book, touched only by the pure, a revelation from the Lord of the
Ages.”[335]

Mohammed’s conception therefore may be defined as follows: there is a
great book of God’s decrees, written in heaven. From this book, portions
are sent down to the successive prophets. These are the parts of the
Book fitted for the guidance of men into true faith, true worship, and
right conduct. The Pentateuch, the Gospel, and the Koran, are all
extracts from this original. They are therefore identical in substance,
and one corroborates the other. One of the earliest of Mohammed’s
revelations alludes to the rolls of Abraham and Moses, as containing a
warning similar to the one just delivered by himself. It is unnecessary
to suppose, with Sprenger, that there is a reference here to
pseudepigrapha which circulated under these titles. The Pentateuch might
well be described under the name of the roll of Abraham or the roll of
Moses. In later passages we find it distinctly said that the Koran
confirms the preceding revelations: “Before this was the Book of Moses,
a guide and a gift of grace, and this [Koran] is a book which asserts
the truth [of the other] in Arabic, that it may warn the
evil-doers.”[336] The attitude of the Prophet is well brought out in
what he is commanded to say to the Jews of Medina who persisted in
asking him troublesome questions about the Tora: “Say to them: We
believe in God and what is revealed to us, and in what was revealed to
Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the [twelve] tribes, and in
what Moses and Jesus and the Prophets received from their Lord. We make
no difference between them and we are resigned to Him.”[337] Although
Koran was the proper name of the portion revealed to him, he seems in
one instance to call the whole body of revealed books by this name. This
is where he denounces _the dividers who make the Koran parts_. The most
natural explanation of the words is that they refer to the Jews and
Christians who, by rejecting the later while accepting the earlier
revelation, put asunder what Mohammed joined together.

The theory of Mohammed is a perfectly consistent one, and when he had
formulated it, he did not waver. The Jews, we may well believe, made
strenuous efforts to convict him of error, in that he represented their
Tora to be identical with his revelations. The only effect on his mind
was to strengthen the conviction of their obstinacy and deceit. We
wonder a little that he did not take more pains to acquaint himself with
the exact contents of Tora and Gospel. Yet not a few theologians, before
his time and since, have been willing to rest in their _a priori_
system, and have ignored or denied those facts which conflicted with it.
The attitude of Mohammed is seen in the anecdote that Omar brought a
Pentateuch to Mohammed and offered to read out of it. The anger of the
Prophet appeared in his face and Omar desisted, saying: “God protect me
from the anger of God and His Apostle! It suffices me that God is my
Cherisher, and Islam my religion, and Mohammed my prophet.” Then
Mohammed said: “If Moses were alive and knew my prophecy he would follow
me.”[338] The position of Mohammed is quite intelligible. The principles
of Islam were established; for the faith of its disciples the
confirmation of these principles from the Bible was unnecessary. On the
other hand the facts _might be_ inconvenient. On either view, it was
best to let well enough alone.

It was not the facts of the older Scriptures alone that were
troublesome. The Koran itself did not always seem to bear out the
character given it. It could not be expected that a collection of
occasional leaflets, published at intervals during more than twenty
years, should be free from inconsistencies or even contradictions. Such
inconsistencies were admitted by Mohammed himself. Some of them he
removed by erasure. In some cases he laid the blame on his own memory,
and once he confessed that Satan had misled him. Finally he declared
that God abrogated some regulations by later enactments.[339] It is
possible that the theory of abrogation was at first invented to account
for discrepancies between the Bible and the Koran. Two of the passages
which state the theory are in a context which has to do with the Jews;
and the thought in Mohammed’s mind seems to have been something like
this: “Should the Jews object that this revelation does not agree with
theirs, we reply that God is able to erase parts of His revelation—He
may do what He will with His own.” The theory once accepted was a
welcome recourse, when discrepancies came to light in the Koran
itself.[340]

It seems strange to us that Mohammed made no forecast of the future. One
would suppose that the experience which led him to abrogate regulations
only a few years old, would show him that other laws would need to be
modified after his death. But this seems not to have occurred to him.
The necessities of the hour absorbed his thoughts. In the main, no
doubt, he felt that the principles laid down by him would be a
sufficient guide for all time to come. It must be remembered also that
he gave tradition a part in the regulation of his community. In this
respect he never took the Protestant position which makes the Scriptures
the exclusive arbiter in matters of faith and life. He would have
accepted, rather, the rule of the early Church in which Apostolic
tradition had so large a part.

Koran and tradition together make up the infallible rule of faith and
practice in the Moslem Church. Of the two parts, the Koran must always
have the first place—a clear sentence in the Koran, unless it is one
that has been abrogated by another sentence in the Koran, is decisive.
This position of arbiter is parallel to what is asserted of the older
revelation: “We sent down the Tora as a guide and a light; by it _the
pious prophets judged_ the Jews; and the Rabbis and the Scribes [still]
judge by what is committed to them of the Book of God, and are witnesses
concerning it.” Mohammed goes on to give a summary of the Old Testament
_lex talionis_ and adds: “And whoever does not judge by what God has
revealed, these are the wicked.”[341] A little later in the same chapter
Jesus is said to have received the Gospel—“that the people of the Gospel
should judge by what God revealed.” Then comes Mohammed, who also has
received a book and who is exhorted thus: “Then judge between them by
what God has revealed, and do not follow their desires, turning away
from what has come to thee of the truth. To each of you we have given a
law and a plain path.”[342]

This declaration puts the Koran into the same position of supreme law
for the Moslem which the Tora occupies for the Jew, and which the Gospel
occupies for the Christian. The conception of the revelation as law
becomes especially prominent in the later period of Mohammed’s life. We
can readily account for this. At Medina the simple warner and bringer of
tidings had become the theocratic ruler and judge over a small but
heterogeneous community, unused to a settled form of government. His
decisions, therefore, became precedents and his regulations became laws.
These were embodied in the Koran, which, in this period differs
materially in character from the earlier revelations. The later suras
are in a sense the archives of the infant state. “The conduct of the
disaffected, the treatment of allies, the formation of treaties, the
acceptance of terms and other political matters [now] found a place
among the divine messages. Liberality in contributing toward the
expenses of war—the only object requiring a public purse—is continually
inculcated. The elements of a code both criminal and civil are also
introduced. Punishments for certain offences are specified, and a mass
of legislation [is] laid down for the tutelage of orphans, for marriage,
divorce, sales, bargains, wills, evidence, usury, and other similar
concerns. Further, there are copious instructions for the guidance of
the believer in his private life and special provisions ... regulating
the intercourse of Mahomet with his subjects and with his own
family.”[343] This occasional character of the Koran is most conspicuous
in its allusions to the experiences of Mohammed himself. Many of these
are interesting for the glimpse they give us into the heart of the
speaker; as where he betrays his great anxiety to work a miracle. Some
of them are comical; as where he teaches etiquette to the too familiar
or too noisy Bedawin: “O, Believers, do not lift your voices above the
voice of the Prophet, and do not shout at him as you shout at each
other; else your deeds are of no avail, though you know it not. They who
speak low in the presence of the Apostle of God, these are they whose
hearts God has disposed toward piety.”[344] And again: “O, Believers, do
not enter the houses of the Prophet except he invite you to eat with
him; and do so without looking at his furniture. But when you are
invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, then go your ways, and do
not be familiar in your conversation. This pains the Prophet, though he
is ashamed to tell you; but God is not ashamed of the truth. And when
you ask anything of them [that is, his wives], ask it from the other
side of a curtain—this is more innocent for your hearts and for theirs.
It is not becoming in you to pain the Prophet, nor to marry his wives
after his death. This were in the sight of God a great sin.”[345] To
bring in a divine revelation in order to ease the jealous heart of a
fond old man, seems to us to border on blasphemy. And when the same
method is taken to justify him in violating the rule which he had
himself made on the subject of marriage,[346] and again to vindicate his
favorite wife when she was the subject of scandal, we are shocked and
disgusted.

In view of such exhibitions of selfish weakness, our impulse is to set
down their author as a vulgar impostor, whose aim from the beginning was
to secure enjoyment and influence by a forged and fraudulent revelation.
In doing this we should easily do him an injustice. Even these
exhibitions of weakness may be explained as the defect of a quality.
Mohammed had placed his trust in Allah, and he was convinced that Allah
had distinguished him by his favor. It is of the essence of faith to
believe that God loves us and cares for us individually. One of the most
pleasing suras of the Koran is the expression of this faith:

            “By the morning;
            By the night when it grows dark;
            Thy Lord has not forsaken nor rejected thee;
            And the future shall be better than the past.
            Thy Lord will give thee and thou shalt be satisfied.
            Did He not find thee an orphan and adopt thee?
            And find thee poor and enrich thee?
            Then do not oppress the orphan;
            And do not repulse the one who asks;
            And recount the mercies of thy Lord.”[347]

In a mind whose early moral training has been defective we can see that
such a faith may lead to self-deception. It is to be feared that not a
few Christians have taken virtually the position of Mohammed—that God so
loves them as to indulge their weaknesses even as an earthly father
indulges a favorite child.

To pursue this subject would take us beyond the proper limits of this
inquiry. We are here investigating the nature of the influence exerted
by the Bible on the religion of Mohammed. For the subject of this
lecture we may describe this influence as follows:

1. Mohammed’s general doctrine of revelation was undoubtedly derived
from the Bible. The doctrine is that God reveals His will to chosen men
who are commanded to speak for Him, and who are called prophets or
apostles.

2. The revelation which the prophet receives is brought by an angel.
This method of revelation, which is only occasional in the Bible, is
made the rule by Mohammed, for he identifies revelation _by the Spirit_
with this, because he makes the Spirit to be an angel. In some cases he
so completely adopts the Biblical view that he gives the angel of
revelation the name Gabriel.

3. He speaks always (when delivering the message revealed to him) for
God, using the pronoun of the first person, not to express his own mind,
but to express the mind of God. In this also he follows Biblical
precedent, where, in the height of prophetic speech, the ego of the
prophet disappears before the Higher Ego.[348] Here also, what is
occasional in the Old Testament has become the rule with Mohammed. That
the cause of God is identified with the cause of the prophet, is the
natural consequence of this view.

And in this connection we must not shut our eyes to the fact that God’s
care for His cause is, in the Old Testament, extended to the personal
affairs of the prophet. Jeremiah was informed by revelation of the
intended treachery of his fellow-townsmen. Samuel was directed by
revelation in making use of a subterfuge to deceive Saul, and thus to
relieve his own fear. God identifies Elisha’s honor with His own, and
where the prophet relieves his feelings with a curse, God makes the
curse effective in avenging the insult. Such examples show that
Mohammed’s presumption is not altogether without precedent.

4. The revelation received by the prophet is regarded by Mohammed as a
transcript from a heavenly original. In this he has gone farther than
any express declaration of the Bible, but it is not unfair to say that
the general thought is Biblical. Besides what has already been said, we
may notice that when Ezekiel received his revelation, a roll was given
him by a heavenly hand. When he had eaten the book (devoured its
contents we should say) he was prepared to speak to Israel.[349] The
meaning is that his prophecy was the communication of a heavenly
original. The author of the Apocalypse has a similar experience in
vision. On the basis of these passages the idea of a heavenly original,
of which revealed books are transcripts, had arisen before Mohammed.
Thus Enoch has the heavenly tablets shown him in which he reads “all the
deeds of men to the latest generations.”[350] He is then able to embody
these in his own book. But as Mohammed’s idea of prophecy is more
distinctly Biblical than that found in the Book of Enoch, there is
probably no direct influence here to be discovered.

5. The sum of the revelations received by the prophet makes up a rule of
faith and life. This idea is also Biblical; at least, this is the point
of view from which the New Testament regards the Old Testament, though
it at the same time formulates a theory of abrogation similar to the one
forced upon Mohammed.

Mohammed, therefore, held substantially Biblical views of Revelation and
Prophecy.

Footnote 309:

  Koran, 29^7. Those who wish to see a fuller discussion of Mohammed’s
  literary attainments may consult Nöldeke, _Geschichte des Korans_, p.
  8; Goldziher, _Die Zahiriten_, p. 171; Sprenger, _Leben des Muhammed_,
  II., p. 398.

Footnote 310:

  Sprenger, III., p. 14. Cf. Koran 2^{77}, 9^{30}.

Footnote 311:

  On Waraka, cf. _Bochari_, I. p. 3.

Footnote 312:

  Muir refers to three such slaves all of whom became Moslems, _Life of
  Mahomet_, II., p. 122. It is interesting to note that Zaid, who may be
  called a forerunner of Mohammed, was exercised about the right way to
  worship God.—_Ibn Hischam_, I., p. 108.

Footnote 313:

  Koran, 19^{31}.

Footnote 314:

  29^{48}, 26^{194}.

Footnote 315:

  Literally: _I am not a reciter._

Footnote 316:

  Koran, 96^{1-8}.

Footnote 317:

  Sprenger in his _Leben und Lehre des Muhammed_.

Footnote 318:

  The night visit is alluded to 17^1. It should be noted that two suras
  (73 and 74) begin with an address to the one wrapped in a garment.

Footnote 319:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 3, II., pp. 117, 132, 186; _Vakidi_ (Wellhausen), p.
  181.

Footnote 320:

  Koran, 74^{1-10}. The rhyme changes in the next verse, so that this
  section is probably a revelation by itself.

Footnote 321:

  Koran, 1, the well known _Fatiha_.

Footnote 322:

  Koran, 112.

Footnote 323:

  102.

Footnote 324:

  Koran, 84.

Footnote 325:

  Koran, 53^{1-18}.

Footnote 326:

  Gen. 22^{11, 15}.

Footnote 327:

  Judg. 13^{26}.

Footnote 328:

  Koran, 2^{91}.

Footnote 329:

  26^{192 f}, 16^{104}.

Footnote 330:

  Koran, 61^6.

Footnote 331:

  The translation is only probable. Mohammed elsewhere emphasizes the
  fact that he brings an Arabic revelation. The reference here is
  7^{156}. For a discussion of the passages of Scripture applied by
  Moslems to Mohammed cf. Brockelmann, “Muhammedanische Weissagungen im
  Alten Testament,” Z.A.T.W., XV. pp. 138 ff., 312, with remarks by
  Bacher, _ibid._, p. 309; also Goldziher, Z.D.M.G., XLII., and _Revue
  des Études Juives_, XXX., pp. 1-23. One Mohammedan author finds no
  less than fifty-one prophecies of Islam in the Bible.

Footnote 332:

  Cf. Herzog, P.R.E.^2, IX., p. 231. The passage in John is cited by Ibn
  Ishak, cf. Weil’s _Ibn Hischam_, I., p. 112.

Footnote 333:

  Koran, 78^{27-29}, 83^{4-9, 18-20}.

Footnote 334:

  _Midrasch Bereschith Rabba_ (Wünsche), p. 31. And cf. Weber,
  _Altsynagogale Theologie_, p. 14.

Footnote 335:

  Koran. 56^{76-79}, cf. 85^{81 f}., 80^{13 f}.

Footnote 336:

  46^{11}, cf. 2^{83}, 6^{92}, 12^{111}, 35^{28 f}.

Footnote 337:

  Koran, 3^{78}.

Footnote 338:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 53.

Footnote 339:

  The theory, with a list of the abrogated verses, is given in Hughes,
  _Dictionary of Islam_, p. 520.

Footnote 340:

  The Koran passages are 2^{100}, 13^{38 f}, both of which are in
  connection with allusions to the earlier revelations. A
  tradition gives a Koran verse which was not only abrogated but
  obliterated—_Bochari_, III., p. 190. The fact that the Tora did
  not contain some things which ought to be in it on his theory,
  Mohammed explains by saying that the Jews concealed them from
  the Moslems; “Our Apostle has come to you revealing a great part
  of what you are accustomed to conceal of the Book.” 5^{18}.

Footnote 341:

  Koran, 5^{48 f}.

Footnote 342:

  5^{52}.

Footnote 343:

  Muir, _Life of Mahomet_, III., 295.

Footnote 344:

  Koran, 49^{2 f}.

Footnote 345:

  Koran 33^{53}. The houses of the Prophet were a row of huts around a
  court. Each wife had one, and Mohammed dwelt with them by turns.

Footnote 346:

  Mohammed had ordered his followers to take not more than four wives.
  He increased his own hareem to nine or more and justified himself by a
  revelation (33^{49}). He was seized with a passion for the wife of his
  adopted son Zaid. Zaid divorced her, but it was against customary
  morals for a man to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. After
  some wavering, Mohammed commanded himself (in a revelation) to take
  her; and of course he thus set aside the old law (33^{37}). In
  forbidding remarriage on the part of the widows he might leave, he
  possibly had Jewish precedent in mind, according to Sale, _Prelim.
  Dis._, who cites Mishna _Sanhedrin_, to prove that the widow of a
  prince should not remarry.

Footnote 347:

  Sura 93, and cf. 94.

Footnote 348:

  Ewald, _Propheten des Alten Bundes_^2, p. 33.

Footnote 349:

  Ezek. 2^{10}, 3^{1-4}.

Footnote 350:

  _Das Buch Henoch_, von Dillmann (1853), Kap. 81, p. 51. In the Book of
  Jubilees the Bible itself seems to be described as the heavenly
  tablets. Cf. _Das Buch der Jubiläen_, Ewald, _Jahrbücher_, II., pp.
  237, 256.




                              LECTURE VII.
                           SIN AND SALVATION


Some years ago it was the fashion to describe the Protestant Reformation
as based upon two principles. One of these—the sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures as the rule of faith—was called the formal principle, the
other—justification by faith—was called the material principle. The
present tendency is to dismiss this definition as having no particular
value. But I have the impression that it conveys a distinct truth which
is of wider application than is given it in this one division of Church
History. Every religion—at least every positive religion—brings a
doctrine to which it demands assent. The first question which its
preachers must answer is: how do you know the doctrine to be true? But
no religion succeeds without bringing more than a doctrine. Religion
must satisfy the craving of the heart, as well as the curiosity of the
intellect. The second question which the Apostles of any religion must
meet is: what good do you bring?

Now the answer to the first question must define the source of doctrine.
In the Protestant Reformation this source was defined to be the Holy
Scriptures in their natural sense, independent of the tradition of the
Church. The answer to the second question must define the salvation
offered by the preacher. In the Reformation this was defined as
justification by faith alone, that is, the grace of God imparted
immediately to the believer, not conditioned by the Church’s
ministration. Without pausing to inquire how far these two answers are
correctly labelled, _formal_ and _material_, let us notice that
corresponding answers are given in Islam. Mohammed preached a doctrine,
and was obliged to tell where he got it. This he did in his assertion of
divine revelation to himself, at the same time justifying his claim by
an appeal to the earlier prophets. He offered also another
boon—salvation. He was obliged here also to define his position. This
definition forms the subject of the present lecture.

I have already said that Mohammed offered salvation. Salvation implies
something from which one must be saved, and this something is, of
course, sin. The doctrine of sin must be treated before we can
understand the doctrine of salvation. Our starting-point is the nature
of man. In this the position of the Koran is very simple: man consists
of a material part, the body, and an immaterial part, the soul. This was
taken over from Arabic heathenism, where the custom of offering
sacrifices to the dead implies a continued existence of the soul after
the death of the body. This separate existence of the soul however seems
to have been conceived of as shadowy and unreal—much like the
unsubstantial and unsatisfying state in which the Old Testament pictures
the inhabitants of Sheol. It was because this conception failed to meet
his idea of the future state, that Mohammed laid so much emphasis on the
resurrection. His leading thought was the thought of the Judgment Day.
But a judgment which should deal only with the unsubstantial incorporeal
shades would be itself unsubstantial and shadowy. The thought of the
Judgment is necessarily accompanied by the thought of the
Resurrection—thus only does it become a reality. With the restored body,
the whole man meets his Maker, and both parts of his nature are punished
or rewarded for that for which both parts are responsible.

This matter interests us here only so far as it throws light on the
nature of man. At the beginning of his career, Mohammed found the
doctrine of the resurrection necessary, because he had difficulty in
conceiving the independent existence of the soul. It seems as if the
doctrine helped him in this respect so that he was able partly to
dispense with it in his later teaching. What I mean is, not that he ever
gave up the resurrection or wavered in regard to it; but that when he
had accustomed himself to the doctrine of the resurrection, the soul
itself had more consistency, it began to stand more distinctly for the
man. He never seems to have been troubled by the question where the soul
resides during the interval between death and the resurrection.
Tradition has indeed busied itself with this question, as we should
expect. But the Koran has no intimation of a middle state, such as we
should find had it been a matter of importance in the mind of Mohammed.

After the battles of Islam began, we find a distinct assurance that the
souls of believers enter at once on the joys of paradise. This implies,
of course, that the soul is capable of its full life apart from the
body. The resurrection therefore would seem to be superfluous. The soul
is the man and can dispense with the body, as it does in death and even
in sleep.[351] Because the soul is the man it may be spoken of when the
whole man is meant.

The souls which tremble in the day of judgment are the souls reclothed
with their bodies, that is, the persons. When it is said that every soul
shall taste of death, evidently every human being is meant. The soul
being the active principle, is that which desires good or evil,[352]
just as in Hebrew; the word for soul is, in fact, the same in the two
languages.

A close parallel with the Hebrew also is the Arabic connection of the
soul and the heart. The heart is the seat of the soul—not the affections
only, but the intellect as well. What may be predicated of the soul may
be predicated equally of the heart. Thus: the soul believes, _or_ the
man believes with the heart.[353] The heart is terrified; it is the seat
of the intelligence. God seals or covers the hearts so that men do not
understand; the hearts of believers find peace in remembering God.[354]
You will already have noticed the great similarity between these
affirmations and the language of the Old Testament. It is not probable,
however, that there was direct dependence. The simple psychology was
common to Hebrew and to Arabic thought before the rise of Islam.

The result which we have reached is important for our present inquiry in
two ways. First, there is no trichotomy in man according to the Koran;
secondly, the seat of sin is not the body alone.

