muhammad and the religion of islam

8/4/2019 Muhammad and the Religion of Islam

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/muhammad-and-the-religion-of-islam 1/285

Muhammad and the Religion of Islam

by John Gilchrist

Preface 5

1. MUHAMMAD: HIS LIFE, PERSONALITY AND MINISTRY

1. AN 0UTLINE OF THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD

The Prophet of the Arabs at Mecca 11

The Founder of Islam at Medina 24

The Conflict with the Jews 38

The Conquest of Mecca and the Final Triumph 48

2. A STUDY OF MUHAMMAD'S PERSONALITY

An Assessment of his Character 54

His Treatment of his Personal Enemies 66

The Circumstances of his Marriages 77

3. THE NATURE OF MUHAMMAD'S PROPHETIC EXPERIENCE

An-Nabi ul-Ummi: The Unlettered Prophet 91

Muhammad's Concept of Revelation 99

Satan's Interjection and its Implications 117

Al-Mi'raj: The Alleged Ascent to Heaven 130

2. QUR'AN AND HADITH: THE SO URCES OF ISLAM

4. THE QUR'AN: THE SCRIPTURE OF ISLAM

The Composition and Character of the Qur'an 139

The Meccan and Medinan Surahs 149Significant Qur'anic Doctrines and Teachings 158

5. THE COLLECTION AND SOURCES OF THE QUR'AN

Evidences for the Collection of the Qur'an 176

Jewish Influences in the Qur'an 200

Other Qur'anic Origins and Sources 211

English Translations of the Qur'an 215

6. THE HADITH: THE TRADITIONS OF ISLAM

An Introduction to the Subject of Hadith 224

The Major Works of Hadith Literature 233

The Authenticity of the Traditions 239

3. ISLAM: THE RELIGION AND ITS MOVEMENTS

7. THE PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF ISLAM

Fundamental Muslim Tenets and Beliefs 250

Sinlessness of the Prophets: Th e Isma Doctrine 273

The Five Pillars of Islam 284

The Hajj Pilgrimage to Mecca 294



8. THE SOCIAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ISLAM

Muslim Festivals and Celebrations 305

Social and Family Laws in Islam 311

Cultic Trends in Popular Islam 322

The Consequences of Apostasy from Islam 340

9. MUSLIM MOVEMENTS AND SCHISMS

Sufism in Theory and Practice 346

The Sources and Tenets of Shi'i te Islam 362

A Study of the Ahmadiyya Movement 374

Other Important Sects in Muslim History 386

Bibliography 393

The original print edition: Jesus to the Muslims, 1986, Benoni, Republic of South Africa

Preface

One of the great fruits of the Protestant Reformation has been the missionary movement thattoday has spread its influence to every corner of the globe. It has proved to be moresuccessful in some areas than in others. Accordingly most of the Protestant missionary forcetoday is involved in those fields that have proved to be more fertile and responsive thanothers. Only a very small proportion of missionaries is engaged in reaching Muslims for Christ. Yet the Muslim world remains Christianity's greatest challenge for there is no other religion that has succeeded in making such inroads into traditional Christian realms as Islamand no other faith of its magnitude which has resisted the influence of the Gospel as this onehas.

Since the end of the Second World War there has been a phenomenon in the East thatdiscerning Christians have identified as providential. Muslims have emigrated by hundreds of thousands from their traditional homelands into Western countries, the customary heritage of Christendom. The Church in the West has been presented with a unique opportunity toevangelise Islam right on its doorstep. A mini world of Islam has mushroomed so that thereare today emigrants, migrant-workers, students and the like from just about every Muslimcountry in the world based in Europe, North America, and other predominantly Christianlands in the West. God has presented the evangelical Church with a new field of mission andone which can be discharged by all Christians, whether trained missionaries or not.Experience has shown that the growth of minority Muslim communities in Christiancountries has opened the door for a more comprehensive form of ministry than has hitherto

been possible in most Muslim lands.

All over the Christian world there is a rising awareness and consciousness of Islam and theneed to evangelise Muslims, especially those who are now our neighbours, fellow-citizensand close associates. It is the firm conviction of many that this is God's day for the salvationof the Muslims and the need to equip the Church for the task it is beginning to assume is

being recognised by many.



I have had the privilege of witnessing to many thousands of Muslims during the past twelveyears. Although I am a professional man established in business, the presence of a fewhundred thousand Muslims in South Africa has given me the opportunity to become involvedin a sustained ministry of evangelism among them and in recent years I have become morethan ever persuaded that the future of Muslim evangelism in the West lies in the hands of those Christians who live near enough to Muslims to have regular access to them and to

befriend them. I am about to prepare the manuscript of my book The Christian Witness to the Muslim which will cover the whole field of a potential ministry of comprehensive friendshipevangelism among Muslims, provide effective means of communicating the Gospel to them,and supply ways of answering their usual objections to the Christian faith. This book couldhave been ready for publication even now, were it not for my firm belief that all Christiansseeking to become involved in any form of continuing evangelism among Muslims shouldhave a sound, basic knowledge of the religion, heritage and customs of those they hope toreach.

The result of this conviction has been the preparation instead of this volume Muhammad and

the Religion of Islam. I have sought and endeavoured to inform those who contemplateMuslim evangelism of the history and development of Islam from the time of Muhammad

himself down to the present day as well as survey the religion from an evangelical Christian perspective. This book will be followed by the second, God-willing, before the end of 1988. Itrust that they will, as companion volumes, reflect the fruits of many years of study andexperience and provide in some measure the basic knowledge every Christian should have if he wishes to be effective in this field.

It is being wisely said in these days that we need to "earn the right to be heard", that is, thatwe must be equipped with a sound knowledge of the religion, convictions, hopes andthought-patterns of those we desire to win to Jesus Christ. Nowhere is this more applicablethan in the case of the Muslim. As my own personal knowledge of Islam has increased over the years I have found it easier to communicate with Muslims and to make the message of theGospel meaningful to them. The average Muslim has not only his religious thinking but evenhis whole outlook on life conditioned by the mentality of Islam. One cannot speak to him asif he were just another human being. He has to be approached for what he is - a Muslimtrained to think like a Muslim, and to have his ideas and beliefs fashioned in accordance withthe basic Muslim world-view.

It has also been my pleasant experience to find that many Muslims sincerely respect anyonewho has taken the trouble to obtain an inside knowledge of their faith, even if he is, as I am, aChristian evangelist ministering under the conviction that he is called to reach Muslims for Christ. Such a Christian is far more likely to convey his message with an impact than thosewho know little or nothing of Islam. Indeed it is also my experience that many Muslims,confronted by Christians whose fervour to witness to them is matched only by their ignorance

of Islam, are quickly comforted by the conclusion that the confidence of such men inChristianity is caused purely by their lack of knowledge of the surpassing beauties of Islam.The message is gently pushed aside as the product of "zeal which is not according toknowledge".

A Christian who really knows Islam is able to present the Gospel against the Muslim's background and is far more likely to command a responsive ear. For this reason I was persuaded that the second book would be incomplete by itself and that it needed this book asa companion volume to assist Christians to approach Muslims in a truly comprehensive way.



Although the book covers four hundred pages it is purely introductory. I have supplementedit with a number of quotes which I believe enrich the text, help to document it, and oftenexpress matters in a far more effective way than I could. It is also my purpose to acquaintChristians with many of the major works on Islam. Although a number of these will beinaccessible to most of my readers, I trust that many will be encouraged to obtain and readother books on Islam.

I have also had the privilege of relying first-hand on English translations of many of themajor works of Hadith literature. When I began working among Muslims in 1973 only theS irat Rasulullah of Ibn Ishaq was freely available in English. Since then a great number of works have been translated and I am indeed privileged to be able to quote directly from themin a work on the heritage of Islam. It is my sincere hope that the remaining three major worksof Hadith mentioned in this book will also appear in English in the near future but we can inthe meantime be grateful for the translation of the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim and theSunan of Abu Dawud.

While on the subject of books I should perhaps mention that the date of each respective book mentioned in the bibliography at the end of this book is only the date of the copy that I have

consulted. It is not nepessarily the date of publication of the original work which, whereknown to me, is quoted in brackets in each case. I must express my considerable debt toHughes' masterpiece A Dictionary of Islam. I have constantly consulted it and believe that itis by far the best resource work available. Every Christian seeking to obtain a basicknowledge of Islam should earnestly endeavour to obtain a copy of this book.

Although the present work is chiefly an assessment of Islam and accordingly does not dealcomprehensively with the teaching of the Qur'an about Jesus, the Trinity, etc. (these will becovered in the second book), it is written purposefully from an evangelical Christian

perspective. I have at all times sought to be as fair as I can be and have endeavoured to bestrictly accurate, but do not claim to have written dispassionately or purely objectively. Thewriter is a Christian by firm, independent conviction, and accordingly writes as such. This

book, therefore, is not only informative but also approaches and evaluates Islam in the lightof the Christian faith and on many occasions does so critically and finds Islam wanting.

Many will be inclined to conclude that this book is not only a description of Islam but also arefutation of it. I make no apology for this. I have a healthy respect for Muhammad, his book and his religion, but sincerely believe that he does not compare with Jesus Christ and thatChristianity, in its Biblical form, is far superior to Islam.

I have also considered it necessary to deal with the Muslim tendency to place bothMuhammad and the Qur'an in a category of perfection. Muslim writers customarily glossover the defects of both and it is only very rarely that one finds them subduing their

sentiments in the cause of presenting a truly historical picture. This has become a universalvogue in the world of Islam and, without any desire to cause offence but with the purpose of obtaining a truer perspective, I have purposefully analysed many of these sentiments in thelight of Islam's sources and historical heritage.

It is also common to find Muslims charging Western writers on Islam with a prejudiceagainst it, even when they write somewhat sympathetically. I am persuaded that suchcomplaints are often ill-founded. Many Western scholars, having taken pains to assess Islamas objectively and sincerely as they can, are nevertheless discounted and faulted purely



because they will not make any concessions to popular Muslim sentiments. I do not expectMuslim readers to review this book favourably in the circumstances, but do sincerely trustthat they will acknowledge that my conclusions and opinions have been based on recordsdrawn from within the heritage of Islam (i.e. the Qur'an, major works of Hadith literature andother Islamic sources) and that they have always been factually stated and carefullydocumented.

Lastly a brief word should be said about the transliteration of Arabic texts from the Qur'anand other works into English. As the Arabic script is principally phonetic I have sought toreproduce it as phonetically as I can so that the form here set forth conveys as closely as

possible the pronunciation of the original. To give an example, whereas some writers areinclined to write the definite article, al , as it appears in the consonantal script, I have followedthe usual pronunciation, especially where the word to which the article is attached beginswith one of the so-called "sun-letters" (al-hurufush-shamsiyah), for example as-S iddiq (written in the script as al-S iddiq).

I have generally not indicated long vowels or the use of the three diphthong letters to elongatea vowel except in direct quotes from the Qur'an. All quotes from the Qur'an in English are

from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali unless otherwise stated. Translations of particular verses quoted in the original language are usually my own, appearing always within the bodyof my own text.

As is generally customary today, the feminine ta marbutah has been used in thetransliteration of words employing this form by the addition of an "h" to the relevant word ineach case. I have endeavoured to be as consistent as I can be in transliteration (employing anorder coming into general use today), but where a widely accepted form of a word has takenroot in writings on Islam, I have retained its traditional arrangement (e.g. muezzin for muadh-

dhin, etc). Readers, I am sure, will recognise that there is great value in having someknowledge of Arabic and I urge those contemplating Arabic studies to pursue them.

This book has been written primarily for evangelical Christians to give them a sound, basicknowledge of Islam and its heritage. It is my fervent hope that it will inspire confidence inthose seeking to witness to Muslims and equip them in some measure for the task.

