The Bible and Islam - Forgotten Books

E LY LECTU RES .

THE EVI DE NCE S OF CH R I ST I AN ITY I N THE N I N ETEE NTHCE NTU RY . By Rev . A l be rt Barn e s , D.O. , LL . D .

CH R I ST I AN ITY AN D POS IT IVI SM . By Rev. Jam es McCosh

D.D. I LL . D .

COM PARAT I VE EV I DE NC E S OF SC I E N C E A N D C H R I ST IAN ITY . By Rev . A . P . Peabody, D.O. , LL . D .

THE D IVI N E OR IG I N OF C H R I ST I AN ITY I N D ICATE D BYITS H I STOR I CAL EFFE CTS . By Rev . R ic hard S . Sto rrs ,

D.O. , LL . D .

PH I LOSOPHY AN D CH R IST I AN ITY . By P rofessor George 5.

Morr i s , PhD .

THE M I RACU LOU S ELE ME NT I N THE GOSPELS .

P rofe ssor A . W . B ruc e .

THE EVI DE NCE OF CH R I ST I A N E ! PER I E N CE . By Rev.

Lew is F . Stearns . DD .

OR IE NTAL RE L IG IONS AN D C H R I ST I AN ITY . By Rev. FrankF . E l l inwood,

THE B I BLE AN D I SLAM . By Rev . H e nry P rese rved Sm ith , 00.

THE B I BLE AND I SLAM

THE I NFLUENCE OF THE O LD AND N EW TESTAMENTS

ON THE REL IG ION OF MOHAMM ED

BEI NG

THE ELY LEGTURE-s FOR 1897

HENRY PRESERVED SM ITH, DD .

N EW YQRK

CHARLES SCR IBNER’S

'189-7é

TH E E L Y F OUNDA TI ON

THE lectures contained in thi s volume were de l i vered to the students of Union Theological Seminaryin the sprin g of the year 1897, as one of the coursesestablished in the Seminary by Mr. Zebulon StilesEly, in the following terms

Th e unders i gn ed gives th e su m of ten th ousan d do llars to th e U n i on Th eo logi ca l Sem i n ary ofth e C i ty ofN ewY ork to foun d a lectu r esh ip i n th e sam e , th e ti tle ofwh i chsh al l be Th e E l i as P . E l y L ectu res on th e E vi den ces of

Ch r i sti an i ty .

Th e cour se of lectu res given on th i s F oun dati on i s tocompr i se an y topi cs se rv i ng to establ i sh th e propos i ti onth at Ch r i sti an i ty i s a re l igi o n from God, or th at i t i s th eperfect an d final form of re l igi on fo r m an .

“ A mong th e su bjects discussed m ay be : Th e N atu reand N eed of a Re ve lati o n ;Th e Ch a racter an d I nflu en ce

of Ch ri st and H i s A postles ;Th e A uth en ti c i ty an d C r edibi l i ty of th e Scriptu r es , M i rac les , an d Proph ecy ;Th e Di ffus i on an d B en efits ofCh r i st i an i ty, an d Th e Ph i losoph y ofR e l i gi on i n i ts R e lati on s to th e Ch risti an System .

“ U pon on e or m o re of such subjects a course of ten

publ ic lectures sh al l be gi ven , at least on ce i n two or th ree

year s . Th e appo in tm en t of t he lec tu r ers i s to be by th econ cur r ent action of th e F acu lty an d Di r ecto rs of sa i dSemi n ary an d th e un de rs ign ed , an d i t sh al l o rd i n ari ly bemade two years i n ad van ce .

”

PR E F A CE

TH ! : im por tance and the timelin ess of the subject

treated in these lectur es ar e sufficiently ev ident. A s

to the method of trea tment, I leave the reader to

judge. The references given ar e sufficient to show

how far I have gone to the sour ces . The citati ons

fr om the Koran m ay be thought too extensive . My

onl y defence i s that I could not well have left any

out;in fact, I have considerably reduced the num

ber contained i n the first dr aft of the lectu res.

The A rabic words tran scri bed are not numerous ,

an d the most of them ar e already curr ent in E ngli sh. I have not though t it necessary to make an y

change i n these, nor to attempt an exact tr an s l i te r

ation .

I have been favored with the loan of books from

the Y ale Univers ity l i brary, the library of Union

Theologi cal Semin ary, an d the li brary of the Theo

logical Sem i nary at Pri nceton . I t gives me pleas

ure to acknowledge thi s courtesy in thi s public

manner.

L am-m oon , N . J .

TH E B I B L E A ND I SL A M

LECTURE I .

TH E A POSTL E OF AL L AH

I N the seventh century of our era. Christianityseemed triumphant over its enemies in the EasternEmpire . Paganism was destroyed, the heresies hadbeen overcome, the faith h ad received its fu ll definitionin what was supposed to be the final creed . The bishops and monks

,at least

,might be justified in suppos

ing that the kingdom of God was already established .

I n the reign of Heraclius the political situation wasalmost as promisin g as the ecclesiastical . For thatmonarch

,with almost R om an energy, repulsed the

Persians, the hereditary foes of Byzantium, an d extended the bounds of the empire almost to the pointwhi ch they had reached i n the days when the statewas Roman in fact as well as in name. I n this per i od of triumph and of apparent prosperity no onecould have foretold the appearan ce of a new powerupon the scene—a power which would threaten thewhole fabric of civilization and change the map ofthe known world. Y et such a power appeared, overcame the armies sent aga inst it, an d with un exampled

2 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

rapidity took possession of the fairest provi nces Of

the East .Until this time A rabia h ad not played a lead i ng

part i n the drama of history . A l l earlier knowledgeof th is coun try shows its inhabitants to be scatteredtribes separated by their deserts and by their mutualhostility

.Persia an d Byzantium had indeed welded

the clans nearest their borders into petty kingdomswhich they used each to annoy the other. But of

A rabia as a single power they did not dream . C c

cas i on al forays of the bold desert dwellers in searchof booty they were accustomed to suffer. N ow therecame the invasion of a new created nation . Thescattered Bedawi n were fired by a single purpose.A ttila, the Scourge of God, was overmatched by

Ch al id, 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 i n an instant . I n lessthan half a century from the time when Mohammedfled with a sin gle companion from Mecca , the arms ofhis followers were triumphant from the Oxus to thesite of Carthage . I n another half century they h adcrossed the borders of I ndia on the east, an d to thewest were checked on ly by the waves of the A tlantic.Their conquest of Spain and invasion of France arefacts familiar to you, as is the battle of Tours orPoitiers by which Charles Martel preserved to Eur opeRoman Christianity and the civilization with whichit was allied .

That such a movement deserves the attention ofall students of history, is the merest tru ism . I ts

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join


flattered ourselves with hopes of the regenerationof

the East, because a few youn g men inConstanti nople

have a varnish of W estern education and of Western

manners. The illusion h as vanished an d we see thatthe mass of the people ar e living in the ideas of athousand years ago . There may be a more agree

able, there could scarcely be a more convincing, ex

am ple of the tenacity of religion .

I n a certain sense, our own time is able to appr e

ciate the nature of this force as no preceding age h as

appreciated it. We have begun to see that there is a

science of religion - a science which deals both withthe history and with the philosophy of religion . A nd

yet it is too much to say that this point of view isun iversally recognized . Even in the case of I slam ,

the attempt is still made to account for the phenomenaby supposing some other force behind them . Themost recent life of Mohammed tries to explain hismovement as a social rather than a religious revolution .

Social distress bulks so largely in our own phil osophythat we ar e tempted to give it an equally large placein the thoughts of other times. I t is a sufficientpresent answer to this theory to say that we hearnothing of social claims in connection with the rise an dspread of I slam . The cry of the hosts which subduedA sia was not for freedom of land or for reli ef fromfeudal bur dens, either of taxation or servi ce ;it wasnot a demand for liberty or equality. Some of thesethings were more or less distinctly involved butthey were only indirectly involved. The formula teddemand of the Moslem army was for the recognition

Grimm e, M ohamm ed, E rster Te il, Das L eben , M u n ster, 1892 .

TH E A POSTL E OF A L L A H 5

of Al lah as the one God,and of Mohammed as His

A postle. They brought a creed for their watchword,

and offered a Bible as their boon . This is where wem ay easily find the strength of I slam to - day . Youm ay talk to an intelligent Mohammedan Ofthe benefits

given by modern progress. He will acknowledge thatthe civilization of Europe h as some material advantages but, in his heart, he will say that these are onlythe temporary enjoyments of a transitory world, andhe will thank A llah that He h as given him the betterpart in the promise of the world to come . To thisday Mecca numbers among its in habitants m en whohave emigrated from the countries where they enjoyedpeace an d security u nder Christian rule—emigr atedbecause they could not feel at home under such rule,in spite of its material advantages . These m en desire more than material advantages They desireto study the sacred sciences in a sacred place, tolive in the neighborh ood of celebrated an d piousscholars or devotees, to do penance for former trans

gr ess i on s , to cleanse their fil tl/1y;l u cr e by using itpartly in religious works, or to spend thei r last days

and to die on holy ground . This is the testimonyof a m an who h ad un usual opportunities to knowwhereof he affirms . A nd al l observers who havebecome acquainted wi th th e real life of the peoplein 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

Sn ou ck - H u ng'

ron je , M ekka , I L , p. 5.


ignore this striking episode . I n any of itsaspects

, I slam will repay investigatio n .But I t I s

obvious that,for a single course of lectures, we

O

m u st

limit our field ;an d, for the p r es e n t course, it i s mypurpose to conside r only the beginn ings . The l u s

tory of a quarter of the globe through a period ofthirteen centur ies, is an immense subject. I nternal

an d external wars, the rise a nd fall of dynasties,revolutions

,crusades , philosoph ies, an d theologies

these would require many volumes for their adequa tetreatment. To get a clear impression, we must limitour field;and the best place to begin is at the beginning. We do not ignore the fact that the I slam ofto - day is in many respects different from the I slamwhich emerged from the wilderness twelve centuriesago. I t may be true, as h as been claimed, that onewho studies the Koran and thinks himself acquaintedwith the I slam of to- day , i s as far wron g as he wouldbe who should study the Gospels and think himselfacquainted with the Christianity of H i I deh rand orof Pius the Ninth . W e need to caution ourselves atthis point, and not to assume that what is true ofMohammed and Omar is tr ue al so of the n ow r u l

ing Su l tan . B u t, when al l is said

,we know a good

deal about a system when we know its beginnin gs .The stream is purest at its source . Principles a r e

sim pler when they first show the ir activity.Later

developments may obscure th em,but can n ot change

their essence. The later de velopm ents areunderstood by the mastery of the earlier and simplerstages. A nd what is true in general is tr ue

,in a,

very special sense,of the movement be fore us

. Th e

TH E A POSTL E '

or A L L A H 7

religion of Mohammed developed with great rapidi tyqDuring the lifetime of its founder it passed through i

the stages whi ch Chr istianity took three centur ies totraverse . I n one sense this is a di sadvantage . Thegrowth would have been more healthy i f it h ad beenmore deliberate . B ut it adds to the importance ofthe earliest period when this period contains so much .

I t is on ly the natural result that the dogmatic systemof I slam not only assumed its final shape at a veryearly date

,but that it adhered to one type with great

tenacity. Development there was;but the development early became sectar ian . The official

,orthodox

dogma overcame the sects,an d this orthodox dogma

was only the codification of ideas alr eady prevalentin the first century of the Flight . For these reasonsknowledge of the or igin of I slam is the knowledgeof the whole system

,more tru l y than is the case in

an y other of the great historic religions.But we must still further limit our inquiry. A gen

eral sketch of the rise of Moh ammedanism would nodoubt be of great interest, but it wou ld still requi rem ore space than we can give it. I Ve must choose someone of its many aspects

,and fix our attention upon

this single poin t,in the hope that the small n ess of the

field will conduce to clearness i n the picture . Now,

the point which I propose to examin e is the influencewhi ch the Old an d New Testaments have exertedupon this religion which is neither Judaism norChristian ity, though it shows such curious resemblances to both . These resemblances force themselves upon the notice o i even the m ost superficial

Observer . Never was there a religi on so little original


as this one . The dependence of one religion “POD

another is, however, not a rare phen omenon . B e l l g

ious ideas emigrate more rapidly than the r e l i gl on s

of which they ar e a part. A l l the religions of wh l ch

we have competent knowledge , not exceptl ng the

religion of I srael, show foreign influence . The gods

an d myths of Greece were emigrants from A sia;Judaism borrowed from Baby lonia;Christianity builtupon the foundation in herited from Judaism . I t is

n o t strange, therefore , that I slam shoul d use bothJewish and Christian ideas. SO far from the lack Oforiginality bein g a reason for ignoring the study ofthis religion

,we may say that it is a special reason

for studying it . Here is a great fact—the migrationof religi ous beliefs . I t is set before us in a strikingexample . Every consideration urges us to its closeand attentive examination.

I n examining the dependence of I slam upon theearlier religions we ar e met at the outset by onecapital difficulty. I slam we know the sources flow

for us with greater copiousness than is true of an yother religion . But the Judaism an d Christianityof A rabia ar e almost unknown quantities . Therewas Judaism in A rabia . W e suppose that it conformed in general to the type of other post - biblicalJudaism . But how far it m ay have been affectedby its surroundings is hard for us to say .

Therewas Christianity in A rabia . But of its characterwe ar e even more ignorant than we ar e of A rabianJudaism . I t seem s quite certain tha t it was not theChristianity of the Greek Church . I n a l l probability it existed in the form of some of the sects


stigmatized by the theologians as heretical . Thety pe of heresy represented

,however

,can be only

faintly conjectured. Now,in this state of ignorance

,

we ar e obliged to seek some fixed point,and thi s

fixed po i nt can be no other than the Bible. Wh at

ever the Judaism o i A r abia had, or had not, we ar esafe in assumi ng that it h ad the H ebrew Bible. I n

like manner, it is true of the Christianity of A rabiathat it h ad 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 Biblicalfeatures appear in the religion of Mohammed. I t is

,

of course, per fectly legitimate to note the form whichthese features assume in their new combination . I f

these are such as appear elsewhere in the Judaismof the Talmud, it will be perfectly legitimate to assume that Talmudic influence was at work. I f theN ew Testament influences appear clouded by thetendencies which show themselves in the A pocry phalGospels

,we shall conclude that these tendencies

were at work among the nominal Christians of A rabia.

Nevertheless,the features which we seek are Biblical

in their substance and their origin. Our two knownquantities are the Bible an d the sources of I slam.

I t is sign ificant at the very outset to notice thatMohammed

,the foun der of I slam,

designated himself by two words borrowed from the Scriptures .

One was borrowed directly in the Hebrew formnaby

— an d was intended to rank him wi th the OldTestament organs of revelation, the pr ophets of thatdispensation . The other

,r asu l

,was the translation of


the New Testament word which we render apOStl e,

an d was equally intended to class him with the o r

gans of revelation in the ChristianChurch . We see,

therefore,that the very term s i n which the founder

of the new religion announced him se lf expressed h l s

adeption of Hebrew an d Christian ideas . A n d that,with the words which he adopted, he h ad the Biblicalidea is made plain by many passages of the Koran

W e have sent thee with the truth, as a bringer oftidings and a warner. ” The prophets and apostles

ar e well described by this word, for it was their workto warn their people of the judgments of God. I t isevident, therefore, that Mohammed

’s starting- pointwas the fundamental position of revealed religionthat God speaks through chosen men

,to make His

will known to the world. This position is the keyto his activity.

There ar e thinkers, however, to whom it is in comprehensible that a m an shoul d

,in a l l honesty

,put

forward a claim to speak as the messenger of God.

They ar e compelled to seek some ulterior motive forhis activity . The whole mediaeval world was ofcourse incapable of understanding the Prophet ofI slam . The only thing which those centuries couldsee was that Mohammed was the deadly enemy oftheir civilization . They could explain his impulseonly as the direct act of Satan . I n truth

,the hordes

of fierce and savage warriors which poured fromA rabia and overran a large part of the known world

,

must have made upon their victims the impression* Koran cf. 488, I t shou ld be n oticed th at God i s u n iform ly th e speaker i n the Koran .

12 TH E BIBLE A N D I SL A M

mischief to the world . The author of th e treatise,

therefore,suppose s Moh ammed to go deliberately to

work an d frame a new reli gion as a means to the

royal power. Substantially the same theory was car

ried out i n the Bampton Lectur es of 1784, Whichhave for their subject A Comparison of Mahomet

an i sm an d Christian ity in their History, their Evi

den ces an d their Effects. I n these lectures it is,

throughout assumed that the founder of I slam was an!impostor

,who

,

“ by the mere force of a bold and fertil e genius

,assisted by a concurrence of circumstances

universally auspicious to his design, was enabled toobtain the most unbounded empire over the minds

,

as well as persons, of a very large portion of m ankind.

”

1‘ I t 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 , wh o embodied it in his tragedy : “ L e F an

a l i sme, on M ahomet l e P '

I‘

Ophéte. 1 By the author’sown letter of dedi cation, this tragedy was directedagainst an imposture which brought into play thehypocrisy of some an d the fury of others . I n theplay itself Mohammed is made to confess the ambition that is his motive . He is made to see with the

P rideaux , l . c., p. 7 .

i Joseph W h ite, S erm on s p r each ed befor e th e wai ver s/[W of 09:for d i n th e year 1784 at th e L ectu re founded by th e R ev . Joh n

B ampton , M . A . Second E dition , L ondon , 18 1 1 , p. 47 . Cf. alsop. 85, wh ere M oh amm ed i s described as th e impostor Wh ose falseand impiou s preten ce s to divin e revelation were crown edwith su ccess .

”

i mum -

es Compl etes de V oltaire , 1785, Tom e I I I . Th e Tragedywas first acted A ugu st 9 , 1742 .


eye of a modern historian,and discovers that Persia

is feeble and Byzantium totter ing. I t is now theturn of A r abia to step upon the scene of action

,and

erect a monarchy upon the ruins of these. To securethis end a new religion is the best means

,and for this

end it is i n ven tedfx‘

Neither the English churchman nor the Frenchsceptic had the key to I slam . 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 tocome . To show this, we need only look at the outli ne ofhis li fe .

I t seems well establ ished that throughout his earlymanhood

,and until middle life, Mohammed showed

no special ambition and no special capacity. We

know very little of this period of his life, except thathe was an orphan an d poor ,\u n ti l his mar riage with

Chadija placed him in easy circumstances . He hadestablished a character for honesty, for he was cal l edthe F ai thfu l . But his religion was the religion of hiscity

,as is abundantly shown by the fact that he

named a son A bd M endf for one of the heathen deities. When about forty years o l d '

t the crisis of h i s*0p . m

’

t. A cte I I . Scen e V .

‘r I give th e traditional data. Great u n certain ty h angs over M o

hamm ed’s early life , especially over th e ch ron ology. F or the

epith et F a i thfu l see Da s L eben M ohamm ed’

s n ach M ohamm ed 1l m

[sha l t bea r bei tet can I bn H i sch am , dber setztfvon Dr . Gu stav Wai l .

Stu ttgart, 1864, I . , p. 94, and Sprenger, L eben M ohamm eds , I . ,

p. 526 . The n ame A bd M enaf for M oh amm ed'

s son i s given by


life came. He passed through a severe spl r l tual

conflict,an d, at the end of it, came forth as a preacher.

He began to reason with his countrymen concerni ng

righteousness an d a judgment to come, an d,at real

risk to himself,denounced their idolatry as contrary

to the wil l of God. Before attributin g interestedmotives to such a m an we should have clear and con

v i n c i ng proofs . A s to his personali ty, the impressionmade upon us by the records of this early ministry,an d to a considerable extent confirmed by his laterhistory

,is that of a modest, retiring m an . He was

,

even when in possession of power, rather reticent,shrinki ng from prominent activi ty

,lacking in deci

sion . The inter nal conflict from which he sufferedwas brought about by what he felt was a call topreach . ,

His conscience urged him to obey,but

his natu ral timidity held him back. I n all this he

betrays no deep - laid scheme of any ki nd . He

would apparently have been satisfied with the conversion of hi s native city

,an d would have been con

tent to leave the government in the hands of thechiefs who already possessed it. The sin gleness ofhis motive was indicated moreover by his steadfastness through years of neglect

,contempt

,abuse

,and

even persecution . The Meccans h ad no Special ohjecti on to his religion so long as it was simply a personal matter. They would have been quite contentto have him get salvation in his own way , if only hewould not preach against the publicly establi shed

M u ller, Der I s l am i m M o rgen- a nd A ben dl ande

,I . , p. 48 ;and th e

tradition thatM ohamm ed ofie r ed a wh ite sh eep to th e goddess U zzahby W e l l hau sen , Ski zzen a nd Vor a r bez

'

ten , I I I ., p. 30.

i

TH E A P OSTL E OF A L L A H 15

worship . But it was precisely this which Mohammed felt called to do . The chiefs of the Meccanscame to A bu Talib (Mohammed

’s uncle an d proteotor)and complained of the preaching, whereupon theuncle remonstrated with his nephew . Mohammedsupposed that he was going to lose the protection ofthe clan

,in which case his life would not have been

safe for an hour. Nevertheless,he said, with tears in

hi s eyes Though the sun at my right hand and themoon at my left were to command me to give up thismatter, I would not give itI n this persistence in his calling Mohammed is not

unworthy of being compared with the Old Testamentprophets . He reminds us of Jeremiah

,who was com

m an ded to preach though he was told that the kingsof Judah , and the princes, priests, an d people wouldfight against him . The parallel with some of the OldTestament prophets is the more exact in that Mohammed was apparently slow of speech . I n his privatelife he was taciturn . That when he spoke in publiche h ad difficulty in expressing his thought, seemsevident from the phenomena of the Koran. The fr e

quent repetition of the same thoughts, an d even thesame phr ases, shows lack of facili ty. I n many passages we ar e compelled to think that he was not ableto express his thought with clearness. He is fondof figures and metaphors, yet he rarely succeeds incarrying one out consistently. He was far from being

a natural orator, and he would have been strangelyse l f- deceived if he h ad supposed that his eloquencewould make his countrymen subservient to his de

W e i], 17m H i scham , I . , p. 125.


signs . A nd his experience is just in line w1th the

other evidence on this head. His coun trym en had

sm all patience with his harangues. Th ey sti gm atl zed

them as the ravings of one possessed, or as the fables

of the ancients . Putting these indications together

we must agree with an emin ent authority on thi s subjcet * when he says “ He was not a master of thelanguage—which explain s the frequent repetitions inthe Koran . He composed with difficul ty he rarelyfound at once the word which correctly expressed histhought . He tried it therefore in different ways

,and

hence we fin d the same ideas recur continual ly inthe 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 affectsthe sincerity of Mohammed . A l l the indi cations pointhim out as one of the last men to attempt a careerwhich should make h im play the part of an orator.Looking at him more closely

,it may be confessed

without hesitation that Mohammed was not a man afterthe pattern which most commends itself to us. Hispersonality is one of the most difficult to comprehendin all history, for it seems to us to unite con tradi c

tory traits . Frugality and lavishness, temperanceand sensual grossness, indecision and firmness

,gen

tl en ess and cruelty, piety and treachery, a l l appear

by turns ;and the opposites ar e often i n immediatejuxtaposition . I t is difficult for us modern m en of theA ryan race to combine these features in a single pict

Dozy, E ss a i su r l ’H i s l oz'r e de l ’I s l amz'sm e, Tradu it par Chau vinL eyde et P aris, 1879, p. 119.

TH E A POSTL E OF A L L A H 1 7

ur e . I t is no more than a commonplace to say that aS emite, a B edawy , an A rab brought up in heatheni sm ,

must be measured by the Semi tic standard of twelvehun dred years ago . That, measured by this standard,he was no ordi nary m an is clear from the influencewhich he exerted during his life, an d which has onlyincreased since h i s death . To the present day , theProphet enters into the life of his followers to an extent difli cu l t for us to imagine . Nearly al l bookswritten by Moslems contain in the preface a eul ogyof Mohammed—even works of the imagination likethe A rabian Nights. Once a year the birthday of theProphet is celebrated by the Moslem world

, and it isthe universal custom to hear the story of hi s life

,or

poems in his praise . The number of biographies ofhim is very gr eat;almost every A rabic author of noteh as written one . To cast a slur on the name of Mohammed in a Moslem country will excite a mob muchm ore certainly than blasphemy of the name of Jesuswil l excite one in an y Christian coun try. The A r abic press continues to issue yearly new biographies orbooks of devotion

,in which the exemplary character

of the Prophet is set forth for the imitation of thefaithful . Even in Mecca , where one would expectfeeli ng to be made call ous to this theme by long use,the recitation of a poem in his honor calls forth sighsand tears of longing

M y h ear t year n s, O A postle ofGod, to th ee ,

B u t A h ! I am h eavy laden w ith m y s i n s .

”

I t need not be denied that in this devotion there is

Sn ou ck- H u rgr on je , M ekka , I I . , p. 74.

1 8 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

someth ing of superstition . The Bedawin, li ke most

people in a comparatively l ow state of civili zati on,

ar e prone to reverence saints . A n d when we read how

the people in Mohammed’

s campaigns would.

take the

water in which he h ad performed hi s abl u tl on s and

rub it on their han ds an d faces, we confess that hewas the object of an unreasoni ng devotion . But thisis recorded only of the later y ears of his life, whenhis fol lowi ng was in creased by the scarcely converteddesert tri bes, to whom a prophet was only a soothsayer or magician un der another name . The earlyand more intimate companions of the Prophet were notof this class. Omar impresses us as one of the sanest, clearest headed men that ever lived. A bu Bekr,al so, though a m an of tender religious sensibili ties,possessed a sober and practical common- sense, farrem oved from fanaticism . That this was not meresuperstitious devotion to a supposed wonder-workingwizard which Mohammed called forth, is evident from

others besides these i ntimate friends . When SaadI bn Rabia lay on the battle-fiel d in the article ofdeath, he said to a friend who watched by him

“ I

am dying ;greet the A postle of A l l ah for me andsay : God reward thee for wha t thou hast done forus, as He rewarded the other prophets. Greet alsothe Helpers for me an d s ay : God will not forgivethem if harm comes to their prophet.” I n one of thecampaigns Zeid I bn al -Dath an a was taken captiveand brought to M ecca, where he was put to death.

Just before he was executed one of the spectatorsasked : Woul d you not ra ther be with your familyand that Mohammed should be in your place here !


qualities we can appreciate . For one thing, he wasmodest in his opinion of himself. When he first c

ame

to Medina and saw the people fertilizing the pi s tl l l ate

pa lms with sprigs of the staminate blossoms, be r e

marked that i t might be as well not to do it. Hereupon some of the people left off, andwhen their cropsof dates came short, they naturally reproached him .

He made no defence, but confessed that he wasfalli ble except where divi nely guided . A lthough hisfollowers persisted in discoveri ng miracles wroughtby hi m

,he expressly declared his inability to work

them,and tha t i n a passage whi ch reveals his great

desire to work them I can not provide myselfwithwhat is useful or [ward off]what is hurtful except asGod wills. I f I knew the secret things I wou ld desire great good

,and evil shoul d not touch me bu t I

am only a warner and bringer of tidings to a peoplewho believe.” A ccording to an early tradition hedeprecates extravagant honors : “ Praise m e not asJesus the son of Mary is praised;call me the servantof God and His A postle . " 1“ When one of his followers an d a Jew were disputing about the comparativemerits of their respective prophets

,Mohammed said :

Do not put me above Moses . ” He had,moreover

,

a distinct sense of his own sinfu lness. A yesha askedh im : Do n one enter Paradise except through thefavor of God ! No l he replied

,none enter but thr ough

God’

s favor. The question was asked and answered

* Koran and cf. 635 cl a l . I n B ocharz'

, I I I . , p. 149 , M oh amm ed intimates th at hi s judgm en t i n legal decis ion s i s n ot i hfallible .

fC i ted by G ol dzi h e r , fifwl n wm m eda n ’i sch e S l u di en , I I . , p. 279 .


three times . Then she said : Y ou , also, 0 Prophet,will not you enter but by God’s compassion ! Puttinghis hand upon his head he replied I also shall notenter unless God cover me with His mercy.

* Theconsciousness of sin was

,in fact

,the starting-

poi n t r

of his religion . His prayers always contained a petition for forgiveness. He desired the intercession of

‘

his friends,as he in turn in terceded for them . That

he also laid the case of hi s enemies before God, andinvoked punishment upon them need cause u s nosu rpr i seflr

Mohammed was gentle and considerate in his intercourse with men . He rebukes himself in the Koranbecause in his anxiety to conciliate a nobleman, heonce turned away from a poor blind m an who wishedto inquire of him . i A poor negro who swept themosque at Medi na died and was buried without theProphet being informed. On hearing of it later, h erebuked those who had neglected to tell him, inquiredfor the grave

,and prayed over it as he was accus

tom ed to do for his friends .§ The support of hishousehold was often a matter of anxi ety to him, buthe was always m indful of those m ore needy, so thatit was not without ground that his followers calledhim the protector of orphans and the defence of thepoor. More surprising

,in an or iental, is his kindn ess

toward animals. A lthough the dog is unclean of the

M i shea l u l M a saba'

h (E nglish tran slation), I . , p. 280.

fB ochar t'

, I .

, p . 140;I I . , p. 14 .

I K or an 80l f . Th is i s th e traditional occasion for th e passage .

Grimme objects to th e tradition , but I see n o sufficient reason forrejecting it.

B ochar t'

, I I . , p. 84.


Moslem,as he is to the Jew, yet Mohammed

praised

the man who showed kindn ess to a thirsty dog.

*He

promised a reward also to the man Wh o watered a

stray camel, an d, consistently wi th this , h e threatened

a woman with hell because she had starved a cat. 1k

Quite as prominent as his kindness was the good

s ense he showed in matters where, if he were a fanatic,he might be expected to be extreme. A t one time beinclined to ascetic devotion, and stood in prayer solong that his feet swelled

,or so long that their skin

cracked and they bled . But when his followersshowed similar excess of zeal , he restrained them,

saying : The body has a claim on you.1: A lthough notwithout supers tition himself, he dis couraged it inothers even where it mig ht have seemed to his advantage to connive at it. The day that his infant sonI brahim died

,there was an eclipse of the sun . The

Moslems were in clined to connect the two events.But Mohammed sai d : “No ! the sun is not eclipsedfor the death of any human being eclipses are amongthe miracles of God ;when you see them,

engage inprayer . ”

I f Mohammed shows many attractive personalW hen a. m an jou rn eys and hi s th i rst consum es him and he

com es to a well and drinks, th en com es away and sees a famish eddog gnawing th e dirt i n h i s th irst, and says : Th is an imal i s i n the

condition i n wh ich I was ;th en fills h i s boot and h olds i ts mouthand com es and give s th e dog to drink—God rewards su ch a man

and forgives him . Th e people said : O, A postle of A llah , do werecei ve a reward i n th e m atter of an imals ! H e replied : F or everyan imal [literary for ever y moi st l i ver]th ere i s a reward .

—B ochar t',I I I . , p. 7 1 . Cf. also W e l l hau sen

’

s Vaka'

di , p. 327 .

TM t'

shoat, I I . , p. 42 .

t B ocha/r 'l , I I . , pp. 41, 226 .

TH E A POS TL E’

OF A L L A H 23

characteristics,he shows also many that ar e r epu l

sive,especially to our age . That they were not ob !

noxi ous in the eyes of his own age is evident from thevery devotion which we have been considering. Thestandard of the times was not very elevated. A fterthe battle of Obod, Hind, the wife of one of Mohammed’s enemies, sou ght out among the slain the bodyof Hamza

,Mohammed’s uncle, who had fallen in the

Moslem cause . Hav ing found it, she cut off the noseand ears

,which she made into bracelets . She then

tore Open the tr unk and cut out the l iver,which she

h ad vowed to eat. A lthough she was not able tocar ry out the vow, the whole scene casts a lurid lightupon the state of society in which Mohammed grew

up . I n such a society, the faults which ar e so promi n en t to us did not attract serious attention . I t isalways difficult to say just how far a m an should bejudged by the standard of his own times. But wemay fairly claim that an y indu lgence granted to B ibl ical heroes on this plea should be granted also to M O

hammed . The state of A rabia in the seventh centurywas not unlike the state of Canaan two millenniumsearlier. The assassinations prompted by Mohammedshould be judged as we judge the deeds of Ehud and

Jae l . His slaughter of the Jews stands by the sideof Joshua’s extermination of the Canaanites. Hisindulgence in wi ves was not more profuse thanDavid’s

,and fell far short of Solomon’s luxury. Like

David,he coveted his neighbor’s wife

,but he did not

murder her husband, an d he di d not take possession

of her until she had been divorced . He cursed hisenem ies

,but so di d the Psalmist;and the plea made

24 TH E BIBLE A N D ISLAM

for the P salmist, that the objects of his imprecationswere the enemies of the cause of God, was preci selythe plea that M ohammed woul d have made I n all

s incerity.

These thin gs ar e not said as a justification . Triedby any standard the Prophet of Mecca falls short ofperfection. But if we ar e to appreciate his work wemust not let his fau lts blind us to his real ch aracter.That character is defined when we say he was a sincer e l y religious man. Did you know what I know

(he is reported to have said)—di d you know what Iknow of the future state

,you would laugh little and

weep much .

” This sentence gives us the key to hislife and to his power. He had a vivid sense of thegreat verities—the being of God, the evil of sin, thefuture life . H e succeeded in impressing these uponthe movement of which he was the head, and theymake it what it is—one of the great religions of theworld .

Before we proceed further it will be necessary todefine the sources from which we get our knowledgeofI slam . The difficulty which confronts us is the embarras sm ent of riches. I slam has a long history and

a copious literature. I n the course of its history ithas devel oped sec tarian differe nces

,as great as those

which divide professing Christians. Seventy- threesects of Mohammedans were long ago counted, andin the number was found the fulfil l m ent of a pr ophecy ascribed to M oh amm ed.

’r B ut as we have limited

M i shcat, L , p. 327 .

tThe tradition appears i n differen t form s : “ Th e B anu I sraelwere divided into seventy- two tribe s , and my peoplewill be se

venty

TH E A POSTL E or A L L A H a, 25

our inqui ry to the origin and early stages of I slam,

sectarian differences do not concern us. For this i nquiry

,one document is of th e very first importance

,

and that document is,of course

,the Koran. This

book is recognized by al l parties of Moslems as thefoundation of their faith . Even if there were doubtas to its integr ity and its authen ticity it would stillbe of prime import ance for the history of I slam . Butthere is no reason to suspect either its integr ity or its 1authenticity. The assurances we have on this pointar e very complete . The prime fact is that the revel ati on s were committed to memory by a large body ofconverts duri ng the life of Mohammed . He emph a

sized this as a meritorious act, and thereby increasedthe number of livi ng custodians of the word . Thebook was formally edi ted and publ ished soon afterhis death, an d when divergences began to appear inthe 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 handscorrespond very closely with this original

,and that

thi s original does not vary in any important par ti cu lar from the text recited by Mohammed himself.

This does not mean that we have the complete bodyof what he published. Some revelations have probably perished others were worked over and changedby Mohammed himself. But we m ay rest assured

th ree . E very on e will go to h ell except on e .—Mz

’

shcat, I . , p. 50.

Th e m ore elaborate form gives th e Zoroastr ian s seven ty sects, th e

Jews seventy- on e , Ch ri stian s seven ty—two, and I slam seven ty- th ree .

Dozy, l ’I s l am i sm e, p 196 . H aarbr i i cker , Schah r a stan i’

s R el i gi on s

pa/rtket'en a nd P M l osoph en sch u l en I . , p. 3. Th e tradition i sn o doubt an in vention .


that what we have in this volume represents his

thought as he uttered it during some part of h 1s

career.I t is well known that the Koran is regarded as the

Book of God,in the strictest sense . God appears

throughout as the speaker, an d the devout Moslem

h as the most exalted idea of its excellence . Peoplear e not assembled together in mosques to read theBook of God without light and comfort descendi ngupon them ;the favor of God covers them,

angelsencompass them round about

,and God reckons them

among His an gels .

” This tradition,ascribed to

Mohammed,correctly represents hi s idea

,and that of

his followers. He is reported to have said furtherThe most illustrious of my followers ar e those whoknow the Koran by heart, and those who pray in thenight . J

r Wh en a number of Moslems had fallen

in battle,those among them who knew the most of

the Koran were most honored i n their burial. Omarexpressed surprise that one of his governors shouldappoint a freedman to an important ofii ce . Whentold that the m an knew the Koran

,he approved the

appointment. Mohammed chall enged his contemporari es to produce a single chapter equal to his in exce l l en ce

,and it is now an article of faith that the

challenge cannot be met. A l l these ar e indications ofthe fundamental importance of this book.

When we come to the Koran for information,how

ever, we ar e much perplexed, for we fin d it to be abook without form or plan . I t is a collection of dis

M i sh ca t, I . , p. 55. 1' I bid . , p. 264.

28 TH E B I B L E A N D I S L A M

exegetical tradition is, in its main features, constant.

I n one respect we ar e better off than the exegetesthemselves

,for they ar e under a dogmati c bi as from

which we ar e free .

Second to the Koran— but second to it alone—wehave another sou rce for the knowledge of I slam in

a great body of traditions concerning th e Prophet.To understand the place which it occupies we needonly r ecall the position of the Moslem communityafter the death of Mohammed. Up to that time

,he

h ad been accustomed to answer every question thatarose . H e was the l aw. When he was taken away

,

they still had a l aw in the Koran . But this was notenough . No book of ru les can provide for every casethat m ay arise. Mohammed

,moreover

,h ad always

left something to oral teaching . I twas not his i ntention 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.* I n a tradition,he is

reported as saying : “What I have commanded tobelievers outside the Koran is equal in quality tothe Koran itself, or even greater .

” ‘r Whether the tra

dition is authentic or not,it undoubtedl y represents

the consensus of Mohammedan opinion . From it wecan understand the anxiety to preserve the remembrance of Mohammed’s deeds and words

.

The necessity of collecting the traditions was notsimply private or personal . Questions arose con

Th e A postle of A llah i s an excellen t pattern to h im whofears A llah and th e L ast Day .

”

(337 1) Th e tradition confirm s th is .—B ocham'

, I I . , 152 .

1“M i shea l , I . , p. 48 .

TH E A P OSTL E OE A L L A H 29

cerning the state . Public l aw an d administrationh ad to be dealt with in just the same way as

matters of individual right and wrong. I f thesequestions were not answered by the Koran

,they

must be an swered in some other way . Here,too

, .

the most natural recourse was the precedents set bythe original rul er. There was

,to be sure

,a possi

bi l i ty of arguing by analogy, and so of making thewritten law cover cases which were not directly prov i ded for. But analogy is not always convincingand the jurists early showed their distrust of it.Even with the best will in the world, the Koran couldnot be made to decide every question that arose .

These considerations show the importance whichtradition early assumed in the public an d privatelife of the Moslem . I t is not different in other religions. The Jews have their Talmud for an authority

along with the Bible. The early Church recognized

A postolic tradition as part of the rule of faith, andeven those modern churches which have discardedtradition ,

find the need of Confessions,Canons

,and

Books of Discipline . I n like mann er there stands bythe side of the Koran a body of tradi tion , almostequally venerated and more exactly obeyed . Theprocess in this case stands in the clear li ght of history. When, immediately after the death of Mohammed

,al l A rabia seemed to revolt from I slam,

attemptswere made to treat with A bu Bekr for new conditionsof peace . B u t the Caliph was like iron in m aintaining what the Prophet h ad imposed I f they withhold a kid from that which the Prophet required of

Cf. Go l dzi h cr , Di e Zah im'

ten p. 5 fi’.


them, I wil l declare war , was his declaration.

*The

precedent was decisive. Henceforth the example of

the Prophet was l aw to the whole of I slam .

1 The consequence coul d easily be foreseen. Theintellectual activity of the new religion was turnedto two subjects—the study of the Koran and thecollection of traditions . This was the begi nning of

Moslem science,an d seldom h as science had more

devoted disciples. For two centuries the traditioni sts pursued their task, undi sturbed by the storm ofwar which raged about them . They collected andpreser ved from the Helpers an d Companions al l thatthese could remember of the sayings and deeds ofthe Prophet. They took at second

,third

,and fourth

hand all that was alleged to have come from theHelpers 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 collecti ng, we have an example in Gabir

I bn A bdul lah , wh o went a month’s journey to hear

a single tr adi ti on i Not a few journeyed from oneend of the Mohammedan world

'

to the other for thesake of this knowledge . What was done in the wayof testing and editing m ay be judged from the statement of Bochari that from six hundred thousandtraditions he had selected only a little over seventh ou sand i

* Kremer, K u l tu rgeschi chte des Or ten ts unte'r den Chahfe-n

I . , p. 14.

t B ocha r i , I . , p. 25.

I Th e system of tradition al scien ce i s set forth by P r ofessorSalisbury i n a paper en titled Contr i buti on s to ou r K nowl edge of


I t is apart from our present purpose to go at

length into the subject of tradition . Yet to illustratethe pains taken by Mohammedans in preservi ng therecollections of their prophet

, I will venture to quote asingle example . I t reads as follows A dam I bn A biI yas tells us that Shayban tells us from Mansur fromMujahed from Taus from I bn A bbas (God be pl easedwith both of them)that the Prophet (God bless an dsave him)said on the day of the surrender of Mecca :There is no more [duty of]Flight, but the Holy War

an d the I ntention;and when you ar e called to theHoly War

,then go The substance of the tradi

tion is here a saying of the Prophet . But it mightbe as well, an action of his or a refusal to act, or hissilence. The meaning of the saying here given isthat, whereas before the conquest of Mecca, thererested upon believers an obligation to flee from thatcity as Mohammed himself h ad done, the obligationwas now abrogated. But the merit of the actionwill be acqu ired by him who engages in war withunbeli evers

,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 im

portance of preserving such a di ctum will be seen at

once.

the Sci en ce of M us l im Tr ad i ti on i n th e Jou rnal of th e AmericanOriental Society, V ol . V I I . pp. 60- 142 .

S ix collection s of tradition s en j oy favor am ong th e M oslem s . I

cann ot claim acquaintan ce with any bu t B och ari, for wh ich I haveused th e vocalized version , B u lak, with out date . I cite from th isby volum e and page, as th e tradition s ar e n ot n umbered. I h averead, also, Captain M atthew

’s E ngli sh tran slation ofth e M i sh ca t u l

M u sabi h , Calcu tta, 1809 , 18 10, two volumes , qu arto .

B ocha r i , I V . , p. 35. Th e sam e tradition , I I . , p. 197 .


Equally important is it that the di ctum should b<

known to come fromMohammed . A n d it was with the

desir e to assure this, that the traditionists preserved

in every case the chain of witnesses wh o reported the

tradition . I n the case cited, the saying went throughsix hands before it reached the author who put it onpaper. I t is obvious that defective memory or lackof veracity on the part of an y one of these wouldvitiate the credibility of the tradition. The Mohammedan authors ar e well aware of this, and the criticalactivity which resulted in the rejection of so large a

number of tradition s consisted largely in an exam i

nation oi the credibility of the narrators . That theeditors were not free from bias in their decisions i sonly what we might expect. They were novices inthe science of criticism, and could hardly be expectedrightly to weigh tendencies which our own time hasonly begun to appreciate . I n truth the Hadith*

must be regarded with m arked scepticism,so far as

it is used as a source for the life of Mohammed.

The forgery or invention of traditions began veryearly. The Companions were not always too scr upulous to clothe their own opinions in the form of an ecdotes. The greatest number of tradi tions ar e relatedby men who were very youn g when the Prophet cameto Medina . One of these defends himself for r e

m ember i ng so many things th at others could not r eca l l '

t— a case where self- excuse is self- accusation. To

H adi th i s the tech n ical term for a tradition ofwh atever ki nd.

S un n a. i s cu stomary l aw, gen erally, bu t n ot n ecessarily, based ontradition . Cf. Gol dzi her , M uhamm edan i scke S tudi en , I L , p. 11 .

tB ochm- i , I I I . , p. 2 .

TH E A POS TL E OE A L L A H 33

invent what would cast honor on the name of theA postle of God woul d seem to those times a meritorions fault

,if fault at al l , while there would be even

stronger temptation to suppress anything that woul dnot comport with his reputation . The same Companion (A bu H or ai r a)who defended himself for theprofuseness of hi s memory, also confessed that he h adtwo sorts of recollections;one sort he was accustom ed to relate, but it would h ave been as much as

his life was worth to relate to others . These naturaltendencies were magnified by the party spirit whichearly became rife in I slam . Each party countedamong its adherents immediate followers of Mohammed. Each was anxi ous to justify itself by an appealto his words and deeds. I t is only the natural resultthat traditions with a noto riously party bias were circu l ated at an early day . A traditionist of the firstrank admits that pious men were inclined to no sortof fraud so much as to the invention of traditions .*

The jurists moreover found that n ew legal precedents were almost a necessity

,and (as i n other sys

tem s of l aw)fiction was used as a means of adapting old laws to new cases . The jurists therefore encou r aged the multiplication of traditions without anyclose inquiry into their authenticity.

From our point of view,therefore

,m any traditions

,

even if well authenticated to external appearance,bear internal evidence of forgery . For example, weread that the A postle of A ll ah said The r esu r r ection will not take place until people kill their own

* See the citation , Go ldzih cr , M uhamm edan i soh e S tudi en , I I . ,

p. 47 .


I mam [or div inely appointed ru ler]an d kill one

another with swords an d un til a tyrannical king shallreign

.