There is no clear indication of a trichotomy in man. It is indeed said
that man’s life or soul is derived from the spirit of God. God Himself
says to the angels: “I am about to make man of clay, and when I have
formed him and breathed into him of my spirit, then bow down to
him.”[355] In adopting this Biblical language, Mohammed was probably
ignorant of the Christian speculation, which would see in it authority
for a third element of the human personality, different from body and
soul. He speaks of the creation of animals in language similar to what
was just quoted, where he says that Jesus made birds of clay and
breathed into them so that they became alive.[356] Mohammed seems to
conceive of the breathing as the method of introducing life into the
creature. He nowhere speaks of the _spirit_ of man. In this respect the
Mohammedan theologians have gone beyond their master, and have learned
from the Christians to distinguish between the spirit and the soul of
man.[357] But this is foreign to the Koran, which knows but one
immaterial part of man—the soul, which has its seat in the heart.

The doctrine that the soul is the man, precludes the idea that sin is
the evil of the body—or that the flesh is the seat of sin. This is not
contradicted by the prominence given to the desires as a source of sin,
for the desires pertain to the soul. Oriental speculation on this
subject seems not to have reached Mohammed. If it reached him, it made
no impression upon him. In fact, as we have had occasion to remark, he
was no philosopher or speculative theologian. The problem which
confronted him was a practical problem. Before him, scattered
individuals throughout the tribes—the _Hanifs_ already alluded to—had
labored with it as a practical problem. They sought a peace of
conscience which the rites of heathenism could not give. Mohammed’s
interest was no other. In him as in them, the sense of sin was aroused
experimentally. Hence came the long practice of prayer and ascetic
exercises in the cave of Hira. When he found assurance, he found it in
the sense of pardon. The fact of sin and ill desert was not thereby
abolished; it was rather established. The thought of the Day of Judgment
took strong hold upon him, _just because_ he so strongly realized the
fact of sin in himself. What he experienced in himself he observed in
others. The call to preach, of which he was so vividly conscious, was
based upon the conviction that his contemporaries were in sin and under
the wrath of God.

On the basis of his personal experience Mohammed believed in the
universality of sin. He transferred his own experience to other men and
classed them with himself. This we conclude from indirect intimations
rather than from express affirmations of the Koran. He nowhere asserts
categorically the sinfulness of the whole race. He had to do with a
condition, not a theory. In a tradition he is reported as saying: “There
is not of the sons of Adam except Mary and her Son, one born but is
touched by the devil at the time of his birth; and the child makes a
loud noise from the touch.”[358] The tradition is doubtless influenced
by some theory of natural depravity. But it does not affirm the
transmission of sin from father to son—the idea is rather that from the
moment of birth every human being is assailed by Satan. The universality
of actual transgression does not necessarily follow.

It is in fact rather remarkable that Mohammed should so fully adopt the
Biblical account of the sin of Adam, and yet not connect with it the
doctrine of the corruption of the race. Let me hasten to say that he
does not show any closer adherence to the letter of the Bible in this
than in the other Biblical narratives, in fact the departures are rather
more noticeable in this than in the others. His account is to the effect
that Adam and his wife were created of clay and placed in the Garden of
Paradise, which is in heaven. God commands the angels to bow down to
Adam as His vicegerent. All obey except Iblis, who refuses on the ground
that Adam is his inferior. Iblis is then expelled from the Garden
because of his arrogance, but receives permission to act as the tempter
of man. Adam and his wife are commanded not to eat of one tree in the
Garden, and are warned against the wiles of Satan. Nevertheless Satan
insinuates that the tree is forbidden to them because, if they eat, they
will become angels or immortal. So they eat, and both tempter and
tempted are cast down to earth to live in mutual enmity until the day of
final doom. The story, which is given several times in the Koran, may be
said to embody Mohammed’s theory of the origin of sin. This was to him a
very simple matter—sin is disobedience to the commands of God. It came
into being when the pride of Iblis revolted against a command of God. It
was transmitted from Iblis to Adam by way of suggestion, and in him its
essence was disobedience to the command of God. That Adam was originally
endowed with holiness and lost it in his fall, is nowhere affirmed. No
more is such a solidarity of the race affirmed or assumed as would make
all mankind sin in Adam and fall with him in his first transgression.

Although we find no theory of an organic connection between the sin of
Adam and the sinfulness of the race, yet the story of the first man is
not unmeaning. It is an example of the universal experience. All men are
subject to temptation. This comes from their desires. We read of the
wicked: “In their hearts is a disease, and God increases their
disease”;[359] and again: “Evil is that which their souls have put
before them.”[360] In this passage the soul seems put for the desires,
as we find it also in the old Testament. In the account given of Joseph
the hero himself confesses that “the soul inclines to evil except my
Lord have mercy.”[361] Elsewhere Mohammed is warned against him who
follows his inclination; and virtue is said to consist in restraining
the soul from its inclination.[362] These passages show that Mohammed
was not far from the New Testament treatment of concupiscence as the
root of sin. When desire conceives, it brings forth sin.

These desires are stimulated by the allurements of the world and the
suggestions of Satan. In the great Day, men and jinn will be asked: “Did
there not come to you Apostles from your own number, repeating to you My
revelations and warning you of this day? They will say: We testify
against ourselves—the life of the world beguiled us.”[363] The result of
the natural constitution of things is that men go astray. In this view
of it, it is entirely correct to speak of the lost estate of man. But
this is not due to the sin of Adam.

We have already noticed instances in which _tradition_ shows a nearer
approach to Christian theology than we find in the Koran. This is
illustrated in the subject before us. Mohammed is said to have related a
legend concerning Adam and to have added: “So Adam denied and his
children have inherited this vice: and Adam forgot and ate of the tree,
and his children have inherited forgetfulness from him; and Adam
committed a fault and his children inherited crimes from him.”[364] This
goes beyond anything in the Koran in its assertion of inherited
depravity, and we are compelled to suppose that it is colored by the
views of the traditionist. We find also a story in the biographies which
has obtained currency in most modern accounts of Mohammed to this
effect: When the Prophet was an infant (in another form of the story
when he was twelve years old), two angels cut open his breast and took
out his heart which they washed with snow and then restored to his
bosom. The story in this form is undoubtedly meant to teach that the
infant’s heart was thus cleansed of hereditary depravity. But we are
able to say that the story in this form is comparatively late. As first
told, it was connected not with the Prophet’s infancy but with the
beginning of his ministry. In this form it meant only that when God
called Mohammed, He cleansed him from the guilt of his former
sins—especially from the idolatry which he had practised in his earlier
life. In this form we cannot find any reference to the doctrine of
original sin.

The origin of sin is in the conflict between the natural desires of men
and the command of God. “The truth [has come] from your Lord; whoever
will, let him believe, and whoever will, let him disbelieve.”[365]
Whether the light of nature is enough to induce obedience we are not
told. In practice the command of God comes through the prophets. The sin
which is in the world is disobedience to these commands. Those who
disobey, following the allurements of the world or of Satan, are lost.
To realize how much this word meant to Mohammed we must picture to
ourselves the condition of the traveller in the desert. The pathless
waste stretches out on every hand. The wells are few and hidden in the
sand. The pitiless sun burns upon him from above and the heated soil
scorches his feet from below. The scanty water-skins are soon exhausted.
Unless some friendly hand point the way to water, the caravan must lie
down and die. Such is the condition of man in the present world. He is a
wanderer in a desert—in hopeless perplexity unless he has a guide. In
this sense all men are lost unless God intervenes for their rescue.

That this was Mohammed’s view we cannot doubt. He had in his own heart
an abiding sense of his need of guidance. The only real petition in his
model prayer (the Fatiha) asks for guidance; and he interprets the
petition for us in the words: “Our Lord, do not let our hearts wander,
after Thou hast directed us; give us grace from Thee—Thou art the
bountiful Giver.”[366] And a further commentary is afforded by the
traditions. Mohammed was asked what he was accustomed to say in his
private devotions. He replied: “I say: O God put my sins as far away
from me as Thou hast put the East from the West; O God, cleanse me from
sin as the white garment is cleansed from its filth; O God, wash away my
sins with water and with snow and with hail.”[367] I need hardly call
your attention to the Scripture affirmation that God “has put our sins
as far from us as the East is from the West,” and to the language of Job
concerning washing himself in snow water. The resemblance may be owing
partly to the traditionist, but there is no reason to suppose that the
sentiment is not genuinely Mohammed’s.

The sense of sin thus revealed is found also in Mohammed’s companions.
Abu Bekr asked Mohammed to teach him a prayer to be used in his private
devotions. The form given was: “O, God, I have wronged my own soul with
grievous sin, and none forgives sins but Thou; forgive me with Thy
forgiveness, and have compassion unto me—verily Thou art the Forgiving,
the Compassionate.”[368] Abu Bekr was of an emotional nature, and we are
not surprised to find such desires in him. But Omar, the man of iron
will and cool head, was affected with the same concern: “I heard the
sobbing of Omar (says one of the Companions), when I was in the last row
[in the mosque] as he recited: I show my grief and my sorrow to God
alone.”[369] Others of the early Moslems wept when prosperity came to
them, fearing that they were receiving their recompense in this life.
One of the Companions came to consult him, and the Prophet said: Are you
come to ask what is goodness and what is badness? On receiving an
affirmative reply (says the narrator), he joined his fingers together
and struck them upon my breast, that is, he made a sign toward my heart,
and said: Ask the sentence from thine own heart. This he repeated three
times and added: “Goodness is a thing from which the heart finds
firmness and rest, and badness is a thing which throws thee into doubt,
though men may approve.”[370] The sentence reminds us of Paul’s
treatment of conscience, but it is not quoted for that analogy. It is in
place here, because it throws light upon the mind of Mohammed and his
followers. We can scarcely interpret it otherwise than as indicating a
sincere dread of sin and a sincere desire for righteousness.

We must conclude that the power of Mohammed’s message consisted in its
appeal to the conscience. It threatened punishment which was felt to be
deserved. It was therefore a message of salvation. And the vividness of
the sense of ill desert was such as to paint a picture of impending
doom, from which men would be glad to flee. This doom was conceived of
either as a Day of the Lord—that is, a great catastrophe such as had
overtaken Sodom and destroyed Pharaoh—or as the Day of final Judgment.
As to the great catastrophe, it is possible, even probable, that
Mohammed’s early preaching set a time for its coming more definitely
than now appears. The present text of the Koran is rather guarded in its
language: “_Perhaps_ a portion of that which you desire to hasten is
close upon you;” “Men ask thee concerning the Hour. Say: The knowledge
of it is with God alone, and how dost thou know whether it may not be
near?”[371] In a few instances we find apparently categorical statements
that the Hour is near, and that its signs are already discernible. It is
probable that these were once more numerous. But the urgency of his
opponents that Mohammed should fix a definite time for the punishment,
taught him caution.

If there was some uncertainty as to God’s intervention in an overthrow
of the Meccan state, there could be none as to the final Judgment. That
was certain, and its decision would be irreversible. In that day
repentance will no longer avail, and those who are confronted with the
list of their sins will wish in vain for one hour of earthly life in
which to accept the message of their prophet. They will be asked whether
they had not had the opportunity to repent; whether apostles had not
come to warn them of their danger. They will be obliged to confess that
they have brought their punishment on themselves. Salvation (this is the
conclusion) is offered to men by the apostles of God. It was offered to
Adam after his fall: “Adam received from his Lord words, and repented
(He is the Indulgent, the Compassionate)—We said: Go down hence, and
when there comes to you guidance from Me, whoever follows My guidance,
no fear shall rest upon such nor shall they be grieved.”[372] Adam thus
received the words of grace directly from God, and with them a promise
of future revelation to the race.

In what has been said thus far, you will discover the substantial
agreement of Mohammed with Biblical doctrine. Aside from Paul, whose
philosophical discussion has perhaps unduly colored later theology, the
Biblical writers lay no emphasis upon the fall of man in Adam. At the
same time they assume the prevalence of sin, and its practical
universality. Their conviction is based upon the testimony of their own
consciences. They feel, therefore, the need of salvation. This feeling
is quickened by the preaching of the Prophets who proclaim a Day of
Yahweh, a day of calamity upon the evil-doers. In the New Testament this
Day of the Lord is combined with the final Judgment. The time is
evidently thought to be near, though it is expressly declared that no
man knows the day nor the hour. The emphasis of the message is laid upon
the way of escape provided by God Himself. This way of escape was
apparently open to Adam and was indicated by a promise made to him for
his descendants. In all these respects, Mohammed took strictly Biblical
ground.

Looking more narrowly at the idea of salvation as set forth in Islam, we
discover, first, that it is of God’s free grace. He has provided in His
ordinary administration of the world (that is, in nature) all that man
could require at His hands. But this has proved insufficient. Man is
ungrateful and inaccessible to such evidences. God therefore adds
something more, in giving His revelation. Not that Mohammed draws a
definite line marking off God’s goodness in nature from His goodness in
the scheme of salvation. He speaks of the _grace_ of God in both. This
word[373] means the state of mind which leads one to help or pardon the
undeserving; grace, mercy, or compassion are our equivalents. This state
of mind in God is shown by His ordinary providence. The rain is an
expression of His grace, and the winds which bring the clouds are its
precursors. The succession of day and night is adapted to the needs of
man, and this is of His grace. When trouble comes upon men they pray to
God, and He makes them taste His grace in that He sends them
relief.[374]

Salvation is another evidence and outworking of the same grace. The
prophets of earlier times were saved from the destruction which overtook
the unbelievers by a _grace_ (or _mercy_) from God.[375] By the same
_grace_ those who are admitted to Paradise are saved, and they recognize
the fact.[376] The special proof of this mind on the part of God is the
gift of revelation. The prophet Salih remonstrates with his people: “O,
my people! Do you not see? If I have received a plain sign from my Lord,
and if there has come to me from Him a grace [that is, a _revelation_],
who will defend me from Him if I rebel against him?”[377] In a nearly
related sense the prophet is himself said to be a grace from God. So the
angel of the annunciation, speaking for God, says to Mary: “We have made
him [Jesus] a sign to mankind, and a _grace_ from Us.[378] Mohammed also
is addressed in the words: “We have sent thee as a grace to the
universe.” The same word is applied to the revelation when embodied in a
book: “When Moses’ anger was appeased he took up the Tables in whose
characters was a direction and a grace to those who fear their
Lord.”[379] The “grace of God which bringeth salvation” is a Biblical
phrase which well sums up the view of Mohammed as set forth in these
passages.

But the grace of God does not limit itself to providing the revelation
which guides men into life. It is also exerted efficaciously upon the
hearts of men, moving them to obey the revelation. I know not how
otherwise to interpret those passages which pray for direction, like the
one already quoted—“Lord, let not our hearts stray from the right path
after Thou hast once directed us.” The revelation was already there.
What the speaker desired further was grace in the Christian sense, that
is: a positive movement of God upon his heart. Again: “Were not the
bounty of God and His grace upon you, not one of you would ever be pure;
but God purifies whom He will, and God is the one who hears and
knows.”[380] The Prophet is here exhorting his own followers and warning
them against following the footsteps of Satan. He evidently means that
something more than the revelation is the efficient cause of their
purification. In one passage he classes himself with those just
addressed: “Had not the bounty and the _grace_ of thy Lord been upon
thee, a party of them had purposed to lead thee astray [and succeeded].
But they shall lead astray only themselves, and shall not harm thee in
any respect. God hath sent down upon thee the Book and the grace, and
hath taught thee what thou didst not know, and the bounty of God toward
thee was great.”[381] It is evident on the face of the passage that some
trap was prepared for Mohammed from which he escaped. He ascribed his
escape to a special exercise of grace on the part of God.

This is the place to inquire for the doctrine of _particular election_.
We must, however, be careful not to put more into words than the author
intended. The general assertion that God chooses His instruments does
not imply an absolute decree extending to the lot of all mankind. The
question of such a decree seems to have been brought home to Mohammed by
the Jews. They insisted that they were an elect people, and the
implication was obvious that God had rejected the other nations. Against
this implication Mohammed asserted God’s sovereign freedom. The election
of Israel he acknowledged: “God chose for Himself Adam and Noah and the
family of Abraham and the family of Imran [the father of Mary] above all
the world.”[382] But he refused to acknowledge the validity of the
inference drawn by the Jews. “If God had pleased, He had made them [that
is, _mankind_] a single nation. But He lets whom He will partake of His
grace, and the evil-doers have neither protector nor helper.”[383] That
is to say: true religion is not a matter of race; all mankind might have
been the favored recipients of revelation; the preference of one part
over another rests in the will of God; He may and does admit others to
His grace as well as the Jews. The verse, therefore, vindicates the
freedom of God against a too narrow doctrine of election.[384] It
reminds us that Paul reasons in a similar way. The Jew claims that God
has bound Himself to save those who are born under the Law; Paul replies
that He has mercy on whom He will have mercy. This is not an assertion
of the absoluteness of the decree. It is a protest against the
narrowness of those who limit the grace of God by the absoluteness of an
election once made.

Still, the protest assumes the actuality of the decree. The election is
there, although no longer confined by lines of descent. God not only
chooses the prophets as His distinguished instruments; He chooses also
the other believers: “Of their [that is, _the Prophets’_] fathers, and
of their children, and of their brothers, have We chosen, and have led
them on the straight path. This is the guidance of God by whom He guides
whom He will of His servants; but if they become polytheists, what they
have done will be of no account. These are they to whom We have given
the Book and wisdom and prophecy; and if they disbelieve in it, We will
appoint for it a people who do not disbelieve.”[385] The divine choice
is here asserted, but it is not an absolute choice. Even those who are
chosen may become polytheists, thus falling away. In one passage,
however, we find that the will of the believer is dependent upon the
divine will: “This, now, is a reminder; whoever _will_ let him choose
the way to his Lord. But _you will not will_ unless God will.”[386] Some
other passages bearing on this subject have already been quoted in the
lecture on the Government of God. What we there discovered is confirmed
here—that Mohammed had no rigid theory on the subject.

The general theory of predestination (as we saw) is an affirmation that
the disbelief of man cannot really thwart the will of God. On the side
of faith, this conviction is aided by the soul’s consciousness of its
own weakness. The awakened man finds within himself no ability to meet
the commands of God. His judgment concerning his own will is, that it is
averse to good and dead in sin. When he finds himself believing in God
and appropriating His grace, he feels that this is not his own unaided
act. The doctrine of grace is a judgment founded on this experience.
Saving faith must be explained as the effect of grace. Mohammed’s view
is seen in the following, addressed to believers: “God has made you love
faith, and has made it attractive in your hearts, and has made
infidelity and vice and rebellion odious to you.”[387] With this compare
the following: “We sent Jesus, the son of Mary and gave Him the Gospel,
_and placed in the hearts_ of those who followed him _compassion and
grace_;” and again: “It is He who sent the Shekina into the hearts of
the believers to increase them in faith after they had once
believed.”[388] The doctrine of election, as far as it is held, is a
part of the doctrine of grace.

The same thing is true of the Scripture doctrine, where it is apparently
asserted that faith is a gift from God, and where the believer is
encouraged to work out his own salvation _because_ it is God who is
working in him to will and to do of His good pleasure. The revelation
alone does not save men. This is evident from its different effects upon
different men. To some it is a savor from death unto death, to others a
savor from life unto life. No other, as I understand it, is the position
of Mohammed. In one place he says directly that what has been revealed
to him increases the disobedience and unbelief of some who hear.[389] In
all these respects therefore the doctrine of Islam shows Biblical
influence.

The next thing to be noted is that the mark of salvation is _faith_. Up
to this point we have discussed the divine provision. This consists not
only in a revelation of God’s will, but also in efficient grace for
those who are to be saved. The evidence that the grace has taken effect
is that its subjects _believe_. Those who believe are saved and those
who disbelieve are lost. These two classes appear on almost every page
of the Koran. The fundamental importance of faith, however, is not so
clearly marked in the earlier suras as in the later. At first Mohammed
seems to have been under the influence of the Gospel description of the
judgment—where the saved and the lost are distinguished rather by their
works than by their faith. They who have fed the hungry, clothed the
naked, visited the sick and the prisoners—these are the ones who are
welcomed to the place prepared for them. So in the earlier chapters of
the Koran we find good works specified as the reason why some enter
Paradise. They are the ones who have kept themselves pure, who have set
the captives free, who have nourished the orphans, and the poor.[390]
Faith appears, but it appears as one among many virtues. As time goes
on, its fundamental importance seems to emerge more distinctly. The
great obstacle which met the Prophet revealed itself as unbelief; and
conversely, the distinctive mark of those who accepted the new religion
was seen to be faith. After the very earliest period of his ministry,
therefore, he adopted fully the declaration: “He that believeth shall be
saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.”

The Arabic word which Mohammed used to express the idea of faith is
essentially the same word used both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament
and in the Syriac translation of the New Testament. He used it to
describe (historically) the state of mind of the prophets, his
predecessors, and those who followed them. It is Abraham especially who
is the example of faith: “Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, yet he
was pious, resigned, and not an idolater. The nearest of men to Abraham
are those who follow him—that is: the Prophet [Mohammed] and _those who
believe_.” “Who is more excellent in the matter of religion than he who
resigns himself to God, who does good works and follows the way of
Abraham the pious, whom God took as His friend.”[391] The thought is
evidently borrowed from the New Testament. And our first definition of
faith is taken from the behavior of Abraham—_he was not an idolater_.
That is to say: Faith is acceptance of the proposition that there is no
God but one. “Abraham said to his father: I am pure from the service
which you render.”[392] That Mohammed did not mean the _mere_
intellectual faith, however, is evident from other passages, such as the
following: “The believers _commit themselves_ to God; and why should we
not commit ourselves to Him, when He has guided us on our ways?”[393]
Other passages which speak of the believers taking God as their
protector imply that their faith is _trust_ in Him.[394]

The man who believes in God must believe the messenger of God and his
message. God and His Apostle are often joined together as the object of
faith; so are God and His revelation. Or, faith may be spoken of as
belief in the Apostle or in the revelation, where belief in God is
implied. As with us, belief in the Word necessarily includes belief in
God. This faith is assent to the truth of the message. The most frequent
charge against the unbelievers is that they accuse the revelation of
falsehood. Examples are so numerous that I need not quote.[395]

In other passages faith is defined as believing in God and the Last
Day,[396] or simply as believing in the life to come. Believers are once
described as _having assurance_ of the life to come, and once as
_believing in the unseen_. The unbelief which opposed Mohammed made its
stand on this point more obstinately than on any other. That men should
be restored to life with fully reconstructed bodies after once becoming
dust and mouldering bones, they would not believe, and, indeed, they
ridiculed so absurd a proposition. The preacher had often to denounce
the guilt of such unbelief. Conversely, faith in the future life is
often mentioned in connection with faith in God and His Apostle: “Those
who believe in the future life believe [also] in the Koran, and are
“watchful unto prayer.”[397] And again: The believers, all of them,
believe in God and His angels, and His Books and His Apostles—without
distinguishing between the Apostles—and they say: We have heard and we
obey! Grant us Thy forgiveness, O Lord; unto Thee we tend.”[398] Faith,
then, is not a mere intellectual assent to certain propositions; it is a
disposing of the will toward the Author of the revelation, with a desire
to obey His commands.