John Gilchrist.10th July 1984

AnOutline of the Life of Muhammad

A. THE PR OPHET OF THE ARABS AT MECCA.

1. Mecca at the time of Muhammad.

In the sixth century after Christ, Mecca (pronounced Makkah in Arabic) was hardly known tothe outside world but it was the commercial and religious centre of Arabia. Although theArabs were a divided people, broken up into various tribes who were constantly at war with



each other, the fairs at the city served to attract many of them and whatever unity existedamong them was generated and expressed through these annual get-togethers. The focal pointof attention was the K a'aba (Arabic for "cube"), a shrine in the centre of the city containingover three hundred idols, chief of whom was the god Hubal (a probable derivation from theancient high-god Ba'al , so often spoken of as the chief object of worship of the pagan nationsaround Israel in the Bible). The various tribes came to Mecca to worship their gods and take

part in the various poetical contests that were arranged at the fairs. The composition of poetrywas a favourite literary pastime of the Arabs and many shu'ara (poets, singular: sha'ir )competed at these contests.

When Muhammad began to proclaim the Qur'an, a book with a very rhythmic style, theMeccans derided him as one of these poets or, worse still, as a kahin (soothsayer).Muhammad expressly repudiated the suggestion that he was either of these. Indeed the rhymeof the Qur'an is rarely symmetrical and parts of it are purely narratory. The Qur'an says of itsown message which he brings:

It is not the word of a poet ... nor is it the word of a soothsayer. Surah 69.41,42.

There was no central government of any kind in those days in Arabia. Each tribe looked to itsown interests and inter-tribal intercourse was governed by certain unwritten laws - for example, four months in the year were set apart for religious pilgrimages to Mecca and other cities containing the shrines of major idols (such as that of the goddess al-Lat at at-Ta'if near Mecca) during which warfare was forbidden. Another such law was the right of retaliation bya tribe if one of its members was injured or killed by a member of another tribe. The offendedtribe could accept a ransom or exercise an eye-for-eye retaliation against any member of theother tribe.

Commercial trade with the local nomadic tribes and Syrian and other merchants beyond theArabian peninsula was the lifeblood of the people of Mecca. The Ouraysh tribe controlled the

city and, from the Banu Hashim, a sub-tribe Muhammad was born. Hashim was his great-grandfather and for the first two years after his birth, Muhammad was cared for by hisgrandfather Abdul Muttalib as his father, Abdallah, died before he was born. A strange tale isrecorded of a vow made by Abdul Muttalib which, had it been performed, would have giventhe Arabs a different course through history. He allegedly discovered the well of Zam-Zam

next to the Ka'aba which the Muslims to this day believe is the one Hagar ( Hajira) foundwhile looking for water for her son Ishmael ( Ismail ). A dispute arose between Abdul Muttaliband the Quraysh over two golden gazelles and other treasures which he discovered and,supported by an only son, he vowed to Hubal that, if he was given ten sons, he wouldsacrifice one of them. One by one the ten sons were duly born to him and by the divination of arrows, Abdallah became the unfortunate victim. Nevertheless, as his father was about to

perform his vow, he was persuaded to substitute a number of camels instead as an expiatory

sacrifice on behalf of his son by his distraught tribesmen. (There is some doubt as to the truthof this story. In his S irat Rasulullah, p. 66, Ibn Ishaq begins his narrative by saying God only

knows the truth of it, his customary way of expressing his reservations about anything herecorded).

2. Muhammad's First Forty Years.

Into this environment Muhammad was born in 570 AD of his mother Amina and for a fewyears was entrusted to the care of Halima, a woman from the Banu S a'd, a sub-tribe of the



nomadic Hawazin tribe, of whom we will hear more later. After the death of his grandfather,he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib who had an orphan on his hands when Amina diedsix years after Muhammad's birth.

Little is known of his youth but Islamic history records that he journeyed with Abu Talib toSyria at the age of only twelve years and at this time he must have gained his first

impressions of Judaism and Christianity, the monotheistic religions with their respectivescriptures so different to the pagan idolatry of his own people. (The Qur'an constantlydistinguishes Jews and Christians as Ah! at- K itab - people of the scripture - from the paganArabs who are usually described as at-Mushrikin - the polytheists).

At the age of twenty-five he was commissioned to attend to the mercantile affairs of awealthy widow in Mecca named Khadija who was fifteen years older than him. Once againMuhammad set out for Syria to trade, this time with Khadija's goods. It appears that he had avery good reputation in Mecca and was especially selected by this dignified woman inconsequence. Muhammad duly justified her confidence in him and returned after successfullyfulfilling his task of selling her goods and purchasing new items. Although she was a womanof noble birth and considerable charm, she resisted her suitors but was irresistibly attracted to

Muhammad and sent a messenger to him with a proposal of marriage, expressing her impression of him in these words:

"O son of my uncle, I like you because of our relationship and your high reputation among

your people, your trustworthiness and good character and truthfulness. (Ibn Ishaq,Sirat

Rasulullah, p. 82).

Muhammad duly accepted her proposal and they were soon married. Despite the years between them, the marriage was evidently a happy one. She bore him two sons (who died ininfancy) and four daughters: Zaynab, Ruqaiyah, Fatima and Umm Kulthum. Although hetook many wives after her death, he stayed married to her alone for the remaining twenty-five

years of her life. He is alleged to have said that, in her lifetime, she was the best amongwomen and in later years Ayishah, his youngest and favourite wife, used to say:

"I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija, although

she died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had told him

to give her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious

stones and pearls in Paradise)". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 5, p. 103).

One last incident in his life before his claim to prophethood should be mentioned. At the ageof thirty-five a violent storm shattered the Ka'aba and the Quraysh decided to rebuild it. Apartfrom its idols, its most important feature was a black stone, probably a meteorite, built into its

east corner. The stone is there to this day and is known as al-hajaru'l-aswad (literally, "the black stone"). It was held in high esteem by the pagan Arabs and, when the time came for itsreinstatement in the restored shrine, the various branches of the Quraysh tribe so vied for theright to put it back into its proper place that bloodshed threatened. In the end they agreed thatthe next person to enter one of the gates would have the privilege of restoring it.

The first person to enter through the gate of Banu Shaybah was the Apostle of Allah, may

Allah bless him. When they saw him they said "This is al-Amin (the Trusted). We agree to

what we have decided". Then they informed him of the affair. Thereupon the Apostle of



Allah, may Allah bless him, took his mantle and spread it on the earth, then he put the black

stone on it. He then said, "Let a person from every quarter of the Quraysh come ... Let every

one of you hold a corner of the cloth. Then all of them raised it and the Apostle of Allah, may

Allah bless him, put it in its place with his own hand. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol.

1, p. 166).

One cannot help wondering to what extent this incident moulded the later conviction of Muhammad that he was chosen as a prophet of Allah. Nonetheless, in both this incident andthe attitude of Khadija we can see that he was widely accepted as a thoroughly trustworthy

person. Explaining the acceptance of Muhammad by all the Quraysh without dissent, one of his biographers tells us:

Quraysh used to call the Apostle of God before revelation came to him "the trustworthy

one". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 86).

The award of this name al-Amin to Muhammad in these early days testifies strongly to thesubjective sincerity of his prophetic conviction in later years. For the next five years,

however, we hear nothing more of him.

3. "Iqra" - The Call to Prophethood.

Life only begins at forty, so they say, and of no man was this truer than Muhammad. At aboutthis age he began retiring to a cave on Mount Hira just outside Mecca where he spent manydays in quiet contemplation and meditation. On one of these days he returned hastily toMecca to inform his wife Khadija that he had had a strange vision of an angelic being, withone foot on the other, calling out to him from the horizon. No matter which way he turned,there was the angel. He was much disturbed by the vision and expressed the fear that hemight become a soothsayer like those that he despised. It seems clear that his first reactionwas that he had been visited by an evil spirit, a Jinn (from which comes the word genie

introduced into the English language chiefly through the story of Aladdin's lamp). The Quranrecognises the existence of such beings of whom we will hear more later. The followinghadith (literally "a saying", generally meaning a tradition from one of the companions of Muhammad about an incident in his life) tells us what happened on the mountain as heexperienced this phenomenon he reported:

There came to him the angel and said: Recite, to which he replied: I am not lettered. He took

hold of me (the Apostle said) and pressed me, till I was hard pressed; thereafter he let me

off and said: Recite. I said, I am not lettered. He then again took hold of me and pressed me

for the second time till I was hard pressed and then let me off and said: Recite, to which I

replied: I am not lettered. He took hold of me and pressed me for the third time, till I was

hard pressed and then let me go and said: Recite in the name of your Lord Who created,

created man from a clot of blood. Recite. And your most bountiful Lord is He Who taught the

use of the pen, taught man what he knew not. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 97).

The last two sentences today form the first four verses of the 96th Surah of the Qur'an. It isgenerally agreed by all the early biographers that this passage was the first revealed, thoughBukhari states that Surah 74, verses 1 to 3, was the initial revelation:



Narrated Yahya bin Abi Kathir: I asked Aba Salama bin Abdur-Rahman about the first Sura

revealed of the Quran. He replied "O you, wrapped-up (i.e. Al-Muddaththir)". I said "They

say it was, 'Read, in the name of your Lord Who created' (i.e. Surat Al-Alaq, the Clot)". On

that, Abu Salama said "I asked Jabir bin Abdullah about that, saying the same as you have

said, whereupon he said "I will not tell you, except what Allah's Apostle had told us. Allah's

Apostle said, 'I was in seclusion in the cave of Hira, and after I completed the limited periodof my seclusion, I came down and heard a voice calling me. I looked to my right, but saw

nothing. Then I looked up and saw something. So I went to Khadija and told her to wrap me

up and pour cold water on me. So they wrapped me up and poured cold water on me'. Then

was revealed 'O you, wrapped up! Arise and warn"'. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 417-418).

The other biographers generally recognise this passage as one of the very earliest but theevidence favours the other as the first revealed. The first word used by the angel was Iq'ra! -Recite! From the same root letters the word Qur'an is derived, meaning the "Recitation".After Muhammad had reacted that he was unable to read, the angel then recited the wholeverse: Iq'ra bismi rabbikallathii khalaq - "Recite, in the name of thy Lord who created".Muhammad was then led to understand that he was to repeat the words after the angel hadfirst recited them.

Khadija immediately comforted him, stating that Allah would never have allowed anything but a true revelation to come to him. When a cousin named Waraqah, who had renounced theidol-worship of his tribesmen, supported her, alleging that the al-Namus al-Akbar , the greatangel, had obviously visited him, Muhammad was duly persuaded that he had beencommissioned by Allah as a prophet. For some time, however, he remained in doubt:

Then revelations stopped for a time so that the apostle of God was distressed and grieved.

Then Gabriel brought him the Sura of the Morning, in which his Lord, who had so honoured

him, swore that He had not forsaken him, and did not hate him. God said, 'By the morning

and the night when it is still, thy Lord hath not forsaken thee nor hated thee'. (Ibn Ishaq,Sirat Rasulullah, p. 111).

The last sentence now forms Surah 93.1-3 in the Qur'an. (The angel Gabriel, called Jibri inthe Qur'an, Surah 2.98, was believed by Muhammad to be the angel who appeared to him andwho over the years revealed the whole Qur'an to him). After this the revelations camefrequently. (A critical analysis of Muhammad's prophetic experience follows in this book.For the moment it seems appropriate to outline the developing drama just as it is recorded inthe traditions). He was told to call the people of Mecca to the worship of the one God Allah,to forsake idol worship, to prepare for the Day of Reckoning, to choose between heaven andhell, and to acknowledge him as a prophet.

After his wife his cousin Ali, son of his protector Abu Talib, who was in his care, and hisadopted son Zaid ibn Haritha became his first followers. The first noteworthy person to do sofrom the Quraysh was Abu Bakr, of whom we will hear more. (He was Muhammad'ssuccessor, the first of the caliphs, after Muhammad's death).