” There is an evident reference here to thekillin g of A l i and the succession of the Omm ayads tothe throne . A n orthodox Moslem woul d see n o oh

jecti on to the probability of Mohammed’

s utteringsuch a predi ction . His criticism could hardly beexpected to question it ;while to us it bears evidentmarks of a later date.I m ay give here an anecdote which illustrates the

way in which the pious mind shrinks from too sharpcriticism

,or indeed from an y criticism ,

of the documents which it h as been accustomed to regard as sa

cred . A leadi ng authority on the Hadith was oncelectur in g on the evidence for and against doubtfu ltraditions

,when a friend dropped in at the exercise.

On being asked the subject of discussion,the lect

a rer replied I am inquiring into the reliability and

unreliability of certain scholars. A r e you nota shamed before God

,

”asked the intruder

,

“ to slander men who h ave already been in Paradise a hundred or two hundred years ! ” The lecturer brokedown in tears, and said Oh ! if my ears had onlyheard these words before I began my work, I wouldnever have composed it ! The book fell from hi s

hand an d he was so much moved that he could notcontinue the l ectu r e tWhere the pious feeling enlists itself on the side

of tradition we can hardly expect criticism to be veryradical . The leading Moslem traditionists were men

M i sh ca t,I I .

, p. 533 .

1' Go l dzi h er , M uhamm edam’

sch e Studi en , I I ., p. 272 f .


or five mouths . Yet such a collection would reveal

to us the thoughts,beli efs, and customs of the early

Church, an d in this regard it would be beyond price.

Such a collection we have for I slam . Bochari, theeditor to whom I have alluded, lived through the firsthalf of th e th ird cen tury of the Mohammedan era (hedi ed A .H . W e cannot doubt that, with the carehe took

,the material he gathered was al l considerably

older than himself. I t is not too much to assumethat the traditions represent the views of the firsthundred years after the death of Mohammed, and wem ay therefore use them to form our picture of primi ti ve I slam .

So much it was necessary to say in order to justifythe use of the traditions in our in quiry. We mustnot come to them

,however

,with extravagant expec

tati on s . We ar e inclined to suppose that the B ibl ica l element in these wil l be large from the fact thatso many converts were early made from both Judaisman d Christianity. But the expectation is di sappo inted . For one thing

,the interest of the compilers

of tradition is very different from our own . Theyhave preserved what is of secondary importance tous, while doubtless m uch of what they have di scardedwoul d be to us a welcome source of light. I t seems,moreover, that the Koran h ad already

,even in the

first century of I slam,fully impressed itself as the

supreme l aw, 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 h as set


before you the nature of the problem wi th which wehave to deal. The plan of the lec tu res su fficientlyshows th e order whi ch the i nquir y wil l fol low. Theplan its el f in di cate s the close conn ection of I s lamin i ts str uctur e with the system whi ch prevail s i nJuda ism an d in Chr i stian ity. I f the plan proves tobe in accordance wi th the facts presente d by th e

sou rce s al r eady described, I shall cons ider that thei nqui r y i s bo th in tere sting and profitable.

L E CTU R E I I .

TH E COM M ON B A SI S I N H E A TH E N I SM

N o religion h as been successful which did not borrow something from the predecessor which it tried todisplace . The Church di scovered this when it adopted and consecrated heathen festivals, heathen shrin es,an d even heathen divinities, making them into Christian feasts, Christian altars, and Christian sain ts.

I slam h ad a similar experience . I ts immediate pred

ecessor was a heathenism from which Mohammedturned away and which he would have entirely suppressed h ad i t been possible . But

,without himself

real i zing what he did, he was driven to borrow fromheathenism . We readily see how this came about.He was brought up in heathenism— until he was fortyyears old he conformed to its customs . Whateverreligion he h ad until that time was connected withthe worship of the Meccans . We have no reason todoubt that he was a sincerely religious m an ,

when hesacrificed a kid to Uzza at the Kaaba

,or when he

ca lled a son A bd M enaf for one of the false gods.When his new convictions came

,he gave up what

ever was contradictory to them . Probably he triedat first to make a clean sweep of the old religion

.He

gave up the sanctuary, for at Medina he m ade Jeru38

TH E COM M ON BASIS I N H E A TH E N I SJI 39

salem the point toward which the prayers of the bel i ever s shoul d be di rected . But even this was a strainon his habit . So after a tim e the Kibla was changedto the Kaaba again . Partly this m ay be accountedfor by his experience with the Jews

f

When he cameto Medina he felt that he could gain them to his party.

He was convinced that his religion an d theirs wereone in substance, and of course he saw no reason whythey shoul d not at once un ite with h im . I n this heoverrated his knowledge of their reli gion

,an d under

rated th e obstinacy of their convictions . Wh en hesaw that his hopes were not likely to be real ized

,he

changed the Kibla . That hi s motive was to gratifyhis affection for the ancestral sanctuary rather thanto ali enate the Jews

,is evident from the Koran, which

says : “We have seen thee tu rning thy face abouttowards the [different parts of the]heavens, and W e

wi ll cause thee to turn to a Kibla that will please thee .

Therefore turn thy face in the direction of the sacredH ou sefii and wherever you ar e

,turn your faces in its

direction, and those who receive the Book will know

that this is the tr uth from thy Lord;an d God is notignorant of what they do .

” The plain implication ofthe passage is that Mohammed was restless under hisown ordi nance which fixed the Kibla at Jerusalem .

His heart yearned toward the an cient sanctuary.

His desire was gratified by the command to makethat again the central point of his religion.

A l though the motive in this was so largely personal

,yet there is no doubt that it was a real step

toward gaining the A rabs . The new Kibla was to

L iterally, M osque, or place ofprostration . Th e passage i s 2139


them a notification that the new religion was to be

national. The reconci li ation between Mohammed’s

beli ef in the genuineness of Judaism and his belief

i n the genuineness of the Kaaba , was effected by

an ingenious use of A braham . H ow he came tothis is difficult to make out. The theory of Moslemwri ters that the heathen A rabs already knew Abra

h am as the buil der of the Kaaba must be vi ewedwith suspicion. Sti l l there is a possibili ty that

A braham,or an A biah am was known to the Mec

cans and connected with thei r worship.

* The motiveof Mohamm ed is evident. A l l great religious leadershave sought points of union with the past. I t seemsto them evident that a pur er faith was acceptedin the earlier ages

,and they claim therefore to be

res torers rather than originator s. Such was the claimof Mohammed . Christianity and Judaism both hadmade A braham the Father of the Faithful. The

Ol d Testament accoun t makes him a builder ofaltars. What more natural than that Mohammedshould suppose him the founder of the Kaaba !Later tradition was not content with even th is antiqu i ty . I t supposes the sacred buildin g to havebeen first erected by A dam in imitati on of theheaven ly sanctuary whi ch he had seen in Paradise before h i s expulsi on . I t also afii rm s that th is

Th e Station ofA brah am i s m ention ed i n tradition as though it

were a part ofth e Kaaba (or poss ibly a n ame for th e whole Kaaba)before th e con qu est ofM ecca . Cf. B ocha r i , I . , p. 97

,wh ere Omar

says th at h e suggested to M oh ammed the words (K en , A nd

take th e Station ofA brah am as a place ofprayer. The Station of

A brah am i s th e nam e n ow gi ven to a part ofthe area of th e H aramat M ecca.

TH E COM M ON B A S I S I N H E A TH E N I SM 41

heavenly House is located just over the earthly Kaaba .

But these refinements ar e later than the time of Mohammed

,who was satisfied to carry the sacred place

back to A braham .

*

The Ki bla- that is, turning the face to a par ti cu

l ar point of the compass in worship— is itself an i ns ti tu ti on of great antiquity. I t is perhaps never ahsent from early religions. t en men have a distinct place in which their Deity dwells, they naturall y turn toward that place in payin g their devotions.One of the gravest accusations against I srael is thatthey tur n their faces to the sun and their backs tothe Temple of Yahweh. 1

’ The prayer of Solomon i ntim ates that worshippers even in distant lands would

pray toward the temple .;t The custom of Daniel iswell known . The institution of the Kibla is there

fore ancient in Judaism and very likely goes back toSemitic heathenism. I n I slam it is really a survival .For Mohammed made God’s dwell ing place to beheaven, and there was no real meaning in an earthly lsanctuary . He himself says . To God belongs theEast and the West , wherever you turn, there 18 theface of God .

”A nd again : Piety does not consist

in tur ning your faces toward the East or toward the

Judaism also locates th e h eaven ly th ron e ju st above th e earth lyTemple , and th is seem s to h ave been adopted by M oh amm ed. F or

i n th e N igh t Jou rney h e went first to Jeru salem and th en ce ascended

to h eaven . Th e M ohammedan tradition whi ch ascribed th e firstbu ilding to A dam , allows th at thi s stru ctu re was destroyed in th e

Deluge and rebu ilt by A brah am .

fE zek . wh ere th e text has been pu rposely ch anged to obscu rea drastic ph rase .

1 1 Kings 8 . Cf. Dan .


West . Pious is he wh o believes in God and theLast Day .

” But custom was too strong for logic, as

h as often been the case in other religions .

To custom also, aided by a sense of expediency, wemust attribute the retention of the Kaaba itself as a

fetish— I know of no other word that wi ll fit the case.For the Kaaba is one of the sacred stones of whichSemitic religion knows so man y. The process bywhich they become sacred is vividly brought beforeus by the experience of Jacob . The wayfarer has adream in which a divine bein g appears to him . Onwaking, he associates the divinity with some conspi cu ou s stone —perhaps the one wh ich he h as usedas a pillow . The stone becomes an object of worship . I t receives the oblation of oil or a vow of thetithes . From this time on

,th e stone and the God

a r e identified;the more ignorant worshippers identi fy them absolutely, the more intell igent say thatthe God dwells in the stone, which therefore becomesa Beth - E l . A number of such idols or fetishes ar e

known to have existed i n A rab heathenism. Dhu- l

Chalaca, a white stone,once an idol

,is now the

threshold of a mosque at Tabala, where it was formerly worshipped. Du sar es of Petra, a sti ll more ah

cient example,is described as a black, rectangular, nu

c ut stone four feet high an d two feet thick . One of. thenames for it seems to have been kaaba .

Jr The prevalence

of stone worship among the heathen A rabs is attestedby the Moslem writers

,in tha t they were compelled

K oran 2 109,m

.

fTh e examples ar e from W e l l h au s en , Ski zzen a nd Ver a/rbe'i ten ,I I I . , pp. 42 f. , 46 ;cf. also pp. 50, 54 .


walls themselves were the sacr um . An d, when theroof was added, the bui lding was a cube— simply an

enlarged block. The black stone near one corner wasmost sacred, but the whole cube was an object of

worship .

* The hou se of the God was added in thecurtain wh ich was stretched over the structure, and

whi ch is still annually renewed. I n all this— thesacredness of the stone, the cubical form of thesacred object, an d the tent whi ch was stretched over

i t—we see remarkable resemblances to Hebrew antiqu i ty . Jacob’s ston e at Bethel h as already been

alluded to . But this is not the only sacred stone ofHebrew hi story. I n Jacob

’s covenant with Labanwe fin d another

,and in fact the M aggeba appears to

have been a regular accompaniment of the altar ofYahweh down to a comparatively late per i odHr We

remember al so that the Most Holy part in both Tabe r n acl e and Temple was a cube in form ;that overit was spread a tent in the desert ;and that the central point even i n the Temple of Solomon was apecul iar rock .

A l l these remarkable parallels are due to survivalfrom early Semitic heathenism . Mohammed in hisrejection of the idols should have rejected the Kaabaas well . Omar used to say

, after the death of theProphet, when he stroked the black stone of theKaaba :

“ I know thou ar t only a stone and canstneither harm nor help ;and had I not seen theA postle of A llah do this I would never do it. ” But

On oth er in stances i n wh ich th e sacred objectwas a bu ilding, cf.W e l l h au sen , l . p. 39 f .f . W . R . Sm ith , R el igi on of the S em i tes , p. 185 ff.

TH E COM M ON B A SI S I N H E A TH E N I SM 45

custom was too strong for logic . The reverence withwhich Mohammed had learned to regard the san ctuar y in hi s youth clung to hi m in his manhood, and itcarried the sanctuary and the Kibla into I slam .

Various pur itan sects have arisen in I slam which havetried to car ry out the logic of the Prophet, to do awaywith the sacred stone, and to destroy the whole sanctuary . But the result h as been only to establish thesuperstition the more str ongl yfi

“

The ri tes of the pilgrimage ar e also an instance ofresemblance which is not dependence . They origin ate in Semitic heathenism ,

from which commonsource they passed over into Hebraism an d into I sl am . The pilgrimage is called by the name haj—thesame word was used by the Hebrews for the yearlyfesti val sn

L The A rabic lexicographers define it as avi s i t. But it seems originally to have been the procession or dance aroun d the sacred stone or the altar.A Psalmist speaks of going about the altar

, an d an

Snou ck - H u rgron je, M ekka , I . , pp. 49, 60. Th e later traditiondeclares that A llah gave A dam a m odel of the Kaaba i n cu rtain sof li gh t, pitchi ng i t on th e spot on wh ich the Kaaba n ow stands .

This tradition i s doubtless influe n ced by th e B iblical accou n t of th ecommand gi ven to M oses con cerni ng th e Tabernacle and th e patternwh ich was sh owed h im i n th e m ou n t . E x . Cf. P rideaux,L ife ofM ahom et, p. 56 . On the covering of th e Kaaba in h eath entim es , Sn ou ck- H u rgr onje, M ekka , I . , 5. The th eologian s find a

reas on for ki s sing th e black ston e i n th e legend th at i t was origin ally a j ewel from P aradise , wh ich h as become black by con tact

with sin fu l men . A t th e last day i t will rece ive eyes and tongu e

and will bear witness for th e believers .

I t i s interesting to n ote that th e H eaven ly Jeru salem i s also a

cube (A poc .

t E xod . 12 14, L ev . 23 11 and often .


other was accustomed to lead the procession on festi

v al occasions. * Dav id danced before the ark. So we

fin d in A rabia that the worshippers walk around theKaaba an d run between Safa an d Merwa, two othersacred spots in M eccad’ The number of circuits isseven

,;t whi ch reminds us of the promin ence of seven

as a sacred number in Judaism . The theologians areready with a theory that A dam was the originator ofthis custom

,havi ng seen the angels march about the

throne of God in Paradise .

Other customs of the pilgrimage show notableanalogies with those enjoined in the Old Testament

,

the analogies being due to their common heathensource . One of these is the shouting of the pilgrims.When the H aj reaches the sacred territory its members shout L ubba i ka fl at Thy servi ce ! This shouting is called by a name deri ved from the root fromwhich we fin d in the Bible H a l l e l uj ah . The Hallelujah also is a shout of greeting. The verb mean sto shou t just like the corresponding Ar abic verb. I f

the circuit of the sacred object was or iginally a

dance, the shouting was the song that accompaniedit. But al l festivals ar e noisy occasions. So late as

the time of the Psalms,worship is described as

shouting aloud to God.

”I n the sacrificial ritual

P s .

tOn th e rites of th e pilgrim age as n ow performed, cf. B u rton,P er s on a l N a r r ati ve of a P i l gr i mage to M ecca and M edi na . I haveon ly th e Tauch n itz edition i n wh ich th e th ird volume i s devoted to M ecca .

I M oh amm ed u sed to m ake th ree ou t of th e seven with a qu ickstep, th e oth ers m ore de liberately —B och a r i , l l p. 148 .

§ P s . On th e word ha l l a l and i ts m ean ing, cf. W e l l hau sen,

TH E COM M ON B A S I S I N H E A TH EN I SM 47

both of A rabia an d of Phenicia , the name of theGod was shouted by the worshippers. The Ar abiccustom therefore was not borrowed (as Sprengerthinks), from I srael, but was a part of primitiveSemitic worship which passed over into I srael and .

into I slam .

To our view the characteristic rite of the Hebrewreligion was sacrifice, and this rite, as we know,

isfound in nearly al l religions. I n A rabic heathenismit existed in a very primitive form . The vi ctim was

not burned upon an altar—the blood was smeared onthe sacred stone or poured out at its base . The application of the blood to the altar (or on the mostsacred occasions to the A rk, the Special seat of thedivinity), continued in the Old Testament religiondown to its latest development. I n I slam

,though

the rite was retained,

* the appli cation of the bloodto the sacred object (the Kaaba itself, of cour se, wouldhave been the proper object), was lost . The meaningof sacrifice is therefore totally obscured. For we canh ardly doubt that i ts ear ly significance was in m ak

ing the God partake of the feast,either by himself

,

or in the communion with the worshippers . I n r e

jecti ng this idea, Mohammed was consistent withthe general trend of his theology . God is

,to him

,

supersensuous, and He cannot partake of food On

this the Koran h as a very explicit declaration .The

sacredness of the blood di sappears— except that itcannot be eaten . There is no longer any idea either

Skizzen , I I I ,

, p. 107 ;Sprenger, L eben M uka/mm ed’

s , I I I . , p. 527

W . R . Sm ith , R el i gi on of the Sem i tes , p. 411.

Cf. below, on th e Service ofGod.

48 m m B u n/o A N D I S L A M

of e xpiation or com mun ion co n n e c te d with the rite.

We should expect the rite to be do n e away. B ut i t

su r vive s . I ts me r it is in fact e m ph as ized , as is u sua l ly the case with u nm eaning r ites . But its me r i t i ssol e ly that it i s obedience to a comm an d of ( l ed.

* I t

do es not disprove Mohammed’

s i ndepende nce of Jada.

i sm in this matter, that tho theologi ans b r ing the

great sacrifice at Mecca i n to conn ection with A braham’s willingness to sacrifice h i s se nxi

I n connection with the pilgrim age we notice, asanother surviva l , th e shaving of th e h ead. F or

I slam ,it is assumed to be a pa r t of tho pilgrimage

(Kor. 2192 The re fe r e nces to i t i n A r abic h eath e ni sm a re un ambiguou s fi. and we se e that the shornh a ir is an offer ing to the ( l e d o fth e wo r sh ippe r . I n

the Old Testament als o th e Naz ar i te shaved h is headat the completio n of h i s term o f devoti o n ,

and the

h air was bu rnt upon the al ta r . I n I slam th e riten ow compl etes th e pilgrimage, and i ts sign ificance i sapparen tly exhausted in m a rking th e pas sage fromth e holy to th e “ common state o i l i h Th is wastrue to a certain extent i n Juda ism,

wh e r e shavingthe head marked the accomplishm ent of any vow.

The origin al s a c r ifici al m eaning sti l l shows itself inanother ri te

,which h as s u rvived i n I slam and is en

Th e trad itions on th e m e rit of sacrifice a r e given by H ughes,Di cti on ar y of I s l am , p, 552 .

fM oh amm ed said (according to a trad i tio n ) that th e s ac r ifi ce s are

con formabl e to th e laws ofA brah am .—H ugh es , p. The com

pl ete divorce of th e ri te from i ts early meaning i s seen i n the

f:u :t that th e sac r ifice of th e l i e]i s offered i n the val l ey ofM i nuFn ot at ( I n : K a aba .

I Cf. K r r h l , l/ebc r d i e al er Vm 'i ol rtm/i achcn A r a l/er , p. 14.

TH E COM M ON B A S I S I N H E A TH E N I S i ll 49

joined in tradi tion though not in the Koran . Whena. child is seven days old its head is shaved, an d a

goat is sacrificed, that is, slain ,and the flesh dis

tributed to the poor. We ar e expressly told that i nheathenism the same custom prevailed, and that theblood of the slain animal was r ubbed on the child

’shead .

* Thi s points to a dedication of the child tothe God, and the shavi ng of the head must have hadthe same meaning. A n anal ogue is circumcision,which also h as survived in I slam though not enjoinedin the Koran.

The list of customs which h ave survived fr omSemitic heathenism i n both Hebraism an d I slam isnot yet complete. One of them is the changing ofclothes by the pilgrim when he enters the sacredterritory. This is not expressly enjoined uponI srael, but when they appear before God at Sinai

,

they ar e commanded to consecrate themselves andwash their clothes. The Psalmist exhorts to worshi p i n “ the beauty of holiness

,

” by which he means

vestments consecrated to the servi ce . I t is an expression of the same idea, when the priests are commended to conduct thei r 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 pu t off the garments in which they ministerand put on other sa

L The same regulation passedinto the priestly Tora. We cannot doubt that wehave here a custom of Semitic heathenism which hassurvived into the later religions . I n I srael it was

B u raida, cited by H ughes , Di cti ona r y of I s l am , p. 554.

s ek .

50 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A rl l

specialized because a di stinct order of priests wasdeveloped

.Originally it was the whole people who

were subject to this regulation . I slam h as thereforemore nearly preserved the original usage . We maynote

,in this connection, the l aw whi ch forbids inter

cour se o i the sexes during the pilgrimage— a l aw

which h as its counterpart in the Old Testament. *

The sacredness of a particular ter r itory is one ofthe ideas originating i n Semitic heathenism and sur

v i v ing into th e revealed religions. I n his farewellpilgrimage, Mohammed said ' God consecratedthis land in the day in which he made heaven and

earth,and it is consecrated with His consecration

until the day of resurrection. A n d killing was notlawful in it to any before me , and it was lawful to mefor one hour of one day only. An d it shall be con

secr ated with God’s consecration until the day of

Resurrection—its brambles shall not be cut, nor itsgame hunted

,nor shall one pick up a lost article

without advertising it, nor shall its fresh herbage begathered.

”

t This was simply the continuation ofthe heathen regulation. We fin d, besides Mecca,other sacred tracts mentioned in heathen timeslzima is their name—within which animals couldpasture at will and none could molest them. Noteven stray animals could be reclaimed when they

K or . of. E x . Th e priest at N ob refu ses to give Davidth e sacred bread u n til assu red th at the young men h ave kept th emselve s from wom en .

—1 Sam .

1 B och a r i , I I . , p. 197 . A t th e suggestion of A bbas, th e P rophetmade an exception i n favor of th e cu ttingof certai n fragrant rush es;cf. W . R . Sm ith , R el igi on of th e Sem i tes , p. 134;Sn ou ck-H u rgronje,i l l ekka , L , P 23 .

52 TH E B I B L E A N D I S LA M

His property in it is,therefore, shown by its being

left uncultivated— the hima was always left in itsnatural state . To plough the kima is profanation . I t

was,of course

,impossible to ordai n that the land of

I srael should be left uncultivated al l the time, for itspeople had become cul tivators. But the recogn itionof its sacredness might be made one year out of seven.

This ordinance h as had no influence on I slam;butthe idea of holiness

,or sacredn ess, which shows itself

in I slam is evidently the same whi ch appears in thesevarious provisions of the Hebrew Law.

1 Th ere are a number of heathen customs whichhave maintained their place in I slam

,but which are

tolerated rather than authorized. Sacred trees stillhave a sort of worship paid them. There are tracesof su ch also in the Old Testament. I t is, at least, a.curious coincidence, that the tree of Uzza was an oracle, and that in I srael we have a tr ee ofthe di vi ner s.

*

The worship of the dead has left traces in the customs of I srael and in the customs of I slam. TheJews builded the tombs of the prophets

,and so do

the Moslems to the present dayd‘ With the sacred

founta i ns at Kadesh and elsewhere,we may compare

the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca, whose characterwas left undisturbed by Mohammed.

We shall have occasion to notice that the name of

Judges The co inc idence i s poin ted out by K reh l, R el igi onder Vor i s l a/m. A m ber , pp. 75, 78 f .fI mages of A brah am and I shmae l ar e said to have been wor

shi pped i n th e Kei s ha—B ocha ri , I I . , p. 147 . Th is i s perh aps a dedu ction from th e alleged fou ndation of the sanctu ary by th em . Onsaint-worsh ip i n I slam , cf. Gol dzi h er , M uh ammedan i sche Studi en,n . . p. 281 ft , and I . , p. 229 a .


there may have been borrowing before the time ofMohammed. I n either of these cases it would bewrong to argue for Biblical influence on Mohammed,on the ground of resemblance . For example, the conjunction of ri ches and children as marks of prosperity is found in the Koran “ Like those who werebefore you—they were more powerful than you and

surpassed you i n r i ches and i n ch i l dr en .

” This and

similar expressions remind us of the Psalmist’s l anguage : Whose belly thou fil l est with treasure, they

ar e satisfied with children,”and other passages to the

same in tent. The resemblance is the more m arkedin that both Bible and Koran thus describe thewicked in their prosperity . But there is probablyno dependence . I t is the Sem i ti c i dea which putsl arge possessions and numerous offsprin g side byside as elements of good fortune . A nother resemblance is found in the followi ng 1

“ Those who denyOur signs [or accuse Our verses of falsehood]andshow themselves proud against thee—for these thegates of heaven shall not be opened, nor shall theyenter Paradise un ti l a camel sha l l enter the eye of a

n eedl e . I n spite of the similarity to a well - knownsaying of the Gospel, it is probable that there is nodirect influence to be assumed. The proverbialphrase was cur rent before Mohammed (perhaps evenbefore Ch rist), an d Mohammed used it without anyknowledge of the Gospel precedent. The sam e cau

tion which is advisable in arguing from these cases istrue of such resemblances in language as the following : “ Every soul must taste of death .

”

1’ God puts

* Koran cf. P s . f l bi d . cf. M att. 19“ I I bi d. 3m

TH E COM M ON B A SI S I N H E A TH E N I SAI 55

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 Thisreadi ly suggests the assertion that it is impossible toserve God an d mammon . A gain, the comparison ofthose wh o hear and obey wi th those who bear but donot obey

,seems to find an echo in the following : I s

he who has founded his walls upon the fear of God

an d His power better, or he who h as founded his wallsupon the edge of a crumbling precipice an d falls with

it into the fir e of hell ! ”

T W ith the Psalmist’s asser

tion that God derides the plotters against His An ointed

,compare : God mocks at them

,and leaves them

perplexed in their di sobedi en ce .

”

3t We must admitthat in such passages there is always a possibility ofBiblical influence . But the other possibil ity—thatthe resemblances ar e due to the other causes I havenamed— is constantly to be kept in mind. Thestrength of the argument to be based upon the r e

semblances depends somewhat upon the context ofeach particular passage . Wh en we read in the ao

count of Pharaoh, § that Moses said Your heartsbecame hard after this, and were like the rock orharder, we suspect from the connection that Mohammed

’

s lan guage is affected by Biblical in fluence .

But in the other cases cited we ar e not warranted i nassuming

,as the cause of the resemblance

,anything

more than the general Semitic cast of thought an dlanguage in both Bible and Koran .

Before we leave this part of the subject it will be

Koran cf. M att. 1» I bi d . 9 1 10, cf. M att.

I I bid . 2 § I bi d . 259


legitimate to inquire what narrative material Mohammed took from A rabic hea thenism . The Koranis a book nearly as large as the New Testament .* I t

would be difficul t to fil l so large a book with the simple dogmas an d m axims of I slam . We are not supprised to fin d in it considerable narrative material.B u t very little of this material is drawn from A r abicsources— that is, from sources outside of Judaism and

Christianity. Except two stories of some lengththere is nothing more than brief al l usions. Amongthe brief allusions

,I count what is said of Lokman

the Sagefr For although this extends to ten verses,

the verses ar e filled with a sermon of Mohammed’srather than with the story of Lokman . The versesthrow no light upon the source of Mohammed’s information, but it is evident that Lokman had alreadyreceived in tradi tion a place among A r ab heroes.Scarcely more than an allusion is what is said

concerning the army of the elephant. The event towhich the account refers, is the destruction of theA byssinians

,which took place some forty years before

the call of Mohammed—étr adi ti on dates it in the yearof the Prophet’s birth . The A byssinians h ad a tributary kingdom in southern A r abia

,an d attempted to

extend their power. I n the vi cin ity of Mecca thearmy was compelled to halt

,apparently by an epi

demic of small- pox,by which

,and by the Bedawin

,it

I t con tain s abou t e igh ty~five per cent . of th e number ofwords

i n th e A rabic tran slation of th e N ew T estam en t publish ed by theA m . B ible Society .

Jr K or an 31 1 1

- 18. On the specu lation s of th e comm en tators , cf.

M ar acci , R efutati ones , p. 547 .

TH E COM M ON B A S I S I N H E A TE E N I SH 57

was wholly destroyed. Mohammed’s account, whichis contained in one of hi s early suras, is as fol lows

Dost th ou n ot see h ow th y L ord wrough t wi th th e arm yof th e eleph an t

Di d H e n ot tu rn th ei r cu nn i ng i n to confu s i on !

A n d sen d upon th em bi r ds i n compan i es,

W h i ch th r ew u pon th em ston es [l ike]gra ven seals ,A n d left th em l ike stubble wh ere cattle h ave grazed !

Later writers have enriched the story with manydetails

,none of which can be considered historical.

The only historic fact we discover is that the armywas defeated. Popul ar story ascribed their destruotion to an army of birds which threw pebbles uponthem . Whether the language—maven sea l s— impliesthat Mohammed believed the stones to be engravedwith the names of those for whom they were destinedis not certain . But it is evident that he was interested in the history solely for its religious bearing.

A concern for history as hi story would have beenunintelligible to him . What he valued was the illustrati on of the power of God.

He was moved by the same religious interest inselecting the two longer stor i es from Ar abic historyto which I referred above . These ar e the stories ofA d an d Thamud which he uses a number of times .

I t is indeed almost an abuse of language to speak ofthese legends as history . A d, described as a peopleof southern A r abia, may be wholly my thical. Thamud,on the other hand

,is the name of a tribe which really

Koran 105. The A byssin ian Ki ng rode an e lephant,wh en ce th etitle ofhi s army .


existed . The feature of their civilization which standsout prominently in Mohammed

’s description, is thatthey make rock dwellings like those of Petra An d

ye hew the mounta in i nto houses.” From the tr a

di ti on s of Mohammed’s expedition to Tabuk, it seemsquite certain that these houses ”

ar e the rock tombsat Medain Salih, visited an d described by Doughtyn

L

They h ad probably been seen by Mohammed in oneof his earlier journeys

,for they lie on the caravan

road from the Hejaz to Syria. The impression madeupon his mind was very strong . A people once poweri ni enough to sculpture the mountains has di sappear ed by an act of God— this was the fact that wasso startlingly told by these wonderful remains . Thisfact exactly suited his scheme of history . His wasnot the first religious mind to despise details and toconstruct history to fit a theory . I n this case hefilled in the bare outlines given by tradition with details suggested by his theory. A d an d Thamud ar e

made to conform to the scheme already impressedupon him by the Biblical narr atives. What thisscheme is, is told us i n his own words : 1

H a ve th ey n ot trave l led i n th e l an d an d seen th e end

of th ose wh o preceded th em , th ough th ey were m or e n u

m er ou s th an th ey, an d m o re powerfu l , an d [th ough th ey]h ad m o re im pos in g m on um en ts i n th e lan d ! B u t what

th ey h ad ga in ed was of n o a va i l . Wh en Ou r A postlesbrough t th em clea r cr eden ti a ls , th ey rejo iced i n wh atk n owledge th ey [a l ready]po ssessed ;bu t th at wh ich th eyscoffed at cam e u pon th em . A n d wh en th ey saw th e pain

Koran 7 fDough ty , Tr anel s i n A r abi a Deser ta .

1Koran 4099455.

LECTURE I I I .

TH E KORAN N A RR ATI V E S

TH E dependence of the Koran upon the Biblewhether the dependence be mediate or immediate wedo not now inquire— is evident at a glance. Thereis not a page whose language does not remind us ofthe Old Testament or of the New. This is partlyaccounted for by the simi larity of the A rabic language to the Hebrew

,and also by the resemblance of

the civilizations represented in the two books . A s

was noticed i n 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 on e instance a threat ag ainstcvi l - doers

,which will be accompl ished though their

cunning were such that mountains would be movedby it. ” We need not suppose a reminiscence of aN ew Testament phrase . The figure is natural to onewho lives in a mountainous country. Again, the evildoers are said to devour the her i tage of the orphan]The phrase is strikingly like some of those withwhich we ar e familiar i n the New Testament, but i tdoes not follow that it is borrowed from that source.80 those who expend thei r money i n the si ght ofmen

Koran1 I bid. I cite th e Koran always from F l ii gc l 's edi tion.

00

TH E K OR AN N A RR A TI VE S 61

are strikingly like those who do alms that they may

be seen ofmen ,* but the phen omenon of ostentatious

almsgiving is probably witnessed in al l rel igions, andthe identity of phenomena has produced the resemblance of language .

These reservations are not numerous or important.For considerable portions of the Koran we cannotbe in doubt. Nearly al l its n arratives are Biblicalstor ies. But in no case ar e they exact translationsof the Bibli cal text. Quotations even of a singleverse are not easy to fin d. The most dili gent searchdoes not di scover more than two or three . Thereasons for thi s are obvious . For one thing

,there

existed no A rabic translation of the Scriptures in thetime of Mohammed. The Jews or Christians fromwhom he got his information were obliged to givethe stories in their own words . B u t besides this

,

the Prophet evi dently worked over the material hereceived, to fit it to his own purpose . He was not ahistorian , but a preacher. He used the history toconvey a lesson . He m ay have h ad the idea that hecou ld entertain his hearers and attract them by relating these histories . I fso, he was disappointed. TheMeccans openly prefer red a reciter of fairy- storieswho set up as his rival— perhaps a lesson to thosewho think the pulpit succeeds if it entertains itshearers. H ow far Mohammed indulged the hope ofmaking h i s message attractive by putting it i n theform of stories, it is not easy to say . For the mostpart the narratives were made strictly subordinateto h i s main purpose, and we can un derstand the n ar

Koran cf. M att.


rati ves only as we keep the purpose in mind . To

rwar n hi s hear er s of the wr ath to com e— this is hism ain aim

, and this explains his choice of material, aswell as the form in which the material is presented.

A s h as already been remarked, thi s purpose is seenin hi s use of material from other than Biblicalsources . The two histor ies which he takes fromA r ab antiquity ar e cast by him in Biblical form . A s

he tells them, both relate that a prophet was sent tohis tribe . The tribe rejects the prophet and is puni sh ed. These brief sentences give the key to a largepart of what we find in the Koran . His own exper i

ence is the light in which the author sees al l history.

The only proof necessary to adduce for this propos i ti on is the choice of material.The Old Testament stories used by Mohammed

ar e those of A dam, Noah, A braham ,Lot, Joseph, and

Moses . These ar e al l from the Pentateuch, and someof them are repeated a number of times . The destr uction of Sodom is given eight times, as is the aocount of the flood. The creation and fall of A damar e recounted five times, while there ar e no less thanthirteen somewhat extended refer/en ces to A braham .

I t must be evident from this that the Pentateuchfurnishes the largest part of the material borrowedfor narrative purposes . From the rest of the OldTestament he takes Saul , Davi d, and Solomon, andh e h as allusions to Elijah

,Job, Jonah, and Gog and

Magog . But none of these r ece i ves/an yth i ng likethe space given to the characters taken from thePentateuch .

To illustrate what I have said of Mohammed’

s

TH E K OR A N N A R R A TI VE S 63

motive and hi s method of treatment I wi ll quoteone of the accounts concern i ng Noah . I t reads as

fol lows

We sen t N 0311 to h i s people [to say]: I am a plai nSpeak in g warn er, to te l l you th at you m u st n ot serve an y

bu t A l lah . I fear for y ou th e pu n i shm en t of a d istress i n gday . Th e ch i efs of h i s people wh o di sbe l i eved , sa id : We

see th at th ou ar t n oth in g bu t a m an l ike u s, an d we see

th at th y fo l lower s are on ly th e basest of u s,m en of rash

reso lu t ion . W e do n ot disco ve r th at you ar e bette r th anweb i n fact we th i n k you to be li ar s . H e repl i ed O m y

people, if I h ave rece ived a comm iss ion from m y L ord, an dH e h as gi ven m e a spec ia l grace wh i ch i s u n kn own to you ,

do you th ink th at I sh a l l fo rce i t upon you wh en you ar e

u nw il l i ng ! O, m y people , I do n ot ask ri ch es—m y rewa rddepen ds on God a lon e , an d I w i l l n ot dri ve away th o se wh oh ave be l ieved th ey sh a l l m eet th e i r L ord . B u t I see you

to be a people i n ign o ran ce . M oreover, O m y people, wh ow i l l be m y h e lper aga i n st G od i f I dri ve th ese away ! W i l lyou n ot con s i der ! I do n ot say th at I h ave th e tr ea su resof God [at m y comm an d], an d I do n ot kn ow th e secr et

th i ngs n o r do I say th at I am an an ge l , n or do I say [as

you wou ld h ave m e]th at God w i l l n ot bri ng good to th osewh om you r eyes despi se—God kn oweth wh at i s i n th e i rh ear ts . I n cas e I sh ou ld do th i s th in g I sh ou ld be a w ron gde er . Th e ch i efs repl ied 0, N oah , th ou h ast dispu tedpers i sten tly w ith u s—bri n g n ow u pon u s wh at th ou h ast

th reaten ed , i f th ou art tr u th fu l 1 H e sa i d G od a lon e can

brin g i t upon you wh en H e wi l l, an d you can n ot thwar t i t .

M y ad v ice wi l l n ot profit you ,i f I w ish to adv i se you , wh en

God w i l l s to lead you astray . H e i s you r L or d an d u n to

H im you sh al l be brough t [at th e last Day]. Do th ey sayH e h ath i n ven ted i t h i s m essag e] I f I h a ve i n ven tedi t

, th en th e gu i lt of i t rests u pon m e—bu t I am i nn ocen t of

wh at you do . Th en i t was r ev ea led to N oah N o m ore of

Koran 1197 - 50.


th y peopl e w i l l be l i eve th an h a ve be l i eved a lr eady, bu t don ot be d istressed at wh at th ey do . M ake an ark i n Ou r

s igh t an d acco rdin g to Ou r reve lati on an d do n ot speakto M e con cern in g th o se wh o s in—th ey sh a l l ce rta i n ly bedrown ed. Th en h e m ade th e ark, an d W h en ever th e ch i efsofh i s people pas sed by , th ey scoffed at h im . H e sa i d I f

you scofi at u s , we sh a l l scoff at you a s you ar e scoffing

th en sh a l l y ou kn ow upon wh om sh a l l com e a pu n i sh m en t

th at sh al l d i sgrace h im ,an d upon W h om an abidin g pu n i sh

m en t sh a l l fa l l . [So th ey scoffed]un ti l Ou r commandcam e an d th e fou n ta i n broke fo rth .

* We sai d P l ace i n i t

two ofevery kin d, an d th y fam i ly (except th e on e on wh omth e decree h as passed)an d th ose wh o h a ve bel i eved— bu tth e be l i evers were few . N oah sa id E mbar k I I n th e n ame

ofGod sh a l l be i ts sai l i ng an d i ts m oo ri n g m y L ord i s th eF o rgi v i ng, th e Compa ss i on ate . A n d i t sa i led w i th th em

on th e m oun tai n - l ike waves, an d N oah ca l led h i s son wh ostood a loof M y son com e wi th u s an d be n ot ofth e u n

be l i e vers . H e repl ied I wi l l betake m yself to a m ou n tainwh i ch w i ll save m e from th e water. N oah sa i d N oth ingtod ay wi l l sa ve from th e decree ofGod un less H e take pity .

Th en th e waves cam e between th em an d h e was drown ed.

Th en cam e th e comm an d 0, E arth , swal low up th ewater,an d , 0 H eaven , ceas e [from ra i n] an d th e water was dim i n i sh ed an d th e decreewas ca rri ed ou t, an d [th e ark]restedon a l - Ju dee ,

’r an d i t was sa i d Away wi th th ewr ong- doers !

Th en N oah ca l led to h i s L or d and sa i d M y L o rd , m yson belon ged to m y fam i ly an d Th y prom i se i s true and

Th ou ar t th e m ost ju st of ju dges i God repl ied 0 N oah ,

h e was n ot ofth y fam i ly. I t we re an u nr igh teou s deed [to

L iterally, u n ti l th e oven boi l ed. A s th e word wh ich ordinarilym ean s oven also m ean s afoun ta i n on occasion , th ere i s no need to

suppose R abbin ic or P ers ian influence .

1'A m ou n tain i n M esopotam ia .

I N oah i s pleading for h i s son , th ough he does not express hi spetition i n so m any words . God replies to th e u n spoken prayer,in tim ating that th e son h as cu t h im self ofi by h i s u nbelie f.

TH E K ORA N N A RR A TI VE S 65

spare h im], so do n ot ask ofm e th at ofwh i ch th ou h as t n okn ow ledge I war n th ee lest th e n be of th e ign oran t .

N oah sa id M y L o rd, I take refuge in Th ee from ask i ngth at ofwh i ch I h a ve n o kn owledge u n less Th ou fo rgi vem e an d take pi ty on m e I sh a l l be lost . Th en th e com

m an d was gi ven 0 N oah ,descen d in peace from U s, an d

bless ings upon th ee an d upon peoples yet to com e fr om

th ose w ith th ee fi bu t th ere ar e pee ples wh om W e sh a l l cr eate, upon wh om a grievou s pun i shm en t sh a l l com e .

You wil l agree with me that the Bible story is usedin this passage only to furnish a framework for a

sermon to Mohammed’s contemporari es. The detailsof the story

,those which in the Old Testament m ake

it so real istic,ar e absent. We hear nothing of the

wickedness of the sons of God in marrying daughtersof men —which in Genesis gives a reason for the corruption of the earth . The violence, which is thespecific sin mentioned there

,does not appear in the

Koran. We hear nothi ng of the size of the ark,or

its material . The duration of the rain, the time ofthe subsidence of the waters, the sending out of thebirds

,the sacrifice at the end of the voyage, and th e

gi ft of the rainbow ar e al l pas sed over in silence . Onthe other hand we hear an extended di alogue betweenNoah and his people, of which the Bible gives us nohint. One hint indeed we find whi ch might give riseto this conception . I t is contained in the New Testament where we fin d Noah described as a her a l d ofr ighteou sness .

* I t is this hint, as I suppose, which

was worth more to Mohammed than al l the Old Tes

I I . Pet. 25

. Th e Ch ristian tradition i n th e A pocalypse of P au l(W alker, Apocr ypha l Gospel s , 18 73, p. 49 1;A n tem

‘

cen e F a th er s .

1886 , V o l . V I I I , p. wh ere N oah says “ I ceased not to

5

66 TH E B I B L E A ND I SL A M

tament details . W ith this hint he recon structed thehistory along the lines of his own experience. Thesin ful ness of the antediluvians now becomes idolatry.

Noah is theWarner sent to turn them to the one God.

I n the dialogue we hear the voices of Mohammedan d the Meccan aristocracy . A s in the case of Mohammed, it is the aristocracy who oppose the preachedword. Noah is told that only the lowest men hearhim— just as atMecca it was mostly slaves and freedmen who made up the infant chur ch. Noah musthear that he is a m an 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 toMohammed. He is obliged to declare that he is notseeking earthly reward— ah avowal elsewhere madeby Mohammed for himself. He is urged to dismisshis followers ;he refuses, and then is challenged tobr ing the threatened puni shment. I t is scarcelynecessary to read between the l ines to discover thatMohammed had just this experience. So far doesthi s go that Mohammed really falls out of the r o‘l e inone verse

,where he replies to the accusation that he

h ad invented his message . A t least it sounds as ifhe h ad forgotten for the moment that he was personating Noah. I n one of the parallel passages heshows a similar l ack of historic imaginati on wherethe aristocracy of Noah’s time ar e made to say to thepeople Do not abandon your Gods, do not abandon Wadd an d Suwa’

, and Y agh u th and Y a’

uk and

proclaim to m en : R epen t, for , beh old, a deluge i s com ing;and noon e paid h eed, bu t a l l derided m e .

”F or Jewish tradition ,Wun sche,

M i dr a seh K oh el eth , p. 130.


command went forth : Enter the Fire with those who

ar e entering therein .

” These divergences showhow freely Mohammed treats his sources. For the

pr eachi ng of Noah an d the s cofli ng of his contemporaries he h ad authority in Jewish or Christian tradition . But no one h as yet pointed out a precedentfor the particulars we ar e now considering. We are

authorized in supposing th at the preacher drew onhis own experience for these as for other matters ofdetail . A nd we do not have far to seek for the exper ience . Doubtless there were families in Meccawhich were divided— father against son . I n fact, wehear of such i n the traditions, and we know that Moh amm ed

’

s own nearest relatives did not believe onhim . I t is not unlikely that he found here the onlyprecedent he needed in order to suppose members ofNoah’s family unsaved in the great catastroph e .

The Biblical character which next claims our attention is A braham,

whose importance to Mohammedis greater than that of any other Biblical ch aracter.