We can readily understand now, why faith and good works are so often
mentioned together. _They who believe and do good works_ is the most
frequent phrase descriptive of the righteous. More elaborate
descriptions are such as the following: “The good does not consist in
turning your faces to the East or the West. But good is he who believes
in God and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the Prophets;
and who for the love of Him gives his property to his kinsmen, and to
the orphans, and the poor, and the wayfarer, and the mendicant, and for
freeing slaves; and who observes prayer and who gives alms, and [good
are] those who fulfil their engagements when they have made them, and
those who are patient in misfortunes and distresses and in the time of
calamity. These are the righteous and these are they who fear God.”[399]
Such descriptions show that Mohammed had reflected on the connection of
faith and works. Faith and the fear of God are also joined together, as
are faith and repentance. All this convinces us that Mohammed desired to
awaken the affection of the heart and draw it toward God. “Those only
believe Our words[400] who, when they are reminded of them, fall
prostrate and utter the praise of their Lord; who do not exalt
themselves; whose bodies do not rest upon their beds, because they call
upon their Lord in fear and in desire.”

In practice, and when he had become ruler of a state, the Prophet
recognized that the profession of the lips was all that he could require
from men. In this he was doing what political leaders are obliged to do.
But what has been said, shows that his ideal was very near the one set
forth in the Bible. Where he says that the hearts of believers find rest
in making mention of God,[401] we are reminded of the Biblical promises
of peace to the believer. The tradition which declares that the
intention makes the quality of the action[402] is very near the Old
Testament declaration that “as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.”
Again, a tradition gives the following: “Mohammed said: None of you
believes until he loves his brother as he loves himself.”[403] New
Testament influence is the more marked, that the Peshito has _thy
brother_ for _thy neighbor_ in the second great commandment. And again:
“None of you believes until I am dearer to him than his father and his
child.”[404] We remember that Jesus also said: “He that loveth father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or
daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Once more: “Mohammed said:
There is a piece of flesh in the body [of which it is true that] when it
is right, the whole body is right, and when it is unsound the whole body
is unsound.”[405] _Out of the heart are the issues of life_ is the
parallel declaration of the Gospel.

_Islam_ is another name for faith; or, where a distinction is made,
_Islam_ is the outward profession; _Iman_ (faith) is the inward state.
Mohammed says of the Bedawin: “The Arabs say: We believe. Say to them:
Nay you do not believe, you should say rather: We have accepted
Islam,[406] for faith has not yet entered your hearts.” He knew his
Arabs and knew that the great part of them had made an external
submission to his rule while their hearts were unchanged. Still, as the
submission may be the expression of sincerity, Islam is not infrequently
used for faith: “When [Abraham’s] Lord said to him: Be resigned! he
replied: I am resigned to the Lord of the universe.” When Abraham went
to offer his son, the son encouraged his father, promising to be
patient—“And when both had [thus] resigned themselves, he threw him upon
his face but We called to him.”[407] As submission to the will of God,
Islam is a principle common to the three great religions. The Jews and
Christians claim to have been resigned (Moslems) before the coming of
Mohammed.[408] It follows that Mohammed did not intend to make Islam the
distinguishing principle of his religion. He identified his religion
with Judaism and Christianity. In all three, _faith_ was the principle
in the heart, Islam the profession with the lips. In the New Testament
also, “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.”[409]

But what is the salvation secured by those who believe? Most prominently
it is deliverance from punishment. As we have seen, the future state
bulks largely in the preaching of Mohammed. He had no timidity in
painting either the joys of the blessed or the torments of the doomed.
The thought of the Judgment was the overmastering thought of his earlier
career, and the motive for his preaching. That he was here under
Christian influence needs no demonstration. To modern taste his appeal
to the fear of punishment is made too prominent. But it is doubtful
whether it would have seemed so to the Church of the Middle Age.

We should wrong Mohammed, however, if we supposed his conception of
salvation to be merely external. The happiness of the believer consists
in obtaining the forgiveness of God, and this forgiveness is valued for
itself—not because it secures entrance to Paradise. The wrath of God
rests on sinners, but He forgives those who believe. So he has
manifested His grace in the past. When David was reproved by a
parable—“then he discovered how We had tested him and, falling
prostrate, he begged forgiveness of his Lord and repented; and We
forgave him his sin, and he had access to Us, and an excellent
refuge.”[410] Of true believers it is said: “These, when they have done
wrong or harmed their souls, remember God and ask forgiveness for their
sins (and who forgives sins except God?) and do not persist in what they
have done, when they know [its harm]; their portion is forgiveness from
their Lord, and Gardens in which flow perennial streams.”[411] Although
the future reward is mentioned here, the forgiveness is evidently
regarded as a good in itself. And we can scarcely doubt the spiritual
emphasis of such a passage as the following: “If you love God follow me,
and God will love you and forgive your sins—God is loving and
gracious.”[412] It is related in a tradition that Mohammed was
accustomed to pray for forgiveness seventy times a day; and that he
said: “There are three things possessing which a man finds the sweetness
of faith: that Allah and His Prophet are dearer to him than anything
besides them; that he loves the man who is loved by none but God; and
that he dreads returning to unbelief as he dreads being thrown into the
fire.”[413] The motive here urged is the sweetness of a complete faith
considered by itself, and not looking for another reward.

But while we find some indications of a real spiritual apprehension of
religion, it must be confessed that the emphasis of Mohammed is placed
largely upon externals. His imagination was unequal to the task of
describing pure spiritual joys except under sensuous images. Hence comes
the wearisome repetitions in his picture of the rewards of heaven. In
laying so much stress upon the rewards of piety, he fell short of the
New Testament ideal. And this is accounted for largely by his conception
of revelation as a law. It is indeed a grace of God, that men are
pointed to the right path. They do attain salvation by following the
direction thus imparted. But in practice, this means that their
salvation consists in the performance of ceremonies, whose only reason
is that they are enjoined by God. A treatise of Moslem theology which
represents the established orthodoxy[414] says the foundations of Islam
are five, to wit: (1) the confession that there is no God but Allah and
that Mohammed is His Apostle, (2) the observance of prayer, (3) the
giving of alms, (4) the observance of Ramadhan, and (5) the performance
of the pilgrimage. Four parts of religion out of five therefore consist
in external observances. This is no doubt an exaggerated statement, as
compared with what Mohammed himself would have said. But he opened the
way to such a conception by presenting his revelation as a legal system.
Here is one of the points in which he failed to rise to the New
Testament view, and in which his system more nearly resembled the
legalism into which the Jews fell by their one-sided emphasis of their
Tora.

But while admitting that Islam did not rise to the height of the Gospel,
we must remember that the Christianity of that day did not rise to the
height of the Gospel either. The early Church saw in the New Testament a
new Law of essentially the same nature with the old.[415] This being the
conception which Mohammed received from the Christianity of his time we
cannot wonder that he adopted it, especially as circumstances emphasized
the need of a strict code. He had to do with men converted from
heathenism. They were men little used to self-control. As a matter of
state policy, he was obliged to provide them with specific rules of
conduct, and to enforce obedience by supernatural sanctions. His rules
were not as restrictive as those of Judaism, but the principle on which
the system was based was really the same.

The result of placing the revelation in this position has been to make
Islam the most conservative system the world has ever seen. Mohammed
was, as he himself claimed, the last of the prophets—the seal of that
long line of messengers. His revelation is therefore the final
revelation, and being a law for all relations of life, civil, social,
and individual, these cannot change because it cannot change.[416] There
is no power which can amend it, because it is a transcript from the
heavenly tablet, and no one now has access to the original. The
Pentateuch and the Gospel are indeed from the same exalted source. But
in their present form these are open to suspicion as having possibly
been corrupted by those who have them in charge. The authentic law is
the Koran; and faith in God means obedience to this law. Multitudes of
earnest and conscientious men are making it the aim of their lives to
conform to this law. They actually attain a high degree of virtue
measured by the standard of the Middle Age; and their conscientious
fidelity to principle must command our respect, measure it by what
standard we will. But their devotion to the light which came to their
ancestors nearly thirteen hundred years ago, shuts their eyes to the
light of the present time. All the wonderful progress of which we boast,
is to them only apostasy from the truth of God. Hence arises the tragedy
of the East—a tragedy at which the civilized world stands aghast to-day,
and the last act in which, it is to be feared, is not yet played.

This is not the place in which to discuss this subject at length. Our
topic is sin and salvation, and we have discovered in this as in the
other parts of Mohammed’s doctrine a decisive Biblical influence. His
system is that of the Old and New Testament, so far as he was able to
adapt it to the people with whom he came in contact. To a considerable
extent he apprehended the doctrine of salvation by faith. But he
hampered his system by tying faith down to a code which, under the guise
of an unchangeable revelation, made the customs of his time a matter of
perpetual obligation.

Footnote 351:

  In 6^{60} God is said to take the souls in the night (that is, in
  sleep) with the same language with which the angels are said to take
  the souls at death, 6^{61}, cf. also 39^{13}. Those who have been
  slain in battle for the good cause cannot be called dead—they are the
  truly living, though beyond our sight, 2^{149}.

Footnote 352:

  Koran 53^{23}, 41^{31}.

Footnote 353:

  10^{100}, 16^{108}.

Footnote 354:

  50^{36}, 15^{12}, 6^{25}, 13^{28}.

Footnote 355:

  Koran 32^8, cf. 15^{29}, 38^{72}.

Footnote 356:

  5^{110}.

Footnote 357:

  My wisdom comes from Lane, _Arabic Lexicon_, p. 2827.

Footnote 358:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 23.

Footnote 359:

  Koran 2^9.

Footnote 360:

  5^{83}.

Footnote 361:

  12^{53}.

Footnote 362:

  Koran 18^{27}, 79^{40}.

Footnote 363:

  6^{130}.

Footnote 364:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 35.

Footnote 365:

  Koran 18^{29}.

Footnote 366:

  Koran 3^6.

Footnote 367:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 167.

Footnote 368:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 187.

Footnote 369:

  Ibid., p. 162. Omar, was, of course, in the front row of those
  praying.

Footnote 370:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 4. For some striking examples of the dread of sin,
  see Kremer, _Herrschende Ideen des Islam_, p. 24.

Footnote 371:

  Koran 27^{74}, 33^{83}.

Footnote 372:

  Koran 2^{35 f}.

Footnote 373:

  _Rahma_; the root is found also in Hebrew.

Footnote 374:

  Koran 25^{50}, 28^{73}, 30^{32}.

Footnote 375:

  Koran 7^{70}, 11^{61}.

Footnote 376:

  3^{103}, 7^{47}.

Footnote 377:

  11^{66}.

Footnote 378:

  19^{21}.

Footnote 379:

  12^{107}, 7^{153}.

Footnote 380:

  Koran 24^{21}.

Footnote 381:

  4^{113}.

Footnote 382:

  Koran 3^{30}.

Footnote 383:

  42^6.

Footnote 384:

  Against the maxim of the Jews to trust none but those of their own
  religion, Mohammed says: “Say: Verily the Guidance is God’s Guidance,
  that any man may receive the like of what you have received, or may
  even surpass you in the sight of your Lord. Say: Verily the bounty is
  in the hand of God; He bestows it upon whom He will, and God is
  liberal, wise. He distinguishes by His grace whom He will, and He is
  the possessor of enormous bounty” (3^{66 f}). It must be clear that
  the opposition is between the narrowness of Judaism, which recognizes
  no religion but its own, and the breadth of a divine choice which is
  not confined within lines of race.

Footnote 385:

  Koran 6^{87 ff}.

Footnote 386:

  76^{29 f}.

Footnote 387:

  Koran 49^7 and cf. 58^{22}.

Footnote 388:

  57^{27}, 48^4.

Footnote 389:

  Koran 5^{72}. cf. 9^{125 f}.

Footnote 390:

  76^8, 87^{14 f}, 92^5.

Footnote 391:

  Koran 3^{60 f}, 4^{124}.

Footnote 392:

  43^{25}.

Footnote 393:

  Koran 14^{14 f}.

Footnote 394:

  5^{61}.

Footnote 395:

  It is perhaps an evidence of the affinity of Mohammed’s doctrine with
  that current among Christians that he found the Christians the most
  ready to receive him: “Thou wilt find the nearest in friendship to the
  believers those who call themselves Christians. This is because they
  have priests and monks, and are not arrogant. When they hear what is
  revealed to the Prophet, thou wilt see their eyes overflow with tears
  on account of the truth which they recognize, while they say: Our
  Lord, we believe! Enroll us among those who testify [to the truth].
  And why should we not believe in God and in the truth which has come
  to us, and [why should we not] desire that our Lord may place us among
  the righteous?” 5^{86 f}. We can hardly suppose the words to have been
  spoken without some basis in fact.

Footnote 396:

  2^{59}.

Footnote 397:

  Koran 6^2.

Footnote 398:

  2^{285}.

Footnote 399:

  Koran 2^{172}.

Footnote 400:

  _Our signs_, where _signs_ is put for the verses of the Koran. The
  passage is 32^{15 f}.

Footnote 401:

  13^{28}.

Footnote 402:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 2.

Footnote 403:

  Ibid., p. 8. Cf. Matt. 22^{39} (Peshito).

Footnote 404:

  Ibid., p. 9. Cf. Matt. 10^{37}.

Footnote 405:

  Ibid., p. 17.

Footnote 406:

  Aslamna, _we are resigned_. The passage is 49^{14}.

Footnote 407:

  Koran 2^{125}, 37^{103}.

Footnote 408:

  28^{52 f}.

Footnote 409:

  Rom. 10^{10}.

Footnote 410:

  Koran 38^{23}.

Footnote 411:

  3^{129}.

Footnote 412:

  3^{29}

Footnote 413:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 9.

Footnote 414:

  _Compendium Theol. Moham._ apud Reland. _De Relig. Moham._, p. 5.

Footnote 415:

  Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, II., p. 140.

Footnote 416:

  The traditions rightly express the mind of Islam when they make
  Mohammed say: “Verily the best word is the word of God; and the best
  rule of conduct is that delivered by Mohammed, and the worst of all
  acts are those which are innovations ... and every innovation is
  abandoning the right road.”—_Mishcat_, I., p. 44.




                             LECTURE VIII.
                           THE SERVICE OF GOD


There is probably no religion which has not some ethical quality. There
are always moral obligations imposed by the gods, even in heathenism. In
Arab heathenism we have examples, in those engagements to which the gods
were themselves party. When a treaty was made between two tribes, the
solemn act was performed at a sanctuary, and the deity was made a
contracting party. This was done in the belief that he would punish the
party which broke its engagement. The gods were therefore protectors of
oaths. To a certain extent they were also helpers of the helpless.
Fugitives, upon whom the guilt of blood rested, found an asylum at the
sanctuary, and the god became their patron. But in general, what we know
of the gods of the Arabs does not impress us with their high moral
character. They do not appear as the judges of conduct except where
their own rights are invaded—as in the cases already specified. The
morality which existed was developed without their influence. It was the
result of social forces working independently. For example, the heathen
Arab was strong in endurance. The scanty nourishment of the desert
enforces this as a lesson of nature. To the present day among the
Bedawin the chiefest virtue is patience—“a courageous forbearing and
abiding of hunger.”[417] So it was before Mohammed. There were no
religious motives brought to bear upon the conscience in favor of this
virtue. Public opinion and the individual affections were enough. So it
was with the martial virtues. Tribal society lives in a state of
warfare. In such a society, courage in battle, fidelity to the blood,
self-sacrifice for the clan (or even for its lowliest members) easily
become the ideal of nobility, without the aid of religion. So it was in
Arab heathenism. The _hospitality_ for which the Bedawy has become
famous, is another social virtue whose roots can be traced as far back
as our knowledge of Arab heathenism goes. And this hospitality was not
only exercised toward the passing guest—it flowed constantly for the
needy. The songs of Hudhail speak of “Chalid to whom came for support
widows who found no abiding place among their kinsfolk.”[418]

We are the more bound to recognize the virtues of heathenism, that the
Moslems have no eye for them. The revolution produced by Islam allows
them to think of the virtues of their ancestors only as brilliant vices.
In reality they were more than this, and the best of them were adopted
by the new religion. The characteristic thing, however, is, that in
heathenism they were independent of religion; in Islam they were brought
into vital connection with it.[419] The change was made possible by the
new doctrine of the unity of God; it was actively fostered by the scheme
of future rewards and punishments. In Islam the will of Allah becomes
the supreme rule of life. The believer becomes, by his faith, a servant
whose only motive is to inquire his Lord’s will and to perform it. Why
that will is so, and not otherwise, does not concern him. Mohammed
describes himself and his motive to virtue when he speaks of himself as
a grateful servant. We remember that the Apostle Paul also liked to call
himself the bond-servant of Jesus Christ.

All conduct comes under this point of view. There is no distinction
between ceremonial law and moral law. The servant is to do what he is
bid, whether it be to abstain from killing game when on a pilgrimage, or
to avoid adultery and murder. Ritual and ethics come under the same
head—all conduct is ritual, or all is ethical, as you please to view it.
That this is also the view of the Old Testament is evident. The commands
of the Pentateuch are given without distinction into classes, and all
are motived in the same way. Israel is a people set apart to the service
of God. The service consists in obedience to His revealed will—whether
the command be to abstain from pork or to abstain from murder. This is
precisely what is meant by calling Israel a holy (consecrated) people.
Mohammed had the idea, and possibly expressed it in similar language.
The New Testament has the idea but spiritualizes it. The ritual of the
Christian consists in visiting the widow and the fatherless in their
affliction, and in keeping himself unspotted from the world. But the
Church has not yet risen to the height of this ideal. Certainly in the
time of Mohammed it stood with the Synagogue in emphasizing ritual quite
as much as morality.

It is for convenience only, therefore, that I discuss the service of God
under the two heads of _ritual_ and _ethics_. The distinction has no
basis in Islam itself. In both divisions of the subject we see the
curious interplay of two factors—one the influence of the old
heathenism, the other the influence of the earlier revealed religions.
Mohammed seems to have desired a more complete break with heathenism
than he was actually able to effect. An example is the _kibla_—the point
toward which the worshipper turns in prayer. When he went to Medina he
fixed Jerusalem as this central point. But he found it impossible to
maintain the regulation. Either because of his own affection for the
ancestral sanctuary, which he had already recognized as the House of
God,[420] or in order to strengthen his cause with the Arabs, he changed
his Kibla to Mecca after about a year. The incident is typical of his
career. At the beginning he was inclined to make a radical departure
from heathenism. In the end he had adopted a considerable portion of its
ritual.

This is further exemplified in the rites of pilgrimage and sacrifice.
These, as he adopted them, were taken from heathenism rather than from
Judaism—though not without analogies in Judaism. In adopting sacrifice,
he was careful to disavow its heathen significance. The most natural
interpretation of such a rite is that the God partakes of the offering.
Against this Mohammed pronounces: “As for the sacrificial animals, We
have made them to be a part of the rites of God, in which is a benefit.
Therefore pronounce the name of God over them as they stand in rows;
and, when they are slain, eat their flesh and feed the contented [poor]
and the one who is ashamed to ask. Thus We have made the cattle
submissive to you, perhaps you may be grateful. _Their flesh and their
blood do not ascend to God_, but the piety shown by you ascends to
Him—thus He has made them submissive to you, that you may praise God for
the way in which He has led you.”[421] These words contradict not only
the theory that the sacrifice is a gift to God, but also the theory that
it constitutes a sacramental meal, in which He partakes with the
worshipper, and further, the theory that it is a propitiation for sin.
Nothing is left except an undefined benefit to the believer, which was
probably conceived of as the merit of having obeyed a command of God.
Evidently Mohammed adopted as little of the ancient institution as he
could adopt if he retained it at all, and we may suppose that in
reducing it to such narrow limits, he was to some extent under Christian
influence.

In immediate connection with sacrifice we must notice the pilgrimage.
The only official sacrifices (if I may use this phrase) in Islam are
offered in connection with the pilgrimage.[422] According to tradition
it is incumbent on every Moslem, once in his lifetime, to visit the
sanctuary at Mecca. Mohammed, who lived at Medina, seems to have
intended that this should be done every year by those who were not
specially hindered. In performing this duty the pilgrim wears a special
garb from the time of entering the sacred territory. He makes the
circuit of the Kaaba and takes part in other ceremonies, now carefully
regulated by tradition, and, finally, he offers a sacrifice in the
valley of Mina. He then shaves his head and resumes his ordinary
clothing. The whole resembles what we find in Judaism, where it is
incumbent upon the Israelite to visit the central sanctuary at stated
times. Those Jews who were converted to Christianity did not abandon the
custom, for we find the Apostle Paul resolved to keep the feast of
Pentecost at Jerusalem. With this precedent, we are not surprised to
find pilgrimage established as a meritorious work in Christianity from
very early times. Its prominence in the Middle Age and the influence
which its interruption had in arousing Europe to the Crusades are well
known. It is possible, therefore, that Mohammed, in establishing this
rite, justified himself by both Jewish and Christian precedent. But the
resemblance which its external features show to Judaism must not make us
think that they are borrowed from Judaism. The resemblance is really
owing to the older Semitic heathenism, upon which both Judaism and Islam
rest. The shaving of the head, for example, which we find in Islam, and
of which we find examples both in the Old Testament and the New, is
found also in Arabic heathenism. It is really a survival from the
earliest Semitic heathenism of which we have any knowledge, in which the
sacrifice of the hair played a prominent part.