Muhammad duly began proclaiming his message to the Meccans and the first companion tofollow in doing so was one Abdullah ibn Masud. Ibn Ishaq tells us that, whe1 the Qurayshheard him, they struck him in the face, but this only increased his resolve (S irat Rasulullah, p.



142). This incident deserves mention in the light of what we will discover in another chapter about Ibn Masud's part in the collection of the Qur'an.

4. Persecution and Progress in Mecca.

During the next ten years Muhammad's movement slowly took root in Mecca but much

opposition followed. The Quraysh took exception to Muhammad's preaching. Was he to betheir leader? Were their gods and goddesses to be dishonoured by him without a defiantresponse? Was Mecca to cease to be the centre of the pagan worship of Arabia? What wouldthe effect be on their thriving commercial trade with the deputations who came to worship atthe Ka'aba? The implications urged the Quraysh into a swift denunciation of Muhammad's

preaching and the Meccans soon began persecuting those followers of Muhammad who wereunprotected, one of whom was Bilal, an Abyssinian slave purchased and set free by AbuBakr, who later became the regular muazzinof the early Muslims, the one who summons themto prayer.

The Meccans did not object to the proclamation that Allah was the Supreme Being but rather to the denunciation of their idols. The Qur'an does not charge the Meccans with not believing

in Allah at all but rather of associating partners with him or of giving him sons and daughters.This is very strongly denounced in the Qur'an as shirk - "associating" - an unforgivable sin,from the same root letters as Mushrikin (see p.13). Three goddesses, regarded as intercessors

by the Quraysh, are repudiated by name in the Qur'an:

Have ye seen Lat, and Uzza, and another, the third, Manat? What! For you the male sex and

for Him the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! Surah 53.19-22.

As the birth of a female was regarded as a dishonour by the Arabs, the Qur'an asks how theQuraysh could have sons and Allah only daughters! (The charge of attributing a son to Allahin the Qur'an is generally levelled against the Christians, though in Surah 9.30 the Jews are

accused of making U zazr , i.e. Ezra, a "son of Allah" - a strange charge not warranted by therecords of Jewish history).

The great God Allah was already regarded as Lord of the Ka'aba by the Meccans and theshrine was known as al-baitullah - the house of Allah. Apart from the repudiation of idols itappears that the Quraysh had yet other reasons for opposing Muhammad's preaching:

From some texts and traditions we should gather that the Meccan objection was not to the

glorification of Allah but to the identification of their familiar deity with him whom the Jews

called Rahman (the Merciful), a title applied to pagan deities also. (Margoliouth, Mohammed

and the Rise of Islam, p. 143).

The Quraysh apparently distinguished between Allah and ar-Rahman of the Jews but theQur'an identifies the two as the same Lord of all:

Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well):

for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names". Surah 17.110



In some of the earliest Surahs we find the name ar-Rahman being used more often for Godinstead of the more common name Allah (e.g. Surah 43 where "ar-Rahman" appears seventimes and "Allah" on only three occasions).

Chief among the persecutors were Abu Lahab, an uncle of Muhammad (one of AbdulMuttalib's ten sons) and Abu Jahl " that evil man" (Ibn Ishaq, S irat Rasulullah, p. 145) who

was later killed at Badr.

Most of the direct opposition to Muhammad himself, protected from physical harm by AbuTalib, took the form of ridicule. Ibn Masud tells of an incident near the Ka'aba on one of those early days when Muhammad was praying with Abu Jahl and a number of his friendsstanding behind him:

Abu Jahl said, referring to the she-camel that had been slaughtered the previous day: Who

will rise to fetch the foetus of the she-camel of so and so, and place it between the

shoulders of Muhammad when he goes down in prostration? The one most accursed among

the people got up, brought the foetus and, when the Prophet (may peace be upon him)

went down in prostration, placed it between his shoulders.T

hen they laughed at him andsome of them leaned upon the others with laughter. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 986).

After his daughter Fatima had removed the foetus, Muhammad promptly invokedimprecations on them in the name of Allah and, at the battle of Badr to follow, his warriorsduly despatched Abu Jahl and six of his associates.

The Qur'an itself denounces Muhammad's other great enemy, Abu Lahab, by name in Surah111 and consigns him and his wife (who used to place thorns in Muhammad's path) to thefires of hell. "Love your enemies" was neither believed nor practiced by Muhammad, theArab claimant to prophethood.

Persecution became so severe that Muhammad allowed a number of his followers to flee toAbyssinia. Shortly after this, however, another of his uncles, Hamza (who was only two yearsolder than him) became one of his followers. A courageous man, he later became known as"the Lion of God". Not long after his conversion Muhammad gained a most importantaddition to his small band of followers in the person of Umar ibn al-Khattab who later

became the second caliph. Umar had been a staunch opponent of Muhammad's preaching and physically assaulted his own sister Fatima when he found she too had been converted.Remorse overtook him when he saw her face bleeding and he asked to hear a recitation of theQur'n. Overwhelmed, he immediately sought out Muhammad to swear his allegiance to him.

The conversion of such men as Umar and Hamza strengthened the cause of Muhammad'scompanions and for a while public worship became possible. Persecution later revived,however, and a second migration to Abyssinia followed. This only increased the fury of theQuraysh and a ban was proclaimed against Abu Talib and the Banu Hashim until they shouldremove their protection of Muhammad and leave the rest of the Quraysh free to deal withhim. The sub-tribe was shut up and besieged in Abu Talib'a quarter for three years (with theexception, naturally, of Abu Lahab) and during this period suffered greatly till the cries of thechildren could be heard.



Many now began to feel that the boycott of their trite men had gone far enough and when itwas discovered that ants had eaten the banning order placed in the Ka'aba with the exceptionof the words "In thy name, O Allah", the Quraysh agreed that the ban should be lifted.

5. Muhammad's Visit to at-Ta'if.

Not long after this Khadija and Abu Talib died. The loss of both his wife and protector was asevere blow and Muhammad had to reassess his position in Mecca. Despairing of any further success in the city, he left it for the first time to preach his message elsewhere and proceededto at-Ta'if, a city in a fertile valley to the south-east of Mecca, and home of the worship of theArab goddess al-Lat . Accompanied only by his adopted son Zaid, he was soon rejected by theinhabitants of the city and, as they were leaving, both were stoned and partially injured by theunrepentant idolaters. Taking refuge in an orchard, he was solaced and reassured himself of God's favour on his mission. From one point of view, this moment was probably the lowest

point of his ministry and the future must have appeared bleak. At the same time we must beobjective and sympathise deeply with his unrelenting determination to oppose the paganismof his day in the name of the one true God. From a Christian point of view he perhaps heremore than at any other time, comes out with credit.

There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of Mahomet to Tayif; a solitary man,

despised and rejected by his own people, going boldly forth in the name of God, like Jonah

to Nineveh, and summoning an idolatrous city to repent and support his mission. It sheds a

strong light on the intensity of his belief in the divine origin of his calling. (Muir, The Life of

Mahomet, p. 109).

6. The Treaties of Aqabah and the Hijrah.

Not long after his visit to at-Ta'if, all began to change for the hitherto unsuccessful claimantto prophethood. At the next annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Muhammad met six men from

Yathrib, a city just over two hundred miles north of Mecca, who commended his messageand said they would return home and proclaim it. The following year they returned after somemeasure of success and twelve men of Yathrib met him at al-Aqaba near Mecca and took anoath which became known as the first pledge of Aqaba and as the "Pledge of the Women"

because they undertook to observe the ordinances laid down in the Qur'an on believingwomen who sought to take the oath of fealty (Surah 60.12). One of the twelve puts the oath inhis own words:

There were twelve of us and we pledged ourselves to the prophet after the manner of

women and that was before war was enjoined, the undertaking being that we should

associate nothing with God; we should not steal; we should not commit fornication; nor kill

our offspring; we should not slander our neighbours; we should not disobey him in what wasright; if we fulfilled this paradise would be ours; if we committed any of those sins it was for

God to punish or forgive us as He pleased. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 199).

Muhammad sent one of his companions, Musab, to teach them the Qur' an and the spread of the new faith was so swift in the city that seventy men accompanied Musab the followingyear to Mecca and took the second pledge of Aqaba after their leader, one al-Bare, had madethis declaration to Muhammad:



We have listened to what you have said: Had there been some other idea in our mind we

would have expressed it. We mean to fulfil (our promises) and want truth, and we are ready

to sacrifice our lives for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat

al-K abir , Vol. 1, p. 257).

They undertook to protect him with their own lives and accept him as leader in Yathrib. What brought about this sudden change in fortunes? There were basically two factors whichweighed in favour of success here which had not been present at Mecca or at-Ta'if. Firstly,the city was inhabited by two tribes, the Aus and K hazraj, who had been at war with eachother and who now sought an independent leader to govern them. Secondly, there were manyJews in the city and their monotheistic influence had had a purifying effect on these Arabsand prepared them for such an indigenous monotheistic religion as the Arab prophet of Mecca set before them. The seventy came from both tribes and confirmed that Yathrib waswilling to accept him as leader and preparations were made for Muhammad and his followersto emigrate to the city. Soon many of them quietly left Mecca though the Quraysh hadalready become aware that something was afoot.

As soon as the Quraysh realised fully what was happen) they became alarmed. A defiant prophet in their midst was one thing - an immortal enemy governing a hostile city elsewherewas another. Plans were soon afoot to kill Muhammad and one night, with only Muhammadhimself, Abu Bakr and Ali left in the city, the Quraysh sought to execute their design againsthim. But, leaving Ali in his bed, he escaped with Abu Bakr to a cave on Mount Thaur southof Mecca and remained there two days. A legend, widely reported, explains how Allah sent aspider to protect them while the Quraysh sought them:

A spider span a cobweb, some parts of which covered others. The Quraysh made a frantic

search for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. They even came to the entrance of the

cave, but someone among them said, Verily, spiders haunt this place from before the birth

of Muhammad; and they returned. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 1, p. 265).

This incident is universally believed to be true by Muslims throughout the world to this day, but it is probable that this story is adapted from a Jewish fable like many others that are foundin the Qur'an, as we shall see.

It is observable that the Jews have a like tradition concerning David, when he fled from Saul

into the cave and the Targum paraphrases these words of the second verse of Psalm lvii,

which was composed on occasion of that deliverance: "I will pray before the most high God

that performeth all things for me, in this manner; I will pray before the most high God who

called a spider to weave a web for my sake in the mouth of the cave" (Sale, The Preliminary

Discourse to the K oran, p. 54)

Another incident related of this sojourn in the cave and one of certain historical accuracy,again commends Muhammad and is one of those moments in his hard life at Mecca for whichwe are bound to give him credit. The Qur'an itself mentions it in these words:

Allah did indeed help him when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one

companion: - they two were in the Cave, and he said to his companion, "Have no fear for

Allah is with us". Surah 9.40



Abu Bakr had become quite fearful when they realised the Quraysh were near and asked whatthe two of them could do against so many, but Muhammad comforted him by saying "We arenot two but three - Allah is with us". Abu Bakr corded the poignant moment in these words:

"I was in the company of the Prophet in the cave, and on seeing the traces of the pagans, I

said, 'O Allah's Apostle! If one of them should lift up his foot, he will see us'. He said, 'What

do you think of two, the third of whom is Allah?'". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 148).

The two finally escaped safely and Ali soon followed. Thus ended Muhammad's years inMecca and this migration, known as the Hijrah, became the turning point in his mission. AtYathrib, renamed al-Madina by Muhammad (literally "the city"), Islam was established as areligion and from the date of the Hijrah, 20th June 622 AD, the Muslim calendar significantly

begins.