Whether he were already adopted in the legends of

th e heathen A rabs, as h as been supposed, is verydoubtful . Mohammed makes him the bui lder of theKaaba, and therefore the founder of Mecca but thi sm ay be a construction of his own . The other incidents oi A braham’s history given in the Koran are

the following : He disputed with someone about the

true God,an d was the victor he prayed for evidence

of the resurrection, and was commanded to out fourbirds in pieces, to l ay the pi ebes on separate hill- tops,and then to call the birds. On following out the di

Koran


rections,the pieces flew together and the birds were

restored to life . He entertained the angels who weresent to destroy Sodom

,received from them the prom

ise 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 intothe fir e

,but came out unharmed. He was dri ven

from home by his father. He was comm anded in adream to sacrifice his son (whose name is not given),and was about to consummate the sacrifice when hewas allowed to substitute an animal.* A point em

ph as ized is that he was neither Jew nor Christian,but (if I m ay so say) a simple believer without thesectarian marks whi ch di stinguish, and therefore divide, these 0 People of Scripture ! “Thy do youdispute concerning A bra ham ! The Ter a and theGospel were not revealed until after his time—do younot comprehend ! A braham was neither Jew norChri stian, but he was a han if, he was resigned, andhe was n ot one of the idolaters . 1“ The word han ifh as given rise to much speculation . For our presentpurpose it is enough to n ote that in the Koran itm ean s

'

tnr n i ng asi defr om ido l s . I t is the appropriateword to describe a man li ke A braham who abandonedthe false Gods and became a monotheist . I t is thischaracteristic which makes A braham of so much importance to Mohammed . He sees in him his predecessor and model. The Jews and the Chr istians hadreceived revelations i n written form— this is what h e

1: K oran ff, 1172

ff, 15

31 I f, 5124- 33

, 21443f, 37

95, 1947 , 37 100

ti_

A brah am i s m entioned in twenty- six difierent su ras1 I bid .


recognizes in calling them people of the Book. Butthe result h ad been to produce division an d mutualrecrimination . The Jews (he says) say : TheChristians have no firm foundation;and the Christians say : The Jews have no firm foundation. Yetthey read the Scripture . ” The only way to put anend to the disputes of these sects is to go back to th esimp l e monotheism of A braham . I n this theory Mohammed was the pioneer of church union

,and his is

not the only attempt to unite two bodies of believerswhich has resulted in forming a third.

But this is aside from our main purpose. Mohammed regards A braham as his model, and describeshimself in the terms which he applies to A braham

Wh o has a more excellent reli gion than one who r esigns himself to God while doing good works, andwho follows the faith of A braham as one who turnsaside from idol s [literally, as a han if]— for God tookA braham as His friend The nearest of men toA braham ar e those who follow him

,and this prophet

[Mohammed]also is one of th em .

”

T I n taking th isposition

,Mohammed was only following the precedent

set by the A postle Paul. I n justifying himself forgiving up the Jewish L aw,

while still claiming to be

long to the true seed of A braham,Paul argued by the

example of A braham . I t was conceded that A brah am was a true believer, the Father of the Faithful .

But if this be so,religion cannot consist in the ob

servance of the L aw,for the L aw came into force

long after A braham’s death. For the true believer itmust be enough to go back to the simplicity of A bra

Koran 2 07. 1' I bid . 4124, 3

6 1

TH E K OR A N N A R R A TI VE S 7 1

ham’s religion . The argument of Mohammed is justthe same

,only he does not set it forth with the same

array of logic. To the Jews who insisted that hemust become a Jew i n order to be saved, and to theChristians who insisted that he must become a Christian i n order to be saved, Mohammed made the perti n en t reply that A braham lived the life of faith beforethe comin g of either of th eir codes . The essentialsof religion must consist in such faith as A brahamh ad

,and this (according to his ligh t)Moh ammed

adopted an d preached . To him,just as tru ly as to

Pa u l,A braham was the Father of the Faithful .

H ow much direct N ew Testament influence led tothis view of A braham ! I n the meagreness of thesources we ar e not able to answer this question withpositiveness. I n general

,Mohammed does not show

much familiarity with the thought of the A postlePaul . But I am inclined to think that some N ew

Testament hint concerning the position of A brahamas the Father of Believers h ad come to him. I t

needs only a hint of that with which we ar e in sympathy to give us a flood of li ght . A s showing thatthere was New Testament influence we m ay note thatwe find Mohammed calling A braham the Friend ofGod— a point mentioned both in the Old Testamentand in the New, but more distinctly brought out inthe N ew.

*

For other features of the Koran picture we mustconsul t 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

I s . 419;James 293


unintelligible to him,as it doubtless is to many a Chris

tian reader as wel l . But he could use it as a proofof the resurrection—something of which he felt theneed in his preaching . He therefore transformed itinto something quite di fferent from the Biblical story.

I n regard to the dispute concerning the power of God,the Koran tells us only of an anonymous opponentwh o claimed to be the giver of life and of deathan d therefore to be God . A braham replied : MyLord makes the sun to rise in the East, do thou makeit rise in the West — whereat the infidel was put toconfusion. I n this story we have the tradition ofA braham’s dispute with Nimrod

,which was current

among Jews an d Christians before Mohammed’s time.I twas especially pat toMohammed

’s purpose becauseit confounded the idolater.A nother legend current among both Jews and

Christians was useful in the same line. I t makesTerah

,A braham’s father

,to be a dealer in idols.

One day A braham was left in charge of the shop, anda woman came with an offering of food. A brahamset it before the largest idol

,broke al l the other idols

an d put a club in the hands of the large one. Whenhis father asked about it he said : the idols quarrelledover the food;then the largest one became angry,took the club and broke the rest in pieces . Terahdeclared this to be impossible because the imagescoul d not move

,whereupon A braham convicted h im

out of his own mouth,which confessed him to be a

worshipper of that which h ad no power. N everthe

less A braham wa s brought before Nimrod and throwninto a fiery furnace

,from which he was saved by a

TH E K OR A N N A R RA TI VE S 73

m ir acle. Mohammed had no objection to taking astory from tr adition rather than from the Biblicaltext— i i i ndeed he knew the difference. That he tookthis one from a Chr istian source is indicated by thefact that he calls A braham

’s father by the name

A zar , which is quite similar to what we find in a

Christian writer, though quite un li ke the HebrewTerah.

* The Book of Jubi l ees , which circul atedlargely among both Jews an d Christians, kn ows thestory of A braham’s controversy with his father aboutthe idols

,so that there is no difficulty in attributing

Mohammed’s knowledge to Christian tradi ti on .

’r

But it is clear that we cannot trace all the features of Mohammed’s A braham to preceding au th or ities

,either

'

Jewish or Christian . The main incidentscame originally from the Bible—se much is evident.Some of the vari ations or additions can be accounted for on the theory that they are borrowed fromJewish or Christian sources outside the Bible. Butothers cannot be so accoun ted for, and can ,

in the

A thar i s th e name ofA braham ’

s fath er in E u sebiu s accordingtoSale, note on H e probably got h i s knowledge from M ar acci ,

P r odr omu s ad R efu tati on em A l oer a n i Pars I V . , p. 90, wh ichi s also cited by Geiger, Was ha t M ohamm ed aus dem Juden th um

A ufgen omm en p 128 . M ar acci on ly says : apud E usebi um

i n H i stor i a E ccl esi asti ca . The story of A braham and th e idols i sfound in M i dr asch B er esohi th R abba , U eber setzt von d sch e, P ar .

38 (p. I t i s quoted also by Geiger, l . c. , p. 124. A m ong

Ch risti an authorities Jerom e, Questi on es H ebr a im i n Genes im (onGen . 0p. ed . V al l ar si u s I I I . , e . 323

,cf. I V . , c . 7 79,

speaks ofA braham ’s being th rown into the fir e.

1' E wald, Jahr bii ch er , I I I . , p. 3. Grunbaum , N eu e B ei tr a

’

ge zwr

Sem i ti schen Sagenkunde p. 96, says that th e story i s alsogiven by E ph raem Syru s .

74 .TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

present state of our knowledge, be attributed only toMohammed himself, working under the belief that

A braham was for him a predecessor an d a model.A s we have seen , Mohammed

’

s scheme of historyis wri t large in these stories of former prophets . A c

cording to him,the past ages ar e a series of prophetic

crises . I n each one , a prophet has been sent to h i speople to warn them against sin . His usual exper ience is that his hearers refuse the message and m ockor persecute him . Not long after

,the calamity over

takes them and they perish . The prophet,with a

few followers,is spared . I n each of these cycles

,the

account is colored by Mohammed’s own experience .

Even the tribes of A rabia which have perished,have

perished for the same reasons,and their prophets

speak the language of rebuke and warning just liketheir brethren of the Biblical history. This con

stant iteration is one reason for the tediousness ofthe Koran . But a little reflection will show us thatsomething of the same monotony is found in al l

preaching . The truths of religion ar e comparativelyfew and simple . The prophet is not infrequentlyaccused of repeating himself . Even an I saiah wasmocked for bringing line upon line and precept uponprecept

,here a little and there a little

,as though he

were teaching children just weaned from the milk .

W e shall not be surprised to fin d in the Koran thesame lesson repeatedly enforced when we rememberhow long the prophet of Mecca addressed deaf earsan d unbelieving hearts . The sameness of the lesson,whatever the particular in cident which illustrates it,m akes it unnecessary for us to go at length into al l


The fact that it is given so many times should cautionus against seeking the origin of the variations fromthe Biblical text in Rabbinical or Patris tic sources.I t is not likely that Mohammed received the accountfrom an i nformant more than once . Having it oncein his possession, he felt at liberty to treat it according to the varying exi gencies of different times. Theaccount which is earli est in point of time (to all appear an ce) is comparatively brief, and it shows thatthe Prophet was moved, as in al l his earlier preaching,by the thought of God’s judgment :

“H as the storyof Moses come to thee When his Lord called himin the sacred valley of Tuwa [He said] Go toPharaoh the arrogant an d 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 wasrebellious. He turned his back

,exciting di sorder.

Then he collected the people an d said : I am yourLord most high ! But God destroyed him with thepunishments of this world an d of the world to come.Verily this is a warning to him that fears God .

” Forthe purpose of the speaker this is an admirable epitome of the story of Moses . I t shows just the pointswhich Mohammed wished to emphasize, that isthose paral l el with his own case. Even here he doesnot adhere strictly to the Biblical account

,for we

nowhere read that Phar aoh claimed to be God. Thisis borrowed evidently from Mohammed’s informant,and the same feature is found in fact in Jewishauthorities.

79 15- 26.

TH E K OR A N N A RRA TI VE S 77

I n the more extended accounts which Mohammedelsewhere gives

,we find details taken from Christian

as well as Jewish sources,besides some wh ich ar e

due to the narrator’s own imagination . From Jewishtradition he asserts : that Moses refused al l Egyptiannurses;that the people at Mount Sinai demandedto see God

,an d on seeing Him fell dead, but were

revived by divine power ;and that they refused toaccept the covenant until the mountain was lifted upbodi ly and held over them .

* The information thatthe golden calf, through the magic of i ts maker,bel l owed, is found in Rabbinical sources, and a similaraffirmation is made of another golden calf in a Christian writer of the tenth cen turyd

‘ Mohammed makesthe magicians of Pharaoh repent and confess the trueGod. This is perhaps a legitimate deduction fromthe Old Testament account

,in which they ar e said to

recognize the finger of God i No Jewish docum enth as been found which makes the deduction, bu t weknow of a Christian apocryphon, now lost, which wasentitled : L ibe'r P aen i tenti ae Jamncc etM ambr es , Jamnesand M ambr es , I hardly need say , are the traditionalnames of the magicians.§ We ar e justified

,there

fore,in supposing this item borrowed from a Chris

tian source.There remain a number of data which ar e due to

s 28 11, 7 110.

On th e R abbin ical auth orities cf. Geiger, Was hatM ohamm ed, etc . , pp. 155- 172. The lowing of th e golden calf at

Gilgal on th e day of E lish a’s birth i s spoken of i n the B ook of th e

B ee, B udge’s tran slation , p. 70.

1 E x . E nglish version Koran 20”§ I I . Tim . 39, cf. Di l l mann in P . R . E )

, ! I I .

, p. 365 .


Mohammed’s own imagination, or which simply witness to his ignorance of the Bible account . Thushe gives the plagues at one time as five an d again as

nine in number he makes Haman one of the counse l l o r s of Pharaoh ;1

' he supposes the buildi ngs ofPharaoh to have been destroyed, an d that the murm u r e r s against Moses returned to Egypt;1 yet, inanother passage, he seems to afii rm that I srael possessed the country of Pharaoh after him .§ ThatMoses 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. [I Confusion

of Moses with Jacob is the evident cause of theassertion that Moses served eight years for a wife

,

and a similar confusion of Egypt with Babylon showsitself when Pharaoh orders the people to make brick“ that I m ay make a lofty buildi ng

,so as to become

acquainted with the God of Moses—though,indeed

,

I think him to be a liar. ‘l l

A lmost al l these departures from the Biblical narr ati ve occur in late chapters, an d they show whathas already been remarked

,that as time went on,

the preacher became less careful (if, indeed, he everwas careful ) of historical accuracy, and adapted hismaterial more freely to the purpose in hand. I n theuse of this material we can see the influence of hisown changed circumstances. Few characters in history have experienced a greater change of fortunethan fell to the lot of Mohammed in going from

7 130 17 103 . y 28 38 1 71312 268 .

§ 26'

N28° 14 l 7! 28

3" as

TH E K OR A N N A RR A TI VE S 79

Mecca to Medi n a . A t Mec ca he was the proscr ibedpreacher of a new rel igion. H i s fol l owers were fewin number, and th e maj or ity of these had fled toA byssin ia . Hi s pers ecuti on by the leadin g men ofthe city took away from hi m every occupation of asecu lar nature . Even th e publ ic proclamati on of hi smessage was forbidden after a tim e. A l l that wasopen to h im was medi tation, prayer, an d the en couragem en t of a very nar row circle of friends. W ith theremoval to Medin a al l thi s was changed. The caresof admi ni s tration were thrus t upon hi m . H i s lifebe came a l ife of acti vi ty in stead of contemplati on

,

and hi s sermons necessari l y dealt wi th the concretei ssues of the hour.The reason for call i ng attenti on to thi s fact at jus t

thi s poin t i s that one of the longer hi stor ies of Mosesin the Koran can be understood onl y from this situation of the Prophet. I t i s really a polemic againstthe Jews. We have reason to believe that Mohammed came to Medi na with great expectations, basedon the fact that a considerable part of the popul ati onwas Jewi s h. He sin cerely believed hi s reli gion tobe the same as theirs . He was sure that he was thelegitimate successor of their prophets. Wh at woul dbe more natural than that they should joi n his commun i ty, or at leas t that hi s foll owers an d they shouldun ite on a common basi s of recogn ition W ith thi sidea he made Jerusalem hi s K i bl a

,an d as simil a ted

his doctr ine to theirs . But he was speedi l y un dece i ved. The Jews were wholl y guided by theirRabbis , who h ad no m ind to a prophet born out ofPalestine . They refused to see th e marks of their


expected Messiah in the Meccan adventurer. Theywere

,moreover

,conscious of their in tellectual supe

r i or i ty . They had studied the sacred Books whichwere in their hands . Mohammed conceded theauthority of these Books

,but he was only slightly

acquainted wi th thei r contents . I n argu ing fromth em the Jews had an evident advantage

,and often

put the Moslems to silence . A t la st Mohammed wasobliged to forbid his followers to argue with theJews

,and he accused these of concealing portions of

their revelation.

This certainly coul d not condu ce to harmony,and

Mohammed early realized that he had to deal withmen less open to conviction than the heathen . TheJews, on their part, di d not see the danger of triflingwith a man who was in dead earnest, and who nowhad the sword in his hand. Their more instructedmen would lay traps for Mohammed in their talkswi th him

,and when he betrayed his ignorance, as he

would naturally betray it i n such circumstances, theywould go away an d in their own circle make merryover his laughable blunders. A rab satire travels fast,it travels far , and it bites hard. We can easily concei ve the situation of a prophet in a mixed community,ridi culed in couplets that were i n the mouths of allwho were hostile or who were lukewarm . The insultswere the harder to bear in that they were di rectedagainst beliefs which had become sacred to him. Theyseemed to him blasphemies against the H oly Ghostand he never forgave them . The expatriation of oneJewish tri be, and the extermination of another, wereonly part of his answer.


I t was before the open breach came that the follow

i ng review of the history of I srael was delivered

0 Ch i ldren ofI srae l I R em ember M y gr ac e wh i ch I conferr ed u pon you [wh en I sa id]: K eep th e coven an t w i th M ean d I wi l l keep th e co ven an t w i th you ;an d fea r M e an d

bel i eve in wh at I h a ve revea led i n con firm ati on ofwh at youa l ready possess ,‘ an d be n ot th e first to d i sbe l i e ve . A n d

do n ot se l l M y won de rs for a sm a l l price ,‘r bu t fea r M e . Do

n ot cover u p th e tru th wi th falseh ood , n o r con cea l th etr u th wh i ch you kn ow. t B u t obse rve prayer an d gi ve a lm s

an d bow w ith th ose wh o bow down . W i l l you comm an dm en good act ion s bu t fo rget th em yo u rsel ves ! § Y et yo u

read th e Scriptu res do you n ot compreh en d P r acti se

th e refo re pati en ce an d prayer—th i s i s d i fficu lt except for

th e h umble, wh o ar e m i n dfu l th at on e day th ey must m eetth e i r L o rd an d th at th ey ar e to retu r n to H im .

0, Ch i ldren of I s rae l R em em ber M y grace wh i ch I

h ave con ferred u pon you , i n th at I h ave distingu i sh ed youabove th e wo rlds an d fear th e day wh en on e sou l sh a l l n otpay th e debt ofan oth er, n or sh a l l i ts i n tercess i on be rece ivedn o r a ran som be accepted n o r a i d be gi ven . A nd [rem em

ber]wh en We saved you from th e tri be ofPh araoh wh o i nfii cted u pon you a gri evou s ca lam i ty i n th at th ey s lew you rson s wh i le th ey preserved a l i ve your daugh ter s (th i s was a

severe tri a l from you r L ord );and wh en We d i vi ded th e seafor you an d del i vered you , bu t drown ed th e h ost of Ph a

raoh wh i le you looked on . B u t wh en We gave th e prom i ses

Th at i s , th e Scr iptu res .

1' A n accu sation elsewh ere made against th e Jews, rem inding u s

of Pau l’

s ch arge that th e idolaters exchange th e tru th ofGod for a

l i e . P ossibly M oh amm ed th ought th e Jewish scribes forged verseswh ich th ey sold as B iblical.tTh i s m ean s : th e Jews deny th at th e ir Scriptu res contai n what

M ohammed says th ey con tain .

§ P au l also accu ses th e Jews of teach ing the L aw to oth ers, at thesam e time violating i t them selve s , R om . 2.

6


to M oses forty n igh ts , th en y ou took th e ca lf i n h i s absencean d tran sgr essed . Y et We forgave you , th in ki ng perh apsy ou wou ld be gratefu l . W e gav e M o ses th e B ook an d th e

D ist in cti on,* th at you m igh t be righ tly l ed;and M oses sa i d

to h i s people O,m y people I you h ave wronged your own

sou ls i n takin g th e ca lf ;repen t i n presen ce of you r Cr ea to r or e lse ki l l each oth e r ‘r—th i s were better for you withH im—H e w i l l forgive you , H e i s th e F o rgi v i n g, th e Compass ion ate. A n d wh en you sa id : O, M o ses, we w i l l n otbe l i eve i n th ee u n less we see God clear ly , th e thunderbo ltstru ck you wh i le you gazed, bu t We brough t you to l ifea fte r you h ad di ed

,th i n k i n g pe rh aps y o u wou ld be gr ate

fu l . A n d We sh aded you wi th th e clou d fan d sen t you th e

m an n a and th e qu a i ls , sayi ng E at ofth e good th i ngs w ithwh i ch W e n ou ri sh you (th ey di d n ot h arm U s bu t i t was

th e i r own souls th at th ey h a rm ed). A n d wh en We sa idE n ter th i s c i ty an d eat of i t abu n dan tly wh en ever youch oose, bu t en ter th e gate bowi ng down an d as k ing forgiven ess—We wi l l fo rgi ve you r s i n s an d wi l l cer ta i n ly prosperth ose wh o do we l l—th en th e ev i l - doer s substi tu ted a wordd iffer en t fr om th e on e wh ich was com m an ded th em , an dwe

sen t u pon th e ev i l - doers a pesti len ce for th e i r i n iqu ity. A nd

wh en M o ses asked water for h i s people , W e sa id : Striketh e rock w i th th y staff;an d th ere broke from i t twe lvefou n ta i n s , e very on e kn ew h i s dr i nkin g place [an d We

sa i d] E at an d dri nk of th e su sten an ce gi ven by God, an ddo n ot dea l u n ju stly i n th e ea rth , creatin g di sorder . A nd

wh en you sa id O,M oses , we can n ot bear th i s one ki nd of

food, ask of th y L ord th at H e br ing fo rth for u s of th e

Th e book whi ch distingu ish es between right and wrong. Pos

s i bl y M ohammed th inks of th e M osaic tradition (th e M ishna)wh ichexpou nds th e regu lation s of th e L aw more exactly.

1 Or , K i l l yowr sel ees . Th e sen se i s obscu re . Th e A rab com

m en tator m akes i t m ean m or tify you r l u sts , but th at i s h ardly M o

h amm ed’s intention . I su spect a rem ini scen ce of th e fact that the

L evites fell upon th e idolatrou s people and slew them .

I E v i dentl y th e pi llar of cloud .


m essage . So th ey sacrificed h er , bu t th ey we re n ear n ot

do i ng i t . A n d wh en yo u ki l led a m an , an d qu arrel led concern in g th e deed (bu t God brou gh t to l i gh t wh at you werecon cea l i n g), th en W e sa i d : To uch th e dead m an wi th a

part of th e h e i fer ;th u s God brings to l i fe th e dead, an dsh ows yo u H i s s ign s—per ch an ce you w i ll compreh end .

*

B u t even after th i s your h earts were h ard, even l ike rocko r h a rder, fo r th ere a r e rocks from wh i ch stream s spring,an d th ere ar e th ose wh i ch open and l et th e water flow an d

th e re ar e [h earts]wh i ch bow in fear ofGod, an d God i s n otunm in dfu l ofwh at yo u

Wh en we read this tremendous indictment we seethat the Biblical facts ar e used for a purpose . An d

they ar e used with skil l. The Jews could not denythe most of the facts here recited. They were gu ilty

,

or at least their fathers were guilty— as charged.

The position of Mohammed is precisely the positionof the N ew Testament, as shown in the speech ofStephen . Mohammed had no such orderly knowledge of the history as Stephen had

,but he uses what

knowledge h e had in just the way in which Steph enused his . The climax of Stephen

’s discourse is thereal burden of Mohammed’s : “Ye stiff- necked and

uncircumcised in heart and ears ! Y e do always r e

sist the Holy Ghost;as your fathers did so do ye .

Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecuteye who received the L aw as it was ordained

by angels an d kept it n ot ! Whether there was .

some knowledge of the New Testament position on

Mohammed’s part we can not certainly say . A s a case

The implication i s th at th e mu rdered man was rai sed to li fe longenough to testify against hi s murderer.1.

TH E K ORA N N A R R A TI VES 85

of hi story repeating itself, the parallel is certain lyinteresting and instructive. The simil arity extendsfurther than the two di scourses. I n each case thediscourse showed that the breach was at hand . TheJews could not deny the guilt charged byMohammedor by Stephen . I t did not follow that they would beconverted. The di vergence was already hopeless.*

Turni ng now to the New Testament, we discoverth at only two of its histories ar e kn own to Moham

F or th e sake of completen ess , we m ay notice th at M ohammed

has some other incidents not y et traced to th eir original . H e kn ows

ofa time when th e Ch ildren of I srae l were commanded to enter acity i n a certai n way , bu t th ey ch anged th e word whi ch was com

manded. The M ohamm edan comm entators say th at out ofwantonness th ey went i n i n an indecent postu re and instead of sayingki tta(forgiveness)th ey said habba , a grain of corn . F or thi s th ey werepun ished, apparentlywith a pestilen ce . Thi s i s simply a conjectu reon the bas is ofth e Koran text. I am inclin ed to see in the passage

the incident of the spies . Th e people were commanded to enter

the land (th e distin ction between land and city i s easily lost)and toact r ighteously there . The spies substttu ted th eir evil reportfor thecommand ofGod . Th e people then , havi ng first re fused to go, insisted upon goingwi lful ly and were smi tten . The r esemblances ar enot very marked, but the B ibli cal story m ight give r i se to what wefind i n the Koran . (Th is identi fication i s n ot original with me .)A gain we have th e sto ry ofth e vi olators of th e Sabbath whowere

changed into apes . Th e on ly R abbin i cal paralle l y et po inted out isth e M idrash that a part of th e people ofth e Tower of B abe l werech anged into apes , dem on s , and evil spirits . Cf. H i r schfel d , Jitdt

'

sche

E l ements 13m K or an p. 65, wh o ci tes Talmud, Sanh edrin109 a. P ossibly the A rabs in M edina had tur n ed th is story agai nstthe Jews before the comi ngofM oh amm ed . I t i s scarcely necessaryto point out that th e narrative of th e r ed h eifer h as m ixed twoM osai c ordinan ces—th e sacrifice of th e r ed h eifer i n th e B ook of

N umbers (ch ap. 19)and th eDeu teronom ic en actm ent (ch ap. 21)th ata heifer shou ld be slain to aton e for a mu rder th e auth or ofwh ichi s unkn own .


med . These are the history of John the Baptist,an d the life of Jesus. John is a prophet, an d, like theother prophets

,receives a book, that is, a revelation .

*

Zachariah, his father, is also once mentioned in thelist of prophets . Elsewhere he comes in incidentall y

,

in connection with the birth of his son . Zachariah’sprayer an d its answer ar e recounted somewhat atlength

,following in the main th e n arrative of Luke.

John is a prophet entirely after the pattern of thosealready known to us from the Old Tes tament i'

Concerning Jesus,the first fact that we meet is

that he is not mentioned in the earliest group ofsuras . But as very few Biblical characters are menti on ed in this per iod, the fact m ay have no specialsignifican ce. Mohammed’s thought at this time wasmuch upon the approaching judgment. The few histories to whi ch he alludes ar e those which enforce thelesson of God’s ch asti s ern en t, the destruction ofSodom

,the overthrow of Pharaoh, the judgments on

A d and Thamud, the catastrophe of the Lord of theElephant. These are almost the only events to whichhe alludes. The li fe of Jesus presents no featurewhich would bring it into relation with these events,so that although there ar e distinctively Christian

1: I t m ay be , as supposed by Sprenger (L eben M uhamm ed'

s , I I . ,

th at M oh amm ed though t John th e founder of th e sect of th e

Sabaean s (or M andaaan s). B u t th is i s n ot proved by th e fact that h edescribes Joh n as receiving a book . H e conce ives that al l th e

proph ets rece ive sacred books I f th ey accu se th ee of falseh ood[rem ember th at]th e apostles before th ee were accu sed of falseh ood, th ey wh o brough t s ign s and P salms and an en ligh ten ingB ook ,

”

88 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL AM

of this is the space given to the life of Mary. I n r e

latin g this, Mohammed dr aws from sources outsidethe Canon. His own property we can see only in hiscalli ng her the daughter of I mran and the sister of

A aron —doubtless a confusion of Mary with Mi ri am,

the names being identical in A rabic .

Concerning her,we hear that she was dedicated by

her parents to the service of God, an d thus came intothe care of Zacharias, to whom she was assigned bythe sacred lot.1

' She resides in the Temple, wh ereshe is fed by the angels . She is visited by the angel,who announces that she is to become the mother ofJesus . A spring of water breaks forth at her feetand a palm - tree supplies her with dates. The infantJesus speaks to vindicate his m oth er . I The mostof these detai ls can be identified in the A pocryphalGospels which have come down to us. A ccordin gto these, Mary was dedicated to God by her parentswhen three years old and taken to live in the Temple.

There she was fed by the angels. When fourteenyears old she was assigned to Joseph

,from whose rod

there came forth a dove . I n her need,a palm bends

down to supply her with dates and a spring flows at.

her feet.§ We do not find in an y of these sources

1 Thou wast n ot am ong th em wh en they th rew th eir reeds to see

wh ich ofth em sh ou ld care for M ary, n or wert th ou with th em whenth ey dispu ted,”I Th e m ain referen ces ar eTh ese in c iden ts ar e n arrated i n th e variou s A pocryphal Gospels,

cf. th e volum e i n th e A n tem’

cen e Ch r i sti an L i br a r y con tain ingtran slation s of th ese by W alker, Am erican edition of th e A n ten tcen e

F ath er s , V ol . V I I I . Som e of th em ar e also fou nd i n th e B ook ofth e B ee, tran slated by B udge .


that Jesus Speaks immediately after his bi rth, but asimilar i ncident is narrated in a Syriac Christiansource

,

* by which (in directly)Mohammed was poss ibl y influenced .

The prominence of extra canonical sources seen inthe life of Mary 1s less m arked l n the life of Jesus .When we ar e told

,however

,that he made birds of

clay and that when he blew upon them they becamealive

,we remember the sim ilar account in the A poc

ryph al Gospels . Mohammed h as also an extendedaccount of Jesus bringing a table with food fromheaven for his disciples. On the face of it

,this seem s

to be der ived from the in stitu tion of the Supper,wi th

reminiscences of Peter’s vision at Joppa . W e hearin general of Jes u s ’

s miracles, that he healed a m an

blind from his birth, and a leper, and that he raiseda dead m an to life . Beyond this

,Jesu s is afli rm ed to

be a prophet,the Word of God an d His Spirit, an d

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 thedilemma proposed by the Meccans from the followingpassage 1

A n d wh en th e son ofM ary i s proposed as a l iken ess, th enth y people tu rn th e i r backs to h im an d say A re ou r gods

bette r, o r i s h e ! Th ey say th i s on l y ou t of con ten ti on , an d

veri ly th ey a re a con ten tiou s people . I n tru th h e was on lya servan t o n wh om We bestowed Ou r grace, an d We m adeh im an exam ple to th e Ch ild ren of I srae l . (I fWe h ad

Th e L ife ofEph raem con tain ed i n U h l emann ’s Sy r i sch e Ch

'r es

tomath i e gives a similar inciden t.1» 4357

-05


w i lled , We would h a ve produ ced from yo u ange ls to su cceedyo u i n th e ea rth . ) A n d h e i s a s ign ofth e [approach ofth e]H ou r. * Th erefo re do n o t d ispu te con ce rn in g th i s bu t fo ll ow— th is i s th e stra igh t path—an d l et n ot Satan tu r n you

away ;h e i s you r dec la red en em y . W h en Jesu s b rou gh ts ign s an d won der s h e sa id I bri ng you tru e wi sdom , an d

I w i l l m ake pla i n to y ou a pa rt of th at con cern i n g wh ichyou dispu te fea r God an d obey . God i s m y L o rd an d you rL o rd

,th erefo re serve H im—th is i s th e stra igh t path . B u t

th e sects dispu ted am on g th em se lves . W oe to th o se wh o

do evi l fo r th em i s th e pun ishm en t ofa day ofto rtu re .

”

The most natural interpretation of this passage isthe one suggested by the commentators . Mohammedh ad threatened that the idolaters should be cast intohell an d with them their false gods. The Meccansknew enough of Christianity to say that Jesus alsowas an object of worship . They therefore held upthe dilemma— either al l objects of worship besidesA llah were n ot cast into hell

,or else Jesus

,whom

Mohammed held up as an example,must go with

them . I n either case Mohammed h ad spoken falsely.

This is the meanin g of their question whether Jesuswas better than their gods .The reply is, in effect, that Jesus was only a m an

like the other prophets,an d that he himself called

men to the worship of the one God . A s to hisa l leged divinity, not al l even of the Christians ar e

agr eed about it, and in the difference of opinion it isbest to adhere to that of which we ar e fully conv i n ced

, namely : that there is but one God, and thatJesus was an A postle like A braham an d Moses

,bu t

not worthy of higher honor than they.

Jesu s’s second COni i ng will precede th e judgment.


go further an d acknowledge that Jesus was more than

a prophet. The kn owledge tha t the Christians ai

firmed a Trinity in the Godhead found no responsein his heart except one of denial. We can scarcelywonder at this . The knowledge seem s not to havecome to him until his system was settled in his ownmind . His mind was unschooled in theological defi

n i ti on and could apprehend the doctrine on ly asTritheism

,and therefore as a modification of the

polytheism which he was opposing. Some have i ndeed found a Trinitarian tendency in his adoption ofthe name Rahman for God. But this is unlikely

,for

the vigor with which he rej ected the Christian doctrine is evident. The following passages cannotleave an y doubt in our minds

Th e Jews say E zra i s th e son of God ;an d th e Ch ri st ian s say : Th e M ess i ah , Son of M ary, i s th e son of God .

Th is wo rd of th e i rs i n th e i r m ou th s i s l ike th e wo rd of

th o sewh o we re un bel ie v i n g i n o l d tim e . God h as declaredwar aga i n st th em . W h y sh ou ld th ey l ie ! ”

“ Th ey ar e u n be l i evers wh o say th at th e M ess i ah , th e

son ofM a ry, i s God . Th e M ess i ah sa i d [on th e con tra ry]0, Ch i ld ren of I srae l , ser ve God, m y L o rd an d you r L o rd ;wh oever associ ates an yth in g w i th God [as an object of

wo rsh ip], God h as sh u t Pa rad i se aga in st h im ,an d h i s

abode i s th e F i re , an d th e evi ldoers h ave n o h elper. Th eya r e u nbel i eve rs wh o say God i s on e ofth ree . Th ere i s n oG od bu t On e , and if th ey do n ot cease say in g th is a pa in

fu l pu n i sh m en t sh a l l o ve rtake th e u n be l i e ve rs .

Th e M ess i ah, Son of M a ry

,wa s on ly an A postle wh o was

preceded by oth e r A postles . H i s m oth er a lso was tru th fu l[an d wou ld n ot pe rm it su ch an asse rti on]. Th ey were bothaccustom ed to eat [m o rta l]food .

”

1

a 930.


O, ye wh o possess th e Scr i ptures I B e not extravaganti n your rel igi on , an d do n ot say con cern ing God an yth i ngbu t th e truth . Th e M ess i ah , Jesu s , th e son of M ary, wasth e A postle ofGod an d H i s Wo rd wh i ch H e commun i catedto M ar y

,an d a spi rit from H im . B e li eve th erefore in God

an d H i s A postles an d do n ot say Th r ee 1 Cease do i ng i t,th at wi l l be better for you . On e God a lon e i s God. F ar

be i t from H im th at H e sh ou ld h a ve a. son To H im be

longs wh at i s i n h ea ven an d wh at i s on ear th—an d Godsufli ces u s as an adm i n i strator . Th e M ess i ah , Son ofM ar y,di d n ot d i sda in to be a. se rvan t to God, n or do th e an ge lswh o draw n ear to h i m .

”

These passages, with others, show the sharp recoilin the P rophet

’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 ofFather, Son, and Mary . Thus only can we interprethis constant association of Mary and Jesus

,and his

very spari n g mention of the Holy Spirit. A mongthe Christian sects of the East Mary was early liftedto the throne of heaven . Her cul tus is [still]equally in vogue among orthodox and heretics. 1

‘ I t

was in Ar abia that the Coll yridi ans invested herwiththe name and honors of a goddes sJ: This reflectionthrows li ght upon a passage of the Koran where Godis represented as saying to Jesus at the Last Day :0, Jesus, Son of Mary ! didst thou say to men : takeme and my mother as gods besides Al lah ! He willreply : Far be it ! I t does not belong to me to say$ 4169 .

1Kattenbusch , L elvrbuch der Ver gl ei chende Confess i ons - [funds

I . , p. 464.

tGibbon , Decl i n e and F a l l , Chapter L . Cf. Sale , P relim inaryDi scou r se, I I .


what is not true. Thou knowest whether I have sai dit

.Thou knowest what is in my soul.

”

This pas

sage seems to show conclusively that Mohammed con

ce i ved of the Christian Trinity as made up of A l lah,Mary, an d Jesus .Now such a Trinity woul d seem the more distinctly

heathen to him,because the heathen also related their

gods i n families. The Meccans h ad a con siderablepantheon . The question of the relationship existingbetween its members had probably already occur redto them . I fnot, it was forced upon them byMohammed’s claim that two Gods coul d not coexist without

war . The natural theory, as we see in other pol y th e

i sti c religions, is that the gods make a family . Notonly was this the theory of the Meccans, itwas a point

at which Mohammed at one time made concessions tothem

,though he afterward retracted . This exper i

ence made him more than ever determined to maintain the absolute unity of God. A number of passageswhich deny that God h as children ar e directed prima

rily against the Meccan doctrine . I t is probably sowi th the early profession of faith God is One theself- exi stent God He begets not an d is not begottenan d nothing is to be likened to Him . A nd againHe it is to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven andof earth

,andHe h as not taken an y as son

,nor h as He

an associate in the kingdom . He created al l things,an d determined them by His decree yet they takeas gods besides Him things which do not create, butar e themselves created .

”

T A n d once more Theysay : The Compassionate h as a son . F ar be it from

5116 TSu ra 112, and


There ar e none of the people of the Scriptures whowill not believe on him before their death, and in the

day of resur rection he will be a witness against

them .

” if I t is clear from this language that the doctr ine adopted by Mohammed came from those Gnosticsects which denied that Jesus was really crucified,holding that Judas was substituted for him,

and nailedto the cross

,while Jesus ascended directly to heaven]

The variations of this view held by the different sectsdo not here concern us . What interests us is them otive of Mohammed in adopting it, as he did, at a

comparatively late date . I n earlier chapters he al

ludes to the death of Jesus in the same terms whichhe employs in speaking of the other prophets . iI t is perhaps significant that Mohammed so often

reproaches the people of the Scriptures with theirdifferences and di sputes. He had primarily in mind,we m ay suppose, the disputes between Jews andChristians. But it is not un likely that he also knewof the differences between the Christian sects . I f sowe m ay conclude that he had become aware of thedi fferent views of the death of Jesus

,and that he was

compelled to choose between them . The motive inadopting the one on which he finall y settled was furn i sh ed by the Jews at Medina. The passage beforeus shows that the Jews taunted him with the claimthat they h ad put to death one of the A postles whomhe claimed as a predecessor . § N ow,

in his general

f 1'Cf. H erzog, I ! . , p. 247 . I§ A n in teresting parallel i s fou nd i n th e langu age u sed by th e

Jewish King Dhu N owas to th e Ch ristian inh abitants of N agrenTh e Greeks kn ow th at ou r fath ers , who were priests and P harisees

TH E K OR A N N A RR A TI VE S 97

scheme,Mohammed fou nd no room for the early death

of a prophet. I n the cases al re ady di scussed, theprophet was un i formly delivered, whi l e the unbel i ever swere destroyed. The life of Jesus as it is given inthe Gospels does not conform to this scheme. Thetheory that Jesus qfi

'

er ed himse lf for His people didnot commend itself to hi m i f he ever heard of it, norwould i t real ly answer the argument of the Jews.The reli ef sought was found in the Doketic doctrin e,whi ch was therefore adopted. I n this way the li fe ofJesus was brought into harmony with Mohammed’sgeneral scheme of hi s tory as al ready exemplified inthe account of the earli er prophets.Our study of thi s evening has shown us the method

and the aim of one religious leader. I t shows h imwill i ng to take hi storical mate rial wherever he couldfin d it, to serve the great end he had at heart . I t

shows him moulding the material accordin g to his ownexperiences

,and makin g it serve the edificati on of

hi s own followers. I n al l thi s I conceive that we ar edi scoverin g somethi ng like a l aw of spiritual progr ess.I n th e next lecture we shal l approach the more

di sti nctly theological part of our subject, in lookingat Mohammed

’

s doctri n e of God.

and lawyers i n Jeru salem , cru cified a m an i n Je ru salem and theysmote and mocked and killed him becau se th ey saw and were con

v in ced that h e was not God . W hy wi ll y ou ch erish you r delusionconcerni ng thi s man Th e s iege of N agr an was i n th e centu rybefore M ohamm ed

’

s call, and whi le th e (E thi Opi c) accou nt fromwh ich th is langu age i s qu oted i s comparati vely late , we have no

reason to su spect M oslem in flu en ce . Cf. F ell, Di e Chmsten vcrfol gungen i n Sudam bi en , XXXV . , p. 56.

LECTURE I V .

TH E DOCTR I N E OF GOD

MOHAM M ED,like other reformers, raised h i s voice

in conscious opposition to the existing system . I n

one of his first revelations he is h i dden to say 0,

you that disbeli eve I will not serve what you serve,

nor do you serve what I serve . You haveyour religion an d I have mine . The point at

which he was consciously an d most distinctly in op

position to his contemporaries was the unity of God.

Ther e i s no God but A l l ah , was , and continues to be,the watchword of I slam . The i n fide l s ar e most oftendescribed as those who associate other beings withAl lah as objects of worship . I n the sura just quotedMohammed seem s, indeed, to say that the Meccansdid not worship the same God which he worshipped.

But it is plain from other passages that he did notdeny that A ll ah was one of the deities in their pantheon. He meant that their worship was so vitiatedby its polytheistic character that it was no true worship . A l lah, like Yahweh, tolerates no partners.“ Thou shalt have no other gods in My presence ”

was with him ,as with the Hebrews

,the first com

mandment, and he appreciated it to the full. Thedeclaration of God

’

s unity : God is One ;the Self

Sura 109 .


of his death, said I n the Resur rection he will forma communion by himself .* Severa l such hamjfs as

they ar e called—the same word is applied to A brahama s we saw—ar e mentioned i n the time of Mohammed.

Some of them join ed him, some rejected him . Theyar e an indication that the more earnest spirits werealready breaking away from heatheni sm .

The difference between them and Mohammed isthat they were content to work out their own salvation an d let other people alone—to go to heaven theirway , and let the others go to the other place theirway , as a modern writer describes toleration—whereas Mohammed felt the impul se to preach against idolatry . This it was whi ch roused the Meccans . Theirreligion was a part of the standing order, and tochange it meant revolution . Mecca owed its importance an d its wealth to the fact that it was an empor i um . I ts trade was secured by its being an asylumin which tribes otherwise hostile could meet in safety.

The visible pledge of asylum was the presence of thegods of a l l the tribes at the Meccan sanctuary. Todemand that these gods should be destroyed an d

A llah alone worshipped,was to demand the overthrow

oftheir social and political institutions, and, as theyregarded it, such a movement would be followed byfinancial ruin . Their first theory was that the demandcould come only from a m an 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

Sprenger, L eben M uh ammecl’s , I p. 83 .

TH E DOCTRI N E OF GOD 101

creed of I s l am is in deed ther e is no Go d but A l l ah .

But b ehind this cr eed,which is negativ e in form , th ere

lies a po sitiv e con ception of th e char acter of A llah

a con cepti on which was cl ear l v set forth by Moham

m ed.whi ch attr acte d h i s fo l l owe i s . an d whi ch i s s till

the real bel iefof al l r eflectingr M os lem Even in th e

earlie s t sur as . A l lah i s a defin i te an d acti ve pe rs on

al i tv . Mohammed woul d hear ti l v have accepte d th e

statem ent of th e W e s tm in s ter Shorter Cate chismTh ere i s bu t on e on l v . the (F i n-

t] and tr ue G m .

N o te th e follow i n g Kor an pas sages

H e i s God . bes i des wh om th ere i s n o God . H e i s th e

K n ow r ofth e sewe r an d ofth e m an ifes t . H e i s th e M er c ifu l . th e Com pass ion ate . H e i s th e K in g. th e A l l - H o l v . th e

Com plete . th e P ro tee to r . th e Gu an l ia n. th e A lm i gh ty . th e

R u ler . th e G l or i ou s. F ar fr om H im be t h a t wh i ch th ev

am i ate wi th H im . H e i s God . th e C re a to r . th e M ak er ,

t h e B i sh i on eh al l exce l len t n am es are H i s . W h a teve r i s i nh ea ven an d on ear th pr ai ses H i m . H e i s th e A lm i gh ty. th e

A l l - w i se .

“

Say to th em To wh om bel on x th e ear th an d al l th at

i s i n i r—do vo u kn ow Th ey wi l l xi v I t bel on N‘

to A l lah .

A n swer th em W i l l v on n ot th en pr el im H im ! Wh o i s th e

L or d of th e se ven h es ven rx an d th e spac io u s can opy Th ev

w i l l m y : A l lah . A n sw er th em : W i l l v ou n o t th en fea rH im

“

3 I n wh o se h an d i s th e r u le of th e u n i ve rse . wh o pr o

te c ts bu t agai n‘

whom n o on e pm te cts—d o vou kn ow !

Th ey wi l l say I t i s A l lah . A n swer th em Th en wh y w i llvou be bew i tch ed [ by i do latr y] V er i l v . we have sen t th em

th e tr uth , bu t th er ar e l i ars"

f

Biblical para l l els to s evera l of th ese pre di ca te sreadi l y etu ae s t themselves . But in ord er to ge t a

102 TH E BIBLE A N D I SL A .V

clearer V iew of the doctrine of the Koran, we shall beobliged to adopt some sort of arrangement underwhich we can group together the great variety of

di cta pr oban ti a . Let u s note, then

1 . The God of Mohammed is A l l ah, the God al

ready known by name to the A rabs. I n the passagejust quoted

,Mohammed conducts a di alogue with his

adversar ies in which they show themselves no strangers to A l lah . I t woul d be precarious to build onsuch a passage a theory that A llah was already recogn ized as the supreme God of the pantheon . But itat least shows that the heathen kn ew Him by name

,

and that they could not seriously object to the doctrine of the Prophet as new and unheard of. Probably they h ad never reflected on the subjects on whichhe questioned them . I n early religions the question

of creation,for example

,is not raised;the world is

taken as it is, and no theory of its or igin is formulated. When the question is raised

,the Meccans ar e

more likely to answer A l lah than anythin g else,

becaus e A llah is the most general name for God.

The word means simply the di v i n i ty , and could be applied to an y God. Hobal was A llah at Mecca

,and

another God was A l lah at Taif. Two A rabs mightswear by A llah , and each have his own divi nity inmind, just as A braham and A bimelech might bothswear by Elohim , though the Elohim of A brahamwas Yahweh and the Elohim of A bimelech was an

other.I t is not necessary to assume

,therefore

,as some

have done, that there was already a fu lly developeddoctrine of A l l ah Taa l a—God Most H igl i h among

104 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A rl I

they give associa tes to God, the Jinn , whom He created ;and out of ignorance they falsely attribute toHim sons and daughters . F ar be this from Him !