Again, the donning of special garments at the sanctuary, which at first
sight we think peculiar to Islam, has its analogies in many other
religions. The command given to the Israelites to wash their clothes
before the appearance of God at Sinai is based upon the same idea, and
so is the exhortation of the Psalmist to worship in the _beauty of
holiness_, by which he means the sacred vestments. The idea is, of
course, that nothing ceremonially unclean should appear before God. In
the later Old Testament law the laity are kept altogether from
approaching the holy part of the Temple, so that this regulation is for
them unnecessary. So much the more stringent is the command that the
_priests_ should approach God only in the consecrated garments.[423] On
the other hand we are told that at Mecca, before the time of Mohammed,
the pilgrims used to hire garments kept specially for them, and wear
them in making the circuit of the Kaaba. The natural conclusion is that
Mohammed did not borrow from the earlier revealed religions, but that he
adopted the heathen custom, purging it of what seemed to him
incompatible with the faith. The question of religious observances gave
him some thought, even at Mecca, if we may judge by the Koran passage
which says: “We have ordained for every nation rites which they observe.
Let none dispute with thee in this matter, but pray to thy Lord—verily
thou art in the straight path.”[424] The theory that the early religion
of Mecca went back to Abraham would involve the belief that the
pilgrimage was divinely ordained, and this would easily be confirmed by
what Mohammed knew of Jewish and Christian customs. The emphasis which
he laid upon the matter of pilgrimage is indicated, and perhaps
exaggerated, by the tradition which makes him say, that he who worthily
performs the pilgrimage returns as innocent as he was the day his mother
bore him.[425]

The next ritual observance which is prominent in Islam is _fasting_. It
is a matter of common fame that the Mohammedan world observes the month
of Ramadhan by abstaining from food during the daylight hours. It must
be confessed that the month is now characterized as much by feasting at
night as it is by fasting during the day, but this was hardly the
intention of the founder. His idea seems to have been that as God is
nearer to men at some _places_ than He is at others, so He is nearer at
some _times_ than He is at others. Such a season should be marked by
some special observances. With this he may have had the idea that a
month of self-denial would be well pleasing to God. In regard to this
rite we have less distinct testimony from Arabic heathenism that we have
in regard to some of the others which have been mentioned. Certainly the
direct precedent is found in Judaism and in Christianity. Tradition
distinctly asserts that Mohammed first established a fast in imitation
of the Jews. When he came to Medina[426] he found them observing the Day
of Atonement, and in imitation of them he commanded his followers to
observe the same day in the same way. In the following year, however, he
appointed Ramadhan as a month of fasting. There is no Jewish fast of
this extent, and as in that year he began to show his independence of
the Jews, he was probably influenced by the Christian Lent. There can be
no question that he believed a precedent set in other religions: “O,
believers, fasting is ordained for you as it was ordained for those
before you, that you may observe piety.”[427] That a month should be the
time fixed, instead of forty days, need not cause surprise. The forty
days had no special significance in Islam, and in fact was not constant
in Christianity, whereas Mohammed was already familiar with the idea of
a sacred month or months in heathenism. His sense of the importance of
the moon as a measure of time was very marked. He not infrequently
alludes to the moon’s being created for this purpose, and he went so far
as to rearrange the calendar, making his year a strictly lunar year.
This was undoubtedly a misfortune for the Moslem world, but we can trace
the reasoning which led to the action. God had made the moon for
seasons. Out of every twelve months which make a year He has made
certain ones sacred. By the intercalation of a month—which was the
Meccan device for making the solar and lunar year keep in harmony—these
were thrown out of their proper place: “The number of months in the
sight of God is twelve, written in the Book of God on the day when He
created heaven and earth.... Postponement [of the sacred months by
intercalation] is only excess of infidelity. The infidels lead astray by
it, making a month profane one year and making [the same month] sacred
another year, that they may agree with the number of months[428] which
God has made sacred. Thus they profane what God has consecrated. The
evil of their deeds is beautiful in their eyes, but God does not direct
the people of unbelievers.” With this high idea of the month as the unit
of time, it is natural that the Prophet should order his fast
accordingly. This gives us no light on the meaning of the observance,
but the passage quoted above seems to show that it was a means of
showing piety. It is also brought into special connection with Gabriel’s
visit to Mohammed, and this would agree with what has been said of its
being a time when God comes nearer to men than He comes at other times.

We next come upon a religious regulation which is so foreign to our
modern thought that we have difficulty in entering into the state of
mind which lies behind it—I mean the distinction between clean and
unclean. From the Old Testament we have learned that there are certain
things which the Hebrew could not touch, and certain acts which he could
not do, without thereby becoming unfit for approach to God. This
defilement extended over a longer or shorter period of time, according
to its intensity, and could only be removed by a religious rite. Of the
acts which render men unclean, the eating of certain kinds of food is
one of the most prominent, and at first sight we think we discover the
reason for this prohibition. Some of the forbidden objects are repulsive
to our taste (mostly because we are unfamiliar with them) and we
attribute like repulsion to the ancients. Or else we take refuge in
sanitary hypotheses and suppose the animals prohibited to be deleterious
to health. But it is doubtful whether either of these reasons will apply
to any system of clean and unclean. The natural repulsion certainly does
not exist among the peoples who are most affected by these laws; and
considerations of health were foreign to their mode of thinking. The
whole matter is a matter of religious regulation, and must be accounted
for in the sphere of religion. When we give this consideration full
weight, we see that clean and unclean are associated with the
recognition of different gods. He who has consecrated himself by
worshipping one god cannot immediately come into the presence of another
god; his first consecration must be washed off, or at least worn off by
the lapse of time. All the more, where the god is conceived of as a
jealous god like Yahweh. The marks of a rival deity upon a worshipper
would make His anger flame out upon him. In Israel nearly all animals
except the animals of the flock and herd were supposed to belong to some
of the false gods or demons. They could not be eaten without bringing
the worshipper into communion with these divinities. Even the
enlightened Paul would not have his converts drink of the cup of the
Lord and also of the cup of devils.

This Old Testament thought, which is also slightly shadowed forth in
some New Testament passages, was familiar to Mohammed. Some regulations
of this kind he adopted instinctively. He and his followers would not
eat of flesh offered to idols, taking thus the position of the more
scrupulous Christians in the Apostolic age. The point of view comes out
clearly in the Koran prohibition: “Do not eat of that over which the
name of Allah has not been pronounced, for this is sinful. The Satans
come down to their companions to dispute with you, and if you eat of
them you become idolaters.”[429] The exact meaning of the phrase _the
Satans come down to their companions to dispute with you_ is uncertain.
But it probably expresses Mohammed’s belief that the demons are so
associated with these offerings that the believers, in eating of the
offerings, put themselves in the power of the demons—precisely the
position of Paul just alluded to. Mohammed carried out the argument
logically. His final decree forbids: “that which has died [of itself],
and blood, the swine, and that over which any name except the name of
God has been pronounced, that which is strangled, that which is smitten
down with a club, that which falls from a precipice, that which is
gored, that which the beast of prey has torn (unless you are able to
bleed it), and that which is sacrificed to idols.”[430] Although the
list gives a large number of items, we see that it is substantially
covered by the New Testament principle. For the Council of Jerusalem
laid upon Gentile Christians abstinence from things offered to idols,
from things strangled, and from blood.

In view of what has been quoted from Paul there can hardly be any doubt
as to the reasoning upon which this decree is based. The things offered
to idols are the property of the demons. The Christian by eating of them
comes into communion with the demons. But he thereby loses communion
with God. Things strangled are forbidden for the same reason as that for
which blood is forbidden. The blood belongs to God and is unlawful to
man—if it cannot be sacrificed it must at least be carefully separated
from the flesh. All Mohammed’s list may be explained on this very
principle—that blood and idol sacrifices are unlawful. In this he
considerably modified the Old Testament law, dealing freely with it, as
he did in some other cases we have noticed,[431] but influenced also by
New Testament precedent.

The means ordinarily used to remove ceremonial defilement is water. For
the Moslem, therefore, the ablution is one of the most important parts
of the service of God. The Koran commands: “O, believers, when you are
ready for worship, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows,
and wipe your heads, and [wash] your feet as far as your ankles.”[432]
In addition to this, which is the ordinary ablution, a full bath is
ordered for certain kinds of defilement—as was the case in Judaism. The
subject interests us here only as it is connected to all appearance with
the Old Testament and Rabbinical washings, rather than with Christian
Baptism. Baptism is referred to but once in the Koran, if indeed it is
referred to at all.[433] It is possible however that Mohammed’s practice
was influenced not by the Jews alone, but by the various Gnostic or
Pseudo-Christian sects which insisted on frequent baptisms or
ablutions.[434]

We come now to the most important part of the Mohammedan ritual—the act
of worship which we call _prayer_. This is hardly an exact rendering, as
when we speak of prayer, we think most prominently of supplication. But
the _çalat_ of the Moslem does not contain any large element of
supplication. It is an act of divine service, an act performed for the
glory of God and in obedience to Him. Like other parts of the ritual it
is not left to the discretion of the believer, but is carefully
regulated by tradition, both as to the times when it is to be performed,
and as to the ceremonies which must be observed. Five times in the day,
the believer must perform this act of devotion, wherever he may be; and
Christian travellers in the East have frequent occasion to admire the
fidelity with which the Moslem turns aside from his business or his
amusement to show his obedience to his Maker.

It is unnecessary to describe the postures which are enjoined by
tradition for this service. The believer stands, bows, kneels, and
prostrates himself with his forehead touching the ground. These acts
follow a certain sequence making up a _rekah_ or prostration. A prayer
(to use the conventional term) is made up of at least two prostrations,
and the number may be increased to ten or more. In these various
postures the worshipper repeats portions of the Koran[435] and
ejaculations of praise. At certain points he declares his belief in the
unity of God and the apostleship of Mohammed. At the close he salutes
the angels to his right and left. The chief content of what the believer
recites is the _praise of God_. When Mohammed was asked why he spent so
much time in devotion, he replied: “Shall I not be a thankful servant?”
Worship then is the recognition of God’s goodness and of His Kingship.
It is not man alone who praises his Maker. The whole creation joins in
ascriptions to Him: “Dost thou not see that whatever is in heaven and on
earth praises God, even the birds with expanded wings? Each knows its
worship [_çalat_] and its doxology, and God regards what they do.”[436]
Such expressions are frequent in the Koran, and they show what Mohammed
regarded as the proper service of the creature.

The importance of worship was rated very highly by Mohammed. He came out
of the house one day in winter when leaves were falling from the trees.
He took two branches from a tree, and the leaves began to drop from
them. Remarking this, he said to his companion: “Believers say their
prayers for the satisfaction of God, and their faults drop from them
like the leaves from these branches.”[437] In another tradition he is
represented as saying that the most pleasing thing to God is prayer at
its appointed times. Again, he called prayer a _Kaffara_, that is an
atonement, which covers sins from the sight of God. In another place he
says: “If one washed five times a day in a river which flowed at his
door, how much filth would remain upon him? So God washes away sin by
the five daily prayers.” If we may believe tradition further, he carried
his view of the importance of prayer to such an extreme as to say a man
is justified in repulsing one who interrupts his prayers even if he
thereby kills him. As it is added _for he is a Satan_, we may suppose
that Mohammed was disturbed in his devotions by the evil one in visible
form—the parallel with Luther will occur to every one. Other traditions
affirm that he had often to contend against the distraction of his
thoughts in his devotions, and that he ascribed this to Satan. In the
tradition before us, therefore, he was only counselling strenuous
resistance to such an interrupter of prayers; against a diabolical enemy
one may use any violence.[438]

Another evidence of Mohammed’s estimate of the value of the prescribed
worship is seen in another tradition. This is to the effect that Moslems
who are condemned to hell will be known by the callouses made upon their
knees by their habit of prayer, for over these spots the fire will have
no power; and men thus marked will finally be redeemed from the place of
torment.

Turning now to the question where Mohammed got his idea of worship, we
cannot doubt that he got it from a Christian source. Any one who has
seen public service in the Eastern Church, in any of its branches, will
have noticed how the congregation take part by kneeling, bowing,
crossing themselves, and joining in the responses. Very likely in some
of his journeyings Mohammed had seen such a service. If not, we can
readily suppose that his Christian friends at Mecca would exemplify such
a service. The sacraments, of course, they could not illustrate, not
being priests; and these, being mysteries of the faith, they would be
shy even of describing to a foreigner. With such elements as they gave
him, Mohammed arranged a ritual for himself. Its elements were the
various attitudes of worship exemplified by the Christians, and such
words of praise as were recited by them from the Psalms. With no mind
for mysteries or a priesthood, the Prophet found his simple liturgy
sufficient for himself, and for the community that gathered about him.

The number of five prayers daily has no direct Biblical precedent.
Daniel seems to have prayed three times daily, and the Psalmist
specifies morning, evening, and noon as the times of prayer. It is a
curious coincidence that the only passage of the Koran which gives the
number of prayers also specifies three: “Perform worship at the setting
of the sun, up to the darkness of night, and the Recitation of the dawn
(the recitation of the dawn is witnessed by the angels), and in the
night. Awake to prayer, therefore, perchance thy Lord will prepare for
thee a glorious place.”[439] Exegesis has found a way to make these
verses prescribe the five customary seasons, but on their face they
speak of only three. In the Church the canonical hours vary from three
to seven daily. The Manichæans are said to have had four and the
Mandæans five.[440] It is possible that Mohammed’s own custom varied at
different times. Tradition says that in the Night-journey, God commanded
him at first fifty prayers daily. At the advice of Moses, who had had
experience with human weakness, he asked successive reductions of the
number until it was brought down to five. We have already seen an
ascetic tendency in Mohammed’s earlier impulse. It is possible that he
began with the observance of more frequent hours of worship than he was
able to keep up in his later practice. In fact he has supplemented one
of his early revelations with a command to moderate the excesses of his
devotion (73^{20}).

Although the regular prayers are largely formal, we must not forget that
Islam encourages voluntary prayers. I do not refer here to works of
supererogation, to which pious Moslems are much addicted. When Mohammed
says: “And remember thy Lord in thy soul in humility and fear, and
without raising the voice,”[441] we can hardly suppose he means to
command the constant _repetition_ of the name of God which forms the
worship of the dervishes. He is, rather, encouraging the believer in
communing with God. He laid stress on the correct performance of prayer,
but he also laid stress on the intention. He was accustomed himself to
offer voluntary petitions, both after the regular prayers and at other
times. He gives in the Koran examples of prayer, and these are real
prayers; that is, petitions for blessings both spiritual and temporal,
the spiritual being prominent. For example: “O Lord do not punish us for
our sins of negligence or for our errors; and do not lay upon us a law
such as Thou didst lay upon those who preceded us:[442] O Lord do not
enjoin upon us that for which we have not the ability; blot out our sins
and forgive us; be gracious to us, Thou our Lord, and aid us against a
people of unbelievers.” It seems impossible to suppose such a prayer
composed without a vivid sense of sin, and without assurance that God is
the rewarder of those who seek Him. In another verse of the same chapter
we read: “When My servants ask thee concerning Me—then verily I am near,
and I answer the petition of the worshipper when he prays to Me; then
let them seek Me and believe in Me that they may walk in the right
way.”[443] The example of the Prophet was in accordance with this, for
he embodied in his daily worship petitions for himself and his friends.
There is a tradition which even affirms that a man shut out of Paradise
could get in by importunate prayer. But it is doubtful whether this
correctly represents the mind of Mohammed. As to the efficacy of prayer
in the present life, however, he seems to have had no doubt.

So much for that part of the service of God which consists in ritual. We
cannot deny that in the religious law too much emphasis is laid upon
external observances. But what has just been said is enough to show that
mere formality was not Mohammed’s ideal. He desired to foster spiritual
faith and unfeigned piety. Turning now to the other side of the service
of God, what we include under the head of morals, we discover that there
was a great advance over heathenism, in that the sense of responsibility
to God was enforced by all the preaching of Mohammed: “A man is a
shepherd, and what is committed to him (as his family and his property)
is his flock and he will be inquired of concerning it in the Last
Day—even a slave will give account of the way in which he has
administered his master’s property.”[444] The tradition reminds us of
the New Testament parable of the talents, and we cannot doubt that the
thought is the same: Man is responsible to his Maker, and for all his
actions he must give account.

The distinctly ethical character of the obligation thus laid upon men is
seen on almost every page of the Koran. Several extended passages might
be quoted which were evidently intended to set forth the whole duty of
man. Let me quote just one:

    “The servants of the Compassionate are they who walk humbly on the
    earth, and, when the barbarians address them, say: Peace be with
    you! And [they are they] who pass the night prostrate before their
    Lord or standing [in prayer]; and who say: Our Lord avert from us
    the punishment of Gehenna, for its punishment is lasting and it is
    an evil place of abode; who, when they expend, are neither lavish
    nor niggardly but maintain a just mean between the two; who do not
    call upon any God in the presence of Allah; and who do not slay
    human beings—which God forbids—except in the cause of justice; and
    who do not commit adultery, for whoever does this shall incur
    punishment (his pain shall be doubled in the Day of Resurrection,
    and he shall be an object of contempt forever, unless he repent and
    believe and do good—as for such, God will exchange their evil deeds
    for good deeds; God is forgiving and compassionate, and he who
    repents and does good is sincere in his turning towards God). And
    [they are they] who do not bear false witness; and, when they pass
    by vain discourse, pass by in honor; and who, when they are told of
    the revelations of their Lord, do not depart [as though] deaf and
    blind; and [they are] those who say: Our Lord, give us comfort in
    our wives and children, and make us an example to those who fear
    Thee. These shall be recompensed with Paradise[445] because they
    have endured; and there shall they obtain life and peace. Beautiful
    is such a place of abode!”[446]

Such passages show the distinctly ethical character of Islam; and the
fact that the virtues here commanded may easily be classified under ten
heads, makes us inquire what influence the Decalogue had on the thought
of Mohammed. We easily discover that he had some knowledge of the
fundamental Ten Words, though he nowhere calls them by this name. He
endeavors to reproduce them in the following passage addressed to the
Jews:

    “Come, I will repeat what your Lord forbade you to do; [He
    commanded] that you should not associate anything with Him; and [He
    commanded] good conduct towards parents; and do not kill your
    children on account of poverty—We will nourish you and them—and do
    not approach anything evil, whether it be concealed or manifest; and
    do not kill a human being (which God has forbidden except in
    accordance with justice, and He enjoined you this that you might
    have understanding); and do not approach the property of the orphan,
    except to his profit, until he reaches his majority; and use a just
    measure and scale—We, on Our part, do not exact from any soul more
    than its ability; and when you speak be just, even to relatives: and
    keep the covenant of God. These things He commanded you that you
    should remember.”[447]

If we count up the separate commands embodied in this list we shall find
them to be nine in number. In a tradition also we find that the Jews
came to discuss with Mohammed concerning the _nine_ commands of God.
This is in fact the Jewish computation, for of the Ten Words in their
division, the first is the opening announcement: I am Yahweh thy God
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves.
There are therefore nine commands. But when we examine the nine of
Mohammed we see that they do not correspond with those of the Hebrew
code. He left the Sabbath out of view altogether. He knows it, as we
discover from other references, but he does not give it a place among
God’s commands. We easily discover the reason for this. The Sabbath is
practicable only among agricultural or hand-working people. A pastoral
people must herd the flocks and milk them seven days in the week, or
their subsistence perishes. The Jew were an industrial people. Those at
Medina were mainly cultivators or goldsmiths. They observed the Sabbath.
But Mohammed’s people were mainly Bedawin. It seemed impossible to
impose a day of rest upon them. He did not hesitate therefore to
abrogate it—the Sabbath is intended only for the Jews, is in fact his
round assertion.[448]

We see from this instance, that Mohammed did not feel that an
unchangeable God would enact an unchangeable code. In regard to some
other Mosaic regulations, he admitted their divine character but denied
that they were binding upon later sects: “And for the sin of the Jews,
We forbade them good things that had been lawful to them, and because
they turned away from the path of God.”[449] We remember that in the New
Testament also, some of the Mosaic ordinances are said to have been
given the people for the hardness of their hearts. A polemic utterance
against the Old Testament reason for the Sabbath, seems contained in the
words: “We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in
six days, and no fatigue affected Us.”[450] It is scarcely possible to
doubt that there is a reference here to the declaration that God
_rested_ the seventh day. Since neither the advantages of the Sabbath,
nor the reason given for its observance, commended themselves to
Mohammed, he refused to re-enact it. The Friday which he chose as his
day of religious observance was not intended as a Sabbath in the Old
Testament sense.

The first command of Mohammed’s Decalogue forbids associating any other
object of worship with the true God. With his doctrine of the unity of
God this is what we may expect. And in his commonwealth, as soon as he
was strong enough, he made this a crime to be punished by the judges. So
in the Old Testament we find stringent measures commanded against every
one who practised or encouraged the worship of false gods.[451] It
follows that apostasy from Islam is punished with death: “If they turn
their backs, then take them and kill them, and do not take any of them
as friends or helpers.”[452] This was probably intended for those who
relapsed into heathenism after having professed Islam. It was early
applied, however, to those Moslems who were converted to Judaism or
Christianity. It is still the theory of Mohammedan law everywhere that
such converts should be put to death.