Less than a hundred Meccan believers came to Medina and were given the honorary title Muhajirun, Emigrants, a word derived from the same root letters as hijrah (emigration). TheMedinan converts who stood by him at al-Aqaba were likewise entitled Ansar , Helpers. From

now on the Muslim ummah (community) was a unit in itself. Tribal loyalties passed away anda new universal loyalty to Allah, his apostle and the believers (mu'minin) took over.Henceforth the followers of Muhammad were proud to be called Muslims (al-Muslimin - "theMuslims") and adherents of al-Islam. Both words come from the same root letters - Islammeans "submission" and a Muslim is one who submits himself to the way of Allah.


B. THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM AT MEDINA .

1. The Muslim Community at Medina.

Muhammad and the early Muslims soon settled in Medina though some of the Meccanemigrants suffered fevers from the change of climate. (Mecca is a hot, dry city whereasMedina is set in a fertile valley with a more humid climate). He often praised the virtues of the city that had accepted him as its leader. He stated that Allah would punish those whoharmed its inhabitants, that it has its own way of driving out evil people, and that Dajjal (theIslamic equivalent of the Antichrist) would not be able to enter it. An indication of the depthof Muhammad's love for the city come out clearly in other proclamations he made about it,such as this one:

"I have declared sacred the territory between the two lava plains of Medina, so its trees

should not be cut down, or its game killed"; and he also said "Medina is best for them if they

knew. No one leaves it through dislike of it without Allah putting in it someone better than

he in place of him; and no one will stay there in spite of its hardships and distress without

my being an intercessor or witness on behalf of him on the Day of Resurrection". (Sahih

Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 686).

At the beginning of their stay in Medina, however, the early Muslims endured extreme poverty. Muhammad himself soon grew accustomed to the paucity of provisions and



possessions and throughout his ten years as ruler of the city (and, in later years, of much of Arabia itself), he allowed himself on y the bare necessities of life. At Mecca he had marriedhis second wife Sauda, shortly after Khadija's death and now in Medina, took Ayishah,daughter of Abu Bakr, as wife. Of all his wives, Ayishah was the only one who had never

been married before. Muhammad was, in fact, betrothed to her when she was only twelveyears of age. He had no apartment of his own but took turns in dwelling in the simple

apartments he a built for his wives.

His followers also adapted to the new environment and a spirit of brotherhood soondeveloped between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. Up to fifty of the emigrants were takenindividually as brothers by the citizens of Medina and were entitled to inherit from them.

Not all the citizens of Medina welcomed Muhammad. There were three Jewish tribes whocaused him much trouble in and around the city, of whose fates more will be said later. Someof the Arabs also were unwilling to acknowledge his leadership but, as the city as a wholehad taken him as leader, the disaffected parties generally gave a token outwardacknowledgment of his leadership and acceptance of his religion and its practices. Behind thescenes, however, discontent was rarely quiet and Muhammad was constantly aware of the

rumblings going on around him.

Such outward conformity, cloaking an opposition ill-concealed, was more dangerous than

open animosity. The class soon became peculiarly obnoxious to Mahomet; he established

through his adherents a close and searching watch over both their words and actions; and in

due time followed up his espionage by acts which struck dismay into the hearts of the

disaffected. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 176).

The leader of this group was one Abdullah ibn Ubayy. He had known nothing of the pledgesof Aqabah and at the time had sought to placate the Meccans who were suspicious of thedeveloping kinship between Muhammad and the citizens of Medina who had come to the

fairs. Ibn Ubayy had in fact become one of the foremost men in the city and, were it not for the arrival of the Meccan fugitive, he might well have assumed the leadership of itsinhabitants instead.

On more than one occasion in later years his followers plotted to replace Muhammad withtheir leader. At the Battle of Uhud to follow, Ibn Ubayy withdrew from the pending clashwith his followers and, although he made an outward profession of Islam, Muhammad'scompanions constantly sought his demise. Muhammad himself forbade it, however, and at hisrival's death even ventured to pray over his grave.

Nonetheless Muhammad was quite apprehensive about this potentially dangerous group and,in the Qur'an, these professors of Islam who gave it no more than lip-service are denouncedas munafiqun, "hypocrites", and are regarded as the worst of unbelievers. A Surah of theQur'an, appropriately entitled S uratul-Munafiqun, devotes its first eight verses to a

particularly vehement condemnation of these pseudo-Muslims. A few of these verses speak for themselves:

When the hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the

Apostle of God . Yea, God knoweth that thou art indeed His apostle, and God beareth

witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars. When thou lookest at them, their exteriors



please thee and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as

hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every

cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of God be on them'

How are the deluded (away from the Truth). Surah 63.1,4.

Muhammad built his first mosque at Quba just south of Medina but his own mosque, themasjidun-nabi (the prophet's mosque), soon became the dominant place of worship in thecity. It survives to this day, but has been greatly enlarged many times and today also enclosesMuhammad's tomb.

When the Muslims first came to Medina they faced Jerusalem when praying. Not longafterwards, however, Muhammad changed this direction of prayer, the qiblah, to the Ka'abain Mecca even though it was still an idolatrous temple. The rejection of his claim to

prophethood by the Jews appears to have made him decide that Islam should be an exclusivefaith separate from Judaism, and one with an Arab foundation. He had already identifiedhimself as a prophet in the Bibilcal line, however, and to justify the change of direction fromthe bartul-muqaddas (the Holy House) in Jerusalem to the masjidul-haram (the Sacred

Mosque) in Mecca, the Qur'an boldly declares that Abraham first built the Ka'aba with hisson Ishmael as a house of worship dedicated to Allah alone!

We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who

compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in

prayer)..And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (with this

prayer). "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: for Thou art the All- Hearing, the All-

Knowing". Surah 2.125,127 .

A little further on in the same Surah comes the justification of the about-face in respect of theqiblah as well.

Now shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then thy face in the direction

of the sacred Mosque: wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. Surah 2.144

Islam was taking root as an exclusively new faith. The time had come for a more forcefulspread of its dominion and influence and a ready-made opportunity lay close at hand in theform of Meccan caravan traffic to and from Syria.

2. Raids on Caravans and the Battle of Badr.

Medina lay right across the path of this caravan traffic and within a year of the hijrah,Muhammad sent out a number of raiding parties to intercept Meccan caravans but none o

these was effective. The first raid to succeed took place in inopportune circumstances. Duringthe second year of his rule in Medina Muhammad sent out Abdullah ibn Jahsh with sevenothers to Nakhlah, a site on the south Arabian trade route between Mecca and at-Ta'if. Twoof the party turned back but the remaining six attacked a small Meccan caravan and killedone of its company, took two others prisoner, while the last man returned safely to the city.

There was nothing unusual about a raid of this nature. The nomadic Arabs have beencaravan-raiders for centuries and inter-tribal raiding was a fairly common practice. This raid,however, was pursued in one of the four holy months ( Rajab in this case) when the caravan



crews were unarmed and fighting was prohibited throughout the peninsula. Worse still, theMuslim band had posed as pilgrims by shaving their heads an fell on an unsuspecting Meccancompany completely deceive by their appearance.

On their return to Medina the whole city was shocked and dismayed at this flagrant breach of Arab custom. Muhammad himself refused to accept the booty at first but then, very

conveniently, a "revelation" justifying the raid came from above, one which is now part of the Qur'an:

They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave

(offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny

Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members". Surah 2.217

Because the Meccans had not accepted Muhammad's message and prevented the Muslimsfrom obtaining easy access to the Ka'aba, the Qur'an states that, whereas fighting in a sacredmonth is indeed wrong, it is justified in the circumstances. Muhammad took one-fifth of the

booty for investment in t e treasury and distribution to the needy, awarded the residue to the

raiding band, and ransomed the two prisoners.From this moment the impressive image of a tolerant prophet patiently withstandingoppression degenerates into the censurable image of a ruler sanctioning robbery, murder andthe like by his companions a against all opponents of Islam. In the past biographers of his lifewere accustomed to draw a clear distinction between the prophet of Mecca and ruler of Medina but a closer examination of the new trend shows that is was purely a logicaldevelopment of Muhammad's purpose establish Islam in the traditional way.

In the meantime a general agreement of opinion has grown in modern Western biographies

of Muhammad that one must speak of an unbroken unity in Muhammad's personality

(Weasels, AModern Arabic Biography of Muhammad , p. 87).

An analysis of the very next verse after the justification of the Nakhlah raid shows howconsistent the outbreak of fighting in Islam was with the whole object of the hijrah:

Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in

the path of God, - they have the hope of the Mercy of God: and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most

Merciful. Surah 2.218

In the original Arabic the verse up to the words "path of God" reads Innallathiina aa-manuu

wallathiina haajaruu wa jaahaduu fii sabiilillah . The link between the word "haajaruu wa jaahaduu" is very significant. From the same root letters come the nouns hijrah (emigration)

and jihad (warfare). Those who "suffered exile" (haajaruu) are also those who "fought"( jaahaduu) in the path of God. The hijrah was not just a flight from Mecca. It was a preparation for jihad. It o e the mainspring of the establishment of an ummah (community)that was to spread its influence through warfare. Muhammad's objective was to create atheocratic Muslim state and community by fighting those who stood in its way and whochose to resist it.

Where Islam is potentially universalized in Hijrah it is inherently politicized in Jihad . The

move out of Mecca with the faith presages the move against Mecca for the faith. In that



transition, not only is the Hijrah implemented in its prospective relevance, but Islam is

defined in its essential character. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 134).

Later the same year one of the most important events in the history of Islam occurred. Apartfrom the smaller caravans a large caravan set out annually from Mecca for Syria. Muhammadknew of its return and prepared to capture it. Its leader Abu Sufyan, the most prominent man

in Mecca and a descendant of Umayya, took steps to avoid the impending crisis and hastenedhome by the Red Sea. He got to Mecca safely but a messenger sent by him to the city saw toit that a large Meccan army of up to a thousand men was sent out to rescue the caravan. (Inlater years Abu Sufyan's son Mu'awiya took control of the caliphate and began the Umayyaddynasty which lasted nearly a hundred years. It was replaced by the Abbasid dynasty whosecaliphs were descendants of Hashim, Umayya's great rival and great-grandfather of Muhammad).

Muhammad's companions heard of the advent of the Meccan army but, encouraged byMuhammad's declaration that Allah had promised him either the caravan or the army, the

band of three hundred and fifty men marched on to Badr near the Red Sea where, in a swiftengagement, the Muslims succeeded in destroying most of the Meccan leadership includingMuhammad's great enemy Abu Jahl. The Meccans fled before the Muslim offensive leavingforty-nine of their number slain on the battlefield. The Muslim losses were only fourteen.

Nothing more than a skirmish, surely? Perhaps - but one of the most fateful battles ever fought in history and to this day held in awe by the Muslims as Islam's finest hour on the

battlefield.

No event in the history of Islam was of more importance than this battle: the Koran rightly

calls it the Day of Deliverance, the day before which the Moslems were weak, after which

they were strong. Its value to Mohammed itself it is difficult to overrate; he possibly

regarded it himself as a miracle, and when he declared it one, most of his neighbours

accepted the statement without hesitation. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam,

p. 269).

Certainly the success was a tremendous tonic for the fledgling Muslim community and onewhich increased Muhammad's esteem in Medina. Islam was now firmly established and was .. . gaining ground.

3. The Battles of Uhud and the Ditch.

The cry for revenge, however, soon rose from the citizens of Mecca and a year later an armythree thousand strong under the leadership of Abu Sufyan marched on Medina. At the plain

beneath the hill of Uhud to the north of Medina they halted and plundered the fields round

about. Muhammad counselled his warriors to remain in the city as it was easier to defendclose in than out in the plains where the Muslims would all be exposed to the Meccan armywhich was vastly superior in numbers. His longstanding opponent Abdullah ibn Ubayy also

pleaded with the citizens of Medina to stay behind but many of the more youthful combatantssought to go out and take the fight to the Quraysh and, as the victory of Badr was still fresh inthe minds of all, their enthusiasm won the day and a thousand men ventured out to battle. Thenext morning Ibn Ubayy, displeased at the rejection of his advice, nonetheless treacherouslydeserted Muhammad with about three hundred men and returned to the city. The odds werefour to one against the Muslims.