He is exalted above what they ascribe to Him .

"

I n

another passage, the false gods are questioned by

Al lah at the Judgment, an d avow that they havemisled their worshippers;an d again we are told that

th e idolaters worship only Satan the r ebe l l i ou s i' I t

is n ot mere dramatic imagery intended to emphasize

the evil of pol ytheism that is presented in these passages. Mohammed a dmitted that the false gods have

a real existence . What he denied was not theirreal ity but their divinity— their power to help orharm .

We fin d in this a distinct parallel to both Old Testament andNew. I twill suffice to quote Leviticus 177

They shall no longer sacrifice their sacr ifices to thesatyrs (se

‘

i r im, the desert demons) after which they

have [heretofore]gone astray.

”I n Deuteronomy

also we read that they sacrificed to demons (shedim)instead of God i For the New Testament, we havePaul’s assertions that the things which the Gentilessacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God.

The belief in spirits which infest the desert is veryold among the Semites— indeed beliefs of th is kindar e found among a l l nations. I t was therefore n atural that Mohammed should identify these beings

4

1‘ 28‘m and 4m .

I W i th L ev . 17“cf. 2 Ch ron . W ith Deu t . 32” cf. P s . 10637 .

Gu nke l combin es with th ese P s . 405 wh ere th e idols ar e calledr ehabim “

evil beings , en em ies to man .

"

§ I . Cor . 102°

TH E DOCTR I N E OF GOD 105

with the divinities worshipped by the h eathen A rabs .I t is not unlikely, however, that he was al so influencedremotely by the Bibl ical statements just quoted.

2. The God of Mohammed is also the God of Jewsand Chri stians. This also is indicated by the name

(A ll ah, Al - ilah), which is found in Hebrew (Eloah,Elohi m)and in the Christian Syriac. The identity isnot only clear from the name itself

,but from direct

assertions of the Koran : Debate wi th those whohave the Scriptures only in the most h onorable manner and say : We believe in what is r evealedto us and i n what is revealed to you;yourGod and our God are one God, and we are resignedto Him.

” The doctrine of Mohammed i s like thedoctrin e of Christianity in its universalism . A llah is

not the God of a particular race only;He is God ofthe whole earth . This was also the doctri ne of theOld Testament in its latest stages. The religiousimpulse seems to find in the oneness of God theuni fying pr inciple of human history. H ence comesthe necessity of findin g our God in the God of thefathers. The parallel between A braham,

Moses,and

Jesus, which Mohammed extended to hi mself wasanother expression of the continuity of the one Goda God who has never left Himself without witn ess.By some one of His prophets He has repeatedly.

called men to repentance and obedience . That inthis respect Mohammed occupies ground which ismore dis tinctly Christian than Jewish

,needs no dem

on strati on .

3. This God enters i nto personal relation with


those who believe on Him . He Himself is a person—there is no pan theism i n the Koran . The Gnosticsects which swarmed in the farther East h ad notpenetrated A r abia with their em an i sti c speculations.

A t least we find no trace of their influence in th e

theology of Mohammed. God and the universe appear to him as sharply distinguished as m an and th e

world. Not even in polemic does he betray any sus

pi ci on of pantheism . The whole impression madeby what he says, an d by what he does not say , is tothe effect that he could not even conceive of a Godwithout personality.

To a certain extent,his view was anthropomorphic.

I fwe mean by anthropomorphism every ascriptionof thought or feeling to God

,then al l religion s except

Buddhism ar e infected with anthropomorphism . I s

l am , or at least the Koran, is n ot extreme in attributing a human form to God. To speak of His hands (asis done a few times)is almost unavoidable in descr ibing His activity. Beyon d this He does not receivebodily members . That the traditions are morepronounced than the Koran, is only what we shouldexpect

,but how far we can rely upon these is diffi

cult to decide . W e sh all have no hesitancy in ao

cepti ng tradition where it makes Mohammed say thatin Paradise the believer shall see God

,for this is a

hope common to other believers . On the whole theanthropomorphism of the K oran is not more pron oun ced than that of the Bible .

N ow, as to the commun ion which exists betweenGod an d his worshippers— we mu st recogni ze thisalso as a principle of al l religion . Even in heathen

108 TH E B I B L E A N D ISLAM

the choice of the term he was doubtless under Scriptural influence, for God is L or d of a l l both in the Old

Testament and in the New .

* The vi vidn ess of Mo

h amm ed’

s faith, which impels him to say my L or d

does not cause him to forget the claims of others.God is the Lord of A braham, of Moses, even of theu nbe l i ever s t I n the prayer whi ch in I slam takes theplace of the Lord’s Prayer— the F a ti ha—H e is theL or d of the wor l dsat But He is also the one to whomthe believer cries for help .

4 . A llah is the Creator. This is a conceptionwhich can be adequately held only in a monotheisticreligion . Polytheism

,so far as it h as a doctrine of

creation,thinks of the u niverse as modified by the

strife of many gods. But where God is one,crea

tion an d lordship go together. Mohammed followedBiblical precedent in emphasizing their union . Oneof his most frequent argum ents is that A llah is Creator an d therefore Lord

,or even that He is Creator

an d therefore the on ly true God. There is no sus

pi ci on of the etern ity of matter in the Koran . I n a

tradition we fin d this question put to Mohammed :

O,A postle of Al lah

,where was our Cherisher

before creating His creation 9 He replied : “Godwas , an d nothing was with Him,

and God created

Th e word R abb, M oh amm ed’

s word for L or d, i s n ot u sed ofGodi n H ebrew. I n A ramaic i t i s said to be so u sed by th e M andaaan s

(M ich ae lis, L exi con Sy r . sub voce). Th is i s an oth er indication thatM oh amm ed

’

s ideas were derived from som e h ereti cal ” sou rce .

cf.

1 11, cf. Th e word for wor l ds (or ages i t m ay be)i s bor

rowed from th e A ram aic, wh eth er Ch ristian or Jewish i s impossibleto te ll . Cf. I . T im .


His imperial throne upon water. The reference ofthe 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 onthe tradi tion. Probably the influence extended toMohammed himself, for his account of the creation islargely borrowed from the Bible . For example, weare told that God creates what He will when Hedecides upon a thin g He says : Be ! and it is . 1

“

The Bibl ical parallel is familiar. A nother feature ofthe Bibli cal account found in the Koran, is the ao

compl i shm en t of the work in six days : “ A n d it isHe who created the heavens and the earth in the

Space of six days, while His throne was on thewater s .

”

I An evi dence of Mohammed’s freedom intreatin g Biblical materials is found, however, in hisassertion that God was not affected by fatigue —eu

evident rejection of the Old Testament word thatGod r ested the seventh day . Moreover he does notseem to be clear as to the order of the six days

’

work : He says in one passage Will you dish elieve in God who made the earth in two daysand made the mountains which tower above it

, and

Wh o arranged provis ion u pon it in four days,suf

fici en t for those who ask. Then He ascended to theheavens when they were yet smoke

,and said to them

and to the earth : Come,willingly or unwillingl y ! They

replied We come willingly. A nd He divided themi nto seven heavens in two days

, and communicatedto each heaven its order

, and We decked the lower

M i shcat, I I . , 650. 1 349

1 cf. 5021 , 574. 50


heaven with lamps and guardians—this was the decree of the A lmighty, the W ise .

”

By counting the

two days first mentioned as part of the four, we can

make ou t the requisite total of six . But even then itis impossible to fin d traces of the Biblical arrangement

,in which the creation of the heavenly bodies

takes place on the fourth day . But from the religiouspoint of view Mohammed had thoroughly adopted thedoctrine of the Bible

,as the following somewhat ex

tended quotation wi l l make plain

I t i s God wh o ra i sed th e h eaven s w ith ou t v i s i ble pi llars ;th en H e ascen ded to th e th ron e , an d m ade th e su na n d m oon obed i en t [to H i s w i l l], so th at each ru n s to i tsappo in ted goa l . H e regu lates affa i rs an d m akes pla in H i ss ign s , th at yo u m ay be su re ofth e m eeti ng w ith you r L ord .

A n d i t i s H e wh o spread o u t th e earth an d made i n i t

m o u n ta in s an d r i vers ;an d of e very fru i t H e m ade two

k i n ds . H e m akes th e n igh t su cceed th e day—i h th i s ar e

s ign s fo r people wh o reflect. A n d i n th e ea rth ar e tracts[d i ffe ren t th ough]bo rder i n g on each oth e r vin eyards an d

fie ld s a n d pa lm s , in groups o r iso lated . Th ey ar e su ppl iedw i th th e sam e wate r, yet We m ak e th e qu a l ity of on e bette r th an th at ofan oth er—v er i ly i n th i s a r e s ign s for peoplewh o u n de rstan d . I t i s H e wh o sh ows you th e

l igh tn in g, an object ofterro r an d ofdes i re , an d wh o bri ngsu p th e c lo u d s h eavy w ith ra in . Th e th u n de r celebratesH i s pra i se, th e an ge ls a l so , m oved by fear of H im . H e

sen ds th e th u n derbo lts a n d sm i tes wh om H e wi l l . Y et a l l

th e wh i le m en are d i spu tin g con cern ing God , th ough H e i s

th e m igh ty i n power . To H im s in cere prayer sh ou ld bem ade, an d th ose wh om m en in vok e bes i des H im sh a l l n otan swer th em i n an y respect, a n y m o re th an on e stretch i n gou t h i s h an ds to th e water wh ich h e can n o t reach to bri ngi t to h i s m outh . Th e prayer ofth e u n be l i ever s i s on ly loss .

112 TH E B I BL E A N D I SL AM

only does the thunder chant His praise, and theangels bow before Him

,al l things on earth j oin with

them A l l that ar e in heaven and on earth praiseGod

,His is th e kingdom and He is the Rul er over

a l l .”

I t is also in accord with Biblical ideas that the creation shoul d be us ed as evidence of the character ofGod. I t is, first of all, an evidence of His power.When men scoffed at the idea of a resu rrection asbeing a thing impossible, Mohammed pointed outthat to bring men from dust the second time wouldnot be difficult for Him who created them out of clayat the first. The creation is an evidence that Godcan do (and therefore will do)what He promises orthreatens . The argument is the same used by Deutero- I saiah. When the people ar e fain t-hearted concerning the promises of God, this prophet remindsthem that the promises come from the One “whomade al l things, who stretched out the heavens alone,and spread abroad the earth by Him self. ” Mohammed was more concerned with the doubts of unbel i ever s than with the discour agements of beli evers ,but in bringing his message to his people, he remindsthem that the power shown in creation may be turnedupon them in chastisement .The creation is, fur ther, an evidence of God’s

knowledge . He that made al l things must certain lyknow al l things . There is perhaps no attribute whi chis more frequently m entioned than this. H e i s the

K nowi ng, the Wi se, or, God i s a di scer ner of what theydo

, have become to Mohammed stereotype phrases

TH E DOCTR I N E OF GOD 1 13

with which he rounds off his periods . That he wasnot unmindful of their significance is seen from themore extended propositions such as the following :

Do they not know that God knows what they conceal an d what they discourse about i n private, andthat God is the knower of secrets .

”

A gain Threedo not sit in secret converse except that He makesthe fourth

,or five without His being the sixth ;and

whether there be few or more, He is with them Whereever they ar e . I n the day of resurrection He will tellthem what they have done— verily God is om n i s

cient. T The Biblical parallels ar e too numerous toquote . The particular kind of knowledge which thePsalmist fin ds wonderful when he says Thine eyessaw my formless substan ce and in Thy book al l was

written in the days when it was taking shape ”

1 isalso emphasized by Mohammed. An d where theN ew Testament gives the fall of a sparrow as withinthe omniscient eye, Mohammed adduces the fall of aleaf.§5. God not only creates, He also governs. The

kingdom of heaven and earth is His : “Verily yourLord is the God who created the heavens an d theea1 th in six days;then He took His seat upon theth1one, making the night darken the day , which [inits turn]follows swiftly and the sun and moon and

the constellations ar e obedient to His command.Do

not creation an d rule belong to Him ! Blessed beGod, Lord of the worlds.

”

II The m ind of the speakersees in God the great efli ci en t cause of all . He 1s

1 cf. 3

1 1’s . 139m, cf. Koran cf. M att . 1019

8


the active mover of the con stellations and the sea

sons. I n another passage He is said to sit upon the

throne co nducti ng the afia i r s of the universe. He noton ly gives rain, driving the clouds as He will ;Herules in the affairs of men : O God, Ruler of theKingdom

,Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou

wilt, an d Thou takest away the kingdom from whom

Thou wilt. Thou str ength en est whom Thou wil t, andThou humblest whom Thou wilt

,an d in Thy hand is

good Thou ar t omnipotent. ” We ar e reminded ofthe Song of Hannah;

“ Yahweh makes poor andmakesrich He makes l ow and also raises on high .

” Howfar God employs second causes we need not now

s top to inquire .

6. A s the rul er of the universe, God is also theGod of history. The principle of His governm ent isvery simple : He rewards those who obey and Hepunishes the disobedient . This implies some revelation of His will . A s we saw in Mohammed

’s treatment of his narr ative mater ial, al l history falls intoepochs

,each of which rounds out the same cycle . God

first makes His will known by a prophet . Men eitherreceive the message and obey

,or they reject it

and ar e destroyed. I t m ay not always be necessarythat a prophet interpret the will of God. Creationis itself a revelation I n the heavens and the earthar e signs for those wh o beli eve ; in your creationalso and in the animals which ar e dispersed [over theearth]ar e signs for those who are firm in their faith ,

and in the succession of night an d day ,and in the

portion which God sends down from the heavens,cf. I . Sam .

1 16 TH E A N D I S L A M

will be made pla in . The thought of the l l ay of Judgment i s the r efore ind i spe n s abl e to our ide a of God

'

sjustice . That day compl e tes the purpose of creation .

Did you reckon that We c reated you in spo r t, and

that you would not appear before Us“f This is

on e of God’s questions at the Judgment. I t implies

that the purpose of creation is attained only in the

fina l apportionment of reward and punishment. W ithout this

,the creation o i man woul d have been a vain

act.

God does not always act according to our desi resor hopes . Th is is a matter of un iversal expe r ience.

The expl an ation of i t in the Koran, as in the Bible, isthat God proves men Verily, We proved them as

we proved the owners o f the garden,who swore that

they would gather its fruits the next morning. Theyswore without reservation

,but while they slept there

came a visitation from the Lord, and in the morningit [the garden]was like a field of stubble . ” i Such

an experi ence is sent to try the state of man’s h e ar t ;he must learn from it that he is not independent ofGod. The conclusion i s pl a in , and i s expressed i nlanguage which agrees almost verbally with an exh o r

tation of the N ew Tes tament Do not say concerning anything I will do it to-mo r row

,without adding

if (fed wi l l , and remember thy Lo rd when th ou has tforgotten H im , and say : Pe rhaps my Lord will

guide me to the accomplishment of thisThe alternations of fortune in the e xpe r i ence of theMoslem community ar e expla ined as a pa r t of th e irprobation “We make the days [of good and evil

1 68” cf. J am e s

TH E DOCTR I N E OF 001) 1 17

fortune]to alternate among men, that God may knowthose who believe

,and m ay take from you martyr s

for Himself . ” Were constant good th e lot of m an

he would become insupportable I f God gave provision i n abundance to His servants they would actinsolently in the earth . He therefore apportions ac

cording to His will—H e knows an d sees His servants . ” j

‘ God’s purpose is plain : “We will proveyou by ill fortune an d by good

,as a test

,and unto Us

shall you be brought . ” 1 The thought is distinctlyBiblical. A braham is tested by the command to offerhis son. So the Koran says in giving an account ofthe same incident . § That Mohammed so understoodthe experience of Job, to which he also alludes

,is

made probable by the concluding sentence of thatpassage : “We found him possessed of patience .

”

II

How thoroughly Mohammed adopted the doctrine isseen in his statement that even the game which came

in sight of the pilgrims to Mecca was sent to provethem

,to discover whether they would obey the l aw

That God may know him who fears Him in hisheart. fll A pparent cases in which God’s actionscannot be explained on our ideas of justice ar e therefore only apparent . He acts in a mysterious waysometimes

,but in the end all will be plain

,and we

shall see the wicked punished an d the good rewarded .

The reward of those who do well is affirmed onalmost every page of the Koran . The great burdenof Mohammed’s preaching is the Day of Judgment.This day will result in endless pleasure for the good,

1 4296

. 1 2136 .

H 11595.

1 1 8 TH E BIBLE A N D ISLAM

as it will bring endless pain to the evil :“Shall I

tell you what is better [than the pleasures of thisworld]! Those who fear God shall possess in thepresence of their Lord Gardens in which are perennial streams, an d pur e wives, an d the good favor ofGod God h as regard to His serv ants .

”

Those whofear God shall dwell in the midst of gardens and

fountains, partaking of what their Lord gives themthey ar e the ones who did well in their earlier [thatis

,their earthly] God

,therefore, does not

desire to bring men into evil . After speaki ng of thefuture life

,the speaker adds ° These are the won

ders of God which we recite to thee ;God does notdesire injustice to the un iverse . 1

“ The passage r e

minds u s of Ezekiel’s declaration, that God does notdesire the death of the wicked, and the resemblance isthe more marked in that both cases imply that theprophet is sent becau se God does not desire to doinjustice . His desire is rather that m an m ay haveopportunity to repent. Nevertheless

,He mu st take

cognizance of men’s actions. This is one evidence ofHis superiority over the idols : He who is mindfulof every soul with regard to what it h as earned—willthey take others besides such a God ! ”

1 Here iswhere His omniscience most nearly concerns us .Because He is a l l—seeing

,He can vindicate justice

H ow will it be when W e assemble you to a Dayconcerning which there is no doubt

,and every soul

shall be paid what it h as earned,and none shall be

treated unjustlyA s for God

’

s justice in punish ing,we m ay fin d it

3“ and 51 15 f 1 1333. § 3f4

.


will be hell fir e God is angry with him and curseshim an d prepares for him a grievous pun ishmen t .

”

Similar language is used of the I sraelites who werechanged into apes an d swin e, an d also of the hypocrites at M edi n afi H ow closely it follows Biblicalprecedent

, I need scarcely say . I n 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 . i I n the New Testamentalso

,the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against

al l un godliness an d unrighteousness of men .

7 . Strict justice would result in the extermination

of the race I fGod should take men in their sin,He would n ot leave upon the earth a living creature.

But He grants them delay till a fixed term . Whentheir term shall come it will not be delayed or ad

van ced an hour. God is therefore l ong- sufer i ng;He does not hasten His punishment. Thi s is the explanation of a fact which probably perplexed Mohammed as it had perplexed the Biblical wr iters. We

see that in this world wicked men often enjoy goodfortune for a long time . The perplexity does notarise merely from the i n equ al i ty i n the lot of the goodan d the bad. The prolongation of the life of a wickedm an gives him a prolonged Opportunity to do theevil things that God hates . Wh y does not Godspeedily cut such men off! Two answers ar e possible . God m ay be giving them the Opportunity torepent ;or, on the other hand, He m ay be allowingthem to fil l up the measure of their iniquity

,so as to

495, cf. 1 555 and 48 6.

I E x . P S . and R om . 16”

TI I E DOCTR I N E OF GOD 1 21

earn the more complete and exemplary punishment.Both these solutions of the problem ar e presented inthe Bible

,and Mohamm ed also seems to have enter

tain ed both,though he does not sharply distinguish

between them . The passage quoted above seems tosay onl y that a stri ct admin istration of justice cannotbe carried out

,because no one could stand before it.

I t agrees with the Psalmist who says I fYahwehshould closely watch iniquities

, O Lord, who couldstand ! ” On thi s side

,God’s mercy is simply a

concession to human weakness. But that He alsospares men in order that they m ay repent, While notdirectly stated

,is implied in many passages which

speak of Him as merciful and gracious, as invitingm en to repentance and Himself loving to turn tothose who turn to Him . But we fin d also the theorythat the wicked ar e spared in order that they m ay

(like the Amorites)fil l up the measure of their i n iqu i ty Let not those who disbelieve reckon that thelong life whichWe grant them is a good to them . We

grant it only that they m ay increase their gui l t, andthey shall receive a shameful punishment. J

r

A lthough this threat is uttered against those whopersist in their iniqui ty

,there is a distinct doctrine

of forgiveness taught in the Koran . Sins committedbefore the coming of the revelation ar e passed overwith indul gence, because allowance is made for thestate of ignorance. There is here a very close parallelto Paul

’

s declaration that God overlooked the timesof ignorance, but new calls on al l men everywhere tor epen txl . A str iking parallel with a Biblical passage

P 8 . 1303. 1 3m ,cf. Gen . I A cts cf. K or .


is found again where the justice an d the mercy ofGod ar e placed side by side : “ The reve l ation of theBook from God

,the Mighty, the W ise the one who

forgives sin,accepting repentance, strict in His pun

i s hm en ts , the Bountiful , besides whom there is n o

God.

” The Bibli cal parallel which I have in mindis of course the Name proclaimed before Moses inHoreb Yahweh, a merciful and gracious God, slowto anger an d plenteous in kindness and truth, keepingkindness for thousands

,forgiving iniquity and trans

gr e ss i on and sin ;bu t wh o will not pronoun ce innocent—visiting the iniqui ties of fathers upon childrenand grandchildren

,upon the third generation and upon

the fourth . 1' I n the case of Mohammed, at any rate,

there seems to be no consciousness that justice couldconflict with mercy . I n other words

,there is no

theory of an atonement. The words expiation and

redemption m ay be said to exist in A rabic but theyhave sun k to almost trivial importance . I n certaincases of transgression

,a sort of equivalent must be

paid . I fa m an breaks his oath,he must

,as an ex

piatt’

on, i feed or clothe ten poor men , or free a slave.

I f either of these be beyond his power he must fasta certain number of days. R edempti on is used of asimil ar fin e or satisfaction . I n no case is there anintimation that this is more than a punishment i nfli cted for the sin . I t is nowhere brought into relation with the wr ath of God. A tonement or pr opitia

1 E x . 34

I Th e word u sed i s K afia fr a , corresponding to th e H ebrew K appor eth . F i dya , redemption , i s a lso from a root u sed i n H ebrew.

B u t A rabic u sage seem s independen t ofO l d Te stam ent influ en ce i nth is case .


ju stice,goodness

,and truth . Moreover he holds to

God as a presen t personality, n earer to m an than thevein of his n eck .

” But he wa s not led to the thoughtthat God could or would come to m an by an incarna

tion . A s we saw in the last lecture, this doctr i n e’

was

probably not fairly presented to h im . He learned ofit as the de ificati on of a m an , rather than as the i ncarnation ofGod. I n this form he could not help r e

jecting the doctrine . Nor on the side of the medi a

tor i al work of Christ did he have an y leaning towardthe Christian view . The necessity of bridging overthe chasm between God and the world— a necessitythat appeals very strongl y to some minds— seems notto h ave existed for him . We shou ld remember thatthe doctrine of mediation was associated with what hemust cl ass as idolatry. I n the Eastern Church

,the

mediation of saints an d angels is held very stronglyeven to the present day , and leads to the excessivedevotion paid to them and to their pi ctu r es j I n

heathenism the subordin ate divinities ar e intercessorswith the higher gods . The whole idea of mediationtherefore presented itself to Mohammed under an u nfavorable aspect. This was especially true after heh ad made his experiment at compromise with theMeccans . There was a time when he tried to makeuse of this doctrine of mediation

,to produce some

thing on which he an d his countrymen could un ite.

His plan was to recogn ize the three Goddesses,upon

whose worship the Meccans laid the m ost stress, asdaughters of A llah an d mediators with Him .

Everyworldly motive urged him to such a compromise

,and

1’ Cf. K attcnbu sch , Gonfessz’

onskun de, I , , p. 461 .

TH E DOCTR I N E OF'GOD 125

he probably flattered himself that he would therebysecure the essentials of his system . The A rabs havebeen wil ling to forget what actually took place . I t

seems probable that a formal agreement was m ade,by which the Meccans recognized the supremacy of

A ll ah, whi le Mohamm ed an d his fol lowers were to

allow the worship of the three Goddesses as inter

cessor s with Al lah. A l l that h as com e down to us, is

a tradi tion to the effect that Mohammed, in recitingthe fifty - third sur a of the Koran, included in it thesewords : “Do you not see L at an d Uzza and Manat,the third besides ! These ar e the exalted m aidens *

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 ofthe recitation al l prostrated themselves, following theexample of the Prophet. The tradition goes on to

say , that i n the evening he was vi sited by Gabrielwho heard him repeat the sura and disavowed thecompromisin g words . Mohammed was convincedthat he h ad been m isled by Satan and he at once

adopted the true reading and published it the next

day in the words Do you not see L at and Uzza

andManat the third besides ! Shall you have sonsand He have daugh ter s r That were , indeed, a

wrong di vision. These ar e but names which you

and your fathers have named;God has not delegated

Th e word i s obscu re and th e A rabs th em selves ar e divided as to

i ts m ean ing. I ch oose am ong th e m ean ings (or con jectu res)th e wordmost appropriate to th e context . Th e auth oriti es ar e given bySprenger, L eben M uhammad

’

s , I I . , p. 45 ii ;M u ir, L ife of Mahomet, I I . , p. 150fi

"

.

TDaughter s ar e in ferior to son s i n the view ofth e A rabs , cf.

126 TH E B I B L E A N D I S L A J!

to them any power . [The unbelievers]follow onl yconjecture and what their souls desire, though thereh as come to them gui dance fr om their Lord.

”

Sofar tradition ;whatever the actual course of events,i t seem s probable that Mohammed made a ser ious

attempt to introduce authori zed mediators of a divinecharacter into his religion . But the scheme wouldnot work. His idea of the unity of God was tooabsolute to admi t even subordinate divinities. A fterthis experience

,he was careful to defend the strict

oneness and transcendentali ty of God.

The incarnation and the medi atorial work of Christ,

therefore,fall (for him)under the same condemnation

with the heathen ideas which he rejected : “Menserve, besides God, that which cannot harm nor profitthem ,

an d they say : These ar e our intercessors withGod . Say to them : Will you inform God concerning what He does not know either in the heavens orin the earth ! Praise be to H im He is exaltedabove what they associate with Him. Men say :

The Compassionate h as taken a son . F ar be it fromHim ! Rather

,these ar e honored servants;they do

not speak to Him before He speaks to them,and they

do according to His commands. He knows what i s

before them and wh at is behind them,and none i n

ter cede except for the one for whom permission i sgiven, and they constantly tremble in fear of H im . 1

”

I ntercession is here denied on two grounds : the i nte r cessor s cannot tell God anything He does not already know;and no created being dares to speak toHim without H i s permission

,which permission will

f1019, 21

128 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A JI I

I n one group of suras, he uses predominantly thename Rahman as a name of God . A s the word c c

curs i n Hebrew an d A ramaic, it is probable that heborrowed it . I t is a perfectly good A rabic form however

,an d occurs in inscriptions from southern A rabia

which ar e apparently older than the time of Mohammed

.

* I t means the Compass i onate and is used as an

exact equivalent for the name A llah. Thus : Rahmanpunishes the wicked;He sits on the throne ;Hissigns [or revelations]ar e recited to men ;to HimSatan is disobedient ;an d at the Last Day men shal lbe congregated to H imfr There is here no trace of

a second person of the Godhead, a Divine Mediator,or an Emanation from the Supreme . A l l we can

base on the phenomena, is the theory that Mohammed wished to introduce another name for God, perhaps because A l l ah was the name associated with theold heathenism . Possibly the mistake he made inthe concession to the Meccans, caused in his mind arevolt even against their vocabulary . Rahmanan was

the name of God the Father among the Christians ofSouthern A rabia . I ts mean ing was appropriate tohis purpose. The choice was therefore a good one,and the motive of the choice was honorable . But theobstacles were too many. The small but earnestband of Moslems were already attached to the oldname. They h ad taken up the cause of A llah and

Th e adjective form fr ahmam'

occu rs on ce i n th e Ol d Testament,L am . F or th e Talm ud cf. L evy, N . H . W . B . sub r ace, and

Ge iger i n Z. D . M . G . , ! ! L , p. 488 if. T h e latter also discu ssesth e Syriac u se . F or th e in scription s , Glaser, Ski zze der Gescht

'

chte

A r abi an s pp. 4, 13 .

1 201, 1959. 45; 88


His A postle .Rahman they knew not. I n their per

pl exi ty an d in the renewed an d bitter persecutionwhich came upon them,

Mohammed had enough to

do to hold on to what he had already attained . The

attempt to i ntroduce the new name was therefore

abandoned with the words : Call upon A llah , or callupon Rahman;by whatever name you call upon

H im [He hears] all beautiful names ar e His .

”I n

al l this there was no inconsistency, and no near ap

proach to Christian doctri ne .

One thing more must be said. The name whichour Lord adopted and by which He taught us to callupon God was ou r F ather . Mohammed nowhererose to this assur ance of faith. God was his Lord,his Protector

,his Cherisher

,but so far as I can dis

cover,he never calls Him Father. I t is likely that,

in this respect also,the Prophet was restrained by

the heathen conceptions which expressed themselvesin similar language . We have some evidence thatthe primitive reli gions of the Semites, like those ofother races, looked upon the God of a particular tribeas the father of the tr ibe .

’r The physical an d m a

ter i al sense in which this was understood,would pre

vent Mohammed’s adoption of a similar conception .

A nd it is doubtful whether the Christianity of hisday was capable of giving him a clear presentation ofthe Biblical idea. To the early Church

,God was th e

supreme Lord who, so far fr om condescending toman

, must be invoked through the saints, the m ar

tyrs, and the angels. The confession of faith was“ the recognition of God as the One

,the Supr amu n

‘MV . R . Sm ith ,R el igi on of the Sem i tes , p. 31 if.


dane,the Spiritual, the A l mighty . God is the Creator

an d Ruler of th e world and therefore the Lord .

”

This was probably as much as Mohammed ever heardfrom Chr istian sour ces. To this height he rose;we

can har dl y blame him for not rising hi gher.Reviewing what h as been said in this lecture, we

are entitled to say that Mohammed made a great advance over the doctrine of God (if we m ay call it so)held by his contemporaries. A l l the indication s pointto the low esteem in which the heathen A rabs holdtheir gods. When the oracle at Tabala forbade thepoet I m r au l cai s to make war on the slayers of his father

,he broke the lot an d dashed the pieces in the face

of the god,exclaiming

,with a gross an d insu lting ex

pl eti ve :‘I f it h ad been thy father that was ki lled

,

thou wou ldst not have refused me vengeance .

’

t Theincident is characteristic of heathenism . The gods

,

being gods of particular tribes, ar e 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,morepowerful

,infinite in His perfections (or at least be

yond any human standard), an d, therefore, more worthy ofreverence and adoration . When Mohammedfirst came to Medina

,his new followers used to say in

their prayers, Peace be to A l lah,” using the saluta

tion with which they were accustomed to greet theirfriends. Mohamm ed commanded Do not say

P eace to A l l ah ! for A llah Himself is peace. Say,

I I arn ack , Ga'

undr i ss d. Dogm engesch i ch teg, p . 35.

1'W . R . Sm ith , op . ci t , p. 47 .

LECTUR E V.

TH E DI V I N E GOV E RN M E N T

I N the last lecture we saw that in the system ofMohammed, God is the Ruler of the universe . Hei s the King, the Lord of the ages . Like th e B ibl ical writers, Mohammed conceived this very literally.

To him God is the active mover of the constellations an d the seasons . Our notion of second causesor of a fixed law of natur e h ad not entered his mind.

God works by means of His creatu res,but His di

rect command passes upon them for each of theiracts. I n this sense he delegates a part of Hispower to m an . I n the account of the creation ofm an

, God says that He is about to place a vicegerenton the earth ;an d again Do you not see that Godh as m ade

’

s ubser v i en t to you what is in the heavensand what is in the The doctrine

,as you

di scover, is that of the Bible. M an is the rulerover nature, an d nature is created for man

’s use and

benefit.The existence of intell igent creatures who ar e

strictly obedient to God makes no difficulty wi th Hisgovernment. But when we assert the freedom ofth ese creatures, there is implied a possibility thatthey m ay act contrary to His command, and a prob

Koran cf.

132

TH E DI VI N E GOVE RN M E N T 133

lem emerges . A s soon as we assert the existence ofsin the problem becomes acute . For s i n is the freedom of the created will asserting itself against thewill of the Creator. This is the great question withwhich philosophy has wr estled since first man began

to reflect upon his relation to the universe .

The question assumes its largest proportions inmonotheism. I n polytheism there is no single wi llwhich claims to rule the sum of things . The godsar e necessar ily limited in power, because there areseveral of them . I n dualism the solution is found byassuming an eternal conflict between two powers— a

solution which projects the shadow of evil into theinfinite both before and behind. For Mohammed,with whom we have now to deal, this solution had noattractions, and he does not betray an acquaintancewith it even in his polemic.The most religious minds seem to answer our prob

lem by determinism— that is,they cling to the sover

e ign ty of God and let the freedom of the creatureexist only in appearance . Even in heathenism th istheory asserts itsel f. The Greeks i n their theologyfoun d room for an al l - deciding fate against whomZeus himself was powerless. The heathen A r absaw in what went on around him the working of Destiny —a power that rul es the world and accomplishesits will in spite of gods and men . The B edawy(says We l l hau sen) is the independent m an h i s

own arm helps him, and his brother no god assistshim he commends his soul to no saint. A llah is tohim fate, and nothing more : Fate is generally Spokenof without qual ificati on— not as the decree of A llah .


But the conviction that a l l is decreed an d predestined

Spurs on the A rab hero an d poet to do what he hasundertaken without consideration of danger. Fearnot to march against danger, for the danger which a

m an tries to avoid is just the one that he meetsthe dog bites the on e who is afraid of him . Fatalism

,

if we m ay call it so, does not lead the A rab to foldhis hands in his bosom . On the contrary, it is thesource of desperate energy— i t is of no use to avoiddeath;therefore Forward ! A n d, further, the certainty of death is a motive to give freely and not tobe an xious for the morrow; I know that an eveningi s coming

,after which no fear and no want can befall

me;then I shall make the House of Truth a longvisit. Why , then, shoul d I take care for that whichdecays and falls into ruins ! Let others foul theirwatering- places;I will keep my camels ready to slayfor the guest. ’

We have heard so much of M os l em fatalism that wear e accustomed to ascribe this doctr ine to Mohammed.

But this extract shows that it was already currentbefore his time . Not unlikely the popular idea of itis derived from later literature . You remember thestory of A jeeb in

“ A Thousand and One Nights .”

A jeeb 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 dwellin g,prepared with great

care . There they left a young m an and departed,concealing the only door to the hiding- place. Theyoung m an is one for whom an astrologer h as pre

W e l l h au sen ,S ici zzen u nd Vor ao'bei ten , I I I .

, p. 195.


doctrine of which we now Speak runs through Ar abliterature . I t is found in the early poets i t is foundin the later story- tellers . The latter ar e , to be sure,influenced by the theologi ans, and these claim to r epresent the mind of Mohammed. But we must nottoo readily assume that they cor rectly represent themind of Mohammed. I t is n o t impossible that theyar e under a bias. I n I slam

,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,accordi n g as one factor or the other

was emphasized. When Greek philosophy was m adeknown to Moslem thinkers under the A bbaside Cal iph s , there came into prominence a ration alisticschool of theologians called the Motazilites, that is :the Seceders . W e are not here concerned with theirtheology in general. The point which interests us isthat they denied an absolute decree or predestinationon the part of God . They did this with the desireto protect the responsibility of man as a free agent,and also with the desire to establish the justice ofGod. For they reasoned that, if the actions of man

ar e done in accordance with an unalterable decree,there is no justice in punishing. They call themselves therefore be l i ever s i n the Un i ty and Ju sti ce ofGod. Their teaching on this point is set forth by anative authority in these words They affirm thatm an h as freedom an d that he is the ori ginator of hisactions, both good an d bad

,an d that he is therefore a

S ch ah r astan i s R el igi on spa r th ei en a nd P h i l osoph en schu l en ,

u ber setzt von Dr . Th . H aar br ii cker I . , p . 43 .

IN

TH E DI VI N E GOVE R N M E N T 10 4

being who deserves reward an d puni shment in thenext world for what he has done. But [the y afii rm]that God cannot be brought into connec ti on wi th evi l

and unrighte ousness and unbeli ef and di sobedi ence

[as their caus e]. For as He is ri ghteous whenHe bri n gs forth l i gh teousn ess, so He woul d be an

righteou s if He were th e cause of unr ighte ousn es .

So far the M otazi l i te s . Thei r opponents took theirstan d on th e divi ne omn i potence and di d not shr inkfrom the conclusion that God is the author of s in ,

and that m an h as no power over hi s own acts .

* A l

thoug h the school whi ch fin al l v pr evai l ed tr ied tomedi ate , i ts membe rs rescued for m an onl y the semblance of freedom . The accepted Mohamm edan th eology i s undoubtedly determ i nis ti c.F o r th i s reas on we mus t look with suspicion on

some of th e tradi ti ons which as cribe to M ohamm e d

hi gh predes ti n ar i anism . W e have al ready fo rmd

reas on to be li eve that tra di ti ons were i nvented by theadherents of the di fferent theologi ca l schoo ls, in orderto secure the Prophet’s name for their doctrin e. Onesuch tr adition, as I believe, h as done much to formour idea of M os lem fatalism. I t i s th e one given bvPalgr ave i n these words :

“ When God r e solved tocreate the hum an race, He took intoH i s hands a mas sof earth— th e same whence al l manki nd were to beformed, an d in whi ch they after a mann er pi e - exi s ted.

Having di vi ded the clo d in to two parts,He fin~ew the

one-half into hell and said : These to ete rn al fir e an d

I care not;an d projected th e other hal f in to heav en ,

Schahr astan i . I . . pp 92 . 102 . Dugat. H i'

sto i r e ti es F h i r'

t-s c-p lzes

c.“ Jes Théol oy i ens ”L S MI DN H I S p. 45.


adding : These to Paradise and I care not.”

So far

as thi s tradition makes the impression of brutalindi fference on the part of God, we need not hesitateto say that it misrepresents the mind of Mohammed.

The impression made by the whole body of traditionson this subject is very di fferent . Even the one whichis nearest i n form to the one just quoted, and whichm ay be a modification of the same tradition, has a

different tone : “ God created A dam an d struck himon the right side and brought out whi te childr enyou woul d say they were pearls;then He struck hisleft side an d brought out black children, you wouldsay they were coals. Then God said : Those of theright side ar e towards Paradise, an d I have no fear;an d He said of those of the left side They ar e tow

ards hell and I have no fear. T The words translated I have nofear m ay indeed m ean I have no con

cer n i n the matter . B ut they m ay mean also I haveno fear that thei r actions will not bear out what Ihave determined concerning them . This latter is at

least a plausible interpretation, as we see from anothertradi tion, which is given in immediate connectionwith the foregoing, an d which is reported thus Godtook an engagement from the family of A dam, and

brought out a family from the back of A dam and scatter ed them before Him . A fter that God spoke tothem in his presence saying A m not I your Creator !They said : Yes, We bear witness to Thy Godhead

I h ave cited from H ugh es’

s Di cti on a r y of I s l am , p. 148 , wh ereth e passage i s ascribed to P algrave , wh o gives th e re fe ren ce, M i shcat, B ab

- u l -Qadr. I do n ot find th e tradition i n the E nglish M i shcat.TM i sh ca t, I . , p. 36.


not what we should cal l a fatalist. I n fact, he wasnot a systenrati c theologian .

‘

He knew nothing ofphilosophy

,an d the endeavor to teach it to h im would

probably have failed. But he was a m an of religiousconviction . His statements on the doctrine beforeus ar e to be interpreted by his religious, not by any

dogmatic, faith . A l l of us who have a living faith i na 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 rul e overthe universe. Our comfort in adversity is that ourFather does al l things well

,and our joy in prosperity

springs from the thought that i t is He who is activein providing for our wants . The religious leader eucourages and comforts his followers by this faith . I f

they lose heart,he points them to God who is able to

help,and who surely will not abandon the right. I f

they meet misfortune,he gives them the assurance

that even this is in God’s plan for them . When theyare successful he makes the success confirm their faiththat God is working for them . I n all this

,emphasis

is naturally laid upon the almighty power and the al ldetermining will of God . Mohammed’s declarations.on this point ar e to be explained along these hues .They ar e not philosophica l propositions concerningthe universal scheme of things . They ar e the ap

plication of a living faith to the particular circumstances o i an individual experience . When his situation was gloomy or even (to human eye)desperate,he was compelled to take stron g hold on the poweran d grace of God . He says : Every condition isbest for the believer. I f he is pleased, he

TH E DIVINE GOVERN MEN T 141

thanks God;and if his condi tion is bad he has pa

ti en ce , for which he is rewarded. This is not thestatement of a theory of the un iverse. I t is an expression of religious trust, a tr ust which tr aces one

’

sindiv idual lot to the goodness of God. I t remin ds

us of the Biblical assertion that al l thin gs work together for good to them that love God, to them who

ar e the called according to His purpose.* A gain we

read in a tradition Seek for that whichwi ll benefityou

,and ask God for assis tance, and do not tire in so

doing;and if any misfortune befall s you do not say :

I fI had done so and so;but say : God ordain ed it,andHe does what Hewil l—because the word ifopensthe Devil’s business. ”1‘ Thi s was a practical philos

ophy of human life. I twas not intended to be a Spec

u l ative reconciliation of sovereign ty and freedom .

I f the speculative question was ever forced uponMohammed, he probably decli n ed to answer it. H e

came once upon a company engaged in debatin g aboutfate ;and he became angry, so that he was red in theface, and said :

“H as God ordered you to debate of

fate, or was I sent to you for thi s ! Y our forefatherswere destroyed for debating about fate and destiny.

I adjure you not to argue on these points.” 1 Thistradition seems to me much less likely to have beeninvented than some of the others we have been cons i der ing, and it therefore seems to me more nearly torepresent the m ind of the Prophet. He had no ideaof layin g upon the doctr ine of the divine decrees theemphas is which was afterward laid upon it by thedogmatic theologians . We shall bear this in mind in

1" R om . 879. fM tshca t, I I . , p. 517 . I I ht'

d . , I . , p. 31 .


examining the statements of the Koran—and th eKoran is here, as elsewhere, our most valuable source.A t the beginning of his mission the mind of Mo

hammed was occupied with the great thought of theDay of Judgment . Nearly all the earliest suras dwellupon thi s subject. The ter rors which usher in theDay ar e descr ibed with great variety of imagery

,and

these descriptions ar e followed by a picture of Paradi se with its bliss

,or of Gehenna wi th its torments.

The implication of this whole series of revelations i sthat m an is responsible . He is punished or rewardedfor his actions

,and these (we m ay conclude)ar e within

h i s own power. The terms in which the evildoers aredescribed generally express an activity. When theangels say that they are sent against a people of evi ldoer s , we notice that it is an active participle of themost active form of the verb that is used . The samepeople are described a little later on as tr ansgr essor s

—those who pass beyond the due bounds. Thamudtu r ned wi th di sdai n from the commandment of theirLord ;Pharaoh , an d before him,

the people of thecities which were overturned for their sin

,di sobeyed

the messenger,

of thei r L ord fi“ He who receives h i sbook in his left hand at the Judgment h as his indictment formulated in these terms “He did not believe in God Most High

,nor did he emulate others

in feeding the poo r .

”

T I t agrees with these wordsof action that jinn an d m en ar e created only to ser ve

God but that they di sobeyed. :t M an was created upright, therefore, but sought out m any inventions.Even where it is said that man was created with nat

* Koran 51J‘2. 34. u . 699 . 7fog

"

! f. 151

56.

144: TH E BIBLE A ND ISLA M

H as [the unbeliever]not been told of what is in

the rolls of Moses an d of A braham , who was faithful,name l y that no soul is burdened with the burden of

another, and that a m an receives only that which he

h as wrought, an d that he shall certainly be shown hiswork ! Then shal l he be recompensed with a com

pl e te recompense .

”A s Moh ammed professes to

quote here from the earlier Scriptures we m ay lookfor a Biblical reminiscence. A n d we find a closeparallel in a New Testament passage which declaresthat each man sha l l bear h i s own bu r den

,and in that

connection we read : whatsoever a m an soweth,that

shall he also reap .

The same doctrine is virtually contained in the fr equent exhortations to repent which we find in thisearly period. There have been preachers who calledmen to repentance

,though convinced that men h ad

no ability to follow the call . But we must rememberthat Mohammed h ad no theological training. Withh im the natural supposition is that when he calledm en to turn from their evil ways, they had somepower of choice in the matter. So we interpret thequestions addressed to the unhappy inhabitants ofhell Why did you not believe or

,

“Why did youn ot reflect ! or again,

“Why were you not grateful ! T Even Pharaoh h as the possibility of repentance, for Moses says to him :

“W ilt thou purify thyself, that I m ay di rect thee to thy Lord an d thou shaltfear Him ! I I t is to the same effect when we find

two alternatives set before m an,that he m ay make a

choice : “We led him to the two roads,but he does

5337 fl , cf. Gal . 65' 7 69. 69

1 7919

.

TH E DIVINE GOVERNMENT 145

not clim b the ascent. H ow wilt thou know what isthe ascent ! I t is the setting free of the slave, an d th enou rishment of one

’s orphan kinsmen in the day offamine, or the feedi ng of the poor who cleaves to thedust .”