The other commands of the Decalogue given by Mohammed cover very fairly
the second table of Moses’ Law. To appreciate his view of man’s
obligations toward his fellow we need to look at the difference in
principle between him and the heathenism which he overthrew. In heathen
Arabia, as in all early society, moral obligations were connected with
the blood. The members of the clan were brothers. In such a society,
virtue consists in acting for the common blood, either in defending it
from attack from the outside, or in fostering it by liberality within.
This tribal system was in full force in Mohammed’s time even in Mecca,
where the different clans lived in different quarters of the city, each
with its separate wall and gates. The common interest of the city was
protected only by treaties between the clans. In Medina the different
clans were frequently at war, and before the coming of Mohammed, a
continuous feud had been carried on so long as to threaten the
extermination of the population. Now Mohammed substituted the bond of
faith for the bond of blood: “O, you who believe! Fear God in sincerity,
and do not die without being resigned [to Him]; and hold fast, all of
you, on the bond of God, and be not divided; and remember the grace of
God towards you when you were enemies, how He united your hearts, and by
His grace you became brethren.”[453] The men whom he addressed had been
members of different tribes and therefore enemies. The word of Paul
concerning Christians before their conversion—that they had been full of
hate—was true also of those whom Mohammed addressed. It is difficult for
us to conceive the greatness of the change wrought in them by the
substitution of the new tie of faith for the old tie of family. The
greatness of the change is shown by the difficulty with which it was
brought about. In the stormy times through which the infant commonwealth
passed, it seemed again and again as if the old feuds would break out.
But faith triumphed over the old bonds, and the brotherhood of believers
was established. Tradition has preserved some striking instances of the
reality of the change. One was the case of the son of Abdallah Ibn Obay.
Abdallah had been the most influential man in Medina before the coming
of Mohammed. Although he yielded to the majority, and professed
allegiance to Mohammed, he was never heartily a believer, and his
lukewarmness or his secret machinations placed many a thorn in the
pillow of Mohammed. At one time he so far forgot his ordinary prudence
as to speak openly of Mohammed in abusive language. Thereupon the son
went to Mohammed and offered to kill his father with his own hand,
declaring that it was better for him to be the executioner than
another—for if another should do it he would be moved to take blood
revenge, and so become a transgressor. In another instance, a Moslem at
Mohammed’s instigation put to death a Jew who had shown him many favors
in times past. The brother of the executioner reproached him with
murdering his benefactor. The only reply was: “If he who ordered me to
kill him should order me to kill thee I would obey.” When the brother
assured himself that this was said in earnest, he was so impressed with
the power of the new religion, that he became a convert on the
spot.[454] These examples show how the new principle was realized. They
show its less attractive side, to be sure. But we cannot doubt that its
strength against enemies is the measure of its strength within the
community. In his farewell pilgrimage, Mohammed declared that, like the
sacred month and the sacred territory, God had made the life and
property of every Moslem inviolable to every other Moslem until the end
of time.[455]

In adopting faith as the principle of his community instead of blood,
Mohammed was probably under Christian influence. The social organization
in view in the Old Testament was the chosen _people_. And this people
was a group of clans allied by blood and tracing descent from a common
ancestor—Abraham or Israel as the case may be. In substance this was the
constitution of the Arabs before Mohammed. The Prophets, indeed, in
their visions of the coming kingdom see that all men are to partake of
the blessings of Israel. But they do not seem to proclaim that simple
faith in Yahweh is enough to make all men kin. They are content to leave
the great consummation to the future, where divine power will effect
what is incomprehensible to men. It was the New Testament which brought
believers into a brotherhood “where there is neither Jew nor Greek,
neither bond nor free, neither male nor female.” Mohammed must have
heard of this from Christians. The Jews who came under his observation
were as exclusive as the heathen. They were in fact organized on the
principle of the Arab clans, and they did not let their faith keep them
even from warring against each other, clan against clan. Mohammed
grasped the Christian idea of the brotherhood of believers and organized
his society on that basis. That he did not rise to the height of the
Christian conception of the brotherhood of all men can scarcely excite
surprise, when we see how far the Church is from apprehending this
conception even to the present day.

Christian influence is suggested further by various expressions used by
Mohammed—though as we get our knowledge of them from tradition, we may
suspect that they are colored somewhat by the memory of the narrators.
In regard to the brotherhood of believers, he is reported to have said:
“Believers are like a building, one part of which strengthens
another”—and he interlaced his fingers to illustrate the union of
materials in a building. So in the New Testament, believers are _builded
together_ into a temple. In some Koran passages he describes believers
as those who _repel evil with good_, where we are tempted to see a
reminiscence of the New Testament exhortation to overcome evil with
good.

Some other verbal resemblances might be pointed out, but it is time for
us to turn our attention to two subjects in which the Moslem world now
sharply distinguishes itself from Christendom. The first of these is
slavery. This institution already existed in full vigor in Arabia in the
time of Mohammed. A slave market existed at Mecca into which came those
Arabs who were made captive in the wars between the tribes, as well as
the human merchandise imported from beyond the borders of the peninsula.
Even in time of peace, a defenceless man might be kidnapped and sold.
Mohammed did not dream of abolishing slavery. But he greatly mitigated
its evils. He exhorted masters to clothe their slaves with the same kind
of garments which they wore themselves, and to feed them with the same
kind of food which they themselves ate. And he added as a reason: “They
are your brothers whom God has made subject to you.”[456] Further, he
encouraged manumission, making it a meritorious work and recommending it
as one of the means of atoning for sins of omission. Finally, by the
emphasis of the brotherhood of believers he did much to secure mild
treatment of slaves on the part of their masters. In all this, Islam did
as much as was done either by Judaism or Christianity. Islam has,
however, failed to keep up with the progress of humanity in this as in
so many other respects. That, in the Middle Age, Christianity had little
to boast of as compared with Islam, is shown by the fact that slaves
were a staple of the Venetian trade to the East, and were exported from
the domains of the Pope himself. Prelates even were accused of taking
the children of their serfs and selling them to the Jews, through whose
hands they passed into the possession of the Moslems.[457]

The other matter is one in which the custom of Islam is most repugnant
to our ideas—I mean the law of marriage and divorce.[458] In our dislike
of the present practice of Moslems, however, we must not forget that
Mohammed did improve upon the customs of heathenism. Among the sins
which he most strictly forbade was adultery. When the deputation from
Medina swore allegiance to him before the Flight, he pledged them not to
commit this sin.[459] When asked to name the three greatest crimes, this
was one of the three.[460] In the passage cited above, he says: “Do not
approach anything evil.” He probably means to prohibit incitements to
lust. He forbade the price of a dog, the reward of fornication, and the
pay of a soothsayer—a conjunction that reminds us of an Old Testament
prohibition. In the early part of his reign at Medina he ordered one of
his followers to be stoned on confession of adultery. When a deputation
from the important city of Taif came with the offer that the city would
become Moslem if the commands against usury, adultery, and wine were
modified, the Prophet refused any concession.[461] These are sufficient
proof that Mohammed had no desire to encourage license, and that, in
fact, his law was considerably more strict than the custom of his
ancestors. His ideal of marriage was high, for he says: “A Moslem has
not obtained, after righteousness, anything better than a good
dispositioned, beautiful wife; such a wife as, when ordered by her
husband to do anything, obeys; and if her husband looks at her, is
happy; and, if her husband swears by her to do anything, she does it, to
make him a swearer to the truth; and if he is absent from her she wishes
him well and guards her person and takes care of his property.”[462]
With such an ideal, it seems as if he might have done more for the
elevation of marriage.

That he did not do more is probably due to his not having had knowledge
of what Christianity really teaches. As we very well know, the Church
early obscured the true doctrine of marriage by the prominence it gave
to celibacy. Now the doctrine that marriage is inferior to celibacy is
one from which the Arab revolts. The importance of preserving the family
name, and of keeping up the strength of the clan, causes him to value
children above all other blessings. He stands just where the Hebrews of
the Old Testament stood. He has therefore no mind to the doctrine of the
Church. “We sent Jesus the Son of Mary (he says in the Koran[463]) and
gave him the Gospel, and placed in the hearts of those who followed him
pity and compassion—_but the monastic life they themselves invented_.”
This shows that Mohammed, finding the ideal presented by Christianity a
perverted one, fell back upon the position common to Hebrews and Arabs.
He justifies himself in his own polygamy by the example of the prophets
who had preceded him, having David and Solomon especially in mind.

The real evil in Eastern society is not so much polygamy as the freedom
of divorce. Comparatively few Mohammedans have more than one wife at a
time. But there are comparatively few who have not put away more than
one wife in order to take another. Now divorce was repugnant to
Mohammed. He never sent away a wife, though some of them gave him
anything but a peaceful time. He tried to regulate divorce, making it
more difficult. That the attempted regulation would produce new evils he
did not foresee. It did not occur to him that he could prohibit
divorce—the disciples of Jesus also found it impossible to suppose such
a prohibition practicable. In fact, Mohammed stood substantially upon
Jewish ground, for the Jewish law allows the husband to put away his
wife if he find any serious fault in her.[464]

A curious but not edifying phase of this subject, is the influence which
Mohammed’s own experiences with women had upon his legislation. As it
does not bear directly upon our subject we need not discuss it here.
Probably there is in all history no more striking example of the extent
to which a regulation based on the experience of a single individual has
affected a vast multitude of men for a long period of time.[465] The
failure to distinguish between personal impulses and eternal laws has
inflicted this lasting calamity on Eastern society.

In the last lecture we discovered that the revelation of Mohammed is
regarded as a Law. What was there said is fully borne out by what we
have seen to-day. Koran and tradition occupy, to the Mohammedan, exactly
the place which the Jew gives to Tora and Mishna. Life is to be
regulated in its most minute details by the law given by God Himself.
The conservatism which is thereby given to Islam has already been
noticed. A further consequence is only too evident. The emphasis laid
upon obedience to a set of rules, stimulates a formal and external
righteousness. The process is precisely that illustrated in Judaism. On
one side it becomes all important to know the law. The Koran, like the
Tora, is a complicated code. It contains a great variety of enactments,
and these are not always clear or self-consistent. Moreover, it does not
provide for all cases of conscience. The traditions must be consulted by
the man who wishes to please God; and the traditions form an extensive
literature. But we are not yet at the end. Cases in real life still
force upon the believer questions that cannot be answered by direct
declaration of either Koran or tradition. But it will not do to remain
in doubt. Of two possible courses of action, one must be pleasing to God
and the other not. The development of casuistry is the result. In fact
the religious science of Islam is largely casuistry. The learned have
the issues of life in their hands, and the result has been to foster the
pride which in old times led the Scribes to say: “this people which
knoweth not the Law is accursed.”

In this respect, Islam has failed to rise to the New Testament view. As
we have seen, its ethical ideal frequently shows Biblical influence. In
the point now under consideration it has adopted the one-sided legalism
which characterized Pharisaism. The Scribes who sat in Moses’ seat have
their counterpart in the Scribes who still sit in the seat of Mohammed.
The conscience of the Moslem world is still in the hands of these
scholastics, whose ideal is the ideal of thirteen centuries ago.

And if, in this respect, Mohammedanism must be classed with Talmudic
Judaism, the same must be said of the character of its morality. The
works pleasing to God are largely works of the law—that is, they are
ceremonial and external. If even in Christianity, which professes to
free men from the law, men will take refuge in formalism, how much more
must this be true in Islam! In fact, the righteousness of the followers
of Mohammed consists in what the Apostle calls dead works. Here is where
the system most needs regeneration, and here is where the spiritual
light of Protestant Christianity should come to its help.

Footnote 417:

  Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, I., p. 252, quoting from
  Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_.

Footnote 418:

  Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_, I., p. 109.

Footnote 419:

  The Meccans, when exhorted to obey Allah, reply that they obey (not
  their gods but) the customs of their fathers. Goldziher, _l. c._, I.,
  p. 10.

Footnote 420:

  In Sura 106.

Footnote 421:

  Koran, 22^{37 f}.

Footnote 422:

  Private sacrifice is offered when an infant is seven days old (the
  _akika_). Mohammed offered it for his grandsons, _Mishcat_, II., 316.
  For regulations prescribing the kind of animal to be sacrificed, cf.
  _Mishcat_, I., pp. 319, 321. The regular sacrifice (of the annual
  Feast of Sacrifice) is offered at other places than Mecca. But this is
  because it is the day on which the pilgrims offer it.

Footnote 423:

  On these resemblances cf. Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_, III.,
  pp. 51 f., 106, who cites Gen. 35^2, II. Kings, 10^{22}; also W. R.
  Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 433, and what was said in Lecture
  II. above.

Footnote 424:

  Koran, 22^{66}, a Meccan sura according to the superscription.

Footnote 425:

  _Bochari_, II., p. 192.

Footnote 426:

  The day is called Ashura (Tenth) and is still observed by some zealous
  Moslems. Bochari, who gives this tradition, gives another to the
  effect that the Koreish also fasted on that day in heathen times. But
  this requires confirmation. Cf. _Bochari_, II., p. 231; _Mishcat_, I.,
  p. 486.

Footnote 427:

  Koran, 2^{179}.

Footnote 428:

  They agree in the _number_ of months but do not observe the exact ones
  which God has designated, seems to be the meaning. The passage is
  9^{36 f}.

Footnote 429:

  Koran, 6^{121}. According to Origen, the blood is the food of the
  demons. Cf. Conybeare in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, October, 1896,
  p. 61.

Footnote 430:

  Koran, 5^4.

Footnote 431:

  Tradition increases the list of prohibited foods. The ass was added
  toward the close of Mohammed’s life. He himself refused to eat some
  things which he allowed to his followers. Possibly he was influenced
  by his habit acquired in youth. For the distinction of clean and
  unclean in Arab heathenism cf. Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_,
  III., p. 52.

Footnote 432:

  5^8. The command to _wipe the head_ means to draw the wet hands over
  the head. Had the main verb continued its force over this clause it
  would have enjoined _scrubbing_ the head. On the whole subject cf.
  Lane, _Modern Egyptians_, c. III.; Reland, _De Religione
  Mohammedanica_ (1717), pp. 66-77; Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_,
  Articles _Ablution_ and _Ghusl_.

Footnote 433:

  Koran, 2^{132} is usually supposed to name Christian Baptism.

Footnote 434:

  The Elkesaites and Mandæans (probably the Sabeans of the Koran) are
  among these sects. Cf. Herzog, P. R. E^2, IV., p. 185.

Footnote 435:

  Including always the Fatiha or opening chapter. Other portions are
  chosen according to taste. The ejaculations are: “Praise be to
  God!”—“I extol the perfection of God the Great.”

Footnote 436:

  Koran, 24^{41}.

Footnote 437:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 130.

Footnote 438:

  The examples are taken from _Bochari_, I., pp. 123 f., 119.

Footnote 439:

  Koran, 17^{80 f}, cf. Ps. 55^{18}.

Footnote 440:

  Herzog, P. R. E^2, IX., p. 241. Brandt, _Mandäische Religion_, p. 92,
  ascribes seven to the Mandæans.

Footnote 441:

  Koran, 7^{204}.

Footnote 442:

  He means the Children of Israel, whose Law he thought burdensome. The
  verse is 2^{286}.

Footnote 443:

  Koran, 2^{182}.

Footnote 444:

  _Bochari_, I., p. 198.

Footnote 445:

  Literally: _a high place_, meaning apparently the most exalted of the
  heavens.

Footnote 446:

  Koran, 25^{64-76}. In the Traditions we find some resemblance to the
  Christian classification of seven deadly sins: “Flee the seven that
  cast into hell. They asked what these were and he replied: Polytheism,
  magic, murder, usury, devouring the property of orphans, fleeing in
  time of war, and accusing chaste women of unbecoming conduct.”
  _Bochari_, III., p. 179. Mohammed said also: “There are seven whom God
  will shade with his shadow in the day when there will be no other
  shade than His: a just ruler, a young man who grows up in the service
  of God, a man whose heart cleaves to the mosques, two men who love
  each other for the love of God, a man who resists temptation by the
  fear of God, and a man who gives alms and conceals it so that his left
  hand does not know what his right hand does.”—_Bochari_, II., p. 106.

Footnote 447:

  Koran, 6^{152 f}.

Footnote 448:

  “The Sabbath is made only for those who dispute concerning it”—by
  which he means the Jews who were arguing with him for its
  adoption—Koran, 16^{125}.

Footnote 449:

  4^{158}.

Footnote 450:

  50^{37}.

Footnote 451:

  Deut. 13.

Footnote 452:

  Koran, 4^{91}.

Footnote 453:

  Koran, 3^{37 f}.

Footnote 454:

  Wellhausen, _Vakidi_, p. 98.

Footnote 455:

  Muir, _Life of Mahomet_, IV., p. 239.

Footnote 456:

  Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, I., p. 73. I have not now the
  reference to _Bochari_. On the slave market in Mecca cf. W. R. Smith,
  _Kinship and Marriage_, p. 73; Wellhausen, _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten_,
  I., p. 119.

Footnote 457:

  Kremer, _Kulturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen_, II., p.
  153.

Footnote 458:

  In addition to what has been said about the duties of man to man we
  should in justice to Islam notice the following points: (1) Honor to
  parents is emphasized, cf. Koran 17^{24 f}; (2) The punishment of the
  murder of a Moslem is death, and for injury of the person the _lex
  talionis_ is enforced as in the Old Testament; (3) The payment of just
  dues is enforced, and (by tradition) trade is regulated so as to
  prevent unfairness; (4) Usury is prohibited as in the Old Testament.

Footnote 459:

  Or fornication, the Arabic word includes both.

Footnote 460:

  Polytheism, infanticide, and adultery. _Mishcat_, I., pp. 8, 18, 20.

Footnote 461:

  Wellhausen, _Vakidi_, p. 383. In addition to these indications, I
  might adduce the tradition that Mohammed prohibited the _Muta_
  marriages—marriages for a specified time.

Footnote 462:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 79.

Footnote 463:

  Koran, 57^{27}.

Footnote 464:

  Even if she burn the bread in baking, according to one school of
  Scribes.

Footnote 465:

  The jealousy of the uxorious old man led to the command that all women
  should wear veils, which is still the rule of Eastern society. The
  desire to shield his favorite wife from a scandal, produced the law
  that four witnesses should be brought to prove a charge of adultery,
  and the accuser who cannot produce these must receive eighty stripes.
  This law causes Eastern husbands to keep their wives under constant
  guard because of the difficulty of proving unfaithfulness. What the
  seclusion of women has done for Moslem society I need not say.




                              LECTURE IX.
                            THE FUTURE LIFE


We have already had occasion to notice the prominence which the doctrine
of the Judgment assumed in the system of Mohammed, and in connection
with it the doctrine of the resurrection. In more than one place he
intimates that the great stumbling-block which his message put in the
way of his compatriots was the doctrine of the resurrection. The
unbelievers are represented as saying to their friends:[466] “Shall we
bring you to a man who tells that after you are scattered by the decay
of your members, you will become new creatures?” Elsewhere the
unbelievers are characterized as those who do not believe in the future
life, while the believers are frequently described as those who believe
in the future life—the _world to come_ as we may well translate the
word.[467] The stress of the message is laid upon this: “Let those who
exchange the present life for the life to come, fight in the cause of
God.”[468] The idea that those who lose the present life in order to
gain the other make a good bargain is also found in the New Testament.
The future is in fact the true good, the present is only a delusion:
“Say to them: The present life is a little thing, and the life to come
is [the true] good to the one who fears God;” “The present life is only
play and pastime, but the future home is better to those who fear God—do
you not understand?”[469]

Belief in the future life is, then, one of the fundamentals of Moslem
faith. How much this article of the creed includes to orthodox
Mohammedans can be seen from the following synopsis of the chapters
devoted to this subject in a treatise on theology:[470]

    “_Section 64._ To show that the inquisition of Munkar and Nakir, and
    the punishment of the tomb, and its felicity, and all that is handed
    down concerning it, are true.... Followers of tradition assert that
    this inquisition of Munkar and Nakir comes to every man equally,
    whether he be buried, or devoured by beasts or by birds, or even if
    his dust be scattered by the wind.

    “_Section 65._ To show that all the signs of the Hour, concerning
    which the Lawgiver has told us, are true, and that it is necessary
    that all of them come to pass before the coming of the Hour. These
    are: the appearance of the Mahdi, then of the Antichrist, then of
    Jesus; next the coming of the Beast, the rising of the sun in the
    west, the ascension of the Koran, the opening of the barrier of Gog
    and Magog. Though there remained for the world but the space of one
    day, all this would come to pass.

    “_Section 66._ To show the necessity of a firm belief that God will
    restore us to life in the form in which he first brought us into it;
    and the possible modes in which the bodies shall receive the
    spirits; to explain the form of the Trumpet, and the reviving of
    those who are in the tombs.

    “_Section 67._ To show that the assembly after the resurrection is
    true, and so of the change of the earth to another earth and also of
    the heavens [to other heavens]. As to the assembly, it is the
    collection of all created beings that they may appear before God and
    give account before Him. It extends to all creatures, both the
    distinguished and the vulgar. All the pious, the prophets, the
    saints, and the believers shall appear in the presence of the
    Compassionate, and the evil-doers of different classes shall
    assemble before the Almighty and the Avenger.

    “_Section 68._ To show that the Pool and the Bridge and the Scales
    are true.

    “_Section 69._ To show that the books kept by the recording angels
    are true and that they shall be laid before God in the day of
    resurrection according to the express traditions. But as to the
    records men have different lots: one shall hold his in his right
    hand, and another shall hold his in his left, and another shall hold
    his behind his back. Those who hold their books in their right hands
    are the different classes of believers; those whose books are given
    into their left hands, these are the hypocrites, but not idolators;
    those who hold their books behind their backs are those who received
    the Scripture but cast it behind them.

    “_Section 70._ To show that our prophet Mohammed (God bless and save
    him) will be the first intercessor in the Day of Resurrection and
    the first whose intercession will be accepted and the best of them,
    and no one shall have precedence of him.

    “_Section 71._ To show that Paradise and the Fire are true, and that
    they were created before Adam (peace be on him) as has been already
    set forth at large.”

The citation, though only from a synopsis, is enough to show the extent
to which Mohammedan eschatology has been developed. The theologians have
been obliged to find room in their system for every saying on this
subject which is attributed to Mohammed by tradition, as well as every
declaration contained in the Koran. Their harmonistic efforts are
evident enough in some sections of this treatise, as where those who
receive the book of record are divided into three classes. This division
is based on different texts of the Koran, in each of which only two
classes of men are specified. Thus, we find in several instances that
the good are called _men of the right_ and the bad _men of the left_.
These phrases are apparently borrowed from the Gospel account of the
Judgment, in which the sheep are placed on the right hand and the goats
on the left. Influenced by this phraseology we have in these passages
the two classes designated as those who receive their book (or account)
_in their right hand_ or _in their left hand_ as the case may be.[471]
In another passage the one receives his book _in his right hand_ and the
other receives it _behind his back_.[472] It is clear that the Prophet
meant by this various imagery to describe two classes and only two. But
the literalism of the theologians compels them to adopt a scheme which
will allow all the texts to be literally true—hence the three classes in
our author’s presentation.