Superior motivation, however, soon assisted the Muslims to once again seize the initiativeand the Quraysh were forced to retreat. But the Muslims pressed their advantage too far.Archers guarding a rear flank broke their ranks against the orders of Muhammad andrecklessly joined the fray thus leaving their flank exposed. Meanwhile Khalid ibn Walid aQurayshite general who later led many successful Muslim conquests, swept his mountedforce around one of the hills on the plain and surprised the Muslims from behind. Their

discipline gone, they soon fell prey to the Meccan cavalry. The Quraysh wreaked havocamong them. Hamza, the "Lion of God" was slain and his body later mutilated. EvenMuhammad was so badly injured that the rumour soon spread that he had been killed. Hisclosest companions, however, shielded him carefully from any further danger.

At the end of the day the Quraysh held sway but, for reasons which must remain a mystery,failed to press their advantage and withdrew from the field. The Muslims lost seventy-four men in the battle and the Quraysh twenty. Although the Muslims had not won the battle, thecity of Medina remained unharmed. The outcome had serious implications, however, for Muhammad and his companions.

This battle of Uhud has sometimes been presented, even in Muslim sources, as a serious

defeat for Muhammad, but this - at least from the military point of view - it certainly was

not. The serious aspect was the religious or spiritual one. The victory of Badr had been taken

as a sign that God was supporting them, and indeed fighting for them. The loss of life at

Uhud, therefore, seemed to be an indication that God had deserted them, or that they had

been mistaken in the inferences they had drawn from Badr. (Watt, W hat is Islam? , p. 105).

A revelation soon assisted Muhammad to quiet the misgivings of his companions. The Qur'an blames the warriors for disobeying orders and for seeking to share in the booty and states thatGod inflicted their reverses to teach them to obey orders and not to seek the rewards of thislife.

Behold! Ye were climbing up the high ground, without even casting a side glance at any one,

and the Apostle in your rear was calling you back. There did God give you one distress after

another by way of requital, to teach you not to grieve for (the booty) that had escaped you

and for (the ill) that had befallen you. For God is well aware of all that ye do. Surah 3.153

After the battle Muhammad had a Qurayshite prisoner, Abu Azzah, beheaded for taking upalms on behalf of the Meccans a second time after he had been released at Badr (because hehad five daughters to look after) on the condition that he refrained from joining in hostilitiesagain. The prisoner pleaded with Muhammad to pardon him yet again but Muhammadanswered him:

Verily a believer is not stung twice from the same hole. You will not return to Makkah todeclare, rubbing your cheeks, that you had befooled Muhammad twice. (Ibn Sa'd,K itab al-

Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 51).

The following year the Quraysh returned with ten thousand men to vanquish Muhammadonce and for all but he was informed in advance of the pending onslaught and had a trenchdug on the northern flank of Medina which was exposed to open attack. The "Battle of theDitch", as it is known, was no real battle at all. The Quraysh were thoroughly frustrated by



the innovation and, despite a few individual contests, were unable to make any impression onthe city. After a division between "the Confederates" (the Qurayshite army had manywarriors from other tribes around Mecca in their contingent) and a severe storm one evening,they decided to withdraw.

The Meccan cause against Muhammad was now exhausted. Despite their efforts to gather

such a large army for a final showdown, Muhammad's growing strength remainedunchallenged. The Quraysh, exasperated, gave up their designs on Medina and the initiativelost was soon seized by Muhammad. The tables were about to be turned.

4. Muhammad - the Universal Messenger of Allah.

Let us pause in the narrative to consider the prestige and status of the prophet of the Arabs atthis point when he finds himself able at last to take the offensive and begin preparations for amove on Mecca, already declared to be the

From being purely a warner, calling the Quraysh to turn away from idols to the worship of the one true God, the Qur'an now represents Muhammad as the last and greatest of all the

prophets. He has become the vicegerent of God on earth and his image develops from that of a purely prophetic character to that of messianic proportions. The Qur'an has a number of supreme accolades for him.

1. He is regarded as a universal messenger sent by God, not just to his own people as all previous prophets had been allegedly sent, but to all mankind:

We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and

warning them (against sin), but most men understand not. Surah 34.28

2. The Qur'an not only commands believers to send blessings upon him but claims that even

God and all his angels do so in heaven above:

God and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on

him and salute him with all respect. Surah 33.56

3. He is given the illustrious title rahmatallil-alamin, a "mercy to the worlds", another indication of the now universal character of his ministry:

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. Surah 21.107

4. Another exclusive title he assumes is khataman-nablygin, the seal of the prophets". As thelast and greatest of God's prophets, he cannot be superseded by another prophet:

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal

of the Prophets and God has full knowledge of all things. Surah 33.40

5. O bedience to Muhammad and obedience to God are by this time synonymous. Anydisobedience of any command of the prophet of Islam incurs God's wrath and acquiescencein his will incurs God's pleasure:



Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to God; the

hand of God is over their hands: Then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of

his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with God, God will soon grant

him a great reward. Surah 48.10

The foundation was being laid not only for the final conquest of Mecca and Arabia but alsofor the conquest of the whole world till all be brought into subjection to Allah throughobedience to his will as revealed through the prophet of Arabia, his universal and finalmessenger for all mankind.

Islam was now an autonomous religion, separate from Judaism and Christianity and professedly superior to them. Its prophet had developed from being a lone human voiceagainst Arab paganism into the voice of God calling all men everywhere to his religion, al-

Islam. As we shall see in the next chapter, however, the universal nature of Islam wasnonetheless simultaneously restricted by the personal failings of its prophet and its claim tosupersede all other faiths was compromised by a clear deterioration in the character of itsfounder during his years of power as leader in Medina.

He now arrived at a point where he completely diverged from the celestial spirit of the

Christian doctrines, and stamped his religion with the alloy of fallible mortality. His human

nature was not capable of maintaining the sublime forbearance he had hitherto inculcated.

(Irving, The Life of Mahomet , p. 103).

5. The Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

While gaining ground nearer home by various raids, Muhammad continued to cherish areturn to Mecca and the next year led one-and-a-half-thousand pilgrims to the city for theumra, the lesser pilgrimage. He chose one of the holy months in which war was forbidden,donned the white pilgrim garments traditionally worn for the venture, took the requirednumber of camels for sacrifice, and bade his men carry only a small sword at their sides - theusual form of protection for pilgrim travellers. Although the group was fitted out purely for

pilgrimage purposes, the Quraysh were soon alarmed and at al-Hudaybiyah, just outsideMecca where the Muslims stopped, the two parties met. A small deputation came out todiscover Muhammad's intentions while the rest prepared the defence of the city. One of theleading Muslims who was later to become the third Caliph, Uthman, went back with adeputation into the city and when his return was delayed, the Muslims suspected he had beenkilled and prepared to defend themselves. Under a tree each one took a pledge to stand byMuhammad and Uthman, a pledge often remembered by Muhammad as one which evidencedthe supreme loyalty of his companions. This devotion was not lost on the Meccan deputationwho soon ensured that the Quraysh were suitably impressed by it.

Uthman returned safely despite their fears and with him a leading Meccan, Suhail ibn Amr,who was given a mandate to negotiate a ten-year truce with Muhammad and advise him thathe could not enter the city that year but could return the following year when the Qurayshwould evacuate it for three days to allow Muhammad and his companions to perform the

pilgrimage.

Muhammad duly negotiated a treaty with Suhail, one which keenly upset many of hisdevoted followers. Umar objected to the whole proceedings on the principle that true



Muslims had been called upon to fight and resist infidels and not to negotiate with them onequal terms:

Umar b. Khattab came, approached the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and

said: Messenger of Allah, aren't we fighting for the truth and they for falsehood? He replied:

By all means. He asked: Are not those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed from

their side in the Fire? He replied: Yes. He said: Then why should we put a blot upon our

religion and return, while Allah has not decided the issue between them and ourselves? He

said: Son of Khattab, I am the Messenger of Allah. Allah will never ruin me. (The narrator

said): Umar went away, but he could not contain himself with rage. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p.

980).

Indeed, far from concluding an equitable agreement, Muhammad appeared to have agreed toterms humiliating to the Muslims. It was stipulated that any member of the Quraysh who

became a Muslim and sought to go over to the Muslims was to be returned to Mecca. If anyof the Muslims wished to return to Mecca of his own accord, however, he was free to do soand was not to be returned by the Quraysh. The reaction of the party to this unfavourable

provision is plainly set out in the following hadith:

When Suhail bin 'Amr agreed to the treaty (of Hudaibiya), one of the things he stipulated

then, was that the Prophet should return to them (i.e. the pagans) anyone coming to him

from their side, even if he was a Muslim; and would not interfere between them and that

person. The Muslims did not like this condition and got disgusted with it. (Sahih al-Bukhari ,

Vol. 3, p. 547).

Muhammad incurred the further wrath of his company when he acquiesced in the demands of Suhail that the treaty should not be headed with the usual Muslim invocation Bismillahir-

Rahmanir-Rahim (In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful), but rather in the

words chosen by the Quraysh: Bi'ismika Allahumma (In thy Name, O Allah). The offencewas compounded when Muhammad even agreed that he should be described simply as

Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Muhammad son of Abdullah) and not Muhammadur-Rasulullah (Muhammad the Messenger of Allah). Another hadith tells us the whole story:

Then the apostle summoned Ali and told him to write 'In the name of Allah the

Compassionate, the Merciful'. Suhayl said "I do not recognise this; but write 'In thy name, O

Allah"'. The apostle told him to write the latter and he did so. Then he said: "Write 'This is

what Muhammad, the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr"'. Suhayl said, "If I

witnessed that you were God's apostle I would not have fought you. Write your own name

and the name of your father". The apostle said: "Write 'This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah

has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr"' (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 504).

Ali's displeasure was soon expressed in the same way that Umar had vented his grievances.Had Muhammad not commanded an unswerving loyalty from his followers, this could have

been a moment of crisis for him.

He said to Ali: Write down the terms settled between us. (So Ali wrote): In the name of

Allah, most Gracious, most Merciful. This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has



settled (with the Meccans). The polytheists said to him: If we knew that thou art the

Messenger of Allah, we would follow you. But write Muhammad b. Abdullah. So he told Ali

to strike out these words. Ali said: No, by Allah, I will not strike them out. ( Sahih Muslim, Vol.

3, p. 979).

Muhammad then duly struck out the words himself. But, as happened on so many similar occasions when the early Muslims were perplexed about some action or decision of their

prophet, a timely revelation in the Qur'an soon settled the issue. The treaty was proclaimed asa victory, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary.

Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory. Surah 48.1

One of the most prominent Western biographers of Muhammad's life certainly saw it as suchand the events which succeeded it do lend much support to this claim.

But, in truth, a great step had been gained by Mahomet. His political status, as an equal and

independent Power, was acknowledged by the treaty: the ten years' truce would afford

opportunity and time for the new religion to expand, and to force its claims upon theconvictions of the Coreish; while conquest, material as well as spiritual, might be pursued on

every other side. The stipulation that no one under the protection of a guardian should leave

the Coreish without his guardian's consent though unpopular at Medina, was in accordance

with the principles of Arabian society; and the Prophet had sufficient confidence in the

loyalty of his own people and the superior attractions of Islam, to fear no ill effect from the

counter clause that none should be delivered up who might desert his standard. Above all, it

was a great and manifest success that free permission was conceded to visit Mecca in the

following year, and for three days occupy the city undisturbed. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet ,

p. 347).

One of the early successes enjoyed by Muhammad as a result of the treaty was the allegianceof the tribe of Khuza'a. Free to exploit the conclusion of further alliances and concentrate onthe elimination of threats from hostile tribes nearer home, he soon set about strengthening his

position. The strong Jewish fortress of Khaibar north of Medina was besieged and broughtinto subjection as well.