I f at this period of hi s activity the Prophet hadhad the doctrine of absolute predestination in mind,it is probable that he wou ld have asserted it i n conn ecti on with some of these passages. B ut he doesnot assert it

,even in expressing his idea of God

’

smethod of working. What we fin d emphasized isnot God’s decree

,but His knowledge : Does not the

unbeliever know that God sees ! Doth he notknow that when what is in the graves comes forthand what is in the breasts is brought to light, in thatday their Lord wil l be informed concerning them TAn other expression of the same thing is the figure ofthe heavenly book. There are passages in which thisis apparently the book of fate, but these ar e later .The primary conception was of a book of record. I t

is said of the one who receives his book behind hisback : He thought indeed that he woul d not be putto grief but his Lord was observant of him. Thisrecord is made by the angels An d verily there ar eover you guardians

,holy scribes who know what you

do. 1 I n a passage which probably refers to the actions of men, God says : They indeed did not fearan accounting

,and accused Our revelation of false

hood. But we registered everything in a book . Tastethen ! We will only increase your punishment .To the same effect ar e the passages already alluded

wow-w 1 9614 and 100° ff

. 1 8414 f

, 78” ff .


to,in which God is said to try men . For this period

further,the assertion that God di r ects men does not

mean tha t He exerts irresistible grace . The verb isused of one who puts travellers i n the desert on theright path . He points out the road, as Moses pointedit out to Pharaoh . I t does not follow that the di r ection will be effectual. I n the early revelations, whichwe ar e now considering, God is not said to lead menastray. He knows those who go astray an d Heknows those who let themselves be guided,* is theutmost that is affirmed.

A s we turn to the later sections of the Koran wenotice first, that the vi ew we have been consideringis still affirmed : Observe prayer an d give almswhatever good you l ay up in store for your selves youshal l fin d in the presence of God . T The verse r e

minds u s of the New Testament exhortation to l ay uptreasures in heaven .

“0, you who believe, you havethe care of your own souls;do yourselves no harm !

Whoever goes astray after you have been rightly

gu i dedfi

you shall al l be brought to God and He willinform you of your acti on s .

”

i The doctrine of recompen se is here sharply asserted, an d it is assumedthat there is a possibil ity of going astray even after

68 7 . Th ere i s an apparent exception to th is statem ent in 7434

wh ere God i s said active ly to lead as tray . B u t thi s i s an interpolation of a later date . I n an oth er instan ce (9 17 . 9) as comm only i nterpr eted, God i s said to create th e sou l and in spire i t with evil andwith good. B u t as th e word tran slated i n sp i r ed may also meantaught, i t i s safer to suppo se th at th e verse i s n o exception to th econ sen su s of th ese early su ras ;and th at th e m eani ng i s simply thatGod gives th e sou l a kn owledge of good and evil .

1. 2104

148 TH E BIBLE AND ISLAM

looked to their Prophet to answer them this question.

For their rel i ef an d to strengthen his own soul, he

was compelled to assert that even the evi l actions,unbeli ef, an d 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 in to ex

i sten ce . The l ittle community h ad frequent occasionto realize that God’s ways ar e not as our ways. Sometimes

,indeed

,His care was notably manifest. But

quite as often the expectations of the believers weredisappointed . They were vi sited by fever they suf

fer ed from famine ;they were di sappointed by thelukewarmness or even hostility of some in whom theytrusted . The Jews were a thorn in their side. I n

stead of becoming converts or, at least, allies of theProphet

,they plotted again st him, murmured at his

claims, insinuated doubts of his mission, and provokedhis followers to break the peace . I t is evident thatthe problem of the universe was becomin g more compli cated .

W e ar e able to trace the working of the Prophet’smind on one phase of this problem with con siderabledistinctness . I n the second year after the Flight hefought a successful battle against the Meccans at aplace called B edr . A s the first pitched battle ofI slam , this encounter deserves a place among the deoisive battles of the world;for h ad the Moslems beendefeated it is not unlikely tha t their movement wouldhave ceased to be important ;an d in this case theface of the world

’

s history would have been entirely

TH E DI VI N E G0VE R N M E N T 149

changed.The victory was the more remarkable, in

that M ohamm ed had onl y thr ee hun dred men again s t

n i ne hundr ed and fifty of the Mec cans . The decis ive

v i cto r v was taken at M edi na to be a pledge of God’

spre s ence and approval, an d at the same time as a

foretas te of H i s judgment on H is enemi es. Th e ev e

of faith even saw the angels engage in the battle onthe side of truth

, and we m ay be sur e that no ques

tions were raised when the Prophet used the event asan il l u stration of God

’s wi l l toward the bel ievers .

The di fficul ty came when, a year late r at Ghod, the

M oslems sufi'

er ed a hum i l i ating defeat at the hands ofthe same foe, upon whi ch they had seen the ven

gean ce of God take effect at B edr . On hum an reasoni ng,

indeed,the defeat was eas i ly accounted for.

The Moslems were over confiden t. They di sregardedthe advi ce of the wis er heads, and, i nstead of acti ngon the defens ive, rus hed to the confli ct agains t largeodds .

* A t the firs t appearance of succes s, the archersposted by M ohammed to defend his left flank deserted their station in the hope of booty. A l l thismakes us wonder tha t the defeat was not more com

pl ete than it ac tual l y was . But,in an y case, it was

a bitte r experience to men who had coun ted on theconti nued favor of God. I t became necessary forMohammed to expla in the ways of God and th is hedoes, as foll ows : I fyou suffer from wounds

,so have

other peeples suffered fr om the like ;and We makethe for tun e of men in battle vary, that God may kn owthose who beli eve and m ay take from you wi t

Seven hundred M oslem s against th r ee th ou sand M eccans , th e

l atter also be tte r armed.


nesses (God loves not the evildoers) and that God

m ay try those who believe , and may destroy the unbe

l i ev er s . Or do you think to enter Paradise beforeGod knows those of you who ar e zealous an d steadfast ! A soul does not die except by thepermission of God [contained in]a definite decree. TThe speaker then points out that God is faithful toHis promise

,but that the believers h ad been seduced

by the booty and h ad disobeyed their leader. Hethen adds Their desires mislead them to think nu

justly ofGod—thoughts of heathenism— i n that theysaid Have we any part in this affair ! Say to them :

The whole belongs to God. They conceal in theirhearts what they do not reveal to thee, saying : I fweh ad had our way in the matter we [that is, our brethren]h ad not been slain here. Say : H ad ye remainedin 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 andmight try what is in your hearts. God knows whatis in the breasts of men. A s for those who turnedback on the day of encounter, Satan made them slipfor somethi ng which they h ad done . But God h aspardoned th em—God is forgiving and forbearing . OBelievers ! Be not like the unbelievers

,wh o say con

cern ing their brethren, when they travel or are on araid : I f they h ad remained with u s they had notdied, or they had not been slain . [This came to pass]that God might place grief in their hearts—God

Or , m a r ty r s as i t i s ordin arily tran slated. Th ose who di e in

battle ar e especially distingu ish ed.

1. 31344 39.


astray,as well as leads some into the ri ght path .

A s we h ad reason to suppose that His guidance issimply the pointing out of the right path, in whichmen ar e free to walk or not, we might also think thateven ifHe presents misleading i ndications, men havethe ability to disregard these and still to find theright path. But the weakness of man is such thatwhen God misleads him he is sure to go wrong. I n

such a case there is no hope of the man,he is i r r evo

eably lost. Such is evidently the teaching of the

K oran in the period we have now reached . I fthyLord had willed, all that ar e in the earth would havebeli eved. W ilt thou then force men to beli eve ! I t

is not possible for a soul to beli eve except by permission of its Lord.

” God leads astray whom He willand leads aright whom He wi ll He is the Powerful,the W ise .

” Wh om God leads astray, for him thouwilt not find a road.

”A nd why should you be di

v ided concerning the hypocrites, when God h as overturned them ou account of what they have done !W ilt thou di rect those whom God has led astray !Yet, although the action of God may be supposed tobe irresistible in such cases, we find a certain synergism (to use a theological term)allowed. M an co - operates in his own salvation, and man also has part inhis own destruction. God conducts to Himself himwho r epentsd

‘ but the wicked ar e not directed becausethey will not be : “How shall God gui de aright a

”1 099 f, cf. 7699 “W hoever will, l et hi m take the

path to hi s L ord;but ye wi l l n ot u n less God wills ," and Juo . 1239

Th erefore th ey cou ld n ot believe .

”

T

TH E DI VINE GOVE RN M E N T 153

people who disbelieve after once believing and testi

fy ing that the A postle is true, when [also]evidentproofs have come to them God wi ll not guide the

people who do evil.”

On this last point we find a vari ety of statements.

I n some cases men are said to be blinded by the seducti on s of the world : Cease from those wh o usetheir rel igion as a Sport and a pastime, whom the lifeof the world has beguiled ;and remind them that asoul is corrupted by what it h as acqu i r ed.

”

T Butthis life of the world is ordained of God for thi s purpose. Moses prays thus : O Lord, Thou hast givenPharaoh and his nobles pomp and r iches in thisworld to make them wander from Thy path Our Lord,destroy their riches and harden their hearts, that theymay not believe until they see exemplary punishment. 1: I n other passages God is more directly active on the hearts of the wicked : “ There are thosewho come to listen to thee

,but on whose hearts We

have pl aced vei l s lest they should understand,and in

whose ears deafness;and if they should see everykind of sign they woul d not believe in i t—so thatthey would [even then]come disputing with thee andsaying : Veri ly this is nought but old wives’ fables.These are they whose hearts and hearing and sightGod has sea l ed : they are the heedless and withoutdoubt they shal l be the losers in the world to come.”

A nd again : When thou r eci test the K oran, We

place between thee and those wh o do not believe inthe world to come, a thick veil, an dWe have placedon their hearts coverings that they may not under

130I 1033


stand, and in their ears deafness ;and when thounamest thy Lord, the Only One, in the recitation,they turn away in disgust.

”I n these and other pas

sages we must not lose sight of the possibil ity thatGod’s activity is conceived of as the infliction of

judi ci a l blindness . By the divine ordering, th e man’s

sin becomes a cause of further sin “That whichthey have done h as covered their hearts ” we read inone place;and again : We turn away their heartsan d eyes [from the truth]because they do not believein it at the first

, an d We leave them to wander aboutin their disobedience . ” TOn the other h an d, Satan is the agent who brings

men into sin,though not without the divine permis

sion . He himself was tried by God an d di sobeyed.

He then asked a reprieve from his sentence for a

time, that he might become the tempter of men . Hereceived permission and began his career with ourfirst parents Satan made them slip from Paradisean d brought them out from the place where theywere . i A nd he is still active : “ Those of you whoturned their backs in the day of encounter—this wasonly because Satan caused them to sl ip

,for some

thing which they h ad The passage is noteworthy because the new temptation was a penalty fors i n already committed. But whatever takes place,a l l is so thoroughly in the plan of God th at He issaid to have created men for this purpose : “ I f thyLord had willed He would have made mankind on e

people. But [as it is]they will not cease disputing,i i ! 695, 16

110, 17

41 ff.

1 234

.


assert ion of the justice of God, both which could be

abundan tly illustrated by quotation . God’

s knowledge o i men

’s actions is spoken of in almost the sameterms employed by Mohammed—including the bookof record : I saw a great white throne and Him that

s at upon it, from whose face earth and heaven fledaway, an d there was foun d no place for them . A nd

I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne

,an d books were opened

an d the dead were judged out of the things whichwere written i n the books, according to their works.

”

So thoroughly had Mohammed adopted the Biblicalidea that we should have no sense of in congru itywere we to find this passage incorporated bodily inthe Koran . I n this, as in some other matters thatwe have considered, he h ad apprehended an d adoptedthe Biblical position .

A n d in his later doctrine he was also in line withBiblical assertions. The perplexities which besethim were not unlike what the Prophets of I srael met.I t seems ludicrous to compare the battle of Obod tothe capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar. A nd

yet,on a small scale, the battle of Oh od was a test

of fa ith to the infant I slam qui te similar in its effectsto the capture of Jerusalem as it appeared to be l i evi ng Hebrews . The Prophets were driven in this greatcri sis to take a firmer hold on God as the ruler ofthe universe . They were compelled to clarify theirview of the test imposed by calamity an d they cameout of the conflict with the conviction that if God

’sways ar e not our ways, this is because His ways ar e

R ev .

TH E DIVINE GOVERNMENT 157

higher than our ways. Mohammed’

s decl arations

ar e a weaker echo of these. But they are enough toshow that he had apprehended and appropr iated

their thought .I n other particul ars than those just mentioned we

may discover Bibli cal influence . The sinner’

s de

struction of himself, for example, is affirmed in thosepassages which speak of him that digs a pit and falls

into it himself,or of him whose violence comes down

on his own head. A gain : it is because men do notlike to retain God in th e i r 'kn owl edge that God givesthem up to a reprobate mind.

* I f men are said inthe Koran to be beguiled by the world so they ar e inthe New Testament ' “ The cares of the world andthe deceitfulness of riches choke the Word.

”

T I n

both documents also,Satan is the tempter. Where

the part of God is prominently in the mind of theBiblical writer, he does not hesitate to say that Godblinds those who s in . I saiah is commanded : “Makethe heart of this people fat [that is, stupid]and maketheir 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 turnagain and be The Biblical passage goesbeyond Mohammed in makin g the blindness an effectof the preaching. The familiar texts which speak ofGod

’

s hardeni ng men’s hearts also have their paral lelin the Koran, and to the declaration of the latter thatGod leads men astray we may compare :

“Wh y , 0Y ahweh, dost Thou make us to wander from Thyway dost harden our hearts so as not to fear

*R om . 1'

TM att. 1 18 .


Finally,the pur pose to fil l Gehenna with

men and jinn reminds us that the wicked are sentto the eternal fir e pr epar ed for the devil and his

angel s .TOur consideration of the di vine government up to

this point h as been mainly occupied with the problem of sovereignty and freedom. Concerning these

,

we fin d that Mohammed holds positions strictly anal

ogou s to those held by Biblical writers. He had apprehended the Bibli cal doctrine. Before leaving thesubject we may briefly consider hi s doctrine of demons and angels. For it is evident that these alsoare subjects of the government of God, and thei r aoti v i ty furnishes problems similar to those presentedby the freedom of m an . I n its strong sense of thereality of intelli gent beings other than man, I slam isin line with medi aeval Christianity and Judaism .

W ith the luxuriant fancy which has crowded A rabicliterature with superhuman agencies we have nothingto do. But so far as they form a part of Moslem r e

l igi on we cannot pass them by.

A rabic heathenism peopled the desert with a classof beings cal l ed collectively j i nn (the singular is

j i nnee). We have no word which is exactly equ ivalent, so that i t is best to retain the Ar abic term. Thebelief in the jinn goes back to the time when animalswere an object of superstitious reverence. The word

j ann I is applied in the Koran to serpents, and theidentity of serpents and jinn was endorsed by Mohammed himself. A t least a tradi tion tells us of a

I s . 1 M att.

I U sed also interchangeably with j i n n . The passage i s


in the book of L ev i ti cu sfi“ Mohammed had thereforea precedent for retaining this popul ar superstition inhis religion. I t enabled him plausibly to accountfor some thi ngs in heatheni sm,

as we have alreadyseen;and it furnished a basis for the more completescheme of angels an d devi l s whi ch he adopted fromJudaism and Christiani ty.

The early Church had an elaborate theory concerning angels and demons . An authority on Church history defines the position of the Fathers as followsI n regard to the heavenly spiri ts who belong to theupper world, an d i n fact constitute it, the orthodoxFathers hold fast to the following points : (1)thatthey were created by God;(2)that they are endowedwith freedom but are without material bodies ;(3)that they had passed through a probation in whichpart of them h ad persevered in good, others hadfallen (4)that the good spirits ar e organs of the divi ne government, and their actions are useful andhel pful to man and, indeed, belong to the means ofgrace ;(5)that the actual evi l in the world is to beattributed to the evil spir its, especially to their chief,the Devil

,and that these have almost un bounded

power on earth, but can only tempt man to sin, notcompel him;and that they can be put to flight bythe name of Christ, the sign of the cross, and the sacraments .” T This describes exactly the position ofMohammed except that, for the means of defencehere named

,he woul d substitutepr ayer . This scheme

Cf. W . R . Smith , R el igi on of th e Sem i tes , p. 1 13 E . Th e B ibl i

cal references ar e L ev . 17 7, Dcu t. I s . P s . 10637 .

TH arnack, Dogmengesch i ohte, I I . , p. 125 f.

TH E DI VINE GOVERNMENT 1 61

was combined with the belief in the jinn in such a

way that it is not always easy to distinguish betweenthe various classes of supernatural beings. Sometimes al l are classed as j inn. I bl is is said to be an

angel and he is also said to be of the I n general, however, the angels appear to be of higher rank.

From the allusions to the j inn in the Koran wemake out that Mohammed carried into their worldthe division of believers an d unbelievers . They

,like

men, were created to serve but have disobeyed, andtheir reprobation is described in the same terms as thereprobation of men : “We have created for Gehenn a a great number of the j i nn and of mankind, whohave hearts with which they do not comprehend

,and

who have eyes with which they do not see,an d who

have ears with which they do not hear— they ar e likethe br utes

, yea, even more wayward : these are theheedl ess .

”

T The enmity of the evil ones among themtoward mankind, shows itself in leading men to idolatry : “ I n the day when He shall gather them together [He shall say]: 0 peopl e of the jinn, youhave had too much advantage from men . Then willtheir devotees say : Our Lord

,we profited each

other,an d we have reached the term Thou has set for

us. Then will He reply The Fire is your abode forever. IW e have already noticed the Biblical parallel to

this doctrine . A nother point of resemblance is thetheory of demoniacal possession . The K ahi n or soothsayer in heathen A rabia spoke under the influence ofa j inn . The Old Testam ent belief that a man could

Koran 18‘s . T7“ .

1 1

162 TH E BI BLE A N D ISLAM

prophesy by mean s of a famil iar spirit is well known.

I t is also well known that to the present day in M O

h amm edan countries an insane person is supposed tobe possessed by a j innee . No clear line can here bedrawn between the j inn and the Satans. The latter

,

however, ar e certainly borrowed from the older relig

ions. Their chief is I blis, whose name is a corruption of Di abo l os, and therefore from a Christiansour ce . I blis was an angel he refused to bow to man

because he was created of fir e , while m an was createdof clay— therefore, in his V iew,

m an was the inferior.For this di sobedience he was banished from Paradise.I n his further career, he became the tempter of man,and will continue to practise his arts until the finalJudgment. The Satans ar e his helpers : “ They turnmen from the path, when these think they are gui ded

We ar e told that Satan says to a man :

Disbelieve ' But when he disbelieves [Satan]saysVerily I am innocent of thy transgressions : I fearGod

,the Lord of the worlds . I n the New Testa

ment also we hear of devils who believe and shudder.

Satan tried Job by sending calamities upon h im .TA l though he h as no power over those who committhemselves to Godj : he insinuates evil thoughts in tothe minds of believers when they ar e careless, so that

he made even Mohammed forget part of his message . He makes promises and excites desires,but Satan promises only in order to deceive . ll A l l

this is done in order to destroy men,though it is not

done without the permission of God ;an d God’s aim

in permittin g it, is to prove men’s faith and steadfast

:1 4336 . 1 38404 9 1 15101 , § 661‘ 4m .


passages in the A pocalypse . I t is probably a remi

n i scen ce of I saiah’s vision when the angels ar e de

scribed as h aving two ,three, or four pair of wings.*

They carry the throne of God, as do the living creatures of Ezekiel’s v i s i on .T They ar e

, moreover, them essengers of God and the organs of revelation;andthe Biblical influence goes so far that Mohammedborrows the names Gabriel and Michael. I n thetraditions it is un iformly Gabriel who brings theKoran , and this is apparently the mind of the P r ophet

,though only once in the Koran itself does he name

Gabriel in connection with the revelations . You willremember that Gabriel appears in the New Testament as the bringer of God’s messages.Besides this, the angels have charge of the believerEach one has attendants who succeed each other

,

who guard him by the command of Theykeep the record of man’s actions : “ t en the twobeings meet seated at the right and left [of a man],he does not utter a word that there is not for it awatcher ready. They ar e especially interested inthe believer’s worship. When one is praying in them osque

,the angels do not cease interceding for h im ,

and the A men of the leader in worship is taken upand repeated by them. II I n heaven they intercedefor the bel ievers : The angels repeat the praise oftheir Lord and ask pardon for those on ear th .

”l l

This goes further than the Biblical statements, whichonly say in general that the angels have charge overthe believer and minister to But the develop

Ko ran 35' I 1312

, § 50w r

.

B ocha r i , I . , pp. 146, 1 70. 1TKoran 427 . an : P 8 . 9 1 1 1, H eb. 114.

TH E DIVI NE GOVERNMEN T 165

ment is the same which we find in post~B ibl i cal

Christianity.

The results of our inqui ry may be summed up ina very few words . I n Mohammed we see the religious conception of a single Ruler of the rm iver se

united with the m oral conception of the SupremeJudge . W ithout attempting to reconcile these, theProphet does not hesitate to affirm them and toapply them to his own circumstances. He extendsthem also to the extra - human communities which headopts partly from A rabic tradition, and partly fromJewish and Chr istian belief. Throughout

,he shows

dependence on Biblical ideas though without verbalquotation of Biblical language.

L E CTU RE V I .

R E VE L A TI ON A ND PROPHE CY

THE present lecture will examine conceptions fundamental to all religions

,at least to al l the higher relig

ions. Granted the exi stence o i a God, how is His wil lmade known to man I t is obvious that He does notspeak audibly to all men . Al though He makes H imself known i n natu re

,the majori ty of mankind are

too blind or too heedless to attend to this word. I f

men are to know God they must have a more distinctmessage . A n d this message is given by the voice ofm en to whom God h as communicated it, and whomHe calls to the office of His heralds . The doctrine ofsuch a message is fully adopted i n I slam . Al ong- sideof the declaration th at there is no God but A llah, wehear the equally emphatic declaration that M ohammedis the A postle of A ll ah . Mohammed so describedhimself, having borrowed the title, as well as the idea,from the earlier revealed religions.The conception of prophecy is

,in the case of Mo

hammed, complicated by the fur ther idea that therevelations given by a prophet constitute a book.

The two do not necessarily go together. Take theearlier prophets of I srael . Elijah and Elisha seem tohave felt no impul se to put their utterances into permanent form . Their expectation was probably the

166


were in doubt. A s in the immediate context he isspeakin g of sacred books, he m ay mean no more thanthat he h ad not been a reader of such books;thoughthe general terms which he uses naturally imply thathe h ad no acquaintance with an y books .But if we hesitate to draw this conclusion

, and soleave the general question undecided

,we m ay yet ao

cept the pla in statement of the passage Until a timewhen he was fairly launched upon his career

,Moham

med had not read the Bible .

This conclusion is confir med by the contents of theKoran . A l though (as we have seen)a large part ofthis book is derived ul timately from the Bible

,yet in

no instance does it show,on the part of the author

,

such exact knowledge as would come fr om the study,

or even the reading,of its text. He makes but one

or two quotations from it. Even when he professesto give the substance of certain par ts of i t— as thecovenant between God and I srael— h e reproducesthem very imperfectly. The stories he takes from it,vary in a mul titude of details from their originals.He m akes gross chronological blunders, as where heidentifies the Virgin Mary with the Old TestamentMiriam . He so misunders tood Judaism that he saysthe Jews make Ezra the son of God something whicheven superficial acquaintance with the Old Testam entwould have prevented. I n a tradition it is related thatwhen he built his mosque at Medina

,he was asked

Koran , 29 Those wh o wish to see a fu ller discu ssion ofM o

h amm ed’

s literary attainmen ts m ay con sult N 6 1deke , Gesch i chte desK oo

‘

a n s , p. 8 ;Go l dzi h e r , Di e Zah i r i ten , p. 17 1 ;Sprenger, L ebendes M uhamm ed, I I . , p. 398 .

REVELATION A N D PROPH ECY 169

why he did not make it of more substantial materials.He replied : “My temple shall be li ke the tabernacleof Moses

,which was made of wood and straw.

”

Al l the evidence,then

,goes to show that Moham

med’s acquai ntance with the Bible came fr om oralcommunication with Jews and Christians . A l thoughour knowledge of Mecca dur ing Mohammed

’s earlylife is very imperfect we ar e tolerably certain thatthere was no considerable number of either Jews orChr istians there . Of the Jews at Medina we haveample knowledge

,and if there h ad been either syna

gogue or church at Mecca the fact woul d doubtlesshave been preser ved by tradition . Al l that traditiontell s us is that there were a very few Christians at

Mecca, the most of them slaves . I t speaks also of

Waraka, a cousin of Chadi ja, Mohammed’s first wife

,

who was a Christian and accustomed to write theGospel s in Hebrew — by which, no doubt, Syriac ismeant . This Waraka is made by tradi tion to recognize Mohammed as a prophet at the very beginningof his career;and it is possible that such a m an exi sted, and that be in fluenced M oh amm edT But thedesi re of tradi tion to secure Christian recognition andendorsement for Mohammed is so strong

,that we ar e

obliged to be cautious in receiving this accoun t as

though it was a historic fact. More weight m ay beallowed to the assertion that there were Christians l aves i at Mecca to whom Mohammed’s attentionwas called by their chanting of the Scriptures .

Sprenger, I I I . , p. 14. Cf. Koran 27 7 , 9 30TOn W araka, cf. B ocha r i , I . p. 3 .

I M u i r refers to th re e such slaves al l ofwh om becam e M oslem s,

170 TH E BIBLE A ND ISLAM

Let us imagine a religious inquirer led to conversewith such slaves . We m ay assume that they h ad no

A rabic translation of the Bible . Their Bible wasprobably in Syriac. Besides this, it is extremely un

likely that they h ad any books, even Syriac books, intheir possession . Books were a rare commodity and

not owned by slaves . But Chr istian slaves wouldhave some knowledge of the Bible, especially of thoseparts of the Bible most frequently used in the publicservice . This would include the Psalms an d Gospelsqui te certain ly

,for these were used i n the churches

from very early times . Let us suppose their knowledge to be lim ited in amount and crude i n 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 wan t of his soul.

We can hardl y help supposing that he was alreadyreligiously awakened . He was dissatisfied with theancestral religion and longing for something better.This desire woul d lead him to inquire for a worthy service of God . Liturgy is an important partof every religion . Mohammed is dissatisfied withheathenism ;he is seeking a way in which to serveGod. He comes across these young men an d hearstheir chant . A sking what it means

,he is told that

they ar e celebrating the praises of God. On furtherinquiry h e is told that the words they use ar e formssupplied by God Himself from His holy Book. I t

seems to me that he would recognize in this service

L ife of M ah om et, I I . , p. 122 . I t i s interesting to n ote th at Zaid,whomay be called a foreru n n er ofM oh amm ed, was exercised about the

r igh t way to worsh ip God —I bn H i scham , I . , p. 108 .

172 TH E BIBLE A N D I SLAM

a book as somethin g to be read in a quiet corner, an dstudied

,an d pon dered over. To hi m a book was a

repository of words that were to be r ead a l oud or r e

c i ted. I f its contents were known by heart, the written document was unnecessary.

A s we well know,Mohammed called his revelations

K or an . A single chapter is a Koran, and the wholecol lection is the Koran. The verb from which thisn am e is derived does not mean to r ead in our sense

,

but to r ead a l oud,to r eci te

,or to chant—precisely th e

act which is performed in the public service of theChurch

,the Synagogue, and the Mosque . The pres

ence or absence of a written exemplar makes no difference . The recitation is a gar

’

an just the same.The words recitedm ay be called a book, even althoughthey are not committed to paper. Mohammed makesthe infant Jesus in the cradle speak and describehimself thus : “ I am the servant of God

,He has given

me the Book and made me a prophet. ” I t would beabsurd to suppose the new- born babe holding a m a

ter i a l book in his hand. What is meant is that theinfant prophet h ad the truth i n hi s hear t. W ith thisagrees th e description of the Koran as clear versesi n the br ea sts of those who have received knowledgean d in another passage the revelation is sent upon thehear t of the Prophet himself that he shou ld becomeone of the warn er sq

L

Let us l ook now at the tradition of the call of Mohammed. We must use it with a certain reserve, forA yesha, from whom it is received, was only eighteenyears old at th e time of her husband’s death

,and the

Koran , 1931 . 1 2948,

R E VE L A TI ON A ND P R OPH ECY 173

event of which she speaks took place before her birth .

A l l she could have heard was Mohammed’s r eco l l ec

tions of his call;an d whether she was capable of umder standi ng 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, andwe must make the best we can out of it. I t reads asfollows

“ The first of the revelations which came to theA postle of A llah was a good dream an d he did nothave a dream without there coming something likethe break of day . Then he liked to be alone and heused to go to the cave of Hira and pur ify himselfthis [purification]was a performance of religious excroises several nights- until he desired [to retur n to]his family. A n d he used to provide himself withfood for these periods and did so again an d again ,

until [finally]the truth came to him . An d he was inthe cave of Hir a, an d the an gel came to him and saidRecite ! He replied I cannot recite .

* Then,said

he [that is, Mohammed]he took hold of me and

squeezed me to the utmost of my endurance . Thenhe let me go and said again : Recite '” The sameanswer was given and the same action repeated a

second and a third time . A t the last the angel r e

peated th ese verses, which now constitute a part ofthe Koran

Re ci te in th e n am e ofth y L o rd wh o created,C reated m an from a c lot ofbloodR eci te ! Th y L o rd i s bo u n t i fu l

L i ter a l l y I am n ot a r ead er .

1 74 TH E BIBLE A N D I SL A M

H e wh o h a s tau gh t m an by th e pen

Tau gh t h im wh a t h e d id n ot kn ow.

B u t m an i s rebe l l i ou sA s soon as h e sees h im se lf becom in g ri chY et ve ri ly to th y L o rd th ey sh a l l retu rn

The verses ar e in rhymed prose—a form which extends th r oughout the Koran. We should note however that in the earlier suras we have a much nearerapproach to a regu l ar metre than in the later compositions. I n the revelation before u s

,the verses ar e

nearly equal in length and also short,so that the

rhyme and the rhythm strike the ear at once . Theseearly suras ar e a l l well adopted for the cantillation orintonation which prevails in the public service of theOriental Church as well as in that of the Synagogue.I t must be confessed that the account of Moham

med’

s call is not altogether clear. But the main factsseem worthy of credence . The first of these is thatMohammed was deeply concerned on the subject ofreligion . This is evi denced by his frequent and prolonged vi sits to the lonely cave . There is a traditionwhich even affirms that his religious anxiety broughthim to the verge of suicide. I f this be true, it onlyshows more clearly the depth of hi s emotion. Thenext fact indi cated is th at he had a vision of the night.This is - not the only indication that his early reveltions were received in the night . For the present i tis sufii c i en t to note that tradition brings his earliestexperience of this kind into connection with a vivid

dream . Lastly we notice that the vi sion brings h imsomething which we suppose he would greatly desire,

Koran , 961- 8.


Mohammed was subject to epileptic fits , and thawhen he felt these coming on, he would h ave Ch adijwrap him in a covering so that he woul d be pr otectefrom the ai r , or from the gaze of curious v isitors . 0

the basis of this tradition a modern scholar h a

built up an elaborate theory of Mohammed’s epi l eptior hysterical disease . But the foundation is in suflicient. The tradition is bui lt upon the single ph r asjust quoted which describes the one addressed a

wrapped in a garment . But every oriental wraphimself in a garment when he lies down to s l eepA l l that we can legitimately conclude from the wordis that the revelation came to the Prophet when h.

was asleep .

“ A wake,thou that sleepest is the n at

ural meaning of the address, and we have here an

other evi dence that these earlier revelations came a

visions of the night. The famous night journey tc

Jerusalem is evi dence in the same di r ecti on xtBecause his first visions were visions of the night

it does not follow that a l l the later ones were of th

same kind . The statements ar e m any to the efiec

that the Prophet h ad visions also in hi s waking hours

He woul d become apparently unconscious breathe(

h eavily ;the perspiration broke out upon him eve]

in a wintry day . 1 A fter such a fit,he would give ai

answer to a question that h ad perplexed h im ,0

would recount a vision that he h ad seen . How fa“

Sprenger i n h i s L eben a n d L eh r e des M uhamm ed.

fTh e ni gh t visit i s alluded to I t sh ou ld be n oted th at tW 4

su ras (73 and 74) begin with an addres s to th e on e wrapped ingarm en t .

I B och a r z’

, L , p. 3, I I . , pp. 117 , 132, 186;Vaki dz'

(W el l hau sen)

p. 18 1 .

R E VE L A TI ON A N D PR OPH E CY 177

he was subject to physical disease, and how far theseextraordi nary states m ay be explain ed as the result ofmental excitement

,is difficul t to say. We can readily

see the strong emotion whi ch an y one would feel atthe approach of a heavenly messenger. An y man ofordi nary sensibi lity

,if convinced that he was about

to receive a superhuman revelation,would become ex

cited, and hi s emotion might produce physical effectssuch as ar e here descr ibed for us . I n order to ao

count for them,it i s not necessary to suppose either

that Mohamm ed was epil eptic or that he was playinga part.I t is to our present pu rpose to point out that

,both

in the matter of dr eams and of waking vi sions, M o

hammed’

s exper ien ce was similar to that of the B ibl ical organs ofrevelation. The importance of dreamsis evident upon the face of the Old Testament narrative . Jacob has a decis ive revelation in a dr eam .

Joseph’s dr eams foreshadowed God’s deali ngs with

him . The author of the Book of Job assumes thatGod speaks to men in thoughts from the visions ofthe night when deep sleep fal l eth on men .

” So inthe N ew Testament the angel whi ch encouragedPaul stood by him in the night, the most natural i nte rpr etati on of the words being that he appeared ina dream . Without laying stress upon th e cases wherethe dream i s sent to startle the unbeliever (as Pharaohor Nebuchadr ezzar)it is clearly made out that, to th eOld Testament wri ters

,the dream was one method

of revelation . Jeremiah , to be sur e, speaks slightingl y of dr eams and seems to contrast them with thevoice which came to the prophet. But this we must

12

178 TH E BIBLE A ND ISLAM

explain as a reaction again st the abuse of dreams bythe prophets of his time .A n d if the waking vision produced extraordi nary

physical manifestations, or was accompanied by extraor dinary physical manifestations in Mohammed.

the same is seen in the Old Testament prophets.Balaam speaks of himself as fallin g down when heh ad the vision of the A l mighty. Ezekiel fell uporhi s face when he saw the chariot of glory. So didDaniel at the appearance of Gabriel;and John,wherhe h ad a revelation of the Son of Man, fell at hifeet like one dead . The phenomena ar e strikin glyal ike

,though a dir ect conn ection does not seem te

exist.But it is tim e to look beyond these external s to the

substance of Mohammed’s revelations. What was i tto which he was called To answer this question wem ay look at one or two of these early chapters. One

has been already quoted. A nother, to which al l usionh as been made

,reads as foll ows

O, th ou wh o ar t wrapped i n a garm en tR i se an d wa rn IA n d m agn i fy th y L o rd ,

A n d c lean se th y garm en ts,

A n d flee i n iqu i ty IA n d do n ot Spen d w ith th e des i re ofga i nA n d wa i t pati en tly fo r th y L o rdWh en a blast i s blown u pon th e trumpetTh at w i l l be a di stressfu l day ,N ot ea sy for th e u n be l ie vers .

"‘Koran , Th e rhym e changes i n the next verse, so thath is section i s probably a revelation by itself.

1 80 TH E BIBLE A N D ISLAM

A profession of faith is a part of worship, so tha‘

we put here the fol lowin g

God i s on e ,

Th e Self- existen tH e begets n ot an d i s n ot begotten ,

A n d n on e i s equ a l to H im .

”

Evidently designed to be used in worship ar e someothers

, as the fifty - fifth , which with its recurring r e

frain reminds us of Psalm 136 . F ar more numerousar e the addresses designed to warn men of their danger. For example :

Th e des i re ofga i n absorbs you ,

U n ti l you vi s i t th e tom b .

Y et you sh a l l certa i n ly k n ow,

Th en sh a l l you certa in ly kn owN ay I fyou kn ew w i th clear kn ow ledgeY ou would certa i n ly see th e flam e

Th en would you see i t w i th c lea r eye ,I n th at day you sh a l l be asked con cern i ng

your p1easu r es .

”1'

This one is somewhat vague in its description 01

the expected punishment,though it is in teresting f01

its accusation of covetousness as the root of men’

s

evil actions. Usually the judgment is depicted witlvividness, as in the following :

Wh en th e h eaven s sh a l l Open ,

A n d sh a ll h ear th e i r L o rd an d obeyW h en th e ea rth sh a l l be la id flat,

A n d sh a l l ca st away wh at i s i n i t an d be empty,An d sh a l l h ea r i ts L ord an d obey

Koran , 112 .


0,m an th ough th ou stri ve h ard aga i n st th y

sh a lt th ou m eet H im .

An d h e wh o rece i ves h i s book in hi s r i gh t h an dSh a l l be judged len i en tly,A n d sh a l l retu rn to h i s fr i en ds w i th joy .

B u t h e wh o rece i ves h i s book beh i n d h i s backSh a l l w ish for an ni h ilation ,

A n d sh a l l suffer th e F i re .

On ce h e rejo iced am i d h i s fri en dsH e th ou gh t h e sh ou ld n ot be m oved.

Y et veri ly, th y L ord was obse r v i ng h im .

B u t wh at a i ls th em , th at th ey do n ot be l ieve !A n d, wh en th e Scri pture i s reci ted, do n ot bow !

Th e un bel iever s even accu se i t ofbei ng fa lseB u t God kn oweth th eir secret th ough t.Th erefor e bri ng th em ti di ngs ofa severe pu n i shm en t,B u t th ose wh o bel i eve an d do we l l receive an un stin ted

reward .

”

These citations are enough to showwhatMohammedun derstood to be hi s mission . He h ad received a callto worship God and to preach. This call he obeyedto the best of h i s abili ty. Doubtless he had somesh rinkin g before appearing in public, as i s indi catedin the tradi tion—Where the angel us es force before hesecur es obedience . I n this also he wil l be found inline with the Bibli cal prophets. Moses seeks to beexcused from the work to which he is called

,on the

ground of i nabil ity to speak,and Jeremiah pleads his

youth as a reason why he should not be sent to Judah .

Thi s is,of course

,a natur al experience we can hardly

suppose that Mohammed was i nfluenced here by h i sBiblical kn owledge .

Koran,84.


I n his later li fe, however, he elaborated the theoryof revelation more disti nctly, an d in the additionaldetails we can clearly trace Biblical ideas . Up tothis poin t we have h ad only tradition to go upon, forthe mode of revelation . For the later per iod wehave more positive assertions in the Koran . A s tothe objective real ity of what he saw he never had anydoubt. But he was sometimes obliged to assure hi sfollowers of it . So we have a description of his exper iences in the following

B y th e Ple i ades wh en th ey setY our fe l low- c i ti zen i s n ot astray o r err i ng.

H e does n ot speak h i s own fan cy.

[Wh at h e speaks]i s a revelati on sen t to h im .

Th e M i gh ty i n power taugh t i t to h imTh e Po ssesso r of str ength . H e stood erectI n th e u ppe r h ori zonTh en h e drew n ear an d con descended

,

A n d was two bows’ length s [from h im]or n ear er.

A n d h e m ade kn own to h i s ser van twh at h e m ade known .

Th e h ear t di d n ot dece i ve con cern in g wh at i t sawA n d wi l l you di spute con cer n i ng wh at h e saw !

H e saw h i m an oth er tim e ,

B y th e s i d r a tree ofth e bo rder,N ear whi ch i s th e gar den of abodeTh en co ve red th e s i d r a tree th at wh i ch covered i t,Th e eye di d n ot tu rn as ide n o r refu se [to look],A n d h e saw th e greatest of th e s i gn s ofh i s L o rd .

The language is obscure in places and is made moreso

,rather than less

,by the commentators. These

suppose the sidr a tree spoken of, to be located inheaven . I t seems to me, on the contrary, to be on

Koran ,


command of God,to confirm what was before r e

vealed,a guidance and good tidings to the be l i ev

ers . ” W e recall that Gabriel is the messenger ofGod both in the Old Testament and in the New. Thatit was NewTestament influence, rather th an Old,whichled Mohammed to adopt him is evident from this verypassage . The Jews h ad the theory that Gabriel wasthe angel sent with bad tidings to I srael

,while the

bringer of good tidings was M ichael . They thereforerefused to accept Mohammed, or rather made thisthe ostensible ground of their refusal . Had he beenunder Jewish influence he would have called the angel Michael rather than Gabriel.We must note again that Mohammed i n some cases

attributes his revelations to the Spiri t : This is a

revelation of the Lord of the A ges with which thefaithful spirit came down into thy heart that thoushouldst be one of the warners “ The spirit ofholiness brought it down from thy Lord in truth tostrengthen those who bel ieve.

” J

r A s Mohammed r e

fused to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity,he could

have no idea of the Spirit as a distinct person of theGodhead. He seems to have wavered between theconception that th e Spirit is one of the angels, andthe conception that it is an influence carried by theangels to the prophets. The variations in his doctrinedo not concern us here . A l l that we n eed to bear inmind is, that he h ad adopted the Biblical teachingthat 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

* Koran , f,


commissioned as a Prophet, Mohammed dr ew certaininferences

,which became important parts of his sys

tem,and which we cannot ignore in treating his doc

trine of revelation. The first of these was that byhis call he became one i n the line of prophets an d

religious leaders, of which the world h ad already seenseveral. This poin t has been already touched uponin our di scussion of the narrative material in theKoran. A s we there saw

,the characters most prom

i n en tl y in his min d were th e great founders of religion,Noah, A braham,Moses, and Jesus. These formedthe chain of whi ch now, by his election, he becamethe concludi ng li nk . I t went with thi s that his religion was not new . He only claimed to reproduce whathad been revealed to his predecessors . Every rel i gious movement seems naturally to seek itsel f in thepast. Thus the Hebrews saw faith exemplified inNoah and A braham;Judaism claimed Moses as itsfounder ;the A postles pointed back to Davi d andI saiah;the Reformers renewed the Chris tianity ofthe A postles . Mohammed’s course is paral lel withthese . An d

, like them, he tried to link his religionwith earlier ones not onl y by his renewal of theirprinciples, but by their supposed prophecies of him .

This claim—that he was predicted in the earlierScriptur es—is unm istakably

,though not very i r e

quently, put forward in the Koran . I n a comparati ve l y late sura we find : Jesus the son of Mary said0

, Children of I srael, verily I am the A postle of Godto you confirming the Tora which you already have

,

and bringing tidi ngs of an A postle to come after mewhose name is I n another place he is

Koran . 015.

1 86 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A I J

spoken of as“ the vernacular prophet whom th ey

fin d described in their own [books], in the Tora and

the Gospel . ” What predictions Mohammed himself

h ad in mind i n these declarations seems impossibleto make out. The A r abic commentators do not hesitate to refer to him al l the Messianic passages of theOld Testament. The Messianic hope, as we kn ow,

did not cease with the coming of Christ , and we canscarcely wonder that Mohammed applied it to h imsel f. For the words of Jesus which he claims in thepassage quoted, tradition points to the promi se of

the Paraclete in the Gospel of John . I t is significantthat this promise h ad already been appropriated byI l l amfi for there ar e some i ndi cations that Mohammed got his Christianity from a heretical source.Wh at interests us here is not th e particular passagein the Prophet’s mind

,but the general claim that he

was not only the legitimate successor of the earli erMessengers of God

,but was also foreseen and expect

ed by them as the seal ” or cul mination of their

mi ssion.

A nother i nference from the firmly held belief thathe was a prophet, is promin ently put forward in the

Th e tran slation i s on ly probable . M ohammed elsewhere em

ph as izes th e fact that h e brings an A rabic revelation . The referen ce h ere i s 7 156. F or a discu ssion of th e passages of Scriptu re appli ed by M oslems to M oh amm ed cf. B rocke lmann , M uhammed

an i sch e W eissagu ngen im A lten T estam en t,” ! V . pp.

138 312 , with rem arks by B ach er, i bi d . , p. 309;also Goldzi ber ,XL I I . , and R evu e des Etudes Jui ces , XXX . , pp. 1—23.

On e M oh ammedan au th or finds n o less than fifty- one proph ecies of

I s lam i n th e B ible .

1' Cf. H erzog, I ! . , p. 231 . Th e passage i n John i s cited

by I bn I sh uk, cf. W eil’s I bn I I i scham , I . , p. 1 12 .


earth . I ndeed we see that the natural implicationof the phrase B ook of God is that the original is written i n heaven . The inference was made by Mohammed : “ This is a noble Koran, in a carefully guardedbook

,touched only by the pure

,a revelation from the

Lord of the A ges. ”

Mohammed’s conception therefore may be definedas follows : there is a great book of God’s decrees

,

wri tten in heaven . From this book,portions ar e sent

down to the successive prophets. These are theparts of the Book fitted for the gui dance of men intotrue faith

,true worship, and right conduct . The

Pentateuch,the Gospel

,and the Koran, ar e al l ex

tracts from this original . They are therefore identicalin substance, and one corroborates the other. Oneof the earliest of Mohammed’s revelations alludes tothe rolls of Abraham and Moses

,as containing a

warning similar to the one just deli vered by himself. I t is unnecessary to suppose, with Sprenger,that there is a reference here to pseudepigraphawhich circulated under these titles. The Pentateuchmight well be described under the name of the roll ofA braham or the roll of Moses. I n later passages wefind it distinctly said that the Koran confirms thepreceding revelations : “ Before this was the Bookof Moses, a guide and a gift of grace, and this [Koran]is a book which asserts the truth [of the other]in

A rabic, that it m ay warn the evildoers.Jr The atti

tude of the Prophet is wel l brought out in what he iscommanded to say to the Jews of Medina who per

Koran . 567W "

, cf.

f. , 30

m r

‘l'

cf. 692, 3523 f

R E VE L A TI ON A ND PR OPH E CY 1 89

sisted in asking him troublesome questions about the

Tom : Say to them We believe in God an d whatis revealed to us, an d in what was revealed to A bra

ham and I shmael and I saac andJacob and the [twelve]tribes

,an d in what Moses and Jesus and the Prophets

received from their Lord. We make no differencebetween them and we ar e resigned to Him .