So extended and well-ordered a system as is here presented was not in
the mind of Mohammed. It is not unlikely, however, that he was
hospitable to intimations concerning the life beyond the grave which
came to him from various quarters. The curious assertion attributed to
him by tradition to the effect that the souls of the martyrs abide in
the crops of green birds which inhabit Paradise, is almost certainly a
survival from Arabic heathenism, in which the departed soul was supposed
to take the form of a bird.[473] On the same evidence (that of
tradition) we are warranted in asserting that he took the idea of the
punishments of the grave from the Jews at Medina.[474]

The hypothesis of a future life seems to be a necessity to a faith which
will maintain its hold on the justice of God. The inequalities of this
life are so marked, the lot of man is here so glaringly apportioned
without reference to his deserts, that we must look for another world in
which the injustices may be remedied. The perplexity of the Old
Testament writers in their attempt to discover God’s justice in the
assignment of prosperity and calamity in this world, is sufficiently
evident from the Book of Job. That they were able to keep their faith in
God in spite of the darkness which (to the most of them) hung over the
future, is evidence of the intensity of the faith itself. Mohammed never
had to go through their struggle. But he felt the force of the moral
argument for the future life, if we may judge from the following:[475]
“Or do those who do evil think that We will treat them like those who
believe and do good, making their life and their death the same? Evil is
the opinion they have formed. God has made the heavens and the earth in
accordance with justice, and in order that every soul may be recompensed
for what it has done, and they shall not be wronged.” The thought is
plain; God has a purpose in His dealings with men. This purpose is the
manifestation of His justice. The purpose will be accomplished only when
all receive their recompense. It follows from the notorious inequalities
of this life that the recompense of the other life is the more certain.
It is perhaps with some such thought in mind that Mohammed said:[476]
“the poor Refugees will reach heaven before the rich by forty years at
the resurrection.”

It is hardly to be supposed that Mohammed worked out the logic of this
view. His whole idea came ready formulated from Christianity. The point
at which it met his religious needs was this—the Judgment solves the
difficulties which force themselves upon us as we contemplate the divine
government of the world. The Judgment, then, is the point of departure
for the whole eschatology of the Koran. It appears prominently in the
earliest Suras. In the _Fatiha_, God is King of the Day of Judgment. The
phrase _Day of Judgment_ occurs elsewhere in the early period, and is
doubtless borrowed from a Christian source.[477] It reminds us of New
Testament usage also, that _the Hour_ is made the name of the
Judgment.[478]

The Koran conception of the Judgment is the dramatic one known to us by
the Gospel description.[479] The world shall suddenly be visited by
great portents; the Judge will sit on His throne; all nations shall be
gathered before Him; the good shall be placed on His right hand and be
welcomed to happiness; the evil shall be placed on the left hand and be
consigned to punishment. The picture recurs in all its features in the
Koran, except that the Judge is God, and not the Son of Man. In the
Gospel, the portents are the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling
of the stars from heaven, and the sending out of the angels with the
trumpet. To this should be added earthquakes, and the various
convulsions of nature which the Old Testament prophets associate with
the Day of Yahweh. Compare the Koran:

            “When the sun shall be darkened,
            And when the stars shall be scattered,
            When the mountains shall be removed,
            And when the camels shall be uncared for,
            When the beasts shall be collected,
            And when the seas shall be dried up,
            When the souls shall be united,
            And the girl buried alive shall be asked
            For what crime she was slain;
            When the books shall be opened,
            And the heavens shall be folded together,
            When the fire shall burn fiercely,
            And Paradise shall be brought into view—
            Then each soul shall know what it has wrought.”[480]

The Biblical resemblances of the passage are obvious, and many other
passages of similar import might be cited. Quite in accord with the New
Testament, is the division of those who are judged into _men of the
right hand_ and _men of the left hand_. We can scarcely doubt that this
goes back to the Gospel picture. As already noted, these two divisions
comprise all mankind. Those who believe are the men of the right and
those who disbelieve are the men of the left.[481] In one passage there
are said to be three divisions. But this is for the purpose of throwing
the prophets into relief, they being allowed to go first to their
reward. The fundamental distinction is between the good and the bad.
Possibly under Persian influence, room was found later for an
intermediate class. That the judgment takes place by the help of books
of record we have noticed in an earlier lecture, as also that this is
based on Jewish or Christian ideas. The use of the Balance to determine
the merit of each one is affirmed in some passages,[482] and this very
natural figure has given the theologians trouble, because, in their
literalism, they did not see how actions could be weighed.

In order to the complete vindication of divine justice, all responsible
beings must be judged. Hence the importance of the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead. The original form of the doctrine seems to
have been different. The Old Testament believer was much exercised that
the final triumph of Israel should take place without the presence of
those who had suffered most for the good cause. In the Book of Daniel,
the faith that Israel shall triumph over the Gentiles is accompanied by
the faith that many of those who have died without the sight shall be
raised to participate in the glory for which they have longed. In
mediæval Judaism, the emphasis of the resurrection is laid upon this
thought. Saadia, for example, goes into a calculation of the space which
would be occupied by Israel when all its dead should be raised.[483] The
earthly kingdom of the Messiah thus precedes the final apportionment of
rewards and punishments. For the doctrine in this form, Mohammed had no
taste, as is evident from his connecting the resurrection and the
Judgment closely together. In his earlier preaching (and perhaps to the
close of his life) he thought the Judgment to be near at hand. He
regarded it as a Day of Yahweh which should come suddenly upon the
nations. His denunciation of calamity upon Mecca was doubtless based
upon a _bona fide_ expectation of the early appearance of God in
Judgment. In this he reminds us of the expectation, so common in New
Testament times, that the Lord would soon return for judgment. This
expectation is not confined to New Testament times. The most religious
(or the most emotional) minds have frequently felt the course of the
world to be so bad, that there must be an immediate intervention of
divine power. Thus the Fifth Monarchy expectation becomes acute at times
when reverses overtake the Church. For Mohammed we may notice:

    “Verily the chastisement of thy Lord is at hand,
    None can turn it away.
    A day when the heavens shall be in commotion,
    And the mountains shall remove!
    Woe, on that day, to those who accuse [the revelation] of falsehood!
    These are they who amused themselves with vanity.
    The day on which they are roughly thrust into the fire of Gehenna
       [they shall be told],
    This is the fire whose existence you denied.”[484]

The passage seems to assert categorically both that the day of
punishment is near, and that there is no interval between its appearance
and the condemnation of the unbelievers. Other assertions that the Day
is near can easily be found.[485] Some of them are guarded in their
language. Even these remind us of the New Testament, which is careful to
assure us that the exact time is known to God alone. Koran and New
Testament agree also in affirming the _suddenness_ with which the Hour
shall announce itself: “To God belong the secrets of heaven and earth.
The matter of the Hour is like a glance of the eye, or even nearer;”
“They shall discern nothing but a single cry; it shall come upon them
while they are disputing, and they shall not be able to make their
testaments or return to their families. A blast shall be blown and men
shall hasten from the tombs to their Lord. They shall say: Woe to us!
Who has brought us from our resting place? This is what the
Compassionate threatened, and the messengers were truthful. There shall
come a single cry and all [created things] shall appear before Us. On
that day no soul shall be wronged at all, nor shall they be recompensed
except for what they have done.”[486] Elsewhere also the single blast of
the trumpet is followed at once by the resurrection.[487] In one
passage, however, this is made two blasts: “The trumpet shall be blown
and all that are in heaven and earth shall die, except whom God will.
Then it shall be blown again and they shall rise and see. And the earth
shall shine with the light of its Lord, and the book shall be placed,
and the prophets and the witnesses shall be brought and men shall be
judged—none shall be wronged.”[488]

It is somewhat difficult to combine in a single picture all the features
of Mohammed’s description. Besides the sound of the trumpet we have the
call of an angel: “On the day when one shall call to something
difficult, with looks cast down they shall come forth from the graves
like the locusts in clouds.”[489] In their terror they shall flee their
nearest friends; the nurse shall forget her charge; the pregnant woman
shall miscarry; men shall be drunken with terror.[490] All voices are
put to silence, and the only sound heard is the tramp of the millions
moving to their doom.[491] Angels and men are ranged in ranks. The false
gods are judged along with their worshippers. Each tries to excuse
himself and to throw the blame upon others. Gehenna is brought near—a
flaming monster with fiery maw gaping for prey.[492]

Even the animals will be raised and brought into judgment[493]—though
this is affirmed in but one passage. Although the books of record are
brought, they are, properly speaking, not necessary. Men shall be
recognized by their marks; they shall be compelled to testify against
themselves; their members will bear witness against them: “Their hearing
and their eyes and their skins shall testify concerning what they were
accustomed to do; they will say to their skins: ‘Why do you testify
against us? They will reply: God who causes everything to speak, causes
us to speak; it is He who created you at first, and to Him you return;
you cannot so conceal yourselves that your ears and eyes and skins will
not witness—but you thought that God would not know what you were
doing.’”[494] This feature appears also in Rabbinical sources. The
thought that, as soul and body are both concerned in the sins of this
life, both must be punished in the other world, goes back to the Persian
religion.[495]

The multitude of details must not cause us to lose sight of the main
point. This is, that the justice of God will be fully vindicated by a
universal Judgment for which the dead will be raised. In this form the
idea is undoubtedly Christian. This idea forms a motive for faith and
good works. Believers are to be rewarded, unbelievers will be punished.
This motive is urged by all the religions which have a distinct
conception of a future life. As to historical Christianity there can be
no doubt on this point, and if we compare Mohammed’s descriptions of
Paradise and Gehenna with those found in Christian sources we shall not
be in doubt as to his dependence upon them. These descriptions are
probably the best known portions of the Koran, so that their treatment
here may be brief.

Paradise is _the Garden_, or _the Garden of Eden_, or with translation
of the word Eden, the _Garden of Pleasure_. This abode of the blessed is
watered by perennial streams; the inhabitants repose at their ease in
shady bowers; they eat of the most delicious fruits; cups of a delicious
beverage but which does not intoxicate, are served to them as often as
they desire; they are clothed magnificently and adorned with jewels.

To these delights are added the damsels of Paradise, virgins whose
beauty passes description. The delights are not all sensuous. The throne
of God is in the midst of the Garden, and the blessed behold the worship
of the angels and hear the praises which they sing.[496] No vain
discourse will be uttered, but the universal salutation will be: Peace!
They shall receive visits of congratulation from the angels. Better than
all, is the consciousness of the favor of God.[497] That the saved shall
behold the face of God seems to be nowhere asserted in the Koran, though
tradition affirms it very strongly. It is perhaps implied in the Koran
phrase: “Those who endure _through desire of the face of their
Lord_.”[498]

On the whole this must be admitted to be a sensuous paradise. Mohammed
showed his own weakness in introducing the _Huris_ into the picture. For
this he had no precedent in the Bible. But for the rest of his
description he could plead Jewish and Christian precedent. A recent
author calls attention to the description of Eden in the hymns of
Ephraem Syrus. This Father speaks of its fragrant fountains, its flowers
and crowns; the blessed are served by angels who bring them wine from
the vine of Paradise.[499] John of Damascus describes Paradise in
similar terms.[500] That the same features are found in Rabbinical
writings is well known.[501] It is aside from our present purpose to
notice the resemblances further than to show that Mohammed adopted
substantially the view of his predecessors. This went so far as to
assert seven heavens, and to affirm that the good are rewarded in
different degrees, both which propositions may be found in Jewish and
Christian authorities.[502]

It need scarcely be added that the woes of the damned are also developed
along the lines of Jewish and Christian belief. The fundamental idea is
that Gehenna is a place of fire. The name is borrowed with the
idea.[503] The description is frequently given. Sometimes Gehenna is
almost an animate monster. Its voracity is such that after it has
received all its portion of men and demons and is asked whether it is
satisfied, it will reply: Is there anything more? We are reminded of the
Biblical proverb which puts Sheol as one of the things insatiable. The
unhappy souls are dragged to that abode loaded with chains. As they
enter they are greeted with curses and reproaches, which they return
upon the heads of those who have preceded them. The fire burns with an
intensity sufficient to consume stones, and it completely envelops its
victims. It consumes their members, which grow again to be a fresh
source of torture. They are given to eat of an infernal tree called
Zakkum, “whose fruit is like the heads of devils,”[504] and when eaten
“boils within them like molten metal.” They receive to drink boiling
water, or a yet more disgusting liquid. Their prayer for relief is in
vain. Though continually enduring the pangs of death, death never comes
to their relief. Of special punishments we hear only that the misers who
have heaped up gold and silver will be branded with red hot coins on
forehead and side and back.[505] On the whole, the description of these
torments falls short of the ingenuity of Christian and Rabbinic
writers.[506]

What we have now considered makes up the main view of the Koran. So long
as the expectation of an early coming of the Judgment could be
entertained, it was sufficient. But the Judgment delayed. Many of the
believers were taken away from earth, and many of the enemies of the
Prophet were put to death. The question must arise—where are these souls
for the present time? Do they simply sleep until the resurrection? The
natural answer is that they sleep with the body, and this answer seems
to be implied in the assertion that those who are raised will think that
they have rested only a brief time in the tomb. In one instance we have
the account of a man who was sceptical about the resurrection, whereupon
God caused him to die, and after a hundred years revived him. On being
asked how long he had remained in that state, he replied: _a day or part
of a day_.[507] So the scoffers, when they are raised at the last day,
shall think that they have been in the grave only an hour, or only a
little time.[508] The only rational hypothesis to account for this state
of mind, is that the souls have passed the time in sleep; and this we
suppose to have been Mohammed’s original intention. But the impatience
of his followers for paradise, and his own impatience for the punishment
of his enemies, could not rest in the simple hypothesis of sleeping
souls. Jewish and Christian tradition came to his help. These, although
they asserted a Judgment, found room for a series of scenes to precede
the final consummation. For the individual soul, moreover, they had
provided an extended experience between death and the resurrection. As
these theories became known to Mohammed, he seems to have adopted them
more or less completely, but without digesting them into a
self-consistent scheme. As further developed by tradition they have all
found place in the Moslem eschatology, which thus becomes the
complicated thing which we have already contemplated in the extract from
Sha’rani. These additional details deserve some attention. They are
concerned either with the experiences of the individual soul or with the
course of the world’s history, and we may conveniently arrange them
under these two heads.

Death is the separation of soul and body. It is natural to suppose that
it is effected by the angels. Such was the theory of Judaism, going back
to Parseeism,[509] and adopted in popular Christianity.[510] So we find
in the Koran: “If only thou couldst see when the evil-doers are in the
pangs of death, while the angels stretch forth their hands [saying]:
Give forth your souls! To-day you shall be recompensed by severe
punishment for what you have falsely spoken concerning God,”[511] and
more vividly: “If only thou couldst see when the unbelievers die, how
the angels strike their faces and backs [saying]: Taste the punishment
of the fire! This is for what your hands have laid up in store.”
According to tradition, an inquisition is held in the grave as to
whether the deceased is a sincere believer. If he turns out to be such,
his grave is expanded for him and he is given a view of Paradise. If the
reverse be the case, the body is beaten and the grave is contracted so
as to press upon the body. These are the _pains of the grave_ adopted
from Judaism.[512] The soul remains joined to the body therefore, and is
affected by its experiences.

Properly speaking, then, there are three theories discoverable on this
point. According to one, the soul sleeps between death and the
resurrection. This is implied in the passages already cited, in which
the raised think they have been but an hour or a day in the tomb. The
second is developed by tradition in the form just noted—that the soul is
present with the body receiving a foretaste of its final state. And,
thirdly, there are traces of a theory that the souls enter at once upon
the enjoyment of heaven or the suffering of hell. The only trace of this
in the Koran is in an allusion to Pharaoh and his people, who are said
to be brought to the fire morning and evening, “and when the Hour shall
dawn it shall be said: Take the people of Pharaoh to the severest
punishment!”[513] In the traditions, however, we have frequent
assertions that the souls of those who die in the holy war go at once to
Paradise. It is not for us to endeavor to reconcile these three
propositions. But it is fair to point out that a similar confusion
prevails in the Christian treatment of the life which comes immediately
after death and before the resurrection.

As remarked above, the Christian theory of the last things embraces more
than the final Judgment. When it became evident that the great
consummation was not so imminent as Mohammed had supposed, these
additional events began to assert themselves, even to Mohammed himself.
He was willing at least to allow room for the _signs of the Hour_. Such
signs he described in the convulsions of nature which are so frequently
mentioned in connection with the Judgment. But later he extended the
list. One of the most prominent of the additional signs was the
appearance of Gog and Magog: “A curse shall rest on the city we have
destroyed. They shall not revive until Gog and Magog shall have free
course and they shall come down in crowds from every height.”[514] The
explanation is given in another Sura which relates at length the story
of Alexander the Great (Dhu-l-Karnain). Among other things, this King is
said to have made a wall of iron cemented with molten brass.[515] The
object of the wall was to keep out the ferocious Tartar tribes here
called Gog and Magog. It is evident at a glance that we have here an
apocalyptic sign which goes back to Ezekiel and which reappears in the
New Testament Revelation.[516] Beyond the assertion that these nations
shall come in crowds as a sign of the Day, Mohammed makes no use of
them; and in his presentation there seems to be no room for the extended
campaign of Gog which is implied in Ezekiel’s account.

Another sign of which tradition makes much is the Beast, mentioned once
in the Koran: “And when the decree is pronounced upon them, We will
bring from the earth a beast which shall say to them that mankind has
not kept firm hold of our revelation.”[517] Here is evidently a
reminiscence of the Beast of the New Testament Revelation. But Mohammed
only alludes to it in connection with the Hour, as one of its signs. The
connection is only external. The same may be said of the Second Coming
of Jesus, which is once said to be a sign of the approach of the Hour.
The coming of Antichrist is certified by tradition only, as it would
seem. The expected _Mahdi_ who is also predicted in tradition, is
another product of the perennial Messianic hope of the Eastern
world.[518] Tradition goes counter to the tenor of the Koran when it
makes Jesus the Judge at the Day of Resurrection. The Bridge on which
those who are judged will attempt to pass to heaven, only the believers
succeeding, has also a large place in tradition, having been borrowed
from Persian sources. These embellishments show how many incongruous
elements may be swallowed, and in a sense assimilated, by tradition.

One point remains to be noticed. The eternity of reward and punishment
seems distinctly affirmed in the Koran. In fact a distinct polemic is
found against the Jews who had the contrary theory: “They say: The fire
shall affect us only a limited number of days. Say to them: Have you
received an engagement from God such that He will not change, or do you
say concerning God what you do not know? Nay! Whoever has deserved evil,
and whose sin has encompassed him—these are inhabitants of the Fire, and
they remain forever in it. But those who believe and do good, they are
inhabitants of the Garden. They remain forever in it.”[519] We are able
to trace the Jewish doctrine to which allusion is here made. The
importance of the covenant made with Abraham was so great, that the
Jewish thinkers could not conceive it to be annulled by any act on the
part of man. One who had received circumcision, and who was thus marked
as being in covenant with God, could not be punished eternally, no
matter how bad he had been. It was recognized by the Rabbis, therefore,
that Gehenna was only a purgatory for the Jews, and that when their
purification was accomplished they would be set free. It was even said
that their sojourn would be only twelve months.[520] Similar reasoning
has led to the theory of the Church that no baptized person can be
eternally lost. It is against this theory that Mohammed argues, and yet
the theory has appeared among his followers. Tradition makes him say
that the people of Paradise will enter Paradise, and the people of
Gehenna will enter the fire; then God will bring out whoever has in his
heart the weight of a grain of mustard seed of faith. Then they will
come out with faces already burnt to a coal and be plunged in the river
of life, whereby they will revive as the grain springs up by the side of
a river.[521] In another passage he who is thus delivered is said to be
the one who says _there is no God but Allah_ and in whose heart is a
grain of good. The case seems to be one in which the traditions have
invented a doctrine contrary to the express words of the Koran.

One somewhat confused passage should be noticed, lest we seem to ignore
some part of Mohammed’s doctrine. It is the following: “Between the two
is a wall, and on the Arāf are men who recognize all by their marks; and
they call to the inhabitants of Paradise: Peace be upon you! They do not
enter though desiring to. And when their looks are directed toward the
men of the Fire, they say: Our Lord, place us not with the
unbelievers!”[522] It is evident that we have here no doctrine of
purgatory. The most that we can conclude from the passage is that some
few will be found whose deserts are so equally balanced that it is
impossible to consign them to either place, so they are left perched on
the dividing wall. But it is not certain that Mohammed laid any stress
on this single passage—which indeed may have been uttered for dramatic
effect.

The results of this inquiry may be briefly formulated thus: In regard to
the life beyond the grave Mohammed was powerfully influenced by the
doctrine of the preceding revealed religions, especially by the doctrine
of Christianity. We have no reason to doubt that, it appealed to him on
its moral and spiritual side—on its moral side because it vindicated the
justice of God; on its religious side because it gave promise of
satisfaction in the presence of God. The good pleasure of God was one of
the joys to which he looked forward. “Do not count those who have been
slain in the cause of God as dead—nay! they live with Him, and there
they are nourished, rejoicing in what God gives them of His bounty, and
receiving the good tidings that those who have not yet attained, but are
following after them, shall not suffer fear or grief.”[523] In view of
such expressions and the declarations already noted, that the present
life is of no value as compared with the life to come, we cannot doubt
the real religious conviction of Mohammed. That, in adopting it, he
fitted it to his own taste is only what we find in other religions. The
material and the sensuous appealed to him and to his Arabs as it
appealed to Jews and Christians of that age. His heaven is not very
different from the heaven of Ephraem Syrus nor his hell different in
kind from that painted by Dante or Michelangelo. The accretions to his
doctrine which came from the Messianic expectations of the Jews or the
Chiliastic expectation of the Christians, are due rather to the
traditionists than to Mohammed himself.