A year later a much stronger Muhammad returned to Mecca to duly perform the pilgrimage.The Quraysh left the city unattended for three days as agreed and watched with mixedfeelings as Muhammad, clearly enjoying the total devotion of his supporters, honoured theholy places of Mecca and paid his respects to the Ka'aba. Consciously or otherwise, Meccanresistance to Islam was steadily being worn down. The inhabitants of the city, weary of

warfare with Muhammad, one of their own kinsmen, now beheld his sustained devotion totheir shrine and the city of his birth.

Khalid ibn Walid, the great Meccan general who turned the tide for the Quraysh at Uhud,went over to the Muslim side with a few other leading men of Mecca. The final conquest of Mecca was now becoming a vivid possibility and one enhanced by the probable defection en

masse of all of its inhabitants to Islam.



In the meantime Muhammad despatched an army of about three thousand men to Muta, atown on the borders of Syria. Here for the first time the Muslims met the strong Byzantinearmies and, after putting up a brave but hopeless fight under Khalid's leadership against aforce vastly superior in numbers, the Muslims withdrew. Some important men were lost inthe battle, however, including Muhammad's adopted son and early convert Zaid ibn Haritha.The indecisive battle nevertheless prepared the way for the great onslaughts to follow after

Muhammad's death under the caliphates of Abu Bakr an Umar respectively.

At home his dominion remained ever on the increase and the major obstacle in his path -Mecca - was ready to be tackled. The final triumph of Islam in Arabia was fast approachingand the rolling tide of success was not to be turned back. Before considering it, however, letus examine a chapter in Muhammad's life at Medina hitherto overlooked - his relationshipswith the Jewish tribes in and around the city.


C. THE CO NFLICT WITH THE JEWS.

1. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina.

A constant thorn in the flesh to Muhammad at Medina were the three Jewish tribes quarterednear the city - the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadhir and Banu Quraydhah. On his arrival atMedina he negotiated treaties with these tribes and for a short while sought their allegiancethrough many overtures.

We have already seen that Muhammad made Jerusalem his qiblah at this time and it isnoteworthy that the Jewish fast of Ashura was also observed by the Muslims from the time

that they first reached Medina. (To this day the tenth of Muharram, the first month of theIslamic year, is a holy day and one on which many Muslims fast - compare Exodus 12.3 andsee t e section on Muslim festivals and celebrations). The Qur'an also acknowledges the Jewsas a people on whom God had bestowed peculiar favours in terms reminiscent of Paul'ssummary in Romans 9.4-5:

We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book, the Power of Command, and

Prophethood; We gave them, for sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them

above the nations. Surah 45.16

It seems that Muhammad had keenly desired to win their support but was so rudely rejectedthat they soon became his inveterate enemies. The Jews could hardly be expected to

acknowledge an Ishmaelite prophet who proclaimed Jesus as their Messiah! They irked himkeenly on two counts - satirical barbs and evidences against his claim to prophethood. Thesecond concerns us more than the first.

Yet the Jews were a constant cause of trouble and anxiety. They plied him with questions of

which the point was often difficult to turn aside. The very people to whose testimony he had

so long appealed in the Coran proved now a stubborn and standing witness against him

(Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 179).



Whereas the Meccans had simply ridiculed his message and generally resorted to sheer abuseof their kinsman, the Jews were able to trace many of these teachings to their own folkloreand produce more damaging evidence against him. As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustratedhim with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but whichentertained the Jewish bystanders. For example, Exodus 24.7 states that the Jews at Sinai

answered Moses "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient", but inthe Qur'an we discover that the Jews, when commanded to hearken to God's Law on theMount, allegedly answered "We hear and we disobey" (Surah 2.93). Muhammad later discovered that his informants had subtly misled him on this point and the Qur'an dulycensures them for this particular deception:

Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place and say: "We hear

and we disobey". Surah 4.46

It was too late, however, to rectify the unfortunate error that they had succeeded inintroducing into the text of the Qur'an. As Muir continues, "Mahomet evidently smarted atthis period under the attacks of the Jews" (The Life of Mahomet , p. 179). Other authorscomment in a similar vein:

It was not that the Jews refused to recognise Muhammad as a prophet, nor even that they

engaged in political intrigue against him, serious as such attitudes and actions were. Much

more serious was the Jewish attack on the ideational basis of Muhammad's preaching. It had

been claimed that the Qur'an was a message from God and thus inerrant; and it had also

been claimed that there was a large measure of identity between the Qur'anic message and

what was to be found in the previous scriptures. If the Jews, then, maintained that there

were errors and false statements in the Qur'an (because it disagreed with their Bible) and

that therefore it could not be a message from God, they were threatening to destroy the

foundations of Muhammad's whole religious movement. (Watt, W hat is Islam? p. 102).

Yet, doubtless, the Prophet's ultimate determination to destroy the Jews was due to hissecret recognition of their superior knowledge of matters on which he claimed(Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 233).

The end result was as predictable as it was crucial to the success of Muhammad's ministry -the neutralisatlon of the Jews as an effective force in Medina. This took place chiefly throughthe deportation of two of the tribes and the annihilation of the third, but at the same timeMuhammad also sought to discredit them in other ways and "the portions of the Coran givenforth at this period teem with invectives against the Israelites" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet ,

p.180). Here are a few examples of this trend in the last Surah making up the revelation:

The Jews say: "God's hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the

(blasphemy) they utter . . . Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of

Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God cloth extinguish it; But they (ever)

strive to do mischief on the earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief. Surah 5.67



Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (theworks) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result) that God'swrath is on them and in torment will they abide. S urah 5.83

The contemporary Muslim response to the state of Israel has its roots in passages like thesewhich, allegedly being God's own judgments, control the attitudes of the Muslims throughout

the world to their Jewish co-religionists. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the Jewsconstantly slandered in the Hadith as well. The traditionists blacken them in many passages.For example, Ibn Ishaq assesses the relationship between them and Muhammad in thesewords:

About this time the Jewish rabbis showed hostility to the apostle in envy, hatred and malice,

because God had chosen His apostle from the Arabs. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 239).

Ibn Sa'd even contains a hadith to the effect that the Jews sought to kill Muhammad in hischildhood when they discovered that he might become a prophet. His wet-nurse Halimasaved him only by claiming to be his actual mother. ( K itab al-Tabaqat al- K abir , Vol. 1, p.125). The story is a pure fiction because it speaks of prophetic phenomena which his mother is supposed to have seen at his birth. Such stories are known to be later embellishments.(Muhammad himself always acknowledged that his mother died in idolatry). Nonetheless it istypical of the anti-Jewish element constantly found in early Muslim records. To this day the

prejudice is sustained and this comment on a recent biography of Muhammad by a fairlywell-known Egyptian author, Abdur-Rahman Ash-Sharqawi, confirms this negative trendwhich is unfortunately prevalent in most Muslim writings dealing with Muhammad and theJews:

The most striking facet of Ash-Sharqawi's apology is certainly his description of the

relationship of Muhammad to the Jews. It is his express purpose to dispel the image of

Muhammad as an oppressor of the Jews and in its place to portray Muhammad as one who

dealt with the Jews with exemplary patience. In order to reach this goal, he typifies the Jewsas rich bankers, capitalists, exploiters, financiers, usurers, speculators and manufacturers of

weapons. They supposedly attempt constantly to undermine the new Islamic society by

economic means. Even when they are exiled, they brood on revenge. Besides this

characterization of them, ash- Sharqawi harps continually on their corrupting influence on

morals. Ash-Sharqawi constantly finds enmity, hate, treachery, the breaking of treaties, the

lust for power, an' feelings for revenge in the Jews. Ash-Sharqawi has established his

defence of Muhammad by painting the Jews completely black, a presentation for which he

does not give any historical evidence, much less "thousands". (Weasels, A Modern Arabic

Biography of Muhammad , p. 23).

Against this unfavourable background let us analyse the development of Muhammad'shistorical dealings with the three Jewish tribes of Medina.

2. The Exile of the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadhir.

Shortly after the Battle of Badr relations between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina beganto deteriorate and, suspecting treachery from them as a result of alleged breaches of their covenants with him (Surah 8.56-58), he began to move against them. A small altercation in



one of the markets of Medina was the spark that set the process in motion. A Jew pinned theskirt of a kneeling Muslim woman to her upper dress so that when she stood up she was

publicly embarrassed. Her companion slew the Jew in revenge and was promptly slainhimself by the other Jews in the market.

On hearing of it Muhammad sent his uncle Hamsa to the quarter of the Banu Qaynuqa from

whom the offending Jew had come. The Jews answered that even though Muhammad hadsucceeded in routing the Quraysh, he would find them to be far more resolute. The quarter was besieged for fifteen days. Neither of the other two tribes nor their allies under Abdullahibn Ubayy gave them any assistance or relief. As the siege wore on the tribe surrendered andwas exiled from Medina, leaving their fields and many of their other possessions as spoils for the Muslim warriors.

After the Battle of Uhud the Banu Nadhir were the next to go. Claiming that this tribe was plotting his death, Muhammad sent his men against them, this time under Ali's command.Mindful of the fate of their kinsmen, they immediately prepared to leave but promises of support from Ibn Ubayy and others encouraged them to withstand the siege. Once again noassistance was rendered. After fifteen days Muhammad commanded his companions to cut

down the palm trees in their date groves. The Jews cried out to him:

"Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why

then are you cutting down and burning our palm-trees?" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 437).

This charge was well-founded as Moses had, under the direct guidance of the will of God,forbidden such destruction of trees which bore food, even if they belonged to a city whichwaged war against God's people:

"When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall

not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them; for you may eat of them, but you shall

not cut them down. Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you?'Deuteronomy 20.19

Muhammad was once again compelled to resort to a timely revelation to counter the Jews:

Whether ye cut down (O ye Muslims!) the tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on

their roots, it was by leave of God, and in order that He might cover with shame the

rebellious transgressors. Surah 59.5

Once again, as in the aftermath of the Nakhlah raid, a divine revelation was required to justifya clear breach of Arab custom, let alone a wilful disregard for the Law of God as revealed

through the prophet Moses. In his commentary Yusuf Ali has this to say about the verse justquoted:

The unnecessary cutting down of fruit trees or destruction of crops, or any wanton

destruction whatever in war, is forbidden by the law and practice of Islam. But some

destruction may be necessary for putting pressure on the enemy, and to that extent it is

allowed. But as far as possible, consistently with that objective of military operations, such

trees should not be cut down.



Both these principles are in accordance with the Divine Will, and were followed bythe Muslims in their expedition. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1522).

The reasoning is the same as that in Surah 2 regarding the Nakhlah raid. Although the actionwas forbidden by law, it suddenly became justified because of the animosity of Muhammad'sopponents. It was allowed for "putting pressure" on the stubbornly resistant enemy. This is

like saying that when a boxer cannot subdue his opponent, hitting below the belt suddenly becomes admissible to put a bit of "pressure" on him - how different the attitude of Moseswho taught that laws were to be observed and ethics sustained no matter what thecircumstances. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The tribe, deserted by its allies, finally surrendered and was exiled. Most of its members wentnorth to Khaibar while others joined their kinsmen in Syria. The Qur'an censures those whooffered help but withdrew their support:

Hast thou not observed the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People

of the Book? - "If ye are expelled, we too will go out with you, and we will never hearken to

anyone in your affair; and if ye are attacked (in fight) we will help you". But God is witness

that they are indeed liars. Surah 59.11

3. The Destruction of the Banu Quraydhah.

The Banu Quraydhah, quartered in a sector to the east of Medina, were the last to go but in anextreme way. During the siege of Medina by the Quraysh and the Confederates, a pact wasmade with them by the Banu Quraydhah which seriously exposed the eastern flank of thecity. The Jews acted treasonably but, with the fate of the other two tribes fresh in thememory, their gamble was hardly surprising.