”A l

though Koran was the proper name of the portionrevealed to him,

he seems in one in stance to call thewhole body of revealed books by this name . This iswhere he denounces the di vi der s who m a loe the K or an

par ts . The most natural explanation of the words isthat they refer to the Jews an d Christians who, byrejecting the later while accepting the earlier revelation

,put asunder what Mohammed joined together.

The theory of Mohammed is a perfectly consistentone

,andwhen he h ad formulated it, he did not waver.

The Jews,we m ay well believe, made strenuous ef

forts to convict him of error, in that he representedtheir Tora to be identical with his revelations. Theonly effect on his m ind was to strengthen the con vi ction of their obstinacy and deceit . We wonder alittle that he did not take more pains to acquainthimself 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 pr i or i system ,and

have ignored or denied those facts which"

conflictedwith it. The attitude of Mohammed is seen in theanecdote that Omar brought a Pentateuch to M 0

hammed and offered to read out of it. The anger ofthe Prophet appeared in his face and Omar desisted

,

Koran ,

1 90 TH E B I BL E A ND I SL A M

sayin g : God protect me from the anger of God andHis A postle I t suffices me that God is my Cheri sher,an d I slam my religion, and Mohammed my prophet.

”

Then Mohammed said : “ I f Moses were alive and

knew my prophecy he woul d follow me. ” The position of Mohammed is qui te in telligible . The principles of I slam were established;for the faith of itsdisciples the confir mation of these principles fromthe Bible was u nnecessary. On the other hand thefacts m ight be inconvenient. On either view, it wasbest to let well enough alone .I t was not the facts of the older Scriptures alone

that were troublesome. The Koran itselfdid not always seem to bear out the character given it. I t coul dnot be expected that a col lection of occasional leaflets

,

published at intervals during more than twenty years,should be free from inconsistencies or even centradictions. Such inconsistencies were adm itted byMohammed himself. Some of them he removed byerasur e. I n some cases he laid the blame on his ownmemory, and once he confessed that Satan had misled him. Finally he declared that God abrogatedsome regulations by later en actmentsxl' I t is possiblethat the theory of abrogation was at first invented toaccoun t for discrepancies between the Bible and theKoran . Two of the passages which state the theoryar e in a context which h as to do with the Jews;and

the thought in Mohammed’s mi nd seems to have beensomething like this : “ Should the Jews object that

M i shcat, I . , p. 53.

t The theory, with a list of the abr ogated verses, i s given i nH ugh es, Di cti on a r y of I s l am , p. 520.


that has been abrogated by another sentence in theKoran

,is decisive. This position of arbiter is paral lel

to what is asserted of the older revelation : We sentdown the Tom as a guide and a li ght;by it the pi ous

pr ophets j udged the Jews ;an d the Rabbi s and theScribes [still]judge by what is committed to them ofthe Book of God

,an d ar e witnesses concerning i

.

”

Mohammed goes on to give a summary of the OldTestament l ea: ta l i on i s and adds : A nd whoever doesnot judge by what God h as revealed

,these are the

A li ttle later in the same chapter Jesusis said to have received the Gospel—“ that the peOo

ple of the Gospel should judge by what God r e

vealed. Then comes Mohammed, who also has r ecei ved a book and who is exhorted thus Then judgebetween them by what God has revealed

,and do not

follow their desires, turning away from what hascome to thee of the truth . To each of you we havegiven a law and a plain path .

‘r

This declaration puts the Koran into the same po

s i ti on of supreme law for the Moslem which the Tom.

o ccupies for the Jew, and wh ich the Gospel occupiesfor the Christian. The conception of the revel ationas l aw becomes especially prominent in the laterperi od of Mohammed’s life. We can readi ly accountfor this . A t Medina the simme warner and bringerof tidings had become the theocratic ruler and judgeover a small but heterogeneous communi ty, unused toa settled form of government. His decisions, therefore

,became precedents and his regulations became

laws. These were embodi ed in the Koran,which,

Koran , 5” f , 1. 559 .

REVELATION A ND PR OPH E OY 193

in this per iod differs material ly in character fromthe ear lier revelations . The later suras ar e in a

sense the archives of the infant state “ The conduct of the disaffected

,the treatment of allies, the

form ation of treaties,th e acceptance of terms and

other political matters [now]found a place among thedivine messages . Liberality in contributing towardthe expenses ofwar —the only object requi r ing a publ i cpu rse— is continuall y in cul cated. The elements of acode both criminal and civil ar e also introduced. Puni shm en ts for certain ofi

'

en ces ar e specified, and a massof legislation [is]laid down for the tutelage of orphans,for marri age, di vorce, sales, bargain s, wil ls , evidence,na v y, and other simil ar concerns. Further, therear e COpi ou s instructions for the gui dance of the believer in his private life and special provisionsregul atin g the intercourse of Mahomet with his sub

jects and with his own This occasionalcharacter of the Koran is most conspicuous in its all u s i on s to the experiences of Mohammed himself.M any of these ar e in teresting for the gl impse theygive us into the heart of the speaker ;as where hebetrays his great anxi ety to work a miracle . Some ofthem ar e comical;as where he teaches etiquette tothe 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 eachother;else your deeds are of no avail

,though you

know it not. They who speak low in the presenceof the A postle of God

,these ar e they whose hearts

God has disposed toward piety .

”

T An d again O,

M u ir, L ife of Mahomet, I I I . , 295. i K or an , 493 f .13


Believers,do not enter the houses of the Prophet

except he invite you to eat with h im ;and do sowithout looking at his furnitur e . But when you ar e

invited,then enter ;an d when you have eaten, then

go your ways, an d do not be familiar in your conversation This pains the Prophet, though he isashamed to tell you but God is not ashamed of thetruth . A n d when you ask anything of them [that i s,his wives], ask it from the other side of a curtainthis is more innocent for your hearts and for theirs.I t is not becom ing i n you to pain the Prophet, norto marry his wives after his death . This were i nthe sight of God a great To bring in a divi nerevelation in order to ease the j ealous heart of a fondold m an

,seems to us to border on blasphemy. A nd

when the same m ethod is taken to justify him inviolating the rul e which he had himsel f made on thesubject of m ar r i agen

'“and again to vindicate his fa

vor i te wife when she was the subject of scandal, we

ar e shocked and disgusted.

Koran , 3353~ Th e h ou ses of th e P roph et were a r ow of hu ts

arou nd a cou rt. E ach wife h ad on e , and M ohammed dwelt withth em by tu rn s .

j M oh amm ed had ordered hi s followers to take not more thanfou r wives . H e in creased h i s own hareem to n in e or m ore and

ju stified h im se lf by a revelation H e was se ized with a pas

s ion for th e wife of h i s adopted son Zaid . Zaid divorced h er , buti t was again st cu stom ary m orals for a m an to marry th e divorcedwi fe of an adopted son . A fter som e wavering, M ohamm ed com

m anded h im self (i n a revelation )to take h er ;and of cou rse h e thu sset as ide th e o l d l aw I n forbidding remarriage on th e partof th e widows he m ight leave , h e poss ibly h ad Jewish precedent i nm ind, according to Sale , P r el i m . Di s , wh o cite s M ish n a Sanhedr i n,to prove th at th e widow of a prin ce sh ou ld not remarry.


proper limits of this inquiry . We are here investigatin g the nature of the influence exerted by theBible on the religion of Mohammed. For the sub

ject of this lecture we m ay describe this influence asfollows1 . Mohammed’s general doctr ine of revelation was

undoubtedly derived from the Bible . The doctrineis that God reveals His will to chosen men who ar e

commanded to speak for Him,an d who are cal led

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 th e ruleby Mohammed

,for he identifies revelation by the

Spi r i t with this, because he makes the Spirit to bean angel . I n some cases he so completely adoptsthe Biblical vi ew 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 thefir st person

,not to express his own mind

,but to ex

press th e mind o i God. I n this also he follows B ibl ical precedent, where, i n the height of propheticspeech, the ego of the prophet disappears before theHigher Ego .

* Here also, what is occasional in theOld Testament h as become the rule with Mohammed.

That the cause of God is identified with the cause ofthe prophet

,is the natural consequence of this view.

A n d in this connection we mu st not shut our eyesto the fact that God’s care for His cause i s , in the OldTestament

,extended to the personal affairs of the

E wald, P r oph eten dos A l ten B u ndes 9, p. 33.


prophet . Jeremiah was informed by revelation ofthe intended treachery of his fellow- townsmen. Sam

uel was directed by revelation i n making use of a subterfuge to deceive Saul, and thus to relieve his ownfear. God identifies Eli sha s honor with His own,and where the prophet relieves hi s feelings with acur se, God makes the curse effective in avenging theinsult. Such examples show that Mohammed’s presumption is not altogether without precedent.4 . The revelation received by the prophet is r e

garded by Mohammed as a tran scri pt from a heavenlyori ginal. I n this he h as gone farther than any express declaration of the Bible, but it is not un fair tos ay that the general thought is Bibli cal . Besideswhat has already been said, we may notice that whenEzekiel 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 preparedto speak to I srael.* The meaning is that his pr ophe cy wa s the communication of a heavenly original .The author of the A pocalypse h as a similar exper i

ence in vi sion. On the basis of these passages theidea of a h eaven l y original, of which revealed booksar e transcripts, had arisen before Mohammed. ThusEnoch h as the heavenly tablets shown him in whichhe reads “

al l the deeds of men to the latest generations. ”1

' He is then able to embody these in his own

* E zek .

fDas B uck. B anach , von Di l l mann K ap. 8 1,p. 51. I n th e

B ook of Jubilees th e B ible itse lf s eem s to be described as th e

h eaven ly tablets . Cf. Das B uck defr Jubi l o’

i en , E wald, Jah r bi ich er ,I I . , pp. 237 , 256 .


book . But as Mohammed’s idea of prophecy is more

distinctly Biblical than that found i n the Book ofEnoch

,there is probably no direct influence here to

be di scovered.

5. The sum of the revelations received by theprophet makes up a rule of faith and l ife . This ideais also Biblical ;at least, this is the poin t of viewfrom which the N ew Testament regards the Old Testament

,though it at the same time formulates a

theory of abrogation similar to the one forced uponMohammed.

Mohammed, therefore, held substantiall y Biblicalviews of Revelation and Prophecy.

'200 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

must define the salvation offered by the preacher . I n

the Reformation this was defined as justification byfaith alone, that is, the grace of God imparted immediately to the believer, not conditioned by theChurch’s ministration . W ithout pausing to inquirehow far these two answers are correctly labelled

,

for m a l and mater i a l,let us notice that corresponding

answers ar e given in I slam . Mohammed preached adoctrine

,an d was obl i ged to tell where he got it.

This he did in his assertion of divine revelation tohimself

, at the same time justifying his claim by anappeal to the earlier prophets. He offered also another boon— salvation . He was obliged here also todefine his position . This definition forms the subjcet of the present lecture .I have already said that Mohammed offered salva

tion . Salvation implies something from which onemust 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 startingpoint is the nature of m an . I n this the position ofthe Koran is very simple m an consists of a materialpart, the body, an d an immaterial part

,the soul.

This was taken over from Ar abic heathenism,where

the custom of offering sacri fices to the dead implies acontinued existence of the soul after the death of thebody. This separate existence of the soul howeverseems to have been conceived of as shadowy and un

real—much like the unsubstantial and unsatisfyingstate in which the Old Testament pictures the inbahi ta n ts of Sheol . I t was because this conceptionfailed to meet his idea of the future state

,that Mo

SI N A N D SA L VA TI ON 201

hammed laid so m uch emphasis on the resurrection .

His leading thought was the thought of the JudgmentDay . But a judgment which should deal only withthe unsubstantial incorporeal shades woul d be itselfunsubstantial and shadowy. The thought of the Judgment is necessarily accompanied by the thought ofthe Resurrection—thus only does it become a reality.

W ith the restored body,the whole m an meets his

Maker, an d both parts of his natur e ar e pun ished orrewarded for that for which both parts ar e r espon

sible.This matter interests us here on ly so far as it

throws light on the nature of m an . A t the beginningof his career

,Mohammed found the doctrine of the

resurrection necessary,because he h ad difficulty in

conceiving the independent existence of the soul . I t

seems as ifthe doctrine helped him in this respect sothat he was able partly to dispense with it in hislater teaching. What I mean is, not that he evergave up the resurrection or wavered in regard to it;but that when he h ad accustomed himself to the doctrine of the resurrection

,the soul itself had more con

sistency, it began to stand more distinctly for them an . He never seems to have been troubled by thequestion where the soul resides during the intervalbetween death and the resu rrection . Tradition h asindeed busied itself with this question

,as we should

expect. B u t the Koran h as no intimation of a

middle state,such as we should find h ad it been a

matter of importance in the mind of Mohammed.

A fter the battles of I slam began, we find a distinctassurance that the souls of believers enter at once on


the joys of paradise. Thi s implies, of course, tha'

th e soul is capable of its full li fe apart from the bodyThe resurrection therefore would seem to be super

fiu ou s . The soul is the man and can dispense wi tlthe body

, as it does i n death and even in sleep .

* B e

cause the soul is the m an it m ay be spoken of wherthe whole m an is meant.The souls which tremble in the day of judgmem

are the soul s reclothed with their bodies,that is, th r

persons . When it is said that every soul Shall tasteof death, evidently every human being is meant. The

soul being the active principle, is that which desiresgood or ev i l ,

’r ju st as in Hebrew ;the word for sou

i s,in fact

,the sam e in the two languages.

A close parallel with the Hebrew also is the A rabirconnection of the soul an d the heart. The heart ithe seat of the soul—not the affections only, but th eintellect as well. What m ay be predicated of the soum ay be predicated equally of the heart. Thus : th <sou l believes, or the m an believes with the heart :The heart is terrified ;it is the seat of the i n te l l igence . God seals or covers the hearts so that merdo not understand the hearts of believers fin d peacq

i n remembering God .§ Y ou will already have noticed the great similarity between these affirmation

I n 65° God i s said to take th e sou ls i n th e n igh t (th at i s, i n sleepwith th e sam e langu age with wh ich th e angels ar e said to take thsou ls at death , cf. also 3943 . Th ose wh o h ave been slain ibattle for th e good cau se cann ot be called dead—they ar e th e tru lliving, th ough beyond ou r sigh t,t Koran 413 1

1 10-00

, 16

§ 508 6,

201 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A JII

The doctrine that the soul is the m an , precludethe idea that s i n is th e evil of the body—or that th r

flesh is the seat of sin . This is not contradicted bythe prominence given to the desires as a source 0:sin

,for the desires pertain to the soul. Orienta

speculation on this subject seems not to have reachedMohammed . I f it reached him,

it m ade no impression upon him. I n fact, as we have h ad occasion tcremark

,he was no philosopher or speculative theo

l ogi an . The problem which confronted him was a

practical problem . Before him,scattered indivi duals

throughout the tribes— the H an ifs already alludedto— h ad labored with it as a practical problem . Theysought a peace of conscience which the rites of h eath e n i sm could not give . Mohammed’s interestwas n cother. I n him as in them ,

the sense of sin was arousedexperimentally. Hence came the long practice 01

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 n ot

thereby abolished ;it was rather established. Th e

thought of the Day of Judgment took strong hold

upon him, j u st because he so strongly realized the fact

of sin in himself. What he experienced i n himself

he observed in others. The call to preach, of which

he was so v ividly conscious,was based upon the con

v i cti on that h i s contemporaries were in sin and under

thewrath of God.

On the basis of his personal experience Moh ammed

believed in the universality of sin . He transferred

his own experien ce to other m en an d classed them

with himself. This we conclude from indirect i h


tim ati on s rather than from express affirmations ofthe Koran . He nowhere asserts categorically thesinfulness of the whole race. He h ad to do with a

condition,not a theory. I n a tradi tion he is report~

ed as saying : There is not of the sons of A dam except Mary an d her Son, one born but is touched bythe devi l at the time of his birth and the child makes

a loud noise from the The tradition isdoubtless influenced by some theory of natural depravity. But it does not afii rm the transmission of

s i n from father to son—the idea is rather that fromthe moment of birth every human being is assai ledby Satan . The universali ty of actual transgressiondoes not necessarily foll ow.

I t is in fact rather remarkable that Mohammedshould so ful ly adopt the Biblical accou nt of the s i nof A dam

,an d 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 theletter of the Bible in this than in the other Biblica lnarratives, in fact the departu res ar e rather more noti ceabl e in this than in the others. His account is tothe effect that A dam and his wife were created ofclay and placed in the Garden of Paradise, which isin heaven. God commands the angels to bowdownto A dam as His vicegerent . Al l obey except I blis

,

who refuses on the groun d that A dam is his inferi or .I blis is then expelled from the Garden because of hisarrogance

,but receives permission to act as the

tempter of m an . A dam and his wife ar e commandednot to eat of one tree i n the Garden , and are warned

* M i shca t, I p. 23 .


against the wiles of Satan. Nevertheless Satan i hsinuates that the tree is forbidden to them becauseif they eat, they will become angels or immortal . Sc

they e at,an d both tempter and tempted ar e cast dowr

to earth to live i n mutual enmity until the day of fin afidoom . The story,which is given several times in theKoran , m ay be said to embody Mohammed

’s theoryof the origin of sin . This was to him a very simplem atter— sin is disobedience to the comm ands of God.

I t came into being when the pride of I blis revoltedagainst a command of God . I twas transmitted fromI blis to A dam by way of suggestion, and i n him its

essence was disobedi ence to the command of God.

That A dam was origin all y endowed with holi ness andlost it in his fall , is nowhere affirm ed. No more i ssuch a solidarity of the race affirmed or assumed as

woul d make al l mankind sin in A dam and fal l withhim in his first transgression .

Al though we find no theory of an organic conn ectionbetween the sin of A dam and the sinful ness of the race,yet the story of the first m an is not unmeani ng. I t i s

an example of the universal experience . A l l men aresubj ect to temptation . Thi s comes from their desires.We read of the wicked I n their hearts is a di sease,and God increases their disease ” and again : “Evi lis that which their soul s have put before them. i I n

this passage the soul seems put for the desires,as we

fin d it also in the old Testament. I n the accountgiven of Joseph the hero himself confesses that “ thesoul inclines to evil except my Lord have mercy. 1Elsewhere Mohammed is warned against him who

Koran 29. I 1253

_


effect : When the Prophet was an infant (in anotherform of the story when he was twelve years old), tweangels cut open his breast and took out his heanwhich they washed with snow an d then restored tehis bosom . The story in this form is undoubtedlymeant to teach that the infant

’

s heart was thus cl eansec'

of hereditary depravity. But we are able to say tha1the story in this form is comparatively late. A s firs 1

told,it was connected not with the Prophet’s infancy

but with the beginning of his ministry. I n this for rrit meant only that when God called Mohammed, H ecleansed him from the guilt of his former sin s—es

peci al l y from the idolatry which he had practised i this earlier life . I n 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

tru th [has come]from your Lord;whoever will, l e1him believe

,and whoever will

,let him disbelieve.”

Whether the light of n ature is enough to induce obedi ence we are not told. I n practice the command 01

God comes through the prophets. The sin which i sin the world is disobedience to these commandsThose who disobey

,foll owing the allurements of the

world or of Satan,are lost. To realize how mu cl

this word meant to Mohammed we must picture teourselves the condition of the traveller in the desertThe pathless waste stretches out on every hand. The

wells are few and hidden in the sand. The pitilesssun burns upon him from above and the heated soifi

scorches his feet from below. The scanty water- skins

Koran

S I N A N D SA L VA TI ON 209

ar e soon exhausted. Unless some friendly hand pointthe way to water, the caravan must lie down an d di e .

Such is the condition of m an in the present world .

He is a wanderer in a desert - i n hopeless perplexityun less he h as a guide . I n this sense al l men ar e lostunless God interv enes for their rescue .

That this was Mohammed’s view we cann ot doubt .He h ad in his own heart an abiding sense of his needof guidance . The only real petition in his modelprayer (the Fatiha)asks for guidance;an d he inter

pr ets 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 ar t th e bountifulGiver. ” A nd a further commentary is afforded bythe traditions . Mohammed was asked what he wasaccustomed to say in his private devotions . He r e

plied I say O God put my sins as far away fromme as Thou hast put the East from theWest O God

,

cleanse me from sin as the wh ite garment is cleansedfrom its filth O God

,wash away my sin s with water

and with snow an d with I need hardly callyour attention to the Scripture affirmation that Godhas put our sins as far from us as the East is fromthe West,

”and to the language of Job concerning

washing himself in snow water. The resemblancemay be owing partly to the tradi tionist, bu t there isno reason to suppose that the sentiment is not genui n e l y Mohammed

’s .The sense of sin thus revealed is found also in M 0

hamm ed’

s companion s . A bu Bekr asked Mohammedto teach him a prayer to be used i n his pri vate devo

*Koran 36. fB ocha/r i , I . , p. 167 .

14

210 TH E B I B L E A N D I S L A M

tions . The form given was 0, God , I h av <

wronged my own soul with grievous sin, an d none forgives sins but Thou ;forgive me with Thy forgiveness

,an d have compassion unto me— verily Thou ar'

the Forgivi ng,the Compassionate .

”A bu Bekr was

of an em otional nature, an d we ar e not surprised tefin d such desires in him . But Omar

,the m an of ir or

will an d cool head,was affected with the same corr

cern I heard the sobbing of Omar (says one of th eCompanions), when I was in the last row [in them osque]as he recited ' I show my grief and my

sorrow to God alone . 1 Others of th e early Moslems wept when prosperity came to them

,fearing

that they were receiving th eir recompense in thislife . One of the Companions came to con sult him

,

and the Prophet said A r e you come to ask what i sgoodness and what is badness ! On receiving an

affirmative reply (says the narrator), he joined hisfingers together and struck th em upon my breast

,

that is,he made a sign toward my heart

,and said

A sk the sentence from thine own heart. This he r e

peated three times an d added : Goodness is a thingfrom which the heart finds firmness an d rest, and

badness is a thing which throws thee into doubt,though men m ay approve . I The sentence remindsus of Paul’s treatment of conscience

,but it is not

quoted for that analogy. I t is in place here, becauseit th rows light upon the mind of Mohammed and his

B ocha r i , I ., p. 187 .

fI bid . , p. 162 . Omar, was , of cou rse,i n th e front r ow of those

praying.

I M i sh ca t, I I . , p. 4 . F or som e striking examples ofthe dread ofs i n , see Krem er, H er r sch ende [dean des I s l am , p, 24.

212 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A rM

that day repentance will no longer avail, and thosewho ar e confronted with the list of their sins wilwish in vain for one hour of earthly life i n which teaccept the message of their prophet . They will bea sked whether they h ad not h ad the opportunity terepent whether apostles h ad not come to warn thenof their danger. They will be obliged to confess thatthey have brought their punishment on themselves.Salvation (this is the conclusion)is offered to men bythe apostles of God . I t was offered to A dam afterhis fall : “ A dam received from his Lord words

, and

repented (He is the I ndulgent, the Compassionate)We said : Go down hence, and when there comes toyou guidance from Me

,whoever follows My guidance.

no fear shall rest upon such nor shall they begrieved.

”A dam thus received the words of grace

di rectly from God, an d with them a promise of futurerevelation to the race.I n what has been said thus far , you will discover

the substantial agreem ent of Mohammed with B ibl ical doctrine . A side from Paul

,whose philosophical

discussion h as perhaps unduly colored later theology,th e Biblical writers l ay no emphasis upon the fall ofm an in A dam . A t the same time they assume theprevalence of sin

,an d i ts practical universal ity.

Their conviction is based upon the testimony of

their own consciences . They feel,therefore

,the

need of salvation . This feeling is quickened by thepreaching of the Prophets who proclaim a Day oi

Yahweh, a day of calamity upon the evildoers. I n

the N ew Testament this Day of the Lord is com

Koran 235 f.


bi ned with the final Judgment. The time is eviden tl y thought to be near, though it is expresslydeclared that no m an knows the day nor the hour.

The emphasis of the message is laid upon the way ofescape provided by God Himself . This way of escape was apparently open to A dam and was indicatedby a promise made to him for his descen dants. I n

a l l these respects,Mohammed took strict ly Biblical

ground.

Looking more narrowly at the idea of salvation as

set forth in I slam,we discover

,first

,that it is of

God’

s free grace . He h as provided in His ordinaryadministration of the world (that is, i n nature)a l l thatm an could require at His hands. But this h as provedinsufficient. M an is ungrateful and inaccessible tosuch evidences . God therefore adds something more

,

in giving His revelation. Not that Mohamm ed drawsa definite line marking offGod’s goodness in naturefrom His goodness in the scheme of salvation . Hespeaks of the gr ace of God i n both. This wordmeans the state of mind which leads one to help orpardon the undeserving ;grace, mercy, or compassion ar e our equivalents. This state of mind in God isshown by His ordinary providence. The rain is an

expression of His grace,an d th e winds which bri ng

the clouds are its precur sors. The succession of dayand night is adapted to the needs of man ,

and this isof His grace. When trouble comes upon men theypray to God, and He makes them taste His grace i nthat He sends them r e l i efj

'

R ahma ;th e root i s fou nd also i n H ebrew .

fK or an 2873, 3039

.


Salvation is another evi dence an d outworking ofthe same grace . The prophets of earlier times weresaved from the destruction which overtook the nu

believers by a gr ace (or mer cy) from God.

* By thesam e gr ace those who ar e admitted to Paradise ar e

saved,and they recognize the fact.

’r The special

proof of this mind on the part of God is the gift ofrevelation . The prophet Salih remonstrates with hispeople : “0,

my people ! Do you not see ! I f I

have received a plain S ign from my Lord,and if

there h as come to me from Him a grace [that is, ar evel ati on], who will defend me from Him if I rebelagainst him ! ”

I I n a nearly related sense theprophet is himself said to be a grace from God. Sothe angel of the annunciation, speaking for God,says to Mary “W e have made him [Jesus]a sign tomankind

,and a gr ace from U s . § Mohammed also is

addressed in the words “We have sent th ee as a

grace to the universe . The same word is appliedto the revelation when embodied i n a book ' “ e en

Moses’ anger was appeased he took up the Tables inwhose characters was a direction and a grace to thosewho fear their Lord.

”

I The “ grace of God whichbringeth salva tion ” is a Biblical phrase which wellsums up the view of Mohammed as set forth in thesepassages.But the grace of God does not limit itself to pr ov id

ing the revelation which guides men into life . I t isalso exerted efficaci ou s l y upon the hearts of men,movi ng them to obey the revelation . I know not how

* Koran 11

192 1 .


to the lot of a l l mankin d . The question of such a decree seems to have been brought home to Mohammedby the Jews . They insisted that they were an electpeople

,an d the implication was obvious that God had

rejected the other nations . A gainst this implicationMohammed asserted God’s sovereign freedom . Theelection of I srael he acknowledged : God chose forHimself A dam an d Noah an d the family of A brahaman d the fam ily of I mran [the father of Mary]above

a l l the world .

” But he refused to acknowledge thevalidi ty of the inference dr awn by the Jews. I f

God h ad pleased, He h ad made them [that is, manki nd]a single nation . But He lets whom He willpartake of His grace, and the evildoers have neitherprotector nor helper. ” i That is to say true religionis not a m atter of race;al l mankin d might have beenthe favored recipients of revelation ;the preferenceof one part over another rests in the will of God Hem ay and does admit others to His grace as well asthe Jews. The verse

,therefore

,vindicates the free

dom of God against a too narrow doctrine of e l ecti on iI t reminds us that Paul reasons in a similar way

The Jew cl aims that God h as bound Himself to save

Koran 1

1 A gain st th e m axim of th e Jews to tru st n on e but those of th eirown religion ,

M oh ammed says Say V erily the Gu idan ce i sGod

’

s Gu idan ce, th at any m an may receive th e like ofwh at you

h ave rece ived, or m ay even su rpass you i n the sight of you r L ord.

Say V erily th e bou n ty i s i n th e hand ofGod;H e be stows i t upon

wh om H e will, and God i s liberal, wise . H e distingu ish es by H i sgrace wh om H e will, and H e i s th e posse ssor of en ormou s bounty(36

6 I). I t m u st be clear that th e opposition i s between th e n arrow

n es s of Judaism ,wh ich recogn izes n o religion bu t i ts own , and th e

breadth of a divine ch oice wh ich i s n ot confin ed with in lines of race .


those who ar e born under the L aw Paul replies thatHe h as mercy on whom He will have mercy. This isnot an assertion of the absoluteness of the decree. I t

is a protest against the narrowness of those wholim it 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 n o longer confined bylines of descent . God not only chooses the prophets

as His distinguished instruments ;He chooses alsothe other believers “ Of their [that is, the P r ophets

’

]fathers

,and of their children , an d of their brothers,

have We chosen, an d have led them on the straightpath. This is the guidance of God by whom Hegu ides whom He will of His servants;but if they be

come polytheists,what they have done will be of no

account. These are they to whom We have giventhe Book and wisdom and prophecy;an d if they disbelieve i n it

, We will appoint for it a people who don ot di sbelieve. ” The divine choice is here asserted,but it is not an absolute choice. Even those who ar echosen may become polytheists, thus falling away.

I n one passage,however

,we find that the will of the

believer is dependent upon the divi ne will : “ This,

now, is a reminder whoever wi l l let him choose theway to his Lord. But you wi l l not wi l l unless God

Some other passages bearing on this subjecthave already been quoted in the lecture on the Gover nmen t of God. What we there discovered is confirmed here— that Mohammed h ad no rigid theory onthe subject .

Koran 637 n" f.


The general theory of predestin ation (as we saw)isan affirm ation that the disbelief of m an cannot reallythwart the wil l of God . On the side of faith, thisconviction is aided by the soul’s consciousness of itsown weakness . The awakened m an finds within himself no ability to meet the commands of God. Hisj udgment concerning his own will is, that it is averseto good an d dead in sin . When he finds himself believing in God an d appropriating His grace

,he feels

that this is not his own unaided act. The doctrine ofgrace is a judgment founded on this experience. Sav

ing faith m ust be explained as the effect of grace . Mo

h amm ed’

s view is seen in the following, addressed tobelievers : “ God has made you love faith, and has

made it attractive in your hearts, an d h as made i nfidelity and vice an d rebellion odious to you .

”

Withthis compare the following : l Ve sent Jesus

,the son

of Mary an d gave H im the Gospel,and pl aced i n the

hear ts of those who followed h im compassi on and

gr ace an d again I t is He who sent the Sh eki nainto the hearts of the believers to increase them infaith after they had once believed . i The doctrin eof election

,as far as it is held

,is a part of the doc

trine ofgrace.

The same thing is true of the Scripture doctrine,

where it is apparently asserted that faith is a gi ft fromGod

,an d where the believer is en couraged to work

out his own salvation becau se it is God who is workingin h im to will an d to do of His good pleasure . The

re velation alon e does not save men. This is evidentfrom its different effects upon different men . To some

* Koran 497 and cf. 58” 1


em erge more distinctly. The great obstacle wh ichmet the Prophet revealed itself as unbelief and con

ver se l y , the distinctive mark of those who acceptedthe n ew religion was seen to be faith . After the veryearliest period of his ministry, therefore, he adoptedful ly the declaration : “He that believeth shall besaved

, and he tha t believeth not shall be damned .

The A rabic word which Mohammed used to express the idea o i faith is essentially the same wordused both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament andin the Syriac translation of the N ew Testament. Heused it to describe (historically)the state of mind ofthe prophets

,his predecessors

, and those who followedthem . I t is A braham especially who is the exampleof faith : “ A braham was neither Jew nor Christian

,

yet he was pious,resigned

,an d not an idolater. The

nearest of men to A braham ar e those who followh im— that is : the Prophet [Mohammed]an d those

who be l i eve . Wh o is more excellent in the matterof religion than he who resigns himself to God

,who

does good works an d follows the way of A brahamthe pious, whom God took as His Thethought is evidently borrowed from the N ew Testament. A n d our first definition of faith is taken fromthe behavior of A braham— he was not an idol ater .

That is to say : Faith is acceptance of the propositionthat there is no God but on e .

“ A braham said to hisfather : I am pure from the service which you render. ” T That Mohammed did not mean the m er e i nte l l ectu al faith

,however, is evident from other pas

sages,such as the following : The believers comm i t

Koran f,


themsel ves to God;and why should we not commit

ourselves to Him,when He h as guided us on our

ways ! Other passages which speak of the be l i ev

ers taking God as their protector imply that thei r

faith is tr ust i n H ieThe m an who believes i n God must believe the

messenger of God and his message . God and His

A postle ar e often joined together as the objectof faith ;so ar e God an d His revelation. Or, faithm ay be spoken of as belief in the A postle or in therevelation, Where belief in God is implied. A s withus

,beli ef in the Word necessarily includes belief in

God. This faith is assent to the truth of th e message .

The most frequent charge against the unbelievers isthat they accuse the revelation of falsehood. Examples ar e so numerous that I need not quote . iI n other passages faith is defined as believing i n

God and the Last Day ,§ or simply as believing in thelife to come. Believers ar e once described as hav i ng

Koran 14“ f

I R i s perhaps an eviden ce of th e affin ity of M ohamm ed'

s doc

trine with that cu rren t am ongCh ristian s that he fou nd th e Ch ristian sthe most ready to receive h im Th ou wilt find th e n earest i n friendsh ip to th e believers th ose who call th em selves Ch ristian s . Th is i sbecau se th ey have priests and m onks , and ar e n ot arrogant. W henthey h ear what i s revealed to th e P roph et, thou wilt see th e ir eyesoverflow with tears on accou nt of th e tru th wh ich th ey recogn ize ,wh ile they say Ou r L ord, we believe E n roll u s am ong th ose wh o

testify [to th e tru th]. A nd why sh ou ld we n ot believe i n God and

i n th e truth whi ch h as com e to u s , and [wh y sh ou ld we n ot]des ireth at ou r L ord may place u s am ong th e righteou s 586 W e can

h ardly suppose th e words to h ave been spoken with ou t some basisi n fact.

259 .


a ssur ance of the life to come, and once as be l i ev i ng

i n the un seen . The unbelief which opposed Mohammed made its stand on this point more obstinatelythan on an y other. That men should be restored tolife wi th fully reconstructed bodies after once becoming dust an d mouldering bones, they would not believe,and

,indeed, they ridicu led so absurd a proposition .

The preacher h ad often to denounce the guilt of suchunbelief. Conversely

,faith in the future life is often

men tioned i n connection with faith in God an d HisA postle : “ Those who believe in the futur e life believe [also] in the Koran, and are watch ful unto

pr ayer .

”9G A n d again : The believers, al l of them

,

believe in God and His angels, an d His Books and

His A postles—with out di stinguishin g between theA postles— an d they say : We have heard and weobey ! Grant us Thy forgiveness

,O Lord;unto

Thee we tend . T Faith,then

,is not a mere intel

lectual assent to certain propositions it is a disposing of the will toward the A uthor of the revelation

,

with a desire to obey His commands .W e can readily understand now,

why faith andgood works ar e so often mentioned together. They

who be l i eve and do good wor ks is the most frequentphrase descriptive of the righteous . More elaboratedescriptions ar e such as the following : “ The gooddoes not consist in turning your faces to the East orthe West. But good is he wh o believes in God and

the Last Day , and the angels and the Book and theProphets;and who for the love of Him gives hisproperty to his kin smen

,and to the orphans

,and the

Koran 6 - 2.

224: TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

of the action* is very near the Old Testament decl aration that as a m an thinketh in his heart

,so is he. ”

A gain, a tradition gives the following : Mohammedsaid None of you believes until he loves his brotheras he loves himself. T New Testament influence isthe more marked, tha t the P es l r i to h as thy br other forthy nei ghbor i n the second great commandment. An dagain : None of you believes until I am dearer toh im than his father an d his ch i l d.

”

I We rememberthat Jesus also said He that loveth father ormother more than me is not worthy of m e ;and hethat loveth son or daughter more than me is notworthy of me .

” Once more Mohammed said :There is a piece of flesh in the body [of which it istrue that]when it is right, the whole body is righ t,an d when it is unsound the whole body isOu t of the hea r t a r e the i ssues of l ife is the paralleldeclaration of the Gospel .I s l am is another name for faith;or, where a dis

tinction is made, I s l am is the outward profession;

I man (faith) is the inward state . Mohammed saysof the Bedawin “ The A rabs say We believe .

Say to them : N ay you do not believe, you shouldsay rather : W e have accepted I slam ,"for faith has

not yet entered your hearts . He knew his A rabsan d knew that the great part of them had made an

extern al submission to h i s rule while their hearts wereunch anged . Still

, as the submission m ay be the expression of sincerity

, I slam is not infrequently used

B ocha r i , I . , p. 2 . fI bi d. , p. 8 . Cf. M att. 2210 (Pesh ito).fl bid. , p. 9 . Cf. M att. 10 m a , p. 17 .

A s l amna, we a r e r es igned. Th e passage i s


for faith : When [A braham’s]Lord said to him

Be resign ed ! he replied : I am resigned to the Lordof the universe .” When A braham went to offer hisson

,the son encouraged his father, promising to be

patient—“A nd when both had [thus]resigned themselves

,he threw him upon his face but We called

to him .

”A s submission to the will of God, I slam

is a prin ciple common to the three great religions.The Jews and Christians claim to have been resigned

(Moslems) before the coming of M ohamm edT I t

follows that Mohammed did not intend to makeI slam th e distinguishing principle of his religion .

He identified his rel igion with Judaism and Christian i ty . I n al l three,fai th was the principle in theheart, I slam the profession with the lips . I n theN ew Testament also

,

“with the heart man believethunto righteousness, and with the mouth confession i smade unto sal vati on .

”

IBut what is the salvation secured by those who

believe ! Most prominently it is deliverance frompunishment. A s we have seen, the future state bulkslargely in the preaching of Mohammed. He had notimidity in painting either the joys of the blessed orthe torments of the doomed. The thought of theJudgment was the overmastering thought of his earlier car eer, and the motive for his preachin g. That hewas here under Christian influence needs no demonstration . To modern taste his appeal to the fear ofpunishment is made too prominent. But it is doubtful whether it would have seemed so to the Churchof the Middle A ge .

Koran 1' 2859 tR om .

15


We should wrong Mohammed, however, if we supposed his conception of salvation to be merely external. The happiness of the bel iever consists inobtaining 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 H i s grace in the past . When David wasreproved by a parable then he di scovered howNVe h ad tested him and, falling prostrate, he beggedforgiveness of hi s Lord and repented;and We forgave him his sin, and he had access to Us, and an

excellent Of true bel i evers it is saidThese

,when they have done wrong or harmed their

soul s,remember God and ask forgiveness for their

sins (an d who forgives sins except God ! )and do notpersist in what they have done

,when they know [its

harm] their portion is forgiveness from their Lord,and Gardens in which flow perennial str eam s .

”

lA lthough the future reward is mentioned here, theforgiveness is evidently regarded as a good in itself.A n d we can scarcely doubt the spi ritual emphasis ofsuch a passage as the following I fyou love Godfollow me

,and God will love you and forgive your

sins— God is loving and gracious . ” I I t is relatedin a tradition that Mohammedwas accustomed to prayfor forgiveness seventy times a day ;and that hesaid “ There are three things possessing which a

m an finds the sweetness of faith that A llah an d HisProphet ar e dearer to him than anything besidesthem ;that he loves the m an who is loved by none

Koran 1329


doubt an exaggerated statement, as compared withwhat Mohammed himself would have said . But heopened the way to such a conception by presentinghis revelation as a lega l system . Here is one of thepoi nts in which he failed to rise to the New Testament view

,and in which his system more nearly r e

sembled the legalism into which the Jews fell bytheir one - sided emphasis of their Tora.But while admitting that I slam did not rise to the

height of the Gospel,we must remember that the

Christianity of that day did not rise to the heightof the Gospel either. The early Church saw in theN ew Testament a new L aw of essentially the samenature with the old .

* This being the conceptionwhich Mohammed received from th e Christianity ofhis time we cannot wonder that he adopted it, especial l y as circumstances emphasized the need of astrict code . He h ad to do with men converted fromheathenism . They were men little used to self- control. A s a matter of state policy, he was obliged toprovide them with specific rules of conduct, and toenforce obedience by supernatural sanctions. Hisrules were not as restrictive as those of Judaism, butthe principle on whi ch the system was based wasreall y the same .The result of placing the revelation in this position

has been to make I slam the most conservative system the world has ever seen . Mohammed was, as hehimself claimed

,the last of the prophets—the seal of

that long line of messengers. His revelation is therefore the final revelation

,an d being a law for all rela

H arnack, Dogm engesehz’

ch te, I I . , p. 140.


tions of life,civil

,social

,and individual, these cannot

change because it cannot change .

* There is n o

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 areindeed from the same exalted source . But in theirpresent form these ar e open to suspicion as havingpossibly been corrupted by those who have them incharge . The authentic l aw is the Koran and faithin God means obedience to this l aw. Mul titudes ofea rnest and conscientious m en ar e making it theaim of their lives to conform to this l aw. They actually attain a high degree of virtue measured by thestandard of the Middle A ge;and their conscientiousfidelity to principle must command our respect

,meas

ur e it by what standard we will . But their devotionto the light which came to their ancestors nearlythirteen hundred years ago

,shuts their eyes to the

light of the present time . Al l the wonderful progressof which we boast, is to them only apostasy from thetruth of God. Hence arises the tragedy of the East—a tragedy at which the civilized world standsaghast to- day , an d the last act in which, it is to befeared, is not yet played.

This is not the place in which to discuss this subjcet at length . Our topic is sin and salvation

, an d

we have discovered in this as in the other parts of

Th e tradition s r ightly express th e m ind of I slam wh en th eymake M oh amm ed say V erily th e best word i s th e word of God;and the best ru le of condu ct i s th at de livered by M oh amm ed, andth e worst of al l acts ar e th ose wh ich ar e inn ovation s and

every innovation i s abandon ing th e right road .

”I . , p.

44.


Mohammed’s doctrine a decisive Biblical influence.His system is that of the Old and New Testament, sofar as he was able to adapt it to the people withwhom he came in contact. To a considerable extenthe apprehended the doctrin e of salvation by faith.

But he hampered his system by tyi ng faith down to acode whi ch, under the gui se of an unchangeable revelation, made the customs of hi s time a matter of per

pets al obli gati on.


virtue is patience a courageous forbearing and

abiding of hunger. So it was before Mohammed .

There were no religious motives brought to bear uponthe conscience in favor of this virtue . Public opinion

an d the individual affections were enough . So it waswith the martial virtues. Tribal society lives in a

state of warfare. I n such a society,courage in battle,

fidelity to the blood,self- sacr ifice for the clan (or

even for its lowliest members)easily become the idealof nobility

,without the a i d of religion . So it was in

A rab heathenism . The hosp i ta l i ty for which theB edawy h as become famous, is another social virtuewhose roots can be traced as far back as our knowledge ofA rab heathenism goes . A n d this hospitalitywas not only exercised toward the passing guest— i tflowed constantly for the needy. The songs of Hudhailspeak of Ch a l i d to whom came for support widowswh o found no abiding place among thei r kinsfolk .

”

TWe ar e the more bound to recognize the virtues of

heathenism,that the Moslems have no eye for them .

The revolution produced by I slam allows them tothink of the virtues of their ancestors only as brilliantvices. I n reality they were m ore than this, and thebest of them were adopted by the new religion . Thecharacter istic thing

,however

,is

,that in heatheni sm

they were independent of religion in I slam theywere brought into v ital connection with i t i: The

Go l dzi h er , M uhamm edan i sch e Studi en , I . , p. 252, qu oting fromDoughty, Tr avel s i n A r abi a Des er ta .

i W e l l h ausen , Ski zzen an d Vor a r bei ten , I . , p. 109 .

I Th e M eccan s , wh en exh orted to obey A llah , reply that th eyobey (n ot th eir gods but) th e cu stom s of th eir fathers . Gol dzi her ,l . c . , I . , p. 10.

TH E SE R VI CE OF GOD 233

change was made possible by the new doctrine of theunity of God it was actively fostered by the schemeof futu re rewards and pun ishments . I n I slam thewil l of A llah becomes the supreme rule of life . Thebeliever

,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, an d not otherwise, does notconcern him . Mohammed describes himself and hismotive to virtue when he speaks of himself as a grateful servant. We remember that the A postle Paulalso liked to call himself the bond- servant of JesusChrist.A l l conduct comes under this point of view. There

is no distinction between ceremonial l aw and moral

l aw. The servant is to do what he is bid, whether itbe to abstain from killing gam e when on a pilgrimage

,

or to avoid adultery and murder. Ritual and ethicscome under the same head—all conduct is ritual, ora l l is ethical, as you please to vi ew it. That this isalso the view of the Old Testament is evident. Thecommands of the Pentateuch ar e given without distin ction into classes, and al l are motived in the sameway . I srael is a people set apart to the servi ce ofGod. The service consists in obedience to His r evealed will— whether the command be to abstain frompork or to abstain from murder. This is preciselywhat is meant by calling I srael a holy (consecrated)people. Mohammed h ad the idea , and possibly expressed it in similar language . The New Testamenthas the idea but spiritualizes it . The ritual of theChr istian consists in visiting the widow and thefatherless in their affliction , and in keeping himself


unspotted from the world. But the Church has notyet risen to th e height of this ideal . Certainly inthe time of Moh ammed it stood with the Synagoguein emphasizing ritual quite as much as morality.