Footnote 466:

  Koran, 34^7.

Footnote 467:

  _Al-achira_: that which _comes after_ this life, 2^3, 6^{92} and
  often.

Footnote 468:

  4^{76}.

Footnote 469:

  Koran, 4^{79}, 6^{32}, cf. 13^{26}.

Footnote 470:

  From Flügel, _Scha’rânî und sein Werk über die Muhammedanische
  Glaubenslehre_ in the Z. D. M. G., XX. (1866), pp. 22-24.

Footnote 471:

  Koran, 69^{19, 25}.

Footnote 472:

  84^{7, 10}.

Footnote 473:

  Kremer, _Herrschende Ideen_, p. 166.

Footnote 474:

  _Bochari_, II., p. 93, also p. 24 f.

Footnote 475:

  Koran, 45^{20 f}.

Footnote 476:

  _Mishcat_, II., p. 507.

Footnote 477:

  Koran, 51^{12}, 56^{56}. The word _din_ here used for _judgment_ seems
  not to have had that sense in Arabic, but to have been borrowed from
  Hebrew or Aramaic.

Footnote 478:

  6^{31, 40}, 12^{107}, 22^{54}, etc. Cf. _that day and hour_, Matt.
  34^{36}.

Footnote 479:

  Matt. 24^{29-36}, 25^{31-46}.

Footnote 480:

  Koran, 81^{1-14}. The meaning is not always certain.

Footnote 481:

  Koran, 90^{17-20}, cf. 74^{41}, 56^{8 f}.

Footnote 482:

  23^{104 f}, 21^{48}.

Footnote 483:

  _Emunot we-Deot, oder Glaubenslehre und Philosophie_ von Saadja
  Fajjumi, übersetzt von Fürst (Leipzig, 1845), p. 408.

Footnote 484:

  Koran, 52^{7-14}.

Footnote 485:

  E.g., 75^{34}, 77^7, 27^{74}, 33^{63}.

Footnote 486:

  16^{79}, 36^{49-54}.

Footnote 487:

   37^{19}, 27^{89}, 37^{19}.

Footnote 488:

  Koran, 39^{68 f}.

Footnote 489:

  54^{6 f}.

Footnote 490:

  80^{33}, 22^2. So in the Day of Yahweh men shall be “drunken but not
  with wine.”

Footnote 491:

  20^{107}.

Footnote 492:

  89^{23 f}.

Footnote 493:

  6^{38}.

Footnote 494:

  Koran, 41^{19-21}, cf. 24^{24}, 36^{65} and Geiger, _l. c._, p. 74.

Footnote 495:

  Kohut in Z. D. M. G., XXI. (1867), p. 565 f. The argument that the
  resurrection of men is no more difficult to God than their creation,
  is also given by Zoroaster, adopted by the Jews and found in the
  Koran—Kohut, _l. c._, p. 578 f.; Saadia, _Emunot_ (Fürst), p. 381. The
  same line of argument is found in the Church Fathers, Harnack,
  _Dogmengeschichte_, II., p. 65.

Footnote 496:

  Koran, 39^{75}. It is unnecessary to give references for the other
  particulars.

Footnote 497:

  Such seems to be the meaning of 9^{73}.

Footnote 498:

  Koran, 13^{22}. On seeing the face of God cf. Pocock, _Notæ
  Miscellaneæ_, in his Works, I. (1740), p. 236; _Mishcat_, II., 620.

Footnote 499:

  Grimme, _Mohammed_, II., p. 161.

Footnote 500:

  Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, II., p. 154.

Footnote 501:

  Weber, _Altsynagogale Theologie_, p. 331.

Footnote 502:

  On the seven heavens 2^{27}. The idea is Persian, cf. Z. D. M. G.,
  XXI., p. 562, and Talmudic, _ibid._, p. 567. That the blessed have
  different degrees of reward is less distinctly asserted in the Koran
  though abundantly developed in Tradition, as _Bochari_, III., p. 185.
  The same idea is found in Christianity (Harnack, _l. c._, II., p. 66),
  and in Judaism (Weber, p. 332).

Footnote 503:

  _Gehannam_, approaching the Hebrew more nearly than the Christian
  Syriac.

Footnote 504:

  Koran, 37^{63 f}, cf. 44^{43 f}.

Footnote 505:

  9^{35}. The Hadith adds that those who have refused the poor-tax of
  cattle shall be trampled by the cattle, _Bochari_, II., p. 101.

Footnote 506:

  Cf. the _Acts of Thomas_ (Walker’s Apocryphal Gospels), p. 419 f.;
  _Antenicene Fathers_, VIII., p. 547; Eisenmenger, _Entdecktes
  Judenthum_, II., p. 341.

Footnote 507:

  Koran, 2^{261}.

Footnote 508:

  46^{35}, 17^{54}, cf. also, 20^{103 f}, 30^{54 f}.

Footnote 509:

  In Parseeism the man’s good deeds appear to him in the form of a
  beautiful maiden at his death. Kohut (Z. D. M. G., XXI., p. 564) cites
  also a passage in which the angels accompany the soul. For Judaism,
  Weber, p. 324, Saadia (Fürst’s Translation), p. 364.

Footnote 510:

  The _Revelation of Paul_ in Walker’s translation (Apocryphal Gospels),
  p. 480; _Antenicene Fathers_, VIII., p. 576; Budge, _Book of the Bee_,
  p. 131.

Footnote 511:

  Koran, 6^{93}, 8^{52 f}. The reader who is interested in the
  theological development of these passages may consult Gautier, _La
  Perle Précieuse de Ghazâlî_ (1877), pp. 9, 15, 16.

Footnote 512:

  Cf. _Mishcat_, I., pp. 38-43; _Bochari_, II., pp. 84, 92 f.; Weber,
  _l. c._, p. 325; Saadia, p. 368.

Footnote 513:

  Koran, 40^{49}.

Footnote 514:

  21^{95 f}. I have substituted the familiar _Gog and Magog_ for the
  Arabic form _Yajuj and Majuj_.

Footnote 515:

  The story fills 18^{82-99}, and is derived from a Christian source.

Footnote 516:

  Ezek. 38 and 39; Rev. 20^{8-10}. On the influence which the prediction
  has had in Christian literature, cf. Bousset, _Der Antichrist_ (1895),
  pp. 29, 33 f. For Judaism, Weber, _l. c._, p. 369 f.

Footnote 517:

  Koran, 27^{84}; Rev. 13.

Footnote 518:

  An extended discussion of these matters is given by Pocock, _Notæ
  Miscellaneæ_, in his Works (1740) I., p. 213 ff.; cf. also Rüling,
  _Eschatologie des Islam_ (1895).

Footnote 519:

  Koran, 2^{74 ff}, cf. 3^{23}.

Footnote 520:

  Weber, _l. c._, p. 327 ff. It is intimated that an occasional sinner
  might be found who must be remanded eternally. In that case the
  distinguishing mark would be effaced.

Footnote 521:

  _Bochari_, I., pp. 10, 15.

Footnote 522:

  Koran, 7^{44 f}.

Footnote 523:

  Koran, 3^{163 f}.




                               LECTURE X.
                            CHURCH AND STATE


When David the Bethlehemite incurred the suspicion of Saul his
sovereign, he was in an evil case. He could not depend upon the
Israelites to harbor him because they were servants of Saul. The
extermination of the priestly clan at Nob showed how perilous it was to
fall under the suspicion of the king. David’s own clan could not protect
him except at the risk of a similar fate. If the fugitive should seek
asylum with the neighboring tribes—it was they against whom he had
carried arms in times past, and there was no Philistine or Amalekite or
Ammonite who would not be glad to take blood revenge upon the
unprotected Israelite. The man cut off from the protection of his kin is
an outlaw, and his blood is free to the first comer. The only way he can
be safe is to gather about him others as desperately situated as
himself, to make of them a band of brothers, and to establish their
right at the point of the sword. David did this and soon became
formidable, was gladly received as a vassal by the Emir of Gath,
obtained a town for himself and his men, and grew in strength by
carrying war against the Bedawin.

Nor was this all. At the death of Saul the kingdom fell to pieces. The
power of Ishbaal was never more than a shadow. The clans, under the
Philistine oppression, lost the feeling of unity and the hope of
independence. This was David’s opportunity. The Sheikhs of Hebron found
the alliance of a captain with six hundred men an advantage if
accepted—the danger of rejecting it was equally obvious. It is no wonder
that they received him and made him their king. Once the rule of a
vigorous man was established, his kingdom could not help growing by the
accretion of the fragments into which the kingdom of Saul had broken.
The sequel is well known. The power of David extended far beyond the
boundaries of Israel, and the impetus was not wholly spent in the reign
of Solomon. But when Solomon’s rash and ill-advised son came to the
throne, the centrifugal force again asserted itself. The tributaries
revolted, the northern tribes elected a king of their own, and the house
of David was left with only a weak reminder of its former greatness.

This very familiar story illustrates a law which we find exemplified
again and again in the history of the East. Its operation may be
observed in Middle Arabia even in our own day—for there the tribal
society survives in much the same form in which it existed in Israel in
the time of the Judges. The unit of society is the clan. Each clan has
its own territory which it defends against all comers, while itself
ready at any minute to invade the pasture of its neighbors. Within the
clan all are brothers. Beyond the clan all are enemies. There is no
government in our sense of the word. Every man does that which is right
in his own eyes. The Sheikhs have a moral influence only. The clans
enter into association with each other by treaty, but this constitutes
simply a larger clan united by the fiction of adoption or artificial
brotherhood. Such association does not make a state. But if an
enterprising man in one of the clans is able to attach a band of
soldiers to his person, government, in our sense of the word, begins.
The case of David is a case in point. So is the case of Abimelech of
Shechem who established himself as Emir of Israel by means of a band of
mercenaries. Having secured the allegiance of his immediate kinsmen,
such a chief rapidly extends his power. His power is in fact largely
dependent on the ability to content his subjects with the spoil of their
enemies. The normal course of such a kingdom is to keep on expanding as
long as it is ruled by a capable and energetic prince. But it falls to
pieces as rapidly as it was built up, if once a weakling comes to the
throne.

This law wrought in favor of Mohammed. But there was a difference
between him and an ordinary freebooter. He brought a principle into play
which had not earlier had a chance to show its power in Arabia; that
principle was religious faith. Had it not been for this, his kingdom
would have been no more enduring than the hundreds of little monarchies
which all along the course of history have arisen in Arabia and have
disappeared leaving no trace behind. In this also there is a resemblance
between Islam and the Old Testament history. For the tenacity of the
Kingdom of David is no doubt due to the fact that it based itself
distinctly on the religion of Yahweh.

These considerations enable us to understand Mohammed’s career when he
became a ruler of men. In the eighteenth century, great indignation was
expressed against him—a man who left his native land to turn his hand
against her. He was said thus to have thrown off the mask which he had
hitherto worn, and to have discovered his treasonable designs. These
charges totally mistake the position. The Arab has no country in the
sense in which we use the word. His attachment is solely to his clan.
But Mohammed’s clan cast him off. They no longer defended him against
their allies. He was already an outlaw. The state of war existed between
him and the Meccans by their act, not by his. The Meccans understood
this. If we may believe tradition, they tried to intercept him and kill
him on his journey to Medina. From their own point of view this was the
only reasonable thing to do. That they were not more strenuous in the
matter is probably to be accounted for by their contempt for him. They
supposed the poor fanatic unable to do them harm.

It is probable, moreover, that the Meccans looked upon Medina as a
harmless or insignificant city. It was in fact far from formidable.
Medina was not a city in our sense of the word. It was simply an oasis
over which the inhabitants were scattered in villages. A group of
villages occupied the place where the city proper now stands. But it had
no common wall for some time after the arrival of Mohammed.
Burckhardt[524] describes the suburbs of the present city as consisting
of “large courtyards, with low apartments built around them on the
ground floor, and separated from each other by gardens and
plantations.... Each Hosh [court] contains thirty or forty families,
thus forming so many separate hamlets, which in times of unsettled
government are frequently engaged in desperate feuds with each other.”
Such a loose agglomeration of settlements was the so-called city in the
time of Mohammed. Except that they were settled more closely together,
its inhabitants differed in nothing from the dwellers in the desert.
There was the same lack of government which exists among the Bedawin.
The history of the people before the coming of Mohammed is a chronicle
of little wars between the clans. Two of these clans had literally
exterminated each other, one having been destroyed to the last man, the
other having two men left who soon after died without issue. Not long
before the coming of Mohammed all the clans had joined on one side or
the other in a pitched battle, which ended in the exhaustion of all
parties. Even then there was no peace, but war was carried on by
isolated murders and assassinations. The community was, in fact, in a
state of anarchy.[525]

Into this anarchy Mohammed came as a fixed point upon which peace could
take hold. He was the head of a small band of Meccan converts who had
undergone the loss of all things for his sake. These were soon joined by
the fugitives of Abyssinia, who were no less devoted to him. His
religion had been preached at Medina for more than a year before his
coming, and there was a considerable number of sincere converts. With
this following, it is not strange that Mohammed was recognized as the
leading man in the community.

Had he not been a man of character, however, it is doubtful whether he
would have become the autocrat that he actually became. One great source
of power to a man in his position is the ability to arbitrate between
contending parties. A judge who will not take bribes nor regard persons
is hard to find. He is prized all the more when he is found. Now
Mohammed was honest; he was generally free from bias—so far as an Arab
can be free from bias; he claimed divine direction. He naturally became
the judge of the community, just as naturally as Moses became the judge
of Israel.

Now to the Semitic mind, the king is the judge of the nation. The Old
Testament is full of passages to prove this. The description of the
ideal king in the Seventy-second Psalm emphasizes this function: “He
shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with justice.”
When a man establishes himself as supreme judge of a people, he is well
on the way to kingly power. The other function of the king is carrying
on war. It is to go out before them against their enemies, that Israel
demands a king in the days of Samuel: “We will have a king over us ...
that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our
battles.”[526] This work also fell to Mohammed. The state of war was in
Arabia the state of nature. The only way in which the Moslems could
sustain themselves was by raids upon their enemies. In these Mohammed,
by his very position, was forced to be the leader. Although he had had
no experience in fighting, and although he was not a man of physical
courage, yet he was on the whole a successful general. He knew how to
maintain discipline, and he knew how to encourage his followers in the
face of defeat. As judge and as general he fulfilled the Semitic ideal
of kingship. It cannot be wondered at that the kingship came to him.

The course of history then runs a close parallel between Israel and
Islam. It is difficult to make out how much Biblical influence was at
work in the process. At Mecca we cannot discover that Mohammed had any
kingly aspirations. He is careful to disclaim any power over his people;
he declares that he seeks no reward from them; he calls himself only a
warner and a bringer of tidings; he does not (apparently) adduce the
preceding prophets as claiming sovereignty over their people. To all
appearance, he expected the government of Mecca to remain in the hands
of the Sheikhs, even if the people should accept Islam. A seat in their
council as adviser was perhaps the most that he expected. He seems to
have known of no Biblical precedent for claiming more. At Medina,
however, where the cares of government were forced upon him, he may have
had a different light. In this period he tells an Old Testament story
that would serve him as precedent. It is as follows:

    “Dost thou not know concerning the aristocracy of Israel after the
    time of Moses, how they said to one of their prophets: Raise us up a
    king and we will fight in the way of God! He replied: Perchance when
    you are ordered to fight, you will refuse. But they said: Why should
    we not fight in the way of God, when we have been thrust out of our
    homes and away from our children? Yet, when they were ordered to
    fight, they turned their backs except a few of them, and God knows
    the evil-doers. Their prophet said to them: God has sent you Talut
    as king. They replied: How can the kingdom be his, when we are more
    worthy of it than he, and he has not received abundance of property!
    The prophet said: God has chosen him above you, and has increased
    him in excellence both of mind and body; God gives the kingdom to
    whom He will, and God is benevolent and wise. The prophet added: A
    sign of his kingship is that he will bring you the Ark, on which is
    the Shekina from your Lord, a relic left by the people of Moses and
    Aaron; angels will bear it—in this is a sign for you if you are
    believers. And when Talut set out with the troops, he said: God will
    test you by a stream; whoever drinks of it is none of mine, and he
    who does not taste it, except by taking up a little in his hand,
    shall be mine. But all except a few drank. And when he and those who
    believed had crossed the stream, they said: We have no power against
    Goliath and his soldiers to-day! But those who were mindful that
    they must meet God said: How many a small troop has overcome a
    larger one by the permission of God, for God is on the side of those
    who are steadfast. And when they went out against Goliath and his
    soldiers, they said: O Lord, supply us with steadfastness, and make
    our feet firm, and help us against the unbelievers! So they put them
    to flight by permission of God, and David killed Goliath, and God
    gave him the kingdom and wisdom, and taught him what He would.”[527]

We see that the narrative is a confused reminiscence of the election of
Saul, the march of Gideon, and the battle of David with Goliath. The
point of interest is the manner in which the incident is made to reflect
the situation at Medina. The king is demanded in order that the people
may fight in the way of God, where we should say _fight in the cause of
God_. The phrase is the standing phrase used for the wars of Mohammed
against the unbelievers. The prophet in the text expresses the doubt
whether the people would be willing to fight. This doubt was a
reflection of Mohammed’s own experience, for a party of Medinans under
an influential leader was always ready to dissuade their fellow-citizens
from joining Mohammed’s campaigns. The Israelites, in the narrative,
complain that they have been thrust out of their homes and away from
their children—which was exactly the case with Mohammed and the
Fugitives. These features of his own situation, being found in the
narrative, make it probable that Mohammed regards himself as the
antitype of Saul, or of Saul and David both. We have, therefore, one
instance in which Biblical precedent influenced Mohammed’s view of his
own position as civil ruler. There is another possibly in the verse
which speaks of the prophets as warriors: “It never came to pass that a
prophet made captives until he had made great slaughter.”[528] But the
assertion seems evolved from the situation rather than from any Biblical
precedent.

It is rather remarkable that Mohammed makes no use of some Biblical
precedents which he would most naturally have cited had he laid emphasis
upon this matter of kingship. Moses was prophet and civil ruler; David
was prophet and king; so was Solomon. But Mohammed nowhere calls
attention to them in order to justify his own assumption of power. The
reason is, that when he published the narratives which deal with these
characters, he did not himself expect to become a worldly ruler. We are
led to the same conclusion by his not making use of the Messianic idea.
The Jews at Medina held the Messianic hope. They taunted their Arab
neighbors with the expectation that the Messiah would come and put the
power into their hands while reducing the Gentiles to servitude. This
expectation influenced the Arabs, so that when they heard of Mohammed,
they argued that this was the expected Messiah, and that by adopting him
as theirs they could anticipate the Jews and disappoint them of their
hopes. But while the Messianic hope had thus an undoubted influence in
establishing Mohammed at Medina, we find him making no further use of
it. The name or title of Messiah, he connects always with Jesus, the son
of Mary.

The growth of the state in Islam was much more rapid than in Israel, but
it followed the same course. As we learn from the book of Judges Israel
obtained a foothold in Canaan by slow degrees. First a few families
would settle upon unoccupied territory. Then they would take possession
of part of a town. In this they would naturally have their own quarter,
and their relations with the Canaanites would be regulated by a treaty
or covenant. So Canaanites and Israelites dwelt together in Shechem in
the time of Abimelech. As the Israelites grew stronger they would reduce
the Canaanites to the position of clients or “sojourners.” Thus, in many
towns, the Canaanites paid tribute. A process of amalgamation going on
all the time, at last those Canaanites who were most tenacious of their
separate custom would be weak enough to be exterminated, as were the
Gibeonites by Saul. Precisely such was the history of Islam. Mohammed
and his followers first occupied ground given them by the Medinans. They
then entered upon a covenant relation with all the tribes of the oasis.
Gradually the community of true believers absorbed a considerable part
of the older inhabitants. The Jews which refused to amalgamate with the
Moslems were driven out or exterminated. But the process which in Israel
extended over some centuries occupied in Islam only ten years.

It seems a pity that the development was so rapid. Had it stopped at the
stage upon which it entered when Mohammed promulgated his covenant with
the inhabitants of Medina, it would have been better for the after
world. Copies of that instrument have come down to us.[529] It is
remarkable for the modest position which Mohammed claims for himself in
relation to the community at large. He evidently desires to leave the
social organization as nearly as possible just as it is. The autonomy of
the clans is not disturbed except in certain matters in which common
action is necessary. There is no endeavor to enforce uniformity of
religion. Even the heathen are allowed to remain peaceably in their old
relations. The Jews are continued under the clientage, and of course
under the protection, of the Arabs. The only innovations concern common
enmity to the Koreish (of Mecca), common action in _defensive_ war, and
the bringing of disputes before God and Mohammed for arbitration. Had
all parties been willing to live together under this constitution, we
should have seen a state arise with some measure of religious
toleration.

But unfortunately toleration was not understood at that time. Mohammed
valued his document only as the best that could be done under the
circumstances. The Jews, on their side, had no higher ideal. They were
as far from desiring to live in intimacy with men of another religion as
was Mohammed. They had no realizing sense of the danger of their
position. They could not keep from giving provocation to their neighbor;
and so, when he grew stronger, he crushed them as Saul crushed the
Gibeonites, and as David crushed the Jebusites. With their defeat and
expulsion, the principle of one religion in the state virtually
triumphed.

The principle of Islam is fixed by the experience of Mohammed. What
history actually brought forth has become binding precedent and is
justified by the theologians. The Moslem has _now_ no thought of the
state except that it is a theocracy. Its basis is the true religion; its
ruler is the spiritual as well as the secular head of the commonwealth.
There is no difference between church and state. The church is the
state. Instead of a state church, there is a church state. We can make
the theory clear to our minds by looking at the Papacy. The actual rise
of the Pope to temporal power was not unlike the rise of Mohammed. The
Bishop of Rome was the spiritual head of a spiritual society. So long as
the civil power was vigorous, he was nothing more. But when the civil
power was broken, then what there was of social order rallied around the
only authority that existed. Had he so willed, the Pope himself could
not have prevented this process. But we may suppose, without any
injurious reflections upon the Pontiff, that he was not unwilling to see
his power increase. To him it was increased power to do good, and—so
far—a triumph of the kingdom of God. Even the Apostle Paul assumes that
if the saints are competent to judge the world, they are competent to
decide the petty issues of a civil lawsuit. It was not by violent
usurpation therefore that the Pope became civil administrator of Italy.
Had the process gone on until the ambition of the ablest Popes was
gratified, we should have seen Europe united under a ruler who combined
in himself the offices of Emperor and of High Priest. This would have
divided the world between a Christian Caliph and a Moslem Pope. The
Ultramontane doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope is in fact
exactly the Moslem doctrine of the Caliphate.