Muhammad succeeded in creating distrust between the Quraysh and the Jews and, when the

former withdrew, he promptly laid siege to the latter's quarter. Twenty-five days later thetribe surrendered and sought to be exiled like the other two before them. It was agreed,however, that one of the Aus tribe, traditionally the allies of the Jews, should decide their fate. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, one of the few Muslims injured during the siege of Medina who wasshortly to succumb to his wounds, was appointed their judge. (Some say the Jews themselvesrequested him). What followed is recorded in a matter of-fact way by an early biographer:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, authorised Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to give a decision

about them. He passed an order: He who is subjected to razors (i.e. the male) should be

killed, women and children should be enslaved and property should be distributed.

Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: You have decided in confirmation

to the judgement of Allah, above the seven heavens.T

he Apostle of Allah, may Allah blesshim, returned on Thursday 7 Dhu al- Hijjah. Then he commanded them to be brought into al-

Madinah where ditches were dug in the market. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him,

sat with his Companions and they were brought in small groups. Their heads were struck off.

They were between six hundred and seven hundred in number. (Ibn Sa'd,K itab al-Tabaqat

al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 93).



The ruthless execution of nearly a thousand men has been generally denounced by Westernwriters while Muslim writers have, as is to be expected, sought to justify the massacre. Thefollowing are typical examples of the spirit of Western criticism of the slaughter:

On this occasion he (Muhammad) again revealed that lack of honesty and moral courage

which was an unattractive trait in his character. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his

Faith, p. 155).

There followed the massacre of the Banu Quraizah which marks the darkest depth of Muslim policy, a depth which the palliatives suggested by modern Muslim historiansquite fail to measure. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 87).

But the indiscriminate slaughter of eight hundred men, and the subjugation of thewomen and children of the whole tribe to slavery, cannot be recognised other than asan act of monstrous cruelty...In short, the butchery of the Coreitza casts an indelible

blot upon the life of Mahomet. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 312).

O

ne shudders at the recital of this horrible transaction. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder , p. 165).

Muslim writers invariably claim that such authors are prejudiced against Islam but thefollowing quote comes from a Western author who wrote a fervent apology on behalf of Muhammad and whose book has been widely acclaimed and reprinted in the Muslim world:

But, judged by any but an Oriental standard of morality, and by his own conspicuous

magnanimity on other occasions, his act, in all its accessories, was one of cold-blooded

revenge. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 138).

In contrast let us examine a few quotes by Muslim writers in support of Muhammad's action

to see the nature of the defence that they raise on his behalf:

No one can dispute the justice of the sentence on the Quraiza. People may admire the

courage of the Quraiza in not accepting Islam and thus saving their lives, but no one can

complain of the justice of this sentence. (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet , p. 247).

It was the Divine Will that the judgment should be left to Sa'd, and it was the DivineWill that moved Sa'd to pronounce the judgment that he did, which was in accordancewith Deuteronomy 20.10-14. It was also the Divine Will that this terrible judgment,which the treachery and rebellion of Banu Quraidhah had earned, should not be

pronounced by the Holy Prophet himself, but that he should be bound to carry it

through to the full. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: S eal of the Prophets , p. 186).

A recent Muslim writer has questioned whether this whole story is historically genuine. "Adetailed scrutiny indicates that the whole story of this massacre is of a very doubtful nature"(Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 85). He argues that the narratives containcontradictions about it and that it was right out of character with Muhammad's generalmagnanimity towards his defeated foes, if not always individually, at least in the main (as atthe conquest of Mecca where almost the whole city was spared). There seems to be somesupport for the latter contention - more of his enemies were slain on that one day than in all



the other battles Muhammad was engaged in during his lifetime. The contradictions betweenthe narratives are, however, typical of those found in almost all the historical records of hislife and do not affect the main story.

About the primary matters, the broad outline of events, there is practically no doubt. The B.

Qurayzah were besieged and eventually surrendered; their fate was decided bv Sa'd; nearly

all the men were executed; Muhammad did not disapprove. About all that, there is, pace

Caetani, no controversy. The Western scholar of sirah must therefore beware of paying so

much attention to the debates to be traced in his sources that he forgets the solid core of

undisputed fact. This solid core is probably more extensive than is usually recognized. (Watt,

"The Condemnation of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah" The MuslimW orld , Vol. 42, p. 171.)

Ahmad takes the words of Surah 33.26, "Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" as thefoundation of his theory that, while some of the more serious offenders may have been

proscribed, the bulk of the tribe was probably exiled like the others. At first sight it does seemstrange that Muhammad should despatch the whole tribe while he had let the others go free,

but there is concrete evidence that he had intended to execute the Banu Qaynuqa in the same

way.

According to Ibn Sa'd ( K itab al-Tabaqat al- K abir , Vol. 2, p. 32-33), when the tribesurrendered, Muhammad ordered his companions to tie the men's hands behind their backs to

prepare them for beheading. It was only the remonstrances of Abdullah ibn Ubayy, then stilltoo influential to be refused that made him abandon their execution and order their

banishment instead.

What is most significant about Ahmad's assessment of the historical genuineness of themassacre is that, in querying it, he finds himself free from the need to justify Muhammad andaccordingly treats it for what it really was - an unjustifiable atrocity. He says:

No one could come out of such a holocaust - 600 to 900 killed in cold blood in one day -

without damage to his personality. 'All and Zubayr's holocaust legacy of massive deadness

would not have left them in peace. (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 86).

To behold the slaughter of many men in battle is indeed one thing - to unemotionally witnessthe execution of a whole tribe is another entirely. Ahmad continues:

The very idea of such a massacre by persons who neither before nor after the killing showed

any sign of a dehumanised personality is inadmissible from a psychological point of view.

(Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 87).

Ahmad has challenged a story whose historical accuracy has hitherto never been questionedand, while the external evidences may weigh against him, he is to be commended for seeingthe tragedy for what it truly was - in his own words, a "massacre" and a "holocaust".

In their determination to exonerate Muhammad the Muslims have found themselves in anawkward situation. If they admit the story, they find themselves obliged to counter thesuggestion that it had the nature of an atrocity. If, however, this is conceded, they strive to



went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and hereturned to Mecca empty-handed.

Assembling an army ten thousand strong, Muhammad immediately marched on Mecca. Onthe way he was met by his uncle al-Abbas who now gave in his allegiance and declaredhimself a Muslim. Muhammad camped just outside the city and encouraged his army to light

as many fires as possible so as to strike dismay into the hapless Meccans. Abu Sufyan thencame out to investigate reports of the advance and met al-Abbas on the way. He was escortedto Muhammad's tent where he was challenged by his now ascendant foe to become a Muslim."Has the time not come", Muhammad said, "to declare that there is no god but Allah and thatI am his messenger?" "Of the Lordship of Allah I have no doubt", he replied, "but I am as yethesitant about your claim to be his emissary". Al-Abbas then promptly rebuked him, tellinghim this was no time for hesitancy, and that he was likely to lose his head if he persisted inhis unbelief while standing helpless before Muhammad. The Qurayshite leader tactfullyovercame his hesitancy and declared his allegiance. Somewhat to the disgust of the Muslimsfrom Medina who were anticipating a fruitful battle and who murmured that Muhammad had

become overawed by his love for his own city, he nonetheless boldly declared:

"Who enters the house of Abu Sufyan will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who

locks his door will be safe". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 977).

One cannot help wondering whether there was not some plan in this incident. Was the peaceful submission of Mecca dependent purely upon a chance meeting between Abu Sufyanand al-Abbas and the timely conversion of these two men? As Muir has observed, "there aresymptoms of a previous understanding between Mahomet and Abu Sofian" (The Life of

Mahomet , p. 392). It is possible that Abu Sufyan had intimated his allegiance when visitingMedina. This personal deputation by the prime enemy of Muhammad would perhaps have

been an unlikely venture by one still committed to his downfall. One writer says:

Opinions differ as to whether Abu Sufyan came to Muhammad's tent by a pre-arranged plan

or by accident. As the chief actors in this drama never disclosed their inner knowledge, the

matter shall, for ever, remain a guess. The writer of this book agrees with those who say that

Abu Sufyan had become a Muslim at heart when he came back unsuccessful from Medina on

his mission to renew the treaty of Hudaibiya and that Abbas had arranged for this dramatic

meeting between him and Muhammad. But God knows better. (Sarwar, Muhammad the

Holy Prophet , p. 304).

On the other hand there is evidence that Abu Sufyan was somewhat encouraged at the prospect of Muhammad's defeat by the Hawazin a few weeks later and his offspring were nochampions of the faith. His son Mu'awiya, the first Umayyad caliph, though always

professing the faith, set himself against many of Muhammad's kinsmen and companions andhis grandson Yazid became the scourge of the Muslims and was responsible for the death of Hussain, one of Muhammad's own grandsons. Another Muslim writer describes the Meccanleader in far less favourable terms as "the notorious Abu Sufian, the son of Harb, the father of the well-known Mu'awiyah, the Judas Iscariot of Islam" (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 105).

Apart from some resistance in the southern quarter of the city stimulated by some of Muhammad's bitterest opponents among whom were Suhail and Abu Jahl's son Ikrima,Mecca capitulated peacefully. Muhammad advanced on the Ka'aba and had its idols and



paintings immediately destroyed. As soon as the shrine was purified of these excesses, Bilal,his first muazzin, called the people to prayer. A general amnesty was declared and the peoplesoon warmed to their kinsman who had spared them and confirmed the sanctity of their shrine. For once and for all, Mecca had been won to Islam. Although Muhammad's charitableattitude towards his own people can be contrasted with his recent destruction of the BanuQuraydhah he must be credited for his generosity at this moment in his life when those who

had actively opposed him for so long were now at his mercy.

At the time of the taking of Mecca, the Messenger of Allah showed a superhuman

gentleness in the face of unanimous feeling to the contrary in his victorious army (Zafrulla

Khan, Muhammad: Seat of the Prophets, p. 277).

The magnanimity with which Mahomet treated a people who had so long hated andrejected him is worthy of all admiration. It was indeed for his own interest to forgivethe past, and cast into oblivion its slights and injuries. But this did not the less requirea large and generous heart. And Mahomet had his reward, for the whole population of his native city at once gave in their adhesion, and espoused his cause with alacrity and

apparent devotion. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 398).2. The Proscription of a few Prominent Enemies.

Not everyone benefited from the amnesty. A dozen leading opponents were proscribedthough only a few were eventually executed. Two were apostates from Islam, one was a

poetess who had particularly irked Muhammad with her satires, and the last was one of twoMeccans who had assaulted Muhammad's daughter Zaynab as she fled Mecca for Medina.The others escaped either by hiding themselves or by seeking pardon. One case is of

particular interest.

One of these men was Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote

down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, andthere spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad ,

p. 410).

The alleged fabrication of the revelation centres on Surah 23.12-14. In the Tafsir-i-Husaini,Vol. 2, p. 80 (quoted in Sell, The Historical Development of the Qur'an, p. 150-151) we aretold that when the description of the creation of man in these verses was ended, this sameAbdullah, recording the verses as Muhammad's amanuensis, exclaimed fatabaarakallahu-

ahsanul-khaaliqlin - "Blessed be Allah, the best of Creators". Muhammad promptly told himto record his ejaculation in the passage as part of the revelation. Abdullah forsook Islam,claiming that if Muhammad was inspired, so was he! (The words are duly recorded at the end

of Surah 23.14).It is hardly surprising that Muhammad sought his demise. The unfortunate renegade had onesource of hope, however. He was the foster-brother of Uthman, later to become the thirdcaliph. Uthman hid him at first and, when the atmosphere at Mecca had subsided after theconquest, brought him to Muhammad and pleaded for clemency. It was only after some timehad lapsed, while all sat in tense silence, that Muhammad duly pardoned the offender.