I t is for convenience only, therefore, that I discussthe service of God under the two heads of r i tua l and

ethi cs . The di stinction h as no basis in I slam itsel f.

I n both divisions of the subject we see the curiousinterplay of two factors—one the in fluence of the oldheathenism

,the other the influence of the earlier r e

vealed rel igions . Mohammed seems to have desireda more complete break with heathenism than he wasactual l y able to efiect. A n example is the hibl a—thepoint toward which the worshipper turns in prayer.

When he went to Medi na be fixed Jerusalem as thiscentral point. But h e found it impossible to maintain the regulation . Either because of his own ai

fecti on for the ancestral sanctuary, whi ch he hadalr eady recognized as the House of God,* or in orderto strengthen his cause with the A rabs, he changedhis Kibla to Mecca after about a year . The incidentis typical of his career. A t the beginning he was i nc l i n ed to make a radical departure from heathenism .

I n the end he h ad adopted a considerable portion ofits ritual .This is further exemplified in the rites of pi lgrim

age and sacrifice . These, as he adopted them, were

taken from heathenism rather than from Judai smthough not without analogies in Judaism. I n adopting sacrifice

,he was careful to disavow its heathen

significance . The most natural interpretation of such

I n Su ra 106.


tion it is incumbent on every Moslem, once in hislifetime

,to v isit the sanctuary at Mecca . Moham

med,who lived at Medina, seems to have intended

that this should be done every year by those whowere not specially hindered. I n performing this dutythe pil grim wears a special garb from the time of en

tering the sacred territory. He makes the circuit ofthe Kaaba an d takes part in other ceremonies, nowcarefully regulated by tradition, and, finally, he offers

a sacri fice in the valley of Mina. He then shaveshis head and resumes his ordinary clothin g. Thewhole resembles what we fin d in Judaism, where it isin cumbent upon the I sraelite to visit the central sanc

tuary at stated times. Th e se Jews who were converted to Christianity did not abandon the custom,

for we fin d the A postle Paul resolved to keep thefeast of Pentecost at Jerusalem . With this precedent,we are not surprised to find pilgrimage establishedas a meritorious work i n Christianity from very earlytimes . I ts prominence in the Middle A ge and theinfluence which its interruption had i n arousing Europe to the Crusades are well known. I t is possible,therefore, that Mohammed , in establishing this r ite,j ustified himselfby both Jewish and Christian preceden t. But the resemblance which its external features show to Judai sm must not make us think thatthey ar e borrowed from Judaism . The resemblanceis really owing to the older Semitic heathenism

,upon

which both Judaism an d I slam rest. The sh aving ofthe head, for example, which we find in I sl am,

and

F east ofSacrifice)i s offered at oth er places than M ecca . B ut th isi s becau se i t i s th e day on wh ich th e pilgrim s offe r it .


of which we find exampl es both in the Old Testam entan d the N ew, is found also in A rabic heathenism . I t

is really a survival from the earliest Semitic heathenism o i which we have an y knowledge, in which thesacrifice of the hair played a prominent part.A gain, the donning of special garments at the sanct

uary,which at first sight we think pecul iar to I slam ,

h as its an alogies in many other religions. The command given to the I sraelites to wash their clothesbefore the appearance of God at Sinai is based uponthe same idea, an d so is the exhortation of the Psalmist to worship in the beau ty of ho l i ness, by which hemeans the sacred vestments . The idea is

,of course

,

that nothing ceremonially unclean shoul d appear before God. I n the later Old Testament law the laityar e kept altogether from approaching the holy partof the Temple

,so that this regul ation is for them un

necessary. So much the more strin gent is the com

mand that the pr i ests should approach God only inthe consecrated garments .* On the other hand weare told that at Mecca

,before the time of Moham

med,the pilgrims used to h ire garments kept specially

for them,and wear them in making the circuit of the

Kaaba. The natural conclusion is that Mohammeddid not borrow from the earlier revealed religion s,but that he adopted the heathen custom , purging itof what seemed to him incompatible with th e faith .

The question of religious Observances gave him some

On th ese resemblan ces cf. W e l l h au sen , Ski'

zzen u nd Vor a fr bei

ten , I I I . , pp. 51 f. , 106, wh o cites Gen . 359, I I . Kings, alsoW . R . Sni i th , R el i gi on of the Sem i tes , p. 433, and wh at was said inL ecture I I . above .


thought,even at Mecca, if we may judge by the K 0

r an passage which says We have ordained forevery nation rites which they observe. Let none dispute with thee in this matter

,but pray to thy Lord

verily thou ar t i n the straight path.

” The theorythat the early reli gion of Mecca went back to A brah am woul d involve the belief that the pilgrimage wasdivinely ordained, and this would easily be confirmedby what Mohammed knew of Jewish and Christiancustoms. The emphasis which he laid upon thematter of pilgrimage is indicated, and perhaps exaggerated, by the tradition which makes h im say , thathe who worthil y performs the pilgr image retur ns as

innocent as he was the day his mother bore h im . 1‘

The next ritual observance which is prominent inI slam is fasti ng. I t is a matter of common fame thatthe Mohammedan world observes the month of R amadhan by abstaining from food during the daylighthours . I t must h e confessed that the month is nowcharacterized as much by feasting at night as it is byfasting dur ing the day , but this was hardl y the imtention of the founder . His idea seems to have beenthat as God is nearer to men at some pl aces than Heis at others, so He is nearer at some tim es than He isat others . Such a season should be marked by somespecial Observances . W ith this he may have h ad theidea that a month of self- denial woul d be well pleasing to God. I n regard to this rite we have less distinct testimony from A rabic heathenism that we havein regard to some of the others which have been

Koran , a M eccan su ra according to the superscription .

t B oaha r i , I I . , p . 192 .


une for the Moslem world, but we can trace the reasoning which led to the action . God had m ade themoon for sea

'sons. Out of every twelve monthswhich make a year He has m ade certain ones sacred.

By the intercalation of a month—which was theMeccan device for making the solar an d lunar yearkeep i n harmony— these were thrown out of theirproper place The number of months in the sightof 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 i nfide l s leadastray by it

,making a month profane one year

and making [the same month]sacred another year,

that they m ay agree with the number of months *

which God h as made sacred. Thus they profanewhat God h as consecrated. The evil of their deedsis beautiful in their eyes, but God does not directthe people of un believers .

”

W ith this high idea ofthe month as the unit of time, it is natural that theProphet should order his fast accordingly. This givesus no light on th e meaning of the observance, but thepassage quoted above seems to show that it was a

means of showing piety . I t is also brought intospecial connection with Gabriel’s visit to Mohammed

,

an d this woul d agree with what has been said of itsbeing a time when God comes nearer to men than Hecomes at other times.

We next come upon a religious regul ation which is

They agree i n th e n umber ofmon th s but do n ot observe th e exact on e s wh ich God h as designated, seem s to be th e m ean ing. The

passage i s 935 f

.

TH E S ER VI CE OF GOD 241

so foreign to our modern thought that we have dithculty in entering into the state of m ind which liesbehind i t— I mean the distinction between clean an d

unclean . From the Old Testament we have learnedthat there ar e certain things which the Hebrew couldnot touch , an d certain acts which he could not do,without thereby becoming unfit for approach to God.

This defil em en t extended over a longer or shorterperiod of time, according to its intensity, and couldonly be removed by a religious rite. Of the actswhich render men un clean

,the eating of certain kinds

of food is one of the most prominent, and at firstsight we think we discover the reason for this pro

h ibi ti on . Some of the forbidden obj ects ar e r epu l

sive to our taste (mostly because we ar e unfamil iarwith them)and we attribute like repulsion to the anci en ts . Or else we take refuge in sanitary hypoth eses and suppose the animals prohibited to be deleter i ou s to health . But it is doubtful whether eitherof these reasons will apply to any system of cleanand unclean. The natur al repulsi on certainly doesnot exi st among the peoples who ar e most affected bythese laws ;an d considerations of health were fore ign to their mode of thi nking. The whole matter isa matter of religious regulation

, an d must be ac

coun ted for in the sphere of religion . t en we givethis consideration fu ll weight

,we see that clean an d

unclean ar e associated with the recognition of different gods. He who h as consecrated himsel f by worshipping one god cannot immediately come into thepresence of another god;his first con secration mu stbe washed off

,or at least worn off by the lapse of

16

242 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL/1111

time . A l l the m ore, where the god is conceived of

as a jealous god like Yahweh . The marks of a rivalde ity upon a worshipper would make His anger flameout upon him . I n I srael nearly al l animals exceptthe an imals of the flock and herd were supposed tobelong to some of the false gods or demons . Theycould not be eaten without bringing the worshipperinto communion with these divi nities . Even the eulightened Paul would not have his converts drink ofthe cup of the Lord an d also of the cup of devils .

This Old Testament thought, which is also slightlyshadowed forth in some New Testament passages, wasfamiliar to Mohammed. Some regulations of thiskind he adopted instinctively . He an d h i s followerswould not eat of flesh offered to idols

,taking thus the

position of the more scrupulous Christians in theA postolic age. The point of view comes out clearlyin the Koran prohibition : Do not eat of that overwhich the name of A llah has not been pronounced

,

for this is sinful . The Satans come down to theircompanions to dispute with you

,an d if you eat of

them you become The exact meaningof the phrase the Satan s com e down to thei r compan

i on s to di spute wi th you is uncertain. But it probablyxpr es ses Mohammed

’s belief that the demons are soassociated with these offerings that the believers

,in

eating of the offerings, put them selves in the powerof the demons—precisely the position of Paul justalluded to . Mohammed carried ou t the argumentlogically. His final decree forbids that which h as

Koran , 6 1 21 . A ccording to Origen , th e blood i s th e food of th e

dem ons . Cf. Conybeare in th e Jewi sh Qua r ter l y E er i e/w, October,

1896, p. 61 .


The means ordinarily used to remove ceremonial

defil em en t is water. For the Moslem, therefore, the

ablution is one of the most important parts of theservice of God . The Koran commands “ O, be l i ev

ers,when you ar e ready for worship, wash your faces

and your hands as far as the elbows, an d wipe you rheads

,an d [wash]your feet as far as your ankles.

”

I n addition to this, which is the ordinary ablution,a

full bath is ordered for certain kinds of defil em en t

a s was the case in Judaism . The subject interests ushere only as it is connected to all appearance withthe Old Testament an d Rabbinical washings, ratherthan with Christian Baptism . Baptism is referredto but once in the Koran, if indeed it is referred toat al l .

’r I t is possible however that Mohammed’s

practice was influenced not by the Jews alone, but bythe various Gnostic or Pseudo- Christian sects whichinsisted on frequent baptisms or ablutions .1We com e n ow to the most important part of the

Mohammedan ritual— the act of worship whi ch we call

pr ayer . This is hardly an exact rendering,as when

we Speak of prayer, we think most prominently of

tion of clean and u n clean i n A rab h eath en ism cf. W e l l hau sen ,

Ski zzen u nd Vor a r bei ten , I I I .

, p. 52 .

53 . Th e comm and to wip e th e h ead m ean s to draw th e wet hands

over th e h ead . H ad th e m ain verb con tin u ed i ts force over th isclau se i t wou ld have en join ed scr ubbi ng th e h ead . On th e wh olesubj ect cf. L an e, M oder n Egypti an s , c . l I I . ;R e land, De R el i gi oneM ohamm eda n i ca pp. 66- 7 7 ;H ugh es , Di cti on ar y of I s l am ,

A rticle s A bl a ti on and Chu st.

“Koran , 2m i s u su ally supposed to n am e Ch ristian B aptism .

I Th e E lkesaites and M andae an s (probably th e Sabean s of th e

Koran)ar e among these sects . Cf. H erzog, P . R . E ’, I V .

, p. 185.

TH E S E R VI CE OF GOD 245

supplication . But the ga l at of the Moslem does notcontain any large element of supplication . I t is an

act of divine service, an act per formed for the gloryof God an d in obedience to Him . Like other partsof 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 per formed,and as to the

ceremonies which must be observed. Five times inthe day , the believer must perform this act of devotion

,wherever he m ay be;and Christian travel lers in

the East have frequent occasion to admire the fidelitywith which the Moslem tu rns aside from his business or his amusement to show his obedi ence to his

Maker.I t is unnecessary to describe the postures which

ar e enjoined by tradition for this service . The believer stands, bows, kneels, an d prostrates himselfwith his forehead touching the ground. These actsfollow a certain sequence making up a r oleab or pros

tr ati on . A prayer (to use the conventional term)ismade up of at least two prostrations, and the numbermay be increased to ten or more . I n these variouspostures the worshipper repeats portions of the

Koran and ejaculations of praise . A t certain pointshe declares his belief in the unity of God and theapostleship of Mohammed . A t the close he salutesthe angels to his right an d left . The chief contentofwhat the believer recites is the pr a i se of God.

When Mohammed was asked why he spent so much

I n cluding always th e F atih a or open ing ch apter. Oth er portion sar e ch osen according to taste . Th e e jacu lation s ar e : “ P raise beto God I extol th e perfection of God th e Grea


time in devotion,he replied Shall I not be a thank

ful servant ! ” Worship then is the recognition ofGod’s goodness and of His Kingship . I t is not manalone who praises his Maker. The whole creationjoins in ascriptions to Him “Dost thou not see thatwhatever is i n heaven and on earth praises God, eventhe birds with expanded wings Each knows itsworship [ga l at]and its doxology, and God regardswhat they do.” Such expressions are frequent inthe Koran

,and they show what Mohammed regarded

as the proper service of the creature.The importance of worship was rated very hi ghl y

by Mohammed. He came out of the house one dayin 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 thesatisfaction of God

,and their faults drop from them

like the leaves from these branches.” ‘r I n another

tr adition he is represented as sayi ng that the mostpleas ing thing to God is prayer at its appointedtimes. A gain

,he cal l ed prayer a K afi

'

ar a, that is anatonement

,which covers sins from the sight of God.

I n another place he says I fone washed five timesa day in a river which flowed at his door

,how much

filth would remain upon him So God washes aways in by the five daily prayers . I f we m ay believetradition further

,he carried his view of the impor tance

of prayer to such an extreme as to say a man is justified in repulsing one who inter rupts his prayers evenif he thereby kills him. A s it is addedfor he i s a

Koran , fM i shcat, I . , p. 130.


Mohammed arranged a ritual for himself. I ts elements were the various attitudes of worship exempli

fied by the Chr istians, and such words of pra is e as

were recited by them from the Psalms. With nomind for mysteries or a pr iesthood, the Prophetfound his simple liturgy sufficient for himself, andfor the community that gathered about him .

The number of five prayers daily has no directBiblical precedent . Daniel seems to have prayedthree times daily

,and the Psalmist specifies morn ing,

evening,and n eon as the times of prayer. I t is a

curious coincidence that the only passage of theKoran whi ch gives the number of prayers also Specifies three : Perform worship at the setting of thesun

,up to the darkn ess of night, and the Recitation

of the dawn (the recitation of the dawn is witnessedby the angels), and in the night. A wake to prayer,therefore

,perchance thy Lord will prepare for thee a

glorious place .” Exegesis h as found a way to makethese verses prescribe the five cus tomary seasons

,but

on their face they speak of only three. I n the Churchthe canonical hours vary from three to seven dail y.

The Manichaeans are said to have had four and theMandaeans fivext I t is possible that Mohammed’sown custom varied at different times . Tradition saysthat in the Night- j ourney

,God commanded him at

first fifty prayers daily . A t the advi ce of M oses,wh o

had h ad experience wi th human weakn ess,he asked

successive reductions of the number until it was

Koran , 17 9° f, cf. P s .

1 H e rzog, P . R . E ’, I ! . , p. 241 . B randt, M anda'

i sch e R el igi on ,

p. 92, ascribes seven to the M andaean s .


brought down to five . We have already seen an ascetictendency in Mohammed’s earlier impulse. I t is possible that he began with the observance of more fr equent hours of worship than he was able to keep upin his later practice . I n fact he has supplementedone of his early revelations with a command to modcrate the excesses of h i s devotion

A lthough the regul ar prayers are largely formal,

we must not forget that I slam encour ages voluntaryprayers. I do not refer here to works of superero

gati on , to which pious Moslems ar e much addicted.

When Mohammed says : “ A nd remember thy Lordin thy soul in humility and fear, an d without raisin gthe voice

,

”we can hardly suppose he means to com

mand the constant r epeti ti on of the name of Godwhich forms the worship of the dervishes. He is

,

rather,encouraging the believer in communing with

God. He laid stress on the correct performance ofprayer, but he also laid stress on the intention . Hewas accustomed himself to offer voluntary petitions

,

both after the regular prayers and at other times.H e gives i n the Kor an examples of prayer, and theseare real prayers;that is, petitions for blessings bothspiritual and temporal, the spiritual bein g promin ent. For example : “0 Lord do not punish us forour sins of negligence or for our errors;an d do notlay upon us a l aw such as Thou didst lay upon thosewho preceded us : T O Lord do not enj oin upon usthat for whi ch we have not the ability;blot out our

Koran,

tH e mean s the Ch ildren of I srae l, wh ose L aw h e thought burdensome . The verse i s


sins and forgive us ;be gracious to us, Thou ourLord

,and aid us against a people of unbelievers .

”

I t

seems impossible to suppose such a prayer composedwithou t a vivid sense of sin, an d without assurancethat God is the rewarder of those who seek Him .

I n another v erse of the same chapter we read : WhenMy servants ask thee concerning Me—then verily Iam near, and I answer the petition of the worshipperwhen he prays to Me ;then let them seek Me and

believe in Me that they may walk in the right way .

”

The example of the Prophet was in accordance withthis

,for he embodied in his daily worship petitions

for himself and his friends. There is a traditionwhich even afli rm s that a m an shut out of Paradisecoul d get in by importunate prayer. But it is doubtsful whether this correctly represents the mind ofMohamm ed . A s to the efficacy of prayer in the present li fe

,however

,he seems to have h ad no doubt.

So much for that part of the ser vice of God whichconsists in ritual . We cannot deny that in the religiousl aw too much emphasis is laid upon external observancee . But what h as just been said is enough to showthat mere formality was not Mohammed’s ideal . Hedesired to foster spiritual faith and un feigned piety .

Turning n ow 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 eu

forced by all the preaching ofMohammed : A m an

is a sh epherd, an d what is committed to him (as hisfamily an d his property)is his flock and he will be

Koran , 2m .


deaf an d bl in d ;an d [th ey ar e]th ose wh o say : Ou r L o rd,gi ve u s com fo rt i n o u r w i ves an d ch i ld ren , an d m ake u s an

exam ple to th ose wh o fea r Th ee . Th ese sh a l l be r ecom

pen sed w ith Pa rad ise * becau se th ey h ave en dured ;an d

th ere sh a l l th ey obta i n l i fe an d pea ce . B eau ti fu l i s such a

place ofabode f

Such passages show the distinctly ethical characterof I slam;and the fact that the virtues here comm an ded m ay easily be classified u nder ten heads

,

m akes us inquire what influence the Decalogue hadon the thought of Mohamm ed . W e easily discoverthat he had some knowledge of the fundamental Tenl Vords , though he nowhere calls them by this name .

He endeavors to reproduce them in the followingpassage addressed to the Jews

Com e , I w i l l repeat wh at yo u r L o rd fo rbade you to do;[H e comm an ded]th at you sh ou ld n ot assoc iate an yth in gw i th H im ;an d [H e comm an ded]good con du ct towardspa ren ts ;an d do n ot k i l l yo u r ch i ldren on accou n t of

poverty— VVe w i l l n ou ri sh you an d th em— an d do n ot ap

* L iterally : a h igh pl a ce, m ean ing apparently the m ost exaltedofth e h eaven s .

1: Koran , I n th e Tradition s we find som e resemblance to th eCh ristian classification of seven deadly s in s “ F lee th e seven th at

cast in to h ell. Th ey asked wh at th ese were and h e replied : P olyth eism , magic, m u rder, u su ry, devou ring th e property of orph an s ,flee ing i n tim e ofwar , and accu s ing ch aste wom en of u nbecom ingcondu ct.

"B ocha r i , I I I . , p. 179 . M oh amm ed said also :

“ Th ere ar e

seven wh om God will sh ade with h i s sh adow i n th e day wh en th erewill be n o oth er sh ade th an H i s : a ju st ru ler, a you ng m an wh o

grows up i n th e service of God, a m an wh ose h eart cleaves to th em osqu es, two m en wh o love each oth er for th e love of God, a. m an

wh o res ists temptation by th e fear of God , and a m an who gives

alm s and con ceals i t so th at h i s left h and does n ot kn ow wh at h i srigh t h and does .

—B ochm ' i , I I . , p. 106 .


pr each an yth i n g e v i l , wh eth e r i t be con cea led or m an i festan d do n ot ki l l a h um an be i ng (wh i ch God h as fo rb iddenexcept i n acco rdan ce wi th ju sti ce, an d H e en jo in ed you th isth at you m igh t h a ve un de rstan d ing);an d do n ot approachth e property of th e o rph an , except to h i s profit, u n ti l h er each es h i s m ajo ri ty ;an d u se a ju st m easu re an d sca leW e

,on Ou r part, do n ot exact from an y so u l m o re th an i ts

abi l i ty;an d wh en you speak be ju st, e ven to re lati ves an d

keep th e co ven an t of God . Th ese th i ngs H e comm an dedyou th at you sh ould rem em ber . ”

I fwe count up the separate commands embodi edin this list we shal lfind them to be nine in number.I n a tradition also wezfind that the Jews came todiscuss with Mohammed concern ing the n i ne commands of God. This is in fact the Jewish computa

tion,for of the Ten W ords in their division, the first

is the opening announ cement : I am Yahweh thyGod which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, outof the house of slaves . There ar e therefore nine commands. But when we examine the nine of Mohammedwe see that they do not correspond with those of theHebrew code. He left the Sabbath out of view altogether. He knows it

,as we disco ver from other refer

en ces , but he does not give it a place among God’scommands. We easily discover the reason for this .The Sabbath is practicable only among agriculturalor hand- working people . A pastoral people must herdthe flocks and milk them seven days in the week,or their subsistence perishes. The Jew were an i n

dustr ial people . Th e se at Medina were mainly cultivate rs or goldsmiths. They observed the Sabbath.

But Mohammed’s people were mainly Bedawin . I t

Koran ,


seemed impossible to impose a day of rest upon them .

He di d not hesitate therefore to abrogate i t— theSabbath is intended only for the Jews, is in fact his

round assertion.

*

We see from this instance, that Mohammed did notfeel that an unchangeable God would enact an n u

chan geable code . I n regard to some other Mosaicregulations, he admitted their divine character butdenied that they were binding upon later sects : An d

for the sin of the Jews,We forbade them good thi ngsthat h ad been lawful to them,

and because theyturned away from the path of God.

”

j W e rememberthat i n the N ew Testament also

,some of the Mosaic

ordinances ar e said to have been g iven the people forthe hardness of their hearts. A polemic utteranceagainst the Old Testament reason for the Sabbath,seems contained in the words “We created theheavens an d the earth and what is between them insix days, and no fatigue afl

'

ected Us . I I t is scarcelypossible to doubt that there is a reference here to thedeclaration that God r ested the seventh day . Sinceneither the advantages of the Sabbath, nor the reasongiven for its observance, commended themselves to M O

hammed, he refused to r e - enact it . The Friday whichhe chose as his day of religious observance was notintended as a Sabbath in the Old Testam ent sense .

The first command of Mohammed 's Decalogue for

Th e Sabbath i s m ade on ly for th ose wh o dispu te con cern ingit ”—by wh ich h e m ean s th e Jews who were argui ngwi th him for i tsadoption—Koran ,T4

168.

I

256 TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A JI

separate wall an d gates. The common interest of thecity was protected only by treaties between the clans.

I n Medina the different clans were frequently at war,

an d before the coming of Mohammed, a continuousfeud h ad been carried on so long as to threaten the extermination ofthe popul ation . Now Mohammed substituted the bond of faith for the bond of blood 0,

you who believe ! Fear God in sincerity, an d do notdie without being resigned [to Him] an d hold fast

,al l

of you,on the bond of God

,an d be not divided;and

rem ember the grace of God towards you when youwere enemies, h ow He united your hearts, an d by Hisgrace you became brethren .

” The men whom he addressed h ad been m embers of different tribes and

therefore enemies. The word of Paul concerningChristians before their conversion— that they h ad beenfull of hate—was true also of those whom Mohammedaddressed. I t is difficult for us to conceive the greatness of the change wrought in them by the substitutionof the new tie of faith for the old tie of family. Thegreatn ess of the change is shown by the diffi cul ty withwhich it was brought about. I n the stormy timesthrough which the in fant commonwealth passed, its eemed again an d again as if the old feuds would breakout. But faith triumphed over the old bon ds, an d thebrotherhood of believers was established . Traditionh as preserved some strikin g instances of the real ity ofthe change . One was the case of the son of A bdallahI bn Obay. A bdallah h ad been the most influential m an

i n Medina before the coming of Mohammed. A lthoughhe yielded to the majority

, an d professed allegiance

Ko ran , 357 f.

TH E SE R VI CE 01W 001) 257

to Mohammed,he was never heartily a believer, and

his lukewarmness or his secret machinations placedmany a thorn in the pillow of Mohammed. A t onetim e he so far forgot his ordinary prudence as to

speak openly of Mohammed in abusive language .Thereupon the son went to Mohammed and offeredto 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 totake blood revenge, and so become a transgressor .

I n another instance, a Moslem at Mohammed’s i n

sti gati on put to death a Jew who h ad shown himmany favors in times past. The brother of the ex

ecu ti on er reproached h im with murdering his benefactor. The only reply was : I fhe who ordered meto kill hi m should order me to kill thee I wouldobey. Wh en the brother assured himself that thiswas said in earnest, he was so impressed with thepower of the new religion

,that he became a convert

on the spot.* These examples show how the n ew

principle was realized . They show its less attraetive side

,to be sure . But we cannot doubt that its

strength against enemies is the measur e of its strengthwithin the community. I n his farewell pil grimage ,Mohammed declared that, like the sacred month and

the sacred territory,God had made the life and prop

er ty of every Moslem in violable to every other Moslem until the end of tim e .TI n adopting faith as the principle of his comm u

mity instead of blood,Mohammedwa s probably under

*W e l l hau sen , Vak i di , p. 98 .

fM u ir, L ife of M ahom et, I V ., p. 239 .

17


Christian influence . The social organization in viewin the Old Testament was the chosen peopl e. A nd

this people was a group of clans allied by blood andtracing descent from a comm on ancestor -A brahamor I srael as the case m ay be . I n substance this wasthe constitution of the A rabs before Mohammed.

The Prophets,indeed

,in their visions of the comin g

kingdom see that all men ar e to partake of the blessings of I srael. But they do not seem to proclaimthat simple faith in Yahweh is enough to make al lmen kin. They are content to leave the great consummation to the future

,where divi ne power will

effect what is incomprehensible to men. I t was theNew Testament which brought believers into abrotherhood where there is neither Jew nor Greek,neither bond nor free

,neither m ale nor female . Mo

hammed must have heard of this from Christians.The Jews who came under his observation were asexclusive as the heathen . They were in fact organized on the principle of the A rab clans, and they didnot let their faith keep them even from warringagain st each other

,clan against clan. Mohammed

gras ped the Christian idea of the brotherhood of bel i ever s and organized his society on that basis. Thathe did not rise to the height of the Christian conception of the brotherhood of al l men can scarcely excitesur prise, when we see how far the Church is from ap

prehending this conception even to the present day.

Christian influence is suggested further by var iousexpressions used by Mohammed— though as we getour knowledge of them from tradition

,we may sus

pect that they are colored somewhat by the m emory


manumission ,making it a meritorious work and rec

omm en di ng it as one of the means of atoning forsins of omission . Finally, by the emphasis of thebrotherhood of believers he did much to secure

m ild treatment of slaves on the part of their masters .

I n al l this,I slam did as much as was done either by

Judaism or Christianity . I slam h as, however, failed

to keep up with the progress of humanity in this as

in so many other respects. That, in the Middl e A ge ,Christianity h ad little to boast of as compared with

I slam,is shown by the fact that slaves were a staple

of the Venetian trade to the East, an d were exportedfrom the domains of the Pope himself. Prelates evenwere accused of taking the chil dr en of their serfs an dselling them to the Jews

,through whose hands they

passed into the possession of the Moslems.*

The other matter is one in which the custom of I s

l am is most repugnant to our ideas— l mean the l awof marriage an d di vor ce T I n our dislike of the present practice of Moslems, however, we must not forgetthat Mohammed did improve upon the customs of h eath en i sm . A mong the sins which he most strictly forbade was adultery. When the deputation from Me

Kremer, K u l tm '

gesch i chte des Or i en ts un tefr den Cha l zfen , I I . ,

p. 153 .

1' I n addition to wh at has been said abou t th e du ties of m an to

m an we sh ou ld i n ju stice to I s lam n otice th e following points (1)H on or to paren ts i s emph as ized, cf. Koran (2) Th e pu n ishm en t of th e mu rder of a M oslem i s death , and fo r in ju ry of th e

pers on th e [ex ta l i om’

s i s en forced as i n th e O l d T estam en t;(3)Th e

paym en t of ju st du es i s en forced, and (by tradition)trade i s regulated so as to prevent un fairn ess;(4) U s u ry i s proh ibited as i n the

O l d Testam en t.


dina swore allegiance to him before the Flight, hepledged them not to commit this sin .

* When askedto name the three greatest crimes

,this was one of the

th r ee rt I n the passage cited above,he says : “ Do

not approach anything evil. ” He probably means toprohibit incitements to lust. He forbade the pri ceof a dog, the reward of fornica tion , and the pay of asoothsayer—a conjun ction that reminds us of an OldTestament prohibition . I n the early part of his reignatMedina he ordered one of h i s followers to be stonedon confession of adultery. When a deputation fromthe important city of Taif came with the offer thatthe city would become Moslem if the commandsagainst usury, adultery, an d wine were modified, theProphet refused any con cess i on j : These are sufficient proof that Mohamm ed h ad no desire to en cou rage license , and that, in fact, his l aw was considerablymore strict than the custom of his ancestors . Hisideal of marriage was high

,for he says “ A Moslem

has not obtained,after righteousness, anything bet

ter than a good dispositioned,beautiful wi fe;such a

wife as , when ordered by her husband to do anything,obeys;an d if her husband looks at her, is happy ;and

,if her husband swears by her to do anything

,

she does it,to m ake him a swearer to the tr uth ;

and if he is absent from her she wishes him well andguards her person and takes care of his

Or forn ication , th e A rabic word in cludes both .

fPol y th ei sm , in fan ticide , and adu ltery . M i sh ca t, I . , pp. 8 , 18 , 20.

I ‘Ve l l h au sen , Vakt’

di , p. 383 . I n addition to th e se indication s , Im igh t addu ce th e tradition th at M oh amm ed proh ibited th e M ata

m arriage s—m arriage s for a spec ified tim e .

§ M i shcat, I I . p. 79 .


W ith such an ideal, it seems as if he might havedone more for the elevation of m arriage.

That he did not do more is probably due to his nothavin g had knowledge of what Christianity reallyteaches. A s we very wel l know, the Church earlyobscured the true doctrine of marriage by the promi n en ce it gave to celibacy . Now the doctrine thatm arri age is inferior to celibacy is one from whichthe A r ab revolts . The importance of preser vin g thefam ily name

,and of keeping up the strength of the

clan,causes him to value children above all other

blessings. H e stands just where the Hebrews of th eOld Testament stood. He h as therefore no mind tothe doctrine of the Chur ch. W e sent Jesus the Sonof Mary (he says in the Koran and gave him theGospel

,and placed in the hearts of those who fol

lowed him pity and compassion—but the monasti c l ifethey themsel ves i nven ted. This shows that Mohammed, finding the ideal presented by Christianity aper verted one, fell back upon the position common toH ebrews and A rabs. He justifies himself in hi s ownpolygamy by the example of the prophets wh o hadpreceded him, having Davi d and Solomon especiallyin mind.

The real evil in Eastern society is not so muchpolygamy as the freedom of divorce. Comparativelyfew Mohammedans have more than one wife at a time .But there are comparatively few who have not putawaymore than one wife in order to take another . Nowdivorce was repugnant to Mohammed . H e never sentaway a wife, though some of them gave him anything

Koran ,

264: TH E B I B L E A N D I SL A M

to—day . Koran and tradition occupy, to the Mohammedan, exactly the place which the Jew gives toTora and Mish n a . Life is to be regulated in itsmost minute details by the l aw given by God Himself . The conservatism which is thereby given to

I slam h as already been noti ced. A further cou sequenes is only too evident. The emphasis laid uponobedience to a set of rules

,stimulates a formal an d

external righteousness. The process is precisely thatill ustrated in Judaism . On one side it becomes a l limportant to know the law. The Koran

,li ke the

Tora, is a complicated code . I t contains a greatvariety of enactments

,and these are not always clear

or self- consistent. Moreover,it does not provide

for al l cases of conscience . The traditions must beconsulted by the man who wishes to please God and

the traditions form an extensive literature . But wear e not yet at the end. Cases in real life still forceu pon the believer questions that cannot be answeredby direct declaration of either Koran or tradition.

But it will not do to remain in doubt. Of twopossible courses of action

,one must be pleasing to

God and the other not. The development of casuistryis the resu l t . I n fact the religious science of I slam islargely casuistry. The learned have the issues of lifein their hands, and the result h as been to foster thepride which in old tim es led the Scribes to saythis people which knoweth not the L aw is ao

cursed.

I n this respect, I slam h as failed to rise to the NewTestament view. A s we have seen

,its ethical ideal

frequently shows Biblical influence. I n the point


now under consideration it h as adopted the one- sidedlegal ism which characterized Pharisaism. The Scribeswho sat in Moses

’

seat h ave their counterpart in theScribes who still sit in the seat of Mohamm ed . Theconscience of the Moslem world is still in the handsof these scholastics, whose ideal is the ideal of thirteen centuries ago .

A nd if, in this respect, Mohammedanism must beclassed with Talmudic Judaism

,the sam e mu st be said

of the character of its morality . The works pleasin gto God are largely works of the l aw that is, they ar eceremonial and external. I f even in Christianity

,

which professes to free men from the l aw,men will

take refuge in formalism,how much m ore must th is

be true in I slam ! I n fact,the righteousness of the

followers of Mohammed consists in wh at the A postlecalls dead works . Here is where the system mostneeds regeneration

,and here is where the spiritual

light of Protestant Christianity should come to itshelp.

LE CTURE I ! .

TH E F U TU RE L I F E

WE have already had occasion to notice the promi n en ce which the doctrine of the Judgment assumedi n the system of Mohammed, and in connection withit the doctrine of the resurrection. I n more than oneplace he intimates that the great stumbling - blockwhich his message put in the way of his compatri otswas the doctrine of the resurrection. The unbeliever sare represented as saying to their friends Shallwe bring you to a m an wh o tells that after you ar e

scattered by the decay of your members, you will become n ew creatures Elsewhere the unbelieversar e characterized as those who do not believe in th efuture life

,while the believers are frequently de

scribed as those who beli eve i a the future life—thewor l d to come as we m ay well translate the word .1

‘

The stress of the message is laid upon this “Letthose who exchange the present life for the life tocome

,fight in the cause of God. i The idea that

those who lose the presen t life in order to ga in theother make a good bargain is also found in the N ewTestament. The future is i n fact the true good

,the

present is only a delusion : Say to them The pres

Koran ,1 A l - aah i fm that wh ich com es after th is life, 23, 699 and often .

I 476

.


rection i s true , an d so of th e ch an ge ofth e ea rth to an oth erea rth an d a lso of th e h ea ven s [to o th e r h ea ven s]. A s to

th e assem bly, i t i s th e co l lect ion ofa l l c reated be in gs th atth ey m ay appea r befo re G od an d gi ve acco u n t befo re H im .

I t exten ds to a l l creatu res , bo th th e d i sti n gu i sh ed an d th e

vu lga r. A l l th e pio u s, th e proph ets , th e sa i n ts, an d th e

be l ievers sh a ll appea r i n th e presen ce ofth e Compass ion ate,an d th e e v i l - doe rs of d i ffe ren t classes sh a l l assem ble befo reth e A lm igh ty an d th e A ven ger .

S ecti on 68 . To sh ow th at th e Poo l an d th e B r i dge a nd

th e Sca les ar e tru e .

f" “

S ecti on 69. To sh ow th at th e books kept by th e reco rdi ng an ge ls ar e tru e an d th at th ey sh a l l be la i d befo re Godi n th e day of resu rrecti on acco rd in g to th e express trad iti on s . B u t as to th e reco rds m en h ave d ifferen t lots on e

sh al l h o ld h i s i n h i s righ t h an d, an d an oth er sh a l l h o ld h i si n h i s left, an d an oth er sh a l l h o ld h i s beh i n d h i s back.

Th ose wh o h o ld th e i r book s i n th e i r righ t h an ds ar e th e

di fferen t classes ofbel i e ve rs ;th o se wh ose books ar e gi veni n to th e i r left h an ds, th ese a r e th e h ypocr ites, bu t n ot ido la tor s th o se wh o h o ld th ei r books beh i nd th e i r backs are

th ose wh o rece i ved th e Scriptu re bu t cast i t beh i n d th em . JSecti on 70. To sh ow th at ou r proph et M oh am m ed (God

bless an d save h im )w i l l be th e first i n te rcesso r i n th e Day

ofR esu rrecti o n an d th e first wh o se i n te rcess io n w i l l be ao

cepted an d th e best of th em ,an d n o on e sh a l l h a ve pr ece

den ce ofh im .

“S ecti on 71 . To sh ow th a t Pa radi se an d th e F i re are

tru e, an d th at th ey were created befo re A dam (peace be on

h im)as h as been a l ready set fo rth at la rge .

”

The citation,though only from a synopsis, is

enough to show the extent to which Mohamm edaneschatology has been developed. The theologian shave been obliged to fin d room in their system forevery saying on this subject which i s attributed toMohammed by tradition

, as well as every declara

TH E F U TURE L I F E 269

tion contained in the Koran . Their harmonisticefforts ar e evident enough in some sections of thistreatise, as where those who receive the book of record are divided into three classes . This division isbased on different texts of the Koran, in each ofwhich only two classes of men ar e specified . Thus ,we find in several instances that the good ar e calledmen of the r ight and the bad men of the l eft. Thesephrases ar e apparently borrowed from the Gospelaccount of the Judgment, in which the sheep ar e

pl aced on the right han d and the goats on the left.

I nfluenced by this phraseology we have in these passages the two classes designated as those who receivetheir book (or account)i n thei r r ight hand or i n thei r

l eft hand as the case may be .

* I n another passagethe one receives his book i n h i s r ight hand and theother receives it beh i nd hi s bach f I t is clear thatthe Prophet meant by this var ious imagery to describe two classes and only two . But the literalismof the theologians compels them to adopt a schemewhich will allow al l the texts to be literally truehence the three classes in our author’s presentation .

So extended and well - ordered a system as is herepresented was n ot in the mind of Mohammed . I t isn ot unli kely

,however

,that he was hospitable to in

timati on s concerning the life beyond the grave whichcame to h im from various quarters . The curious as

sertion attributed to him by tradition to the effectthat the souls of the martyrs abide in the crops ofgreen birds which inhabit Paradise, is almost certain l y a survival from A rabic heathenism in which

* Koran ,


the departed soul was supposed to take the form of a

bird.

* On the same evidence (that of tradition)we

ar e warranted in asserting that he took the idea ofthe punishments of the grave from the Jews at Medina j

'

The hypothesis of a future life seems to be a n eces s i ty to a faith which wi l l maintain its hold on thejustice of God. The inequalities of this life ar e somarked, the lot of m an is here so glar ingly appor

ti on ed without reference to his deserts, that we mustlook for another world in which the injustices m ay

be remedied. The perplexi ty of the Old Testamentwriters in their attempt to discover God’s justice inthe assignment of prosperity an d calamity in thisworld, is sufficiently evident from the Book of Job.

That they were able to keep their faith in God inSpite 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 argumont for the future life

,if we m ay judge from the

fo l l owi ngzi“ Or do those who do evil think that

We will treat them like those who believe and dogood, making their life and their death the same !Evil is the opinion they have formed . God has madethe heavens an d the earth in accordance with justice

,

and in order that every soul m ay be recompensed forwhat i t h as done

, an d they shall not be wronged.

”

The thought is plain;God h as a purpose in His

*Krem er, H em '

sch ende [deem p. 166 .

fB ocha/r i , I L , p. 93, also p. 24 f .

I K or an ,

272 TH E BIBLE A ND I SL A M

tents;the Judge will sit on His throne ;all nationsshall be gathered before Him ; the good shall beplaced on His right hand and be welcomed to happiness;the evil shal l be placed on the left hand and beconsigned to punishment. The picture recurs in al l

i ts features in the Koran, except that the Judge isGod

,and not the Son of M an . I n the Gospel

,the

portents are the darkeni n g of the sun and moon, thefalling of the stars fr om heaven, and the sending outof the angels with the trumpet. To this should beadded earthquakes, and the various convulsions ofnature which the Old Testament prophets associatewith the Day of Y ahweh . Compare the K oran :

Wh en th e su n sh a l l be darken ed ,A n d wh en th e stars sh a l l be scatte red

,

Wh en th e m ou n ta i n s sh a l l be rem o ved,A n d wh en th e cam els sh a l l be u n cared for,W h en th e beasts sh a l l be co l lected,A n d wh en th e seas sh a l l be dri ed u p,W h en th e souls sh a l l be u n i ted,A n d th e gi rl bu ri ed a l i ve sh a l l be askedF or wh at crim e sh e was s la i nW h en th e books sh a l l be open ed ,

A n d th e h eaven s sh a l l be fo lded togeth er,Wh en th e fire sh a l l bu rn fie rce ly,A nd Parad i se sh a l l be brough t i n to vi ewTh en each sou l sh a l l kn ow wh at i t h as wrough t.

The Biblical resemblances of the passage are oh

vions, and many other passages of similar importmight be cited . Quite in accord with th e New Testament, is the division of those who ar e judged i nto

Koran , The meaning i s not always certain .

TH E F U TURE LIF E 273

men of the r ight hand and men of the l eft hand. “Y

e

can scarcely doubt that this goes back to the Gospelpicture . A s already noted

,these two divisions com

prise al l mankind. Those who believe ar e the menof the right and those who disbelieve ar e the men ofthe left. * I n one passage there ar e said to be threedivisions. But this is for the purpose of throwingthe prophets into relief

,they being allowed to go first

to their reward. The fundamental distinction is between the good and the bad. Possibly under Persianinfluence

,room was found later for an intermediate

class. That the judgment takes place by the help ofbooks of record we have noticed in an earli er lecture, as also that this is based on Jewish or Chr istianideas. The use of the Balance to determine the meritof each one is affirmed in some passagesd

‘an d this

very natural figure h as given the theol ogians trouble,becau se

,in their literalism , they did not see h ow

actions could be weighed.

I n order to the complete vindication of divin ejustice, al l responsible beings must be judged. Hencethe importance of the doctrine of the resurrection ofthe dead. The original form of the doctrine seems tohave been different . The Old Testament believerwas much exercised that the final tr i M ph of I sraelshould take place without the presence of those whohad suffered most for the good cause . I n the Book ofDan iel, the faith that I srael shall triumph over th eGentiles is ac companied by the fa ith that many ofthose who have died wi thout the sight shall be raisedto participate in the glory for which they have longed.

* Koran , cf. f.

f, 21

48.

18


I n m edizeval Judaism ,the emph asis of the r esu r r e c

tion is laid upon this thought. Saadi a, for example,goes into a calculation of the space which would be cc

cupi ed by I srael when a l l its dead should be raised.

*

The earthly kingdom of the Messiah thus precedesthe final apportionment of rewards and punishments.For the doctrine in this form, Mohamm ed h ad notaste, as is evident from his connecting the r esu r r ec

tion an d the Judgment closely together. I n his earlierpreaching (and perhaps to the close of his l ife) hethought the Judgment to be near at hand. He r egarded it as a Day of Yahweh which should comesuddenly upon the nations . His denunciation ofcalamity upon Mecca was doubtless based upon a bona

fide expectation of the early appearance of God inJudgment. I n this he reminds us of the expectation

,

so common in N ew Testament tim es, that the Lordwould soon return for judgment. This expectationis not confined to New Testament times . The most r el igi ou s (or the most emotional)minds have frequentlyfelt the course of the world to be so bad, that theremust be an immedi ate intervention of divine power.Thus the Fifth Monarchy expectation becomes acuteat times when reverses overtake the Church. ForMohammed we m ay notice

V e ri ly th e ch asti sem en t ofth y L o rd i s at h an d,N on e can tu rn i t away.

A day wh en th e h ea ven s sh a l l be i n com m otion ,

A n d th e m ou n ta i n s sh a l l rem ove !W oe, on th at day , to th ose wh o accu se [th e r evelati on]

of fa l seh ood !E m u n ot we-Deot, ode'r Gl aubens l eh r e and P h i l osognh i e von Sawd

ja F ajjum i , ii ber setzt v on F ii r st (L eipzig, p. 408 .