The name theocracy, we are told, was first invented by Josephus. But it
expresses a theory which has been almost universally accepted except
among the most barbarous of men. That God is in fact the ruler of men,
follows logically from His attributes. It is equally obvious that the
man actually appointed by God to rule, rules by divine right. He is
God’s representative on the earth. The ancient Persians are said to have
seen in their kings incarnations of the Godhead. Divine honors were paid
to Roman Emperors. In Israel it was no strange thing to have God say to
the reigning monarch: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.”
The King of Israel, even Saul, was the Anointed of Yahweh. In the theory
of some of the Hebrew writers, at least, the prophetic office brought
with it kingly power. Samuel, in the picture drawn of him in one Old
Testament document, is the theocratic ruler of the nation—so absolute
that he makes and unmakes kings, always, of course, by the divine
direction. The conclusion is indeed easily drawn, that if God sends His
commands by a messenger, obedience to the messenger is obedience to God.
We rather wonder that the conclusion was not more stringently drawn in
Israel, and we can easily see that if Elijah, the Tishbite, had called
about him those seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, he
might easily have seated a prophetic dynasty on the throne of Ahab. It
was just because the kingly authority already had a divine sanction that
the prophets of Israel did not draw the conclusion which Mohammed, in
the absence of a king, was able to draw and to enforce. The Maccabean
dynasty is another example of the way in which the religious and the
secular power naturally combine in the same hands.

It is the happiness of Christianity that it escaped making any
declaration concerning divine right. Its formative period fell in a time
when the civil government was taken care of by the Romans. It therefore
necessarily separated Church and State and learned to distinguish
between them. The civil ruler is still ordained of God to be a terror to
evil-doers. But he is dissociated from the care for religion which the
Jews, and after them the Moslems, thought to be a part of the monarch’s
functions. Mediæval Christianity (we should not forget) took
substantially the same position with Jews and Moslems. It failed to
apprehend the teaching of the New Testament. The testimony of the New
Testament to the divine sanction of the state as a separate entity is
only now beginning to be understood in enlightened Europe and America.
It is a part of the present misery of the Eastern world that all classes
of society are unable to conceive even the possibility of such
testimony.

The system which sees in the state a theocracy necessarily regulates
religion by law. How Islam came near toleration and how it failed, we
have already seen. Islam does not, however, even now, treat Judaism and
Christianity as it treats heathenism. The latter must be destroyed
because it is false, and because it is disobedience to God. The first
consequence is the importance of the sacred war, that is: the war for
the spread of Islam. The reason for the emphasis placed upon this, is
seen in what has already been said about the fortunes of Medina. It was
a matter of life and death there, to make a successful campaign. The
Koran of the latter part of Mohammed’s life is full of exhortations to
take part in the war. Those who may fall in the cause of God are
promised the highest place in Paradise. Those who are backward in
entering this service are blamed and denounced for their hypocrisy. It
is assumed, finally, that war must go on until all heathenism has been
put down. “Say to the unbelievers, that if they make an end [of doing
evil] they shall be forgiven. But if they repeat it—the sentence of
ancient peoples was carried out! _Then fight them until there is no more
division of opinion_, and the religion is wholly Allah’s.”[530]
Tradition correctly interprets this and similar passages when it says
that Mohammed was commanded to make war on men until they should say:
there is no God but Allah; or more fully: “I am commanded to make war on
men until they shall confess that there is no God but Allah and that
Mohammed is His Apostle, shall be steadfast in prayer, and give the
legal alms: and when one shall perform these things, his blood and his
property shall be secure from me except in conformity with the
laws.”[531] The right and duty of propagating Islam by the sword has
therefore become fully established as a part of the system. But we
should remember that in Mohammed’s view, this was against idolaters
only. He was content with the submission of Jews and Christians, without
conversion. As we have seen, he at first supposed that the three faiths
were one in substance, and that their adherents could be welded into one
communion. But he was undeceived by the conduct of the Jews of Medina.
These adhered to their own peculiar customs with the tenacity which
their race has always shown in the matter of their faith. The more
Mohammed saw of their exclusiveness, the more clear it became to him
that no real union with them was possible. Under the plea of treachery
on their part he expelled them from Medina. But elsewhere in Arabia he
was willing that they should remain, on condition of payment of tribute.
At Chaibar, for example, he spared their lives and left them in
possession of their lands, but on the condition of paying one-half the
fruits to the Moslems. This precedent became law for the treatment of
Jews and Christians, and is formally sanctioned by this verse of the
Koran: “Make war on those who do not believe in God and the Last Day,
and who do not prohibit what God and His Apostle have prohibited, and on
those of the peoples who have received a Scripture but do not profess
the true religion, until they pay a tax for each one and humble
themselves.”[532] The terms used leave no doubt that Jews and Christians
are meant.

For the extermination of idolaters, Mohammed might have pleaded the
precedent of the Book of Joshua. The Book of Joshua makes no formal
provision for conversion of the Canaanites. But it is evident, from the
example of Rahab, that it was open to the Canaanites to join the Hebrew
community if they would. Nor do I find that other parts of the Old
Testament take a less rigid position. Idolatry is sin and its devotees
must be punished, such is the general tenor of these writings. Their
view, indeed, does not generally extend beyond the boundaries of their
own land. When the Hebrews were able to bring other nations under
tribute, they did so without too curious inquiry into their religion,
though in some instances, at least, the gods of the conquered nations
were destroyed.

This need not be developed at length, because the precedents seem to
have been unknown to Mohammed. But the general principle on which his
rule was based was common to him and other religious leaders. No
religion can admit that other religions are as good as itself. The high
claims of Christianity to be the one true religion are writ large in the
New Testament. To a certain stage of human thought it seems natural,
indeed it seems inevitable, that so important a thing as religion should
be fostered by the state. If it be the truth, why not make it triumph by
the civil power? What Christianity would have done had it been compelled
to organize a civil government in the Apostolic age we cannot tell. The
Apostles were but men. They had the ideals of their age. It is not
unlikely that they would have instituted a state much like that of the
Caliphs. We have reason to be thankful that they were not allowed to try
the experiment. We know what happened when Christianity actually came to
control the throne of the Empire. Justinian required all his subjects to
acknowledge the orthodox creed,[533] and the persecution of heretics is
the standing subject of Byzantine annals. Had Mohammed cared to inquire
into Christian practice, as illustrated in the Byzantium of his time, he
would have found abundant precedent for his course. And at a later day,
the Crusaders and the persecutors of the Jews showed the Moslem
principle in full force in Christian lands.

The identity of Church and State in Islam involves also this
proposition: The Koran is the civil as well as the religious law of all
Moslems. As we have seen, there is no distinction of obligation. A man
is as much bound to perform the ablution as he is to pay his taxes. In
theory the judge is as competent to punish him for neglect of the one as
he is to punish him for neglect of the other. In practice it is of
course not easy to call men to account for religious dereliction. But in
the more strict Mohammedan states, officers are not infrequently
appointed whose duty it is to see that all the citizens come to the
stated prayers. Now the introduction of a code for Arabia was an almost
unmixed blessing. There had been no law in the desert. With the triumph
of Islam, the tribes came into the peace of Allah. Society was brought
into order, and there was a recognized standard of judgment. But the
establishment of any code as a _perpetual_ law is a misfortune. Yet
Mohammed was only following Biblical precedent. For it is evident that
the Pentateuch occupies, for the Jew, just the place taken by the Koran
among the Moslems. Were the conservative Jews to be put into possession
of Palestine to-morrow, we cannot doubt that they would attempt to
restore the Tora to its place as the supreme civil and ecclesiastical
law of that land. Every violation of its provisions concerning
ritual—sacrifice, lawful food, purifications—would become an offence
against the civil law, and would be within the cognizance of the courts.
The same theory has prevailed more or less among Christians. The
Westminster Assembly of Divines defined it as the duty of the civil
magistrate: “to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the
Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all
blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in
worship or discipline [be] prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances
of God duly settled, administered, and observed—for the better effecting
whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to
provide that whatever is transacted in them be according to the mind of
God.”[534] In theory, Protestantism and Mohammedanism stood on the same
ground as late as the seventeenth century of our era. Our present
condemnation of the position of Islam, shows how far we have advanced in
the last two centuries in apprehending the true nature of the New
Testament Church.

It may be briefly mentioned here that the recognition of a single
supreme code has not prevented divisions among Mohammedans any more than
it prevented them among Jews and Christians. The point at which the most
bitter conflict arose, was this very one of the divine right of the
ruler. Concerning Mohammed himself, of course, there never was any
doubt. But he made no provision for a successor. It seems strange to us
that he failed to regulate so important a matter. But he was as
shortsighted as the rest of us, and did not expect death to come so
soon. Possibly he expected to see the Judgment come before his death; or
he may have relied on God to give him a long life. The fact remains. The
neglect was the more remarkable in that the Prophet left no male
children. In the emergency which actually arose, Abu Bekr, one of the
earliest and most trusted of the Companions, was made Successor by a
vote of acclamation, led by the firm and clear-minded Omar. It is
evident that here is a precedent for popular election. On the other
hand, Ali, the son-in-law (and adopted son) of Mohammed, seems to have
held from the first that the principle of inheritance should obtain.
When he himself came to the Caliphate, three distinct parties arose. One
held that the throne should go, according to old Arab custom, to the
recognized Sheikh of the Koreish (the clan of the Prophet). Another held
strictly to the principle of legitimacy, believing that the blood of
Mohammed in his descendants (the children of Ali and Fatima) gave the
only claim. A third was democratic, demanding an election by the whole
body of true believers. It increases our sense of the importance of
ideas to see how bitterly the adherents of these three views contended
with each other for decades, making a record of bloodshed and suffering
which has not been surpassed in the annals of the race.[535] In this
conflict there are traces of Christian ideas among the heterodox sects.
They adopted the Messianic hope, and they regarded Ali and his
legitimate followers as incarnations of the Godhead. The party which
finally triumphed in the Caliphate[536] adopted substantially Old
Testament ground. According to them the ruler should be the defender of
the faith, and should suppress heresy; he should judge the people,
protect the public peace, punish evil-doers, make war on the infidels,
collect and disburse the taxes, and appoint trustworthy and competent
officers. These qualifications are much the same which would have been
named by an Old Testament prophet. Should the ruler fail in these, the
people have a right to depose him—which again reminds us of the Old
Testament principle, as illustrated by the freedom with which the elders
of Israel assert themselves in the presence of Jeroboam, or the boldness
with which Elisha commissions Jehu to depose and succeed the reigning
monarch of the Northern Kingdom. But these parallels are the result of
similar conditions rather than of direct influence.

The question of government is closely connected with the question of
property. Especially where religion is the basis of government, we
expect some regulation of property. In any monotheistic religion God is,
of course, the ultimate owner of everything, and all human holders get
their title from Him. Where the religion emphasizes the brotherhood of
believers, we have additional reason to look for some enactment
concerning property. In the case of Islam we find, on the whole, a
conservative position taken. It has indeed been supposed of late that
Mohammed came forward as a social reformer, and that his first preaching
urged a state tax to be paid by the rich for the support of the poor.
This he tried to enforce (on this theory) by his threat of the Judgment
Day. But if what has already been said in these lectures be true, this
theory just inverts the order of ideas. The idea of the Judgment is an
idea great enough to enforce itself. Mohammed’s mind was impressed with
this idea first. With it he had a realizing sense of the sin of men. It
was only because sins of property have a large place among the sins of
men, that he was impressed by them. Because of their prominence he gives
them proportionate attention. He had, of course, great sympathy with the
poor, and great indignation at oppression. One of his earliest suras
rebukes the wicked in this way: “You do not treat the orphan generously,
nor do you incite others to feed the poor, and you devour inheritance
with greedy appetite, and you love wealth with an intense love.”[537]
Liberality is a virtue, avarice is a sin; these are his axioms, and in
adopting them he was no more socialistic than was the Apostle Paul. He
takes the differences between men to be part of the divine ordering: “It
is He who made you succeed [former generations] in the earth, and has
raised some of you above others in rank that He may try you by what He
has given you.”[538] The matter of wealth or riches, however, is
comparatively unimportant; the present world and its possessions are
only fleeting. The real wealth is yonder. In all this he took the
religious, and not the socialistic, view.

What roused his indignation was injustice and oppression, and the most
of his laws concerning property were directed against these. We find,
therefore, stringent injunctions designed to protect the orphan. From
the same point of view we understand the prohibition of usury. That a
man who loaned another money should get back twice as much, seemed to
him the use of a false weight and measure. He does not denounce those
who have wealth, but those who get it wrongfully. He does not advocate
lavish beneficence. He describes the good man as the one who in his
expenditure is neither niggardly nor lavish. In all this we discover no
social revolution.

That he who has should be ready to help him who has not, is, of course,
one of the elementary truths of his religion. But it does not seem that
the tax which was assessed upon the well-to-do, was based upon this
duty. It was rather a recognition of God’s right. It is called a
_purification_, and the name would indicate the view taken in the Old
Testament—that the property cannot be lawfully used until it is
consecrated by giving a portion to God. This portion, like the tithe of
Deuteronomy, belonged to God, and, like that, it was given by God to the
poor, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow.”[539] This afterward
became among the Moslems a regular state tax which came into the public
treasury, just as in the later legislation in Israel the tithe became a
regular provision for the support of the priesthood. But Mohammed had no
idea of a state treasury, and his tax was intended for the support of
the poor. In some cases it was sent to him to distribute; in others he
allowed each tribe to assess it upon its own wealthy men and distribute
it to its own poor. In the whole arrangement he stands very much upon
the ground of early Israel.

Footnote 524:

  _Travels in Arabia_ (1829), p. 326; Wellhausen, _Skizzen und
  Vorarbeiten_, IV., p. 18.

Footnote 525:

  For a more extended description cf. Wellhausen, IV., p. 27 ff.

Footnote 526:

  1 Sam. 8^{19 f}.

Footnote 527:

  Koran 4^{247-252}. Saul is named Talut to rhyme with Jalut (Goliath).

Footnote 528:

  Koran 8^{68}.

Footnote 529:

  It is translated by Wellhausen, _Skizzen_, IV., p. 67 ff. The
  genuineness seems proved by the fact that it embodies none of the
  theocratic ideas of the later time.

Footnote 530:

  Koran 8^{39 f}.

Footnote 531:

  _Mishcat_, I., p. 5, cf. _Bochari_, IV., p. 5.

Footnote 532:

  Koran 9^{29}.

Footnote 533:

  Kattenbusch, _Confessionskunde_, I., p. 377.

Footnote 534:

  Schaff, _Creeds of Christendom_, III., p. 653.

Footnote 535:

  On this subject cf. Brünnow, _Die Charidschiten_ (1884); De Sacy,
  _Histoire des Druses_, I., p. xxvii.; Kremer, _Geschichte der
  Herrschenden Ideen des Islam_, p. 409.

Footnote 536:

  The Shiites, or partisans of Ali, retained possession of Persia.

Footnote 537:

  Koran 89^{18 ff}.

Footnote 538:

  6^{165}.

Footnote 539:

  Deut. 14^{28}.




                              _CONCLUSION_


In reviewing what has been said in these lectures we form a tolerably
clear conception of the forces which have made Islam. In the first
place, we must suppose that Mohammed was a religious nature—capable of
appreciating religious truth and of applying it to himself. For
religious truth is only adequately apprehended when it is made
practical. This does not mean that Mohammed was morally perfect. He was
not free from the defects of his age and of his race. He was not
incapable of self-deception—possibly not incapable of deceiving others.
But he had the religious impulse, and when he came in contact with the
truths of Christianity, they burned in his soul. This was the spark
which set Arabia on fire.

I have said that it was when he came in contact with the truths of
Christianity that his soul was fired. It is commonly supposed that his
impulse was Jewish rather than Christian; and his system does, in fact,
more nearly resemble Judaism than it resembles Protestant Christianity.
But we shall be guilty of an anachronism if we make this comparison. The
Christianity with which Mohammed came in contact was the Christianity of
Arabia or Mesopotamia in the seventh century. Its type was, no doubt,
that of primitive Ebionism rather than that even of Byzantine orthodoxy.
The fact that Mohammed took so large a part of his material from the Old
Testament does not disprove this. The Old Testament was a part of the
Church’s Bible from the first—for a time it was the Church’s only Bible.
The narratives which we find in the Koran are from that part of the Old
Testament which is familiar to every child even among us. They would be
equally familiar to the early Christians for the same reason. Adam and
Noah and Abraham and Moses are Christian saints quite as distinctly as
they are Jewish patriarchs.

And if we find no reason why Mohammed should not take these from a
Christian source, we do find things which he could not have got from a
Jewish source. His description of the Judgment shows features borrowed
from the Gospel account. He recognized Jesus as a prophet and one of the
chiefest of them—this could not have come from the Jews, to whom Jesus
was the arch traitor, the detested one who hung upon the accursed cross.
Putting these two considerations together with some minor indications
(all the more weighty because they are indirect) we need have no
hesitation in concluding that the impulse came from Christianity.

But, as we have had occasion to remark, the Prophet of Arabia was not
able to assimilate the most spiritual part of the Christianity of the
New Testament. It was not fairly presented to him, for one thing. What
is transferred in religion is not the pure source, but a tradition
colored by individual experience. Think of a Roman Catholic
missionary—as sincere, as devout, and as intelligent as you can
imagine—think of him as preaching to the Moslems of Baghdad. Does he
preach the simple truths of the New Testament, or does he preach those
truths in the form in which they exist in his consciousness? You cannot
doubt that he will preach a tradition—a tradition in which is much of
truth, but a tradition nevertheless. Now think of the Baptist, or
Methodist, or Episcopal missionary, is not the same thing true to some
degree of each of these? But if this be so in this age of the world, we
cannot find it strange that Mohammed received from the humble Christians
with whom he came in contact something less and something more than the
pure Gospel. On the whole it is rather remarkable that he received so
much of the truth. The unity of God; the certainty of judgment; the fact
of revelation; God’s will to save men; the appropriation of salvation by
faith; good works the fruits of faith—these doctrines make up no small
part of our religion. And these he adopted and proclaimed. That he
presented them in his own form is only what we should expect.

If it is true that not all Christian truths were presented to Mohammed
it is also true that he was incapable of assimilating some doctrines
even had they been presented to him. The chief of these is the doctrine
of the Trinity. In the metaphysical affirmations of the creed of Nicæa
concerning substance and person, he would not have been able to find
himself. As for the Sonship of Christ, we have already seen that this
was coupled in his mind with the conceptions of heathenism; while the
idea of a love of God which could lead to an incarnation would probably
have seemed to him fanciful and extravagant. The same is true of the
doctrine of the atonement. Sacrifice had to him lost its propitiatory
sense—perhaps because it was already a meaningless rite in Arabic
heathenism.

Concerning these doctrines, which have so large a part in the
Christianity that we know, we are in doubt whether they were ever fairly
presented to Mohammed, and we are also in doubt whether he could have
used them in his system if they had been so presented. In either case
the result is the same. His system is a Judaistic Christianity adapted
to Arabic conditions.

But even in this imperfect form we cannot help admiring in Islam the
power of the truth. It cannot for a moment be denied that the progress
of Islam, which is one of the wonders of history, was due to many
causes. It was not the truth alone which triumphed, but the truth in
alliance with all worldly and selfish motives. Islam is not the only
religion in which the world, the flesh, and the devil have fought on the
side of the truth, but for their own ends. Still, when all allowance has
been made, we see that the truth in Islam has been a power. As compared
with heathenism, Islam is a society in which God and righteousness are
living and active forces. Everyone who has been admitted to intimacy
with Mohammedans will testify that men are not rare among them who live
in the fear of God, who strive to do His will, and whose kindness and
benevolence are the outworking of sincere faith in Him. The hold of
Islam on its adherents is because it has so much of the truth.

This is the excellence of Islam. It was a great advance on the
heathenism which it displaced. We cannot doubt that even now it carries
into the heart of Africa a civilization and a morality that are an
immense advance on the fetishism in which the degraded negroes welter.

But with its excellence in bringing men one step in advance, we must
contrast the tenacity with which it restrains them from taking another.
It is like iron in the conservatism with which it holds its system
against every attempt at change. Its formalism, its scholasticism, its
unchangeable law embodied in a completed code—these shut up its
conscientious adherents to mediævalism as their ideal. There can be no
real liberty and no real progress where a scholastic system has thus
intrenched itself. The position of Christians in the Turkish Empire
throws a lurid light upon this truth. Again and again has European
pressure, aided by a few educated Turks, endeavored to secure equality
before the laws for all subjects of the Sublime Porte. But as often as
the attempt is made it proves a failure—each now failure more ghastly
than the last. The reason is that the conscience and the faith of the
most sincere and upright Moslems are bound up with the Koran and its
system. You cannot introduce a reform against the conscience and against
the faith of those who must be depended upon to make the reform
operative. Before Islam can be reformed, new truth must be brought to
bear upon its heart and conscience. Civilization cannot effect this.
Rifles and ironclads, the Café, the Theatre, the written Constitution,
Representative Institutions—none of these can reach below the surface. A
larger truth, a deeper religious experience, a higher life than the one
supplied by their own faith—this must be brought home to the hearts of
these believers before they can enter into the larger liberty which we
enjoy.




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ The spelling and punctuation are as the original, except for
      apparent typographical errors which have been corrected.
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ Text that was in superscript is preceded by a caret (^) sign. A
      single character superscript is simply G^s; multiple characters in
      superscript are enclosed in curly brackets, like G^{12}.
    ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the lectures in which they are
      referenced.



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BIBLE AND ISLAM ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.