276 TIIE BIBLE A N D I SL A M

is made two blasts : “ The trumpet shall be blown

an d al l that ar e i n heaven an d earth shall die, except whom God will. Then it shall be blown again

an d they shall rise an d see . An d the earth shallshine with the light of its Lord, and the bookshall be placed

, an d the prophets an d the witnessesshall be brought an d men shall be judged— none shallbe wronged.

*

I t is somewhat difficult to combine in a singlepicture al l the features of Mohammed’s description .

Besides the sound of the trumpet we have the call ofan angel On the day when one shall call to something difficu l t, with looks cast down they shall comeforth from the graves like the locusts in clouds. ” 1

'

I n their terror they shall flee their nearest friends;the nurse shall forget her charge ; the pregnantwoman shall miscarry;men shall be drunken withterror. i A l l voices ar e put to silence

,and the only

sound heard is the tramp of the millions moving totheir doom .§ A ngels an d men ar e ranged in ranks .The false gods ar e judged along with their worshippers . Each tries to excuse himself an d tothrow the blam e upon others . Gehenna is broughtnear— a flaming monster with fiery maw gaping forprey. I1

Even the animals wi ll be ra ised and brought intojudgment ‘fl— though this is affirmed in but one passage . A lthough the books o i record ar e brought

,they

Koran , 3963 f f546 f

1 8033,222. So i n the Day of Y ahweh m en sh all be “ dru nken

bu t not with wi ne .

”

8993 f.

TH E F U TUR E LIF E 277

ar e, properly speaking, not necessary . Men shall

be recognized by their marks;they shall be com

pe l l ed to testify against themselves ;their memberswil l bear wi tness against them :

“ Their hearing andtheir eyes and their skins shall testify concerningwhat they were accustomed to do ;they will say totheir skins : Why do you testify against us Theywill reply : God who causes every thing to speak,causes us to speak;it is He wh o created you at first,and to Him you return you cannot so conceal yourselves that your ears and eyes and skins will n otwitness— but you thought that God would not knowwhat you were This feature appears alsoin Rabbinical sources . The thought that

,as sou l

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.

Jr

The multitude of detail s m ust not cause u s- to lose

sight of the main point. This is, that the justice ofGod will be fully vi ndicated by a universal Judgmentfor which the dead will be raised. I n this form theidea is undoubtedly Christian . This idea forms a motive for faith and good works . Believers are to berewarded, unbelievers will be punished. This motiveis urged by al l the religions which have a distinctconception of a future life . A s to historical Chris

‘Koran , cf. 3665 and Geiger, l . c . , p. 74.

fK ohut i n Z . D. M . G . , ! ! I . p. 565 f . Th e argum en t

that th e resu rrection ofm en i s n o m ore difficu lt to God th an the ircreation , i s also given by Zoroaster, adopted by th e Jews and fou ndi n th e Koran—Koh ut, l . p. 578 f. ;Saadia, E m u n ot (F u r st), p. 38 1 .

The same lin e of argum en t i s fou nd i n th e Ch u rch F ath ers , H ar

nack, Dogm engeschi chte, I I . , p. 65 .


ti an i ty there can be no doubt on this point, an d if wecompare Mohammed

’s descriptions of Paradise and

Gehenna with those found in Christian sources we

shal l not be in doubt as to his dependence uponthem . These descriptions ar e probably the bestknown portions of th e Koran, so that their treatmenthere m ay be brief.Paradise is the Gar den ,

or the Gar den of E den , orwith translation of the word Eden , the Ga r den ofP l easu r e. This abode of the blessed is watered byperennial streams; the inhabitants repose at theirease i n shady bowers;they eat of the most deliciousfruits ;cups of a delicious beverage but which doesnot intoxicate

,ar e served to them as often as they

desire;they ar e clothed magnificently and adornedwith j ewels .To these deli ghts ar e added the damsels of Para

dise, virgins whose beauty passes description . Thedelights ar e not al l sensuous . The thr one of Godis in the midst of the Garden

,and the blessed be

hold the worship of the angels and hear the praiseswhich they sing .

* No va in discourse will be uttered,but the universal salutation will be : Peace ! Th eyshall receive visits of congratulation from the angels .Better than a l l

, is the consciousness of the favor ofGod.1

' That the saved shall behold the face of Godseems to be nowhere asserted in the Koran, thoughtradition affirms it very strongly. I t is perhaps

Koran , 39 75. I t i s u n n ecessary to give references for the oth erparticu lars .

fSu ch seem s to be th e m ean ing of9 7 3


damned ar e also developed along the lines of Jew

ish an d Christian belief. The fundamental idea isthat Gehenna is a place of fir e . The name is borrowed with the idea .

* The description is frequentlygiven

.Sometimes Gehenna is almost an animate

monster. I ts v e r aci ty is such that after it has r e

ce i ved al l its por tion of men an d demons and isasked whether it is satisfied, it will reply : I s there

anything more ! W e are reminded of the Biblicalproverb which puts Sheol as one of the things i n sati

able . The unhappy souls are dragged to th at abodeloaded with chains. A s they enter they are greetedwith curses an d reproaches, which they return uponthe heads of those who have preceded them . The fir eburns with an intens ity sufficient to consume stones,and it completely envelops its victim s . I t consumestheir members

,which grow again to be a fresh source

of torture . Th ey ar e given to eat of an infernal treecalled Zakkum ,

whose fruit is like the heads ofdevils

,

”

1" and when eaten “ boils within them likemolten metal. ” They receive to drink boiling water

,

or a yet more disgusting liqui d . Their prayer for r elief is in vain . Though continually enduring thepangs of death, death never comes to their relief. Ofspecial punishm ents we hear only that the m isers whohave heaped up gold an d silver will be branded withred hot coins on forehead and side and back . :t On th e

Gehann am , approach ing th e H ebrew m ore n early th an th e Ch r istian Syriac .

t Koran , 3753 f, cf. 4443 f

I 935

. T h e H adith adds th at th ose wh o h ave re fu sed th e poor- taxof cattle sh all be trampled by th e cattle , B ocha r i , I I . , p. 101 .

TH E F U TUR E L I F E 281

whole,the description of these torments fall s short of

the in genu ity of Ch ristian and Rabbinic writers. *

What we have now considered makes up the mainview of the Koran. So long as the expectation of an

early comi ng of the Judgment could be entertained, itwas sufficient. But the Judgmen t delayed. Manyof the believers were taken away from earth, and

many of the enemies of the Prophet were put todeath. The question must arise—where are thesesouls for the present time ! Do they simply sleepuntil the resurrection ! The natural answer is thatthey sleep with the body

,and this answer seems to

be implied in the assertion that those who ar e raisedwil l think that they have rested only a brief timein the tomb. I n one instance we have the accountof a m an who was sceptical about the resurrection,whereupon God caused him to die

,and after a hun

dred years revived him . On bein g asked how longhe had remained in that state

,he replied : a day or

par t ofa day .1' So the scofl

'

er s,when they are raised

at the last day,shall think that they have been in the

grave only an hour,or only a little timed; 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 originalintention. But the impatience of his followers forparadise, and his own impatience for the punishment

Cf. th e A cts of Thomas (W al ke r’s A pocryph al Gospels), p. 419

f. ;A n ten i cene F ath er s, V I I I . , p. 547;E isenmenger, E ntdecktes Juden thum , I L , p. 341 .

fK or an ,

1 4635, 17

54, cf. also, f

, 3054 f

982 TH E BIBLE A N D I SL/14V

of his enem ies,cou ld not rest in the simple hypoth e

sis o i sleeping souls. Jewish and Christian traditioncame to his help . These, although they asserted 3

Judgment, found room for a series of scenes to precede the fin al consummation. For the in di vi dual soul ,moreover

,they had provided an extended experi ence

between death and the resurrection . A s these theoriesbecame known to Mohammed, he seems to haveadopted them more or less completely

,but without

digesting them into a self- consistent scheme. A s

further developed by tradition they have‘ all foundplace i n the Moslem eschatology, which thus becomesthe compli cated thing which we have already contemplated i n the extract from Sha

‘rani. These additionaldetails deser ve some attention . They are concernedeither with the experiences of the individual soul orwith 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. I t is

natural to suppose that i t is effected by the angels .Such was the theory of Judaism

,going back to P ar

see i sm,

*and adopted in popular Ch r i sti an i ty .1r So

we fin d in the Koran I fonly thou couldst see whenthe evildoers ar e in the pangs of death, while theangels stretch forth their hands [saying] Give forthyour souls ! To- day you shall be recompensed by

I n Parseeism th e m an’s good deeds appear to h im i n th e form of

a beau tifu l maiden at hi s death . Koh u t (Z . D . M . G . , ! ! L , p. 564)cites also a passage i n wh ich th e angels accompany th e sou l . F or

Judaism , W eber, p. 324, Saadia (F u ret’s T ran slation), p. 364.

tTh e R eoel atz'

on of P a u l i n W alker's tran s lation (A pocryphalGospe ls), p. 480;A n ten tcen e F ath er s , V I I I . , p. 576;B udge , B ookof the B ee, p. 131 .


and when the Hour shall dawn it shall be saidTake the people of Pharaoh to the severest punishment ! I n the traditions, however, we have frequent assertions that the souls of those who die inthe holy war go at once to Paradi se . I t is not for

u s to endeavor to reconcile these three proposition s .But it is fair to point out that a similar confusion prevails in the Christian treatment of the li fe whi ch comesimmediately after death and before the resurrection.

A s remarked above, the Christian theory of thelast things embraces more than the final Judgment.‘Nhen it became evident that the great consummationwas not so imminent as Mohammed h ad supposed,these additional events began to assert themselves,even to Mohammed himself. He was willing at leastto allow room for the s i gns of the H our . Such signshe described in the convulsions of nature which areso frequently mentioned in connection with the Judgment . But later he extended the list. One of themost prominent of the additional signs was the ap

pearan ce of Gog and Magog : A curse shall rest onthe city we have destroyed. They shall not reviveuntil Gog an d Magog shall have free course an d theyshall come down in crowds from every height. ” TThe explanation is given in another Sura which r e

lates at length the story of A lexander the Great

(Dhu- l -Karnaim). A mong other things,this King is

said to have made a wall of iron cemented withmolten brassxl The object of the wall was to keep

Koran , 40f I h ave substitu ted th e fam iliar Gog a nd M agog for th e

A rabic form Yaj uj a nd M afnj .

I Th c story fills and i s derived from a Ch ristian sou rce .

TH E F U TUR E L I F E 285

out the ferocious Tartar tribes here called Gog andMagog. I t is evident at a glan ce that we have herean apocalyptic sign which goes back to Ezekiel andwhich reappears in the N ew Testament Revelation.

*

Beyond the assertion tha t these nations shal l comein crowds as a sign of the Day , Mohammed makesno use of them;and i n his presentation there seemsto be no room for the extended campaign of Gogwhich is implied in Ezekiel’s accoun t.A nother s ign of which tradition makes much is

the Beast, mentioned once in the Koran ' A n d

when the decree is pronounced upon them, We will

bring from the earth a beast which shall say to themthat mankin d has not kept firm hold of our revelation.

”

1' H ere is evidently a reminiscence of the

Beast of the N ew Testament Revelation. But Mohammed only alludes to it i n connection with theHour, as one of its signs. The connection is only

external. The same m ay be said of the SecondComing of Jesus, which is once said to be a sign ofthe approach of the Hour. The coming of An tichrist is certified by tradition only, as it would seem .

The expected M ahdi who is al so predicted in tradition

,is another product of the perennial Messianic

hope of the Eastern wor l di Tradition goes counterto the tenor of the Koran when it makes Jesus the

E zek. 38 and 39;R ev . On th e influ en ce wh ich th e pr ediction has had i n Ch ristian literatu re , cf. B ou s set, Der A n ti ch r i st

(1895)pp. 29, 33 f. F o r Judaism , W eber,l . c. , p. 369 f.

fKoran, 2784;R ev . 13.

I A n extended discu ssion of th ese m atters i s gi ven by P ocock,N otes M i scel l an ea , i n h i sW orks (1740)I . , p. 213 ff. cf. also Ruling,E schatol ogt

'

e des I s l am


Judge at the Day of Resurrection . The Bridge onwhich those who ar e judged will attempt to pass toheaven

,only the beli evers succeeding, h as also a

large place in tradition, having been borrowed fromPersian sources . These embellishments show howmany incongruous elements m ay be swallowed, andin a sense assimilated, by tradition .

One point remains to be noticed . The eternity ofreward an d punishment seems d istinctly affirmed inthe Koran . I n fact a distinct polemic is foundagainst the Jews who h ad the contrary theory :“ They say : The fir e shall affect us only a li mitednumber of days. Say to them : Have you receivedan engagement from God such that He will notchange

,or do you say concerning God what you do

not know ! N ay ! Whoever h as deserved evil, an dwhose sin h as encompassed him—these ar e i nh abi

tants of the Fire, and they remain forever in it. Butthose who believe and do good

,they are inhabitants

of the Garden . They remain forever i n it . ” We

ar e able to trace the Jewish doctrine to which allusion is here made . The importance of th e covenantmade with A braham was so great, that the Jewishthinkers could not conceive it to be annul led by an y

act on the part of man . One who h ad received circumci s i on ,

and who was thus marked as being incovenant with God

,could not be punished eternally,

no matter how bad he h ad been . I t was recognizedby the Rabbis

,therefore

,that Gehenna was only a

purgatory for the Jews , an d that when their pu r ification was accomplished they would be set free . I t was

‘Koran , 2“ ff, cf.


that we have h e r e no doctrine of purgatory. Themost that we can conclude from the passage is tha tsome few will be found whose deserts ar e so equ allybalanced that it is impossible to consign them toeither place, so they ar e left perched on the dividingwall. But it is not certain that Mohammed laid an y

stress on this single passage— which indeed may have

been uttered for dram atic efi'

ect.

The resul ts of this inquiry m ay be briefly formu

lated thus : I n regard to the life beyond the graveMohammed was powerfully influenced by the doctrine of the preceding revealed religions, especiallyby the doctrine of Chr istianity. W e have no reasonto doubt that it appealed to him on its moral andspiritual side— on its moral side because it vindicatedthe justice of God;on its religious side because itgave promise of satisfaction i n the presence of God.

The good pleasure of God was one of the joys towhich he looked forward. Do not count those whohave been slain in the cause of God as dead— n ay !

they live with H im,and there they ar e nourished,

rejoicing in what God gives them of His bounty, and

receiving the good tidings that those who have notyet attained, but ar e following after them

,shall not

suffer fear or I n view of such expressionsan d 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 fin d i n other religions . Thematerial and the sensuous appealed to him and to his

Koran , f

TH E F U T UR E L I F E 289

A rabs as it appealed to Jews and Christians of thatage . H i s heaven is not very di fferent from theheaven of E ph r aem Syrus nor h is hell different inkind from that painted by Dante or Michelangelo .

The accretions to his doctrine which came from th e

Messianic expectations of the Jews or the Chiliasticexpectation of the Christians

,are due rather

traditionists than to Mohammed hi ms elf.

LECTURE ! .

CH U R CH A N D STA TE

WH EN David the Bethlehemite incurred the su spicion of Saul his sovereign , he was in an evil case .

He could not depend upon the I sraelites to harborhim because they were servants of Saul. The extermination of the priestly clan at Nob showed how peri l ou s it was to fall un der the suspicion of the king.

David’s own clan coul d not protect him except at therisk of a similar fate . I f the fugitive should seekasylum with the neighboring tribes— i t was theyagainst whom he h ad carried arms in times past

,and

there was no Phi listine or Am alekite or Am monitewho woul d not be glad to take blood revenge uponthe unprotected I sraelite . The m an cut offfrom theprotection of his kin is an outlaw

, and his blood isfree to the first comer. The only way he can be safeis to gather about him others as desperately situatedas himself

,to make of th em a band of brothers, an d to

establish their right at the point of the sword. Daviddid this an d soon became formidable

,was gladly r e

ceived as a vassal by the Emir of Gath,obtained a

town for himself an d his men,and grew in strength

by carrying war against the Bedawin.

Nor was this a l l . A t the death of Saul the kingdom fell to pieces. The power of I shbaal was never

290


The clans enter into association with each other bytreaty

,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 anenterprising m an in one of the clans is able to attacha band of soldiers to his person, government, in oursense of the word

,begins. The case of David is a

case in point . So is the case of A bimelech of Sheohem who established himself as Emir of I srael bymeans of a band of mercenaries . Having secured theallegiance of his immediate kinsmen, such a chiefrapidly extends his power . His power is in fact largelydependent on the ability to content his subjects withthe spoil of their enemies . The normal course ofsuch a kingdom is to keep on expanding as long as itis ruled by a capable and energetic prince. But itfalls to pieces as rapidly as it was built up

,if once a

weakling comes to the th rone .

This l aw wrought in favor of Mohammed. Butthere was a di fference between him and an ordinaryfreebooter. He brough t a principle into play whichh ad not earlier h ad a chance to show its power inA rabia ;that principle was religious faith . H ad itnot been for this, his kingdom would have been nomore endur ing than the hundreds of little monarchieswhich al l along the course of history have arisen i nA rabia and have disappeared leaving no trace behind .

I n this also there is a r e sembl an ce'

between I slam andthe Old Testament history. For the tenacity of theKingdom of Davi d is no doubt due to the fact that itbased itself distinctly on the religion of Yahweh .

These consideration s enable us to u nderstand Mo

CH UR CH A N D S TA TE 293

hamm ed’

s career when he became a ruler of men . I n

the eighteenth century,great indignation was ex

pressed against him— a m an who left his native landto turn his hand against her . He was said thus tohave thrown off the mask which he h ad hithertoworn

,and to have discovered his treasonable designs .

These charges totally mistake the position . Th e

A rab has no country in the sense in which we use theword . His attachment is solely to his clan . ButMohammed’s clan cast him off. They no longer defended him against their all i es . He was already an

outl aw. The state of war existed between him and theMeccans by their act, not by his . The Meccans u h

der stood this. I fwe may believe tradition, they triedto intercept him an d kill him on his j ourney to Medina. From their own point of view this was theonly reasonable thing to do . That they were notmore strenuous in the matter is probably to be aocounted for by their contempt for him . They supposed the poor fanatic unable to do them harm .

I t is probable,moreover, that the Meccans looked

upon Medina as a harmless or insignificant city. I t

was in fact far from formidable . Medina was not acity in our sense of the word. I t was simply an

oasis over which the inhabitants were scattered invillages . A group of villages occupied the place wherethe city proper now stands . But it h ad no commonwall for some time after the arr ival of Mohammed ,

Burckhardt * describes the suburbs of the presentcity as consisting of “ large courtyards, with low apart

Tr a e el s i n A r abi a p. 326;W e l l hau sen , Ski zzen a nd

Vom rbez’

ten , I V ., p. 18 .


ments built around them on the ground floor, and

separated from each other by gardens an d planta

tions.

Each Hosh [court]contains thirty orforty families, thus forming so many separate hamlets,which in times of un settled government ar e frequentlyengaged in desperate feuds with each other. Such a

loose agglomeration of settlements was the so - call edcity in the time of Mohammed . Except that theywere 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 Bedawi n . The history of the people before the coming of Mohammed is a chroni cle of littlewars between the clans . Two of these clans h ad lit

er al l y exterminated each other, one having beendestroyed to the last man, the other having two menleft who soon after died wi thout issue . Not long before the coming of Mohammed al l the cl ans hadj oined on one side or the other in a pitched battle

,

which ended in the exhaustion of al l par ties . Eventhen there was no peace

,bu t war was carried on by

isolated mur ders and assassinations . The commun itywas , in fact, in a state of anarchy .

*

I nto this anarchy Mohammed came as a fixed pointupon which peace could take hold . He was the headof a small band of Meccan converts who h ad undergone the loss of al l things for his sake . These weresoon joined by the fugitives of A byssinia

,who were

no less devoted to him . His religi on h ad beenpreached at Medina for more than a year before h i scomin g

,an d there was a considerable number of sin

F or a m ore extended description cf. W e l l hausen , I V . , p. 27 if.


I n th ese Mohammed, by his very position, was forcedto be the leader. Al though he h ad h ad no experiencein fighting, an d although he was n ot a m an of physi

cal courage, yet he was on the whole a successful general . He knew how to maintain discipline, an d he

knew how to encourage his foll owers i n the face ofdefeat . A s judge an d as general be fulfilled theSemitic ideal of kingship . I t cannot be wondered at

that the kingship came to him .

The course of history then runs a close parall el between I srael and I slam . I t is difli cu l t to make outhow much Biblical influence was atwork in the process . A t Mecca we cannot discover that Mohamm ed

h ad an y kingly aspirations. He is careful to di sclaim

an y power over his people he declares that he seeksno reward from them he calls himself only a warnerand a bringer of tidings ;h e does not (apparently)adduce the precedin g prophets as claim ing sove r

e i gnty over their people. To all appearance,he ex

pe cted the government of Mecca to remain in theh ands of the Sheikh s, even if the people should ao

cept I slam . A seat in their counci l as adviser wasperhaps the most that he expected . He seems to haveknown of no B ibli cal precedent for claimin g more.A t Medina , however, where the cares of governmentwere forced upon him, he m ay have had a different

l ight . I n this period he tells an Old Testament storythat woul d serve him as precedent . I t is as follows :

Dost th ou n ot kn ow con cern i ng th e a ri stocracy of I s

r ae l after th e t im e of M oses, h ow th ey sa id to on e ofth e i r

proph ets R a ise u s u p a ki n g an d we w i l l figh t i n th e wayofGod ! H e repl i ed : Pe rch an ce wh en y ou ar e o rdered to

UH UR UH A N D STA TE 297

figh t, you wi l l refuse . B u t th ey sa id : Wh y sh ould we n ot

figh t i n th e way ofGod , wh en we h ave been th r u st ou t ofou rh om es an d away from o u r ch i ld ren ! Y et

,wh en th ey we re

o rdered to figh t , th ey tu rn ed th e i r backs except a few of

th em , an d God kn ows th e evi l - doers . Th e ir proph et sa i d toth em : God h as sen t yo u Ta lu t a s k i ng. Th ey repl ied : H ow

can th e ki n gdom be h i s , wh en we ar e m o re wo rth y of i tth an h e , an d h e h as n ot r ece ived abu n dan ce of prOper ty !

Th e proph et sa id : G od h as ch osen h im above you , an d h as

i n creased h i m i n excel len ce both of m i n d an d body;G odgi ves th e k in gdom to wh om H e w i l l, an d G od i s ben e vo len tan d wi se . Th e proph et added : A s i gn of h i s k ingsh ip i s

th at h e wi l l bring you th e A r k , o n wh i ch i s th e Sh ek i n a

from you r L or d, a rel ic left by th e people of M oses an d

A aron ;an gels w i l l bear i t—i n th i s i s a s ign fo r you i f you

are be l ieve rs . A n d wh en Ta lu t set ou t wi th th e tr00ps, h esa id : God wi l l test you by a stream ;wh oeve r d rink s of i t

i s n on e ofm i n e, an d h e wh o does n ot taste i t, except bytaki ng u p a l i ttle i n h i s h an d, sh a l l be m i n e . B u t a l l ex

cept a few dran k. A n d wh en h e an d th ose wh o be l i evedh ad crossed th e stream , th ey sa i d : W e h ave n o power agai n stGo l i ath an d hi s so ld i ers to - day B u t th ose wh o were m in dfu l th at th ey must m eet God sai d : H owm an y a sm a l l trooph as overcom e a larger on e by th e perm i ss i on of G od

,for

God i s on th e s i de of th ose wh o a r e stead fast. A n d wh enth ey wen t ou t aga i n st Go l i ath an d h i s so ld i ers, th ey sa i d0 L ord

,su pply u s w i th steadfastn ess, an d m ake ou r feet

firm,an d h elp u s aga i n st th e unbel i evers ! So th ey pu t

th em to fligh t by perm iss i on ofGod, an d Da v i d ki l led G o

l iath , an d God gave h im th e ki n gdom an d wi sdom , an d

tau gh t h im wh at H e wou ld.

We see that the narrative is a confused r em i n i s

cence of the election of Saul , the march of Gideon,an d the battle of David with Goliath . The point of

interest is the manner in which the incident is made

Koran 42m m . Sau l i s n am ed Talu t to rhyme with Jalut (Goliath).


to reflect the situation at Medina . The king is de

m an ded in order that the people m ay fight in the wayof God

,where we should say fight i n the cau se of

God. The phrase is the standing phrase us ed forthe wars of Mohammed against the unbelievers . Theprophet in the text expresses the doubt whether thepeople would be willing to fight . This doubt was areflection of Mohammed’s own experience

,for a par ty

of M edi n an s under an influential leader was alwaysready to dissuade their fellow- citizen s from join ingMohammed’s campaigns. The I sraelites, in the n arr ati ve

,complain that they have been thrust out of

their homes and away from their children— which wasexactly the case with Mohammed an d the Fugitives .

These features of his own situation, being found inthe narrative

,make it probable that Mohammed

regards himself as the antitype of Saul, or of Sauland David both . We have, therefore, one instancein which Biblical precedent in fluenced Mohammed’sview of his own position as civi l ruler. There isanother possibly in the verse which speaks of theprophets as warriors : I t never came to pass that aprophet made captives un til he h ad made greatslaughter. ” But the assertion seems evolved fromth e situation rather than from an y Biblical precedent.I t is rather remarkable that Mohammed makes no

use of some Biblical precedents which he would mostnatur ally have cited h ad he laid emphasis upon thismatter of kingship . Moses wa s prophet an d civilru ler ;David was prophet an d king so was Solomon .

But Mohammed nowhere calls attention to them inKoran 8“


ites paid tribute. A process of amalgamation going

o n a l l the time, at last those Canaanites who were

m ost tenacious of thei r separ ate custom would beweak enough to be exterm inated, as were the Gibeonites by Saul. Precisely such was the history of I s

l am . Mohammed and his followers first occupiedground given them by the M edi n an s . They then en

te r ed upon a covenant relation with al l the tribes ofthe oasis. Gradually the community of true believers

absorbed a considerable part of the older i n h abi

tants. The Jews which refused to amalgam ate withthe Moslems were dr iven out or exterminated. Butthe process which in I srael extended over some cen

tu r i es occupied i n I slam onl y ten years.I t seems a pity that the development was so rapid .

H ad it stepped at the stage upon which it enteredwhen Mohammed promulgated his covenant with theinhabitants of Medina

,it would have been better for

the after world. Copies of that instrument havecom e down to u s .

* I t is remarkable for the modestposition which Mohammed claims for himself inrelation to the community at large. He evidentlydesires to leave the social organization as nearly as

possible just as it is. The autonomy of the clans isnot distur bed except in certain matters in which common action is necessary. There is no endeavor toenforce uniformity of religion. Even the heathenare allowed to remain peaceably i n their old relations .The Jews are conti nued under the clientage

,and of

I t i s tran slated by W e l l hau sen , Ski zzen , I V . , 67 K. Th e gen

u i n en ess seems proved by th e fact that i t embodi es none ofth e th eocratic ideas of th e later tim e .

CH UR CH A N D STA TE 301

course under the protection,of the Ar abs . The only

innovations concern common enmity to the Koreish

(of Mecca), common action in defens i ve war , and thebringing of disputes before God and Mohammed forarbitration . H ad al l parties been willing to live together under thi s constitution

,we should have seen

a state arise with some measu re of religi ous toleration .

But unfortunately toleration was not understood at

that time. Mohammed valued his docum ent only as

the best that could be done under the cir cumstances .The Jews

,on their side

,had no higher ideal . They

were as far from desiring to live in intimacy with menof another religion as was Mohammed . They h ad norealizing sense of the danger of their position . Theycould not keep from giving provocation to theirneighbor and so

,when he grew stronger, he crushed

them as Saul crushed the Gibeon ites,an d as David

crushed the Jebus i tes . W ith their defeat an d expu lsion

,the principle of one religion in the state virtu

ally triumphed .

The principle o i I slam is fixed by the experienceof Moh ammed . What history actually brought forthhas become binding precedent and is justified bythe theologian s . The Moslem has n ow no thoughtof the state except that it is a theocracy. I ts basisis the true religion;its ruler is the spiritual as well asthe secular head of the commonwealth . There is nodifference between chur ch and state. The church isthe state . I nstead of a state church, there is a churchstate. We can m ake the theory cl ear to our mindsby looking at the Papacy. The actual rise of the


Pope to temporal power was not unlike the rise ofMohammed . The Bishop of Rome was the spiritualhead of a Spiritual society . So long as the civil power

was vigorous, he was nothing more . But when thecivil power was broken, then what there was of socialorder rallied around the only authority that existed.

H ad he so wil led, the Pope him self cou ld not haveprevented this process. But we m ay suppose, without any injurious reflections upon the Pontiff, that he

was not unwi lling to see his power increase . To himit was in creased power to do good, an d—so far—a

triumph of the kingdom of God. Even the A postlePaul assumes that if the saints ar e competent tojudge the world

,they ar e com petent to decide the

petty issues of a civi l lawsuit . I t was not by violent usurpation therefore that the Pope becamecivil administrator of I taly. Had the process goneon un til the ambition of the ablest Popes was gratified,

we should have seen Europe united un der a

ruler who combined in himself the offices of Emperorand of High Priest. This would have divided theworld between a Christian Caliph and a Moslem Pope .The Ultramontane doctrine of the temporal power ofthe Pope is in fact exactly the Moslem doctri ne ofthe Caliphate .

The name theocracy, we are told, was first inventedby Josephus . But it expresses a theory which h asbeen almost universally accepted except among themost barbarous of men . That God is in fact theruler of men

,follows logically from His attributes .

I t is equally obvious that the m an actually appointedby God to rule, rules by divine right . He is God’s


necessarily separated Church and State and learnedto distinguish between them . The civil ruler is stillordained of God to be a terror to evi l - doers. But heis dissociated from the care for religion which theJews

,and after them the Moslems, thought to be a

part of the monarch’s fun ctions . M edizeval Christian i ty (we shoul d not forget)took substantial ly thesam e position with Jews and Moslems. I t failed toapprehend the teaching of the New Testament. Thetestimony of the New Testament to the divine sanction of the state as a separate entity is only now beginnin g to be understood in enlightened Europe andA merica . I t is a part of the present m isery of theEastern world that al l classes of society ar e unable toconceive even the possibility of such testimony.

The system which sees in the state a theocracynecessarily regulates religion by law. How I slamcame near toleration and how it failed

,we have already

seen. I slam does not, however, even now,treat Ju

dai sm and Christianity as it treats heath enism . Thelatter must be destroyed because it is false, an d because i t is disobedience to God. The first con sequenco is the importance of the sacred war, that isthe war for the spread of I slam. The reason for th eemphasis placed upon this

,is seen in what has al ready

been said about the fortunes of Medina . I t was amatter of life and death there

,to make a successful

campaign. The K oran of the latter part of Mohammed’s life is fu ll of exhortations to take part in thewar. Those who m ay fall in the cause of God arepromised the highest pl ace in Paradise . Those whoare backward in entering this service ar e blamed and


denoun ced for their hypocrisy . I t is assumed, finally,that war must go on until al l heathenism has been putdown . Say to the unbelievers, that if they make anend [of doing evil]they shall be forgiven . But ifth ey repeat i t—the sentence of ancient peoples wascarried out ! Then fight them un ti l ther e i s n o mor e

di v i s i on of opi n i on, and the religion is wholly A llah’s .” Tradition correctly interprets this and simi~

l ar passages when it says that Mohammed was com

manded to make war on men until they should say

there is no God but A llah ;or more fully I am

commanded to make war on men until they shall confess that there is no God bu t Al lah and that Mohammed is His A postle, shall be steadfast i n prayer, an d

give the legal alms and when one shall performthese things

,his blood and his property shall be se

cure from me except in conformity with the laws.” 1k

The right and duty of propagatin g I slam by the sword

h as therefore become fully established as a part of thesystem . But we should remember that in Mohammed’sv iew, this was against idolaters only. He was contentwith the submission of Jews and Christians

,without

conversion . A s we have seen,he atfirst 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 Jewsof Medi na. These adhered to their own peculiar customs with the tenacity which their race h as alwaysshown in the matter of their faith . The more Mohammed saw of their exclusiveness, the m ore clear itbecame to him that no real union with them was pos

t fll i shca t, I . , p. 5, cf. B och ar i , I V , , p. 5.


sible.Under the plea of treachery on their part he

expelled them from Medina. But elsewhere in A r a

bi a he was willing that they should remain, on condition of payment of tribute . A t Ch a ibar , for example,he spared their lives and left them in possession oftheir lands, but on the condition of payi ng one

- halfthe frui ts to the Moslems . This precedent becam e

l aw for the treatment of Jews and Christians, and

is formally sanctioned by this verse of the KoranMake war on those who do not believe in God and

the Last Day , and who do not prohibit what God andHis A postle have prohibited, an d on those of thepeoples who have received a Scripture but do notprofess the true religion

,until they pay a tax for

each one and humble themselves. The terms

used leave no doubt that Jews and Chr istians are

meant.For the extermination of idolaters , Mohammed

m ight have pleaded the precedent of the Book ofJoshua . The Book of Joshua makes no formal provision for conversion of the Canaanites . But it isevident

,from the example of Rah ab, that it was open

to the Canaanites to join the Hebrew community ifthey would . Nor do I find that other parts of theOld Testament take a less rigid position . I dolatryis sin and its devotees must be punished, such is thegeneral tenor of these writings. Their view

,indeed ,

does not generally extend beyond the boundaries oftheir own land . When the Hebrews were able tobring other nations under tribute, they did so withouttoo curious inqui ry into their religion, though in some

Koran 9


The identity of Church an d State i n I slam involves

also this proposition : The Koran is the civil as well

as the religious l aw of a l l Moslems. A s we have seen ,

there is no distinction of obligation . A m an is as

much bound to perform the ablution as he is to payhis taxes . I n theory the judge is as competent topunish him for neglect of the one as he is to punishhim for neglect of the other. I n practice it is of

course not easy to call men to account for religiousdereliction . B ut in the more strict Mohammedan

states,officers ar e not infrequently appointed whose

duty it is to see that a l l the citizens come to thestated prayers . Now the introduction of a code for

A rabia was an almost unmixed blessing. There h ad

been no l aw in the desert. W ith th e triumph of I slam,

the tribes came into the peace of A llah . Society wasbrought into order

, and there was a recognized stand

ard of judgment. But the establishment of any codeas a perpetu a l law is a misfortune . Yet Mohammedwas 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 possessionof Palestine to- morrow, we cannot doubt that theywould attempt to restore the Tora to its place as thesupreme civil and ecclesiastical l aw of that land.

Every violation of its provisions concerning ritualsacrifice

,lawful food

, pu r ificati on SH —would become an

offence against the civil l aw,an d would be within the

cognizance of the courts . The same theory h as prevailed more or less among Christians . The W estminster A ssembly of Divines defined it as the duty

CH UR CH A N D S TA TE 309

of the civil magistrate to take order that unity and

peace be preserved in the Church,that the truth of

God be kept pure an d entire,that a l l blasphemies

and heresies be suppressed, a l l corruptions an d

abuses in worship or discipline [be]prevented or r eformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled,administered, an d observed— for the better effectingwhereof he hath power to call synods

,to be present

at them,and to provide that whatever is transacted

i n them be according to the mind of I n

theory,Protestantism and Mohammedanism stood on

the same ground as late as the seventeenth centuryof our er a. Our present condemnation of the position of I slam,

shows h ow far we have advanced i nthe last two centur ies i n apprehending the true natureof the New Testament Church .

I t may be briefly mentioned here that the r ecogn i

tion of a single supreme code h as not prevented divisions among Mohammedan s an y more than it prevented them among Jews and Christians. The pointat whi ch the most bitter conflict arose, was this veryone of the divine right of the ruler. Concerning Mohammed himself

,of course

,there neverwas any doubt.

B ut he made no provision for a successor. I t seemsstrange to us that he failed to regul ate so importanta matter. But he was as shortsighted as the rest ofus

, and did not expect death to come so soon . Possibl y he expected to see the Judgment com e beforehis death;or he may have reli ed on God to give hima long life. The fact remains . The neglect was themore remarkable in that the Prophet left no male

Sch afi’

, Cr eeds of Ch r i stendom , I I I .

, p, 653.


chi ldren . I n the emergency which actually arose,A bu B ekr, one of the earliest an d most trusted of theCompanions, was made Successor by a vote of acclamation

,led by the fir m and clear-minded Omar.

I t is evi dent that here is a precedentfor popular election . On the other hand, A l i , the son - i n - l aw (and

adopted son)of Mohammed, seems to have held fromthe fir st that the principle of inheritance should ob

tain . When he him self came to the Caliphate, threedi stinct parties arose . One held that the throneshould go

,accordi ng to old A rab custom, to the rec

ogn ized Sheikh of the Koreish (the clan of theProphet). A nother held strictly to the principle oflegi timacy, believi ng that the blood of Mohammed inhis descendants (the children of Al i and Fatima)gavethe only claim . A third was democratic, demandingan election by the whole body of true believers. I t

increases our sense of the importance of ideas to seeh ow bitterly the adherents of these three views contended with each other for decades, making a recordof bloodshed and sufferin g which has not been surpassed i n the annals of the race. * I n this conflictthere ar e traces of Christian ideas among the heterodox sects. They adopted the Messianic hope, and theyregarded A l i and his legitimate followers as incar nations of the Godhead. The party which finallytriumphed in the Cal iph ate

J

r adopted substantiallyOld Testament ground . A ccording to them the ruler

On th is subject cf. B r un n ow, Di e Cha/r i dsch i ten De

Sacy, H i stoi fr e des D'r us es , I . , p. xxvii . Kremer, Gesch i chte derH er r sch enden I deen des I s l am , p. 409 .

fThe Sh i ites , or partisan s of A l i , retained possess ion of P ers ia .


true,this theory just inverts the order of ideas . The

idea of the Judgment is an idea great enough to eu

force itself. Mohammed’s mind was impressed withthis idea first . W ith i t he h ad a realizing sense ofthe s i n of men. I t was only because sins of propertyhave a large place among the sins of men, that he

was impressed by them . Because of their prominencehe gives them proportionate attention . He h ad, ofcourse

,great sympathy with the poor, and great i n

dign ation at oppression . One of his earliest surasrebukes the wicked in this way :

“You do not treatthe orphan generously, nor do you incite othersto feed the poor

, an d you devour inheritance withgreedy appetite, and you love wealth with an intenselove .

” Liberality is a virtue, avarice is a sin;theseare his axioms, and in adopting them he was no moresocialistic than was the A postle Paul. He takes thedifferences between men to be part of the divine ordering ° “ I t is He who made you succeed [formergenerations]in the earth, and has raised some of youabove others in rank that He m ay try you by whatHe has given you .

”

j' The matter of wealth or riches,however

,is comparatively unimportant;the present

world an d its possessions are only fleeting. The realwealth is yonder. I n al l this he took the religious

,

and not the socialistic,view .

What roused his indignation was injustice and op

pression,and the most of his laws concerning prop

e r ty were directed against these . we fin d,therefore

,

stringent injunctions designed to protect the orphan .

From the same point of view we understand the proKoran ff

. 1' 6 165.


h ibi tion of usury . Tha t a m an who loaned anothermoney should get back twice as much, seemed to himthe use of a false weight an d measure . He does notdenounce those who have wealth

,but those who get

it wrongful ly. He does not advocate lavish ben eficence. He describes the good m an as the one whoi n his expenditure is neither niggardly nor lavish. I n

al l this we discover no social revolution .

That he who h as should be ready to help him whoh as not, is, of course, one of the elementary truths ofhis religion . But it does not seem that the tax whichwas assessed upon the well- to- do

,was based upon this

duty. I t was rather a recognition of God’s right . I t

i s called a pur ificati on , and the name would indicatethe view taken in the Old Testament —that the proper ty cannot be lawfully used until it is consecratedby giving a portion to God. This portion, like thetithe of Deuteronomy

,belonged to God

,an d

,like th at

,

i t was given by God to the poor,the stranger, the

fatherless and the widow.

” This afterward becameamong the Moslems a regular state tax which cameinto the public treasury

,just as in the later legis

lation i n I srael the tithe became a regular provisionfor the support of the pri esthood. But Mohammedhad no idea of a state treasur y, and his tax was i ntended for the support of the poor. I n some casesit was sent to him to distribute;in others he allowedeach tribe to assess it upon its own wealthy menand distribute it to its own poor. I n the whole ar

rangement he stands very much upon the ground ofearly I srael .

Den t . 1498 .

CON CL US I ON

I N revi ewin g what h as been said in these lectureswe form a tolerably clear conception of the forceswhi ch have made I slam. I n the first place, we mustsuppose that Mohammed was a religious naturecapable of appreciating rel i gious truth and of applying it to himself. For religious truth is only ade

quatel y apprehended when it is made practical. Thisdoes not mean that Mohammed was morally perfect.He was not free from the defects of his age andof his race. He was not in capabl e of self- deception —possibly not incapable of deceiving otheB ut he had the religious impulse, and when hecame in contact with the truths of Christianity

,they

burned in h i s soul . This was the spark which set

A rabia on fir e .

I have said that it was when he came in contactwith the truth s of Christianity that his soul was fired.

I t is commonly supposed that his impulse was Jewish rather than Christian ;and hi s system does, infact,more nearly resemble Ju daism than it resemblesProtestant Christianity. B u t we shall be guilty ofan anachronism if we make this comparison. TheChristianity with which Mohammed came in contactwas the Christianity of Ar abia or Mesopotamia in theseventh century. I ts type was , no doubt, that of

314


as sin cere, as devout, and as intelligent as you canimagine— think of him as preachi ng to the Moslem sof Baghdad . Does he preach the simple truths of

th e New Testament, or does he preach those truthsi n the form in which they exist in his consciousness 9

You cannot doubt that he will preach a tradition—a

tradition in whi ch is much of truth, but a traditionnevertheless . Now thin k of the Baptist

,or Method

ist,or Episcopal missionary, is n ot the same thing

true to some degree of each of these ! But if thisbe so in this age of the world, we cannot find i t

strange that Mohammed received from the humbleChristians with whom he came in contact somethingless and something more than the pure Gospel. On

the whole it is rather remarkable that he received somuch of the tru th . The unity of God the certaintyof judgment;the fact of revelation;God

’s will tosave men ;the appropriation of salvation by faith;good works the fruits of faith— these doctri nes makeup no small part of our religion . A n d these he

adopted and proclaimed. That he presented themin his own form is only what we should expect.I fit is true that n ot al l Christian truths were pre

sented to Moh ammed it is also true that he was i ncapable of assimilating some doctrines even h ad theybeen presented to him . The chief of these is the doctrine of the Trinity. I n the metaphysical afli rm ati on sof the creed of Nicaea concern ing substance and person

,he woul d not have been able to find himself. A s

for the Son ship of Christ, we have already seen thatthis was cou pled i n his mind with the con ceptions ofheathenism while the idea of a love of God wh ich

CON CL USI ON 317

could lead to an incarnation would probably haveseemed to h im fanciful and extravagant . The sameis true of the doctrine of the atonement. Sacrificehad to h im lost its propitiatory sense— perhaps because i t was al r eady a meaningless rite in A rabicheathenism .

Concerning these doctrines,which have so large a

part in the Christianity that we know,we ar e in doubt

whether they were ever fairly presented to M O

hammed,and we ar e also in doubt whether he could

have used them in hi s system if they h ad been so presented. I n either case the result is the same . Hissystem is a Judaistic Christianity adapted to A rabiccondi tions.But even in this imperfect form we cannot help

admiring in I slam the power of the truth . I t cannotfor a moment be denied that the progress of I slam,

which is one of the wonders of history,was due to

m any causes . I t was not the tr uth alone which triumphed

,but the truth in alliance with al l worldly

and selfish motives. I slam is not the only religionin which the world

,the flesh

,and the devil have fought

on the side of the truth,but for their own ends . Still,

when al l allowance has been made, we see that thetruth in I slam has been a power. A s compared withheathenism

, I slam is a society in which God an d

righteousness ar e living and active forces . Everyonewho h as been admitted to intimacy with M oh amm e

dans will testify that men ar e not rare among them

who live in the fear of God, who strive to do Hiswill

, an d whose kindness and benevolence are theoutworking of sincere faith in Him . The hold of I s


l am on its adherents is because it h as so much of thetruth .

This is the excellence of I slam . I t was a great advance on the heathenism which it displaced . We

cannot doubt that even now it carries into the heartof Africa a ci i

'

fi l i zati on an d a moral i ty that are an im

mense advance on the fetishi sm in which the degradednegroes wel ter .

But with its excellence in bringing men one step inadvance

,we must contrast the tenacity with which it

restrains them from takin g another. I t is like ironin the conservatism with which it holds its systemagain st every attempt at change . I ts formalism, itsscholasticism

,its unchangeable l aw embodied in a

completed code—these shut up its conscientious adh er en ts to medi aevalism as their ideal . There can beno real liberty and no real progress where a scholasticsystem h as thus intrenched itself. The position ofChristians in the Turkish Empire throws a lurid lightupon this tru th . A gain an d again h as Europeanpressure, aided by a few educated Tur ks, endeavoredto secure equality before the laws for al l subjects ofthe Sublime Porte . But as often as the attempt ismade it proves a failure— each new failure moreghastly than the last . The reason is that the conscience and the faith of the m ost sincere and uprightMoslems ar e bound up wi th the Koran and its system . Y ou cannot introduce a reform against theconscience an d against the faith of those who mustbe depended upon to make the reform operative .

Before I slam can be reformed,n ew truth must be

brought to bear upon its heart and conscience . Civ

The Bible and Islam - Forgotten Books

Documents

Transcript of The Bible and Islam - Forgotten Books