Throughout his course Muhammad was always very sensitive to anyone who challenged hisclaim to be receiving his revelations from above. (One of the two prisoners executed at Badr had ventured in earlier years to produce passages emulating the Qur'anic text). He was clearlyunwilling to spare Abdullah and patiently waited for one of his companions to strike his neck.They obviously did not read his mind and, when they rebuked him for not giving them somesign of his intention, he gave a strange answer.

When Uthman had left he said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent

so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar said, "Then why

didn't you give me a sign, O Apostle of God?" He answered that a prophet does not kill by

pointing. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 550).

The ethics of the prophet of Islam are not always easy to evaluate. He obviously thought littleof the destruction of those who irked him by undermining his claim to prophethood butdeemed it highly offensive to achieve this by giving any sign of his intention!

3. From the Conquest to the Death of Muhammad.

Shortly after the triumph at Mecca the surrounding Bedouin of the Hawazin tribe expressedtheir alarm at Muhammad's growing influence and launched a major offensive at the valley of Hunain against his army. After initial reverses the Muslim army won the day. Virtually all the

booty was awarded to Meccan warriors who had become Muslims only a few weeks earlier,and that only because of the conquest of their city.

When Allah gave to his Apostle the war booty on the day of Hunain, he distributed that

booty amongst those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Islam), but did not

give anything to the Ansar. So they seemed to have felt angry and sad as they did not get the

same as other people had got. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 5, p. 432).

Muhammad promptly asked his companions from Medina whether they would rather havehim or camels and sheep. He duly placated them, promising to return with them to Medinaafter giving the booty as gifts to those whose hearts were but recently "reconciled to Islam".

The Prophet confessed with naive frankness that these presents were meant to confirm the

new converts in their faith; as we have often seen, he never troubled himself about the

motives which produced conviction. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p.

407).

One really wonders how true faith can be bred in a people firstly by force of conquest andsecondly, very soon afterwards, by material inducements. Muhammad is alleged to have told

his companions "I have made use of the pelf of this world to gain the love of the people thatthey may become Muslims" (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet , p. 321). There is nothingwrong in principle with the generous bestowal of a gift to gain the heart of a man (Luke16.9), but it does seem to be a very questionable way of cementing faith in God - especiallywhen most religions teach that the desire for possessions is irreconcilable with a true desirefor spiritual riches. Jesus despised any form of ulterior or double-motive in those who flockedto him and, knowing what was in the hearts of all men, would not trust himself to thosewhose faith could only be obtained through the bestowal of one or other form of material

benefit (John 2.24-25, 6.26). Another Muslim writer also has the prophet of Islam say:



"O Ansar, are you angry because I have given away some goods to those whom I sought to

win to Islam? Because I deemed their faith confirmable by material goods whereas I deemed

yours to be based on solid conviction, to be candid beyond all dissuasion?" (Haykal,The Life

of Muhammad , p. 427).

The Son of man, who constantly warned against an abundance of possessions and who toldhis disciples not to lay up treasures on earth, but rather to sell them and to give alms so as to

provide themselves with treasures in heaven which do not pass away (Luke 12.33), wouldnever have considered that the faith of his followers could be won in such a way.

In the remaining days of Muhammad's life deputations from all over Arabia came to declaretheir allegiance to him and shortly before his death almost the whole Arabian Peninsula hadadopted Islam. The last stronghold of idolatry to capitulate was at-Ta'if. Home of the goddessal-Lat, the city withstood a siege by Muhammad shortly after the battle of Hunain. Soonafterwards, however, one of its inhabitants who was a Muslim, Urwa ibn Mas'ud, sought towin his kinsmen to Islam, but they murdered him and in so doing invited on themselves afinal and more thorough onslaught. A deputation to Medina, expressing a willingness to

capitulate if a few years grace could be given to the city, was rejected out of hand.Muhammad insisted on the destruction of the idol and the immediate observance of the daily prayers.

They were spared the ignominy of destroying their idol. Muhammad wisely ordered AbuSufyan and al-Mughira, two recent converts from Mecca who were friends of the tribe settledin the city, to raze the great image to the ground. It duly fell but not without being lamented

by the women of the city.

Taif was the last stronghold that held out against the authority of the Holy Prophet. It was

also the only place where the fate of an idol excited the sympathy of the people. Everywhere

else the idols were destroyed by the people themselves without a pang. (Zafrulla Khan,

Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 246).

In 632 AD a short illness ended Muhammad's life. He was buried in the chamber of Ayishah,his favourite wife. After a short dispute concerning his successor, Abu Bakr, who had led the

prayers during his illness, was elected caliph. During his short two-year reign he put downattempted revolts in the peninsula by Bedouin tribes seeking to throw off the yolk of Islam.Umar followed him and before his death Islam had spread to Iraq and Syria. Within ahundred years it had gone out as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Today it is

predominant in the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, and other parts of Asia. Its adherents number about eight hundred million throughout the world.

A Study of Muhammad's Personality

A. AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PERSO NALITY.

1. The Loyalty and Confidence of his Companions.



Since the inception of Islam the Muslim world has held to the unwavering conviction thatMuhammad was the last and the greatest of the prophets. The Christian world, on the other hand, has expressed varied assessments of his character, ranging from one extreme to theother. In former times it was customary to hold that Muhammad was a conscious impostor, adevil-inspired false prophet whom the; infidel Turks; or, at best, "Mahometans", worshippedas their god. In more recent times the access the West has enjoyed to the early records of his

life has produced a more objective response. Many consider that he was a sincere seeker after truth who introduced noble reforms into his society and is to be honoured according to theachievements and standards of his time. Some even concede that he was a true prophet, onewhom God directed as he had inspired the other prophets from of old. The evangelicalchurch, however, steadfastly rejects this view, if for no other reason than that he denied thedeity and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

These two denials, which strike at the whole foundation of the Christian faith, do seem to ruleout the possibility that any Christian evaluation of his prophetic claims can produce anythingother than a negative response and conclusion. Nonetheless, aware of the prejudices of our forefathers, it behooves us to assess the Prophet of Islam sincerely. A purely objectiveestimate of his character may not be possible, our convictions being what they are, but it is

incumbent upon us to be as fair as we can be.

We can safely reject the view that Muhammad was a deliberate impostor. Throughout thetwenty-three year period of his assumed ministry, he held to the unflinching conviction thathe was called to be a prophet and that the revelations he was receiving were coming to himfrom above.

Mohammed never wavered in his belief in his own mission, nor, what is more extraordinary,

in his belief as to its precise nature and well-defined limits. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed

and Mohammedanism, p. 148).

One of the best evidences of his subjective sincerity is the almost fanatical devotion of hiscompanions to his mission. With only a few exceptions, those nearest to him, once converted,stood with him through triumph and defeat, trial and setback, poverty and persecution.

It is strongly corroborative of Mahomet's sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were

not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his household; who,

intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those

discrepancies which ever more or less exist between the professions of the hypocritical

deceiver abroad and his actions at home. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 54).

The intense faith and conviction on the part of the immediate followers of

Mohammed is the noblest testimony to his sincerity and his utter self-absorption in hisappointed task. (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 22).

One of his earliest converts, Abu Bakr, was a leading man in Mecca and one whose devotionto Muhammad was as steadfast as it could be (as we have seen on the occasion of hisconcealment with Muhammad in the cave on Mount Thaur). Even when Muhammad

proclaimed that he had been taken to Jerusalem and back in one night by the angel Gabriel, aclaim which alienated some of his own followers, Abu Bakr's allegiance remained unshaken.(We will shortly hear more of this phenomenon). He was duly named as-S iddiq by



Muhammad, meaning "the Faithful", a title he seems to have fully deserved. A generallysincere and upright man, his unflinching loyalty to Muhammad is strong evidence of thelatter's single-mindedness of purpose.

Abu Bakr was a man of the purest character. His friendship for Mahomet, and unwavering

belief in his mission, are a strong testimony to the sincerity of the prophet. (Stobart, Islam

and its Founder , p. 209).

I agree with Sprenger in considering 'the faith of Abu Bakr the greatest guarantee of the sincerity of Mohammed in the beginning of his career' - and, indeed, in a modifiedsense, throughout his life. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 56).

Even before his claim to prophethood Muhammad was highly esteemed for his integrity andearned the title al-Amin, 'the Trustworthy'. Judged relatively by the standards of his day, heappears to emerge without reproach; and there are many in the West today who refuse tochallenge the worthiness of his personality further. Is the Christian compelled to assess himin the same spirit of relative objectivity? Do we leave the judgment of history upon his

character to a jury of his contemporary peers?2. A Relative or an Absolute Standard of Judgment?

We cannot judge the Prophet of Islam according to our moral standards, but only according

to the standards which he himself recognized. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith,

p. 188).

It is so often said that Muhammad's character must be appraised purely in the context of hisage and environment Seventh-century Arabia was a fairly primitive country and many thingswe would consider reprehensible, for example, raiding for booty, polygamy, etc., wereregarded by the Arabs as perfectly normal and far from immoral or unethical. What right,

therefore, do we have to judge Muhammad by any other standard than the relative values of his day?

Had Muhammad claimed to be nothing more than a local reformer or a prophet with amessage purely for his own time and people, such a charge might be well-founded. But, bythe end of his career, he had laid claim to being the greatest of all the prophets, God'suniversal messenger for all mankind a messenger with the final religion which was tosupersede and eventually displace every other religion on earth.

Muslim writers accordingly know no limits in describing the alleged perfection of his virtuesand the traditions of his life are saturated with eulogies exalting his personality to that of thegreatest among men. This quote is symbolic of the claims made by almost all Muslim

biographers of their prophet's course:

His life is the noblest record of a work nobly and faithfully performed . . . a life consecrated,

from first to last, to the service of humanity. Is there another to be compared to his, with all

its trials and temptations? Is there another which has stood the fire of the world and come

out so unscathed? (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 112, 17).



When such claims are made, it cannot fairly be said that he is only to be judged by thestandards of his day.

Now Muslims claim that Muhammad is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. In

so doing they invite world opinion to pass judgement upon him. (Watt, Muhammad at

Medina, p. 333).

The thesis that Muhammad was great by the standards of his day and race is dubious praise for one whom Tradition makes an exemplar for all time and all mankind.(Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 187).

It is precisely at this point that the Christian attitude to Muhammad comes to the fore. "But,summoned up inevitably by his own special claim, silently there rises beside him . . . thefigure of the Son of Man". (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 75). Men like GautamaBuddha and Confucius may fairly escape a character analysis based on absolute standards butthe Prophet of Islam, who elevated himself to at least equality with (if not superiority over)the founder of Christianity, is fairly exposed to a comparison with him at every turn. Jesus

Christ was a man par excellence, one not only without error or sin, but the perfect man - aman endued with every worthy attribute to the full. He was one whose righteousness, love,holiness, honesty and purity were expressed to perfection. Muhammad invites comparisonwith him when he claims that he is his equal.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I am most akin

to Jesus Christ among the whole of mankind, and all the Prophets are of different mothers

but belong to one religion and no Prophet was raised between me and Jesus. (Sahih Muslim,

Vol. 4, p. 1260).

We are therefore fully justified in assessing his character by the absolute standards sowondrously manifested in the person of our Saviour, even more so when we find Muhammadseeking to displace him at many points.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be pre-

eminent among the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first

intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah). (Sahih Muslim, Vol.

4, p. 1230).

How does Muhammad compare with Jesus? In the next section we shall briefly analyse thecourse of his ministry and compare it with that of Jesus Christ, and in the next two chapterswill assess certain facets of his life and behaviour while at Medina. These two quotes fairlyanticipate the obvious and, indeed, only possible conclusion that can be drawn:

The genuineness and sincerity of Mohammed's piety, and the honesty of his belief in his

religious call, are indisputable. Unfortunately it cannot be said that righteousness and

straightforwardness are the most prominent traits of his character as a whole (Andrae,

Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 185).

The domestic life of Muhammad, if the general standard of oriental rulers of his time be taken into account, is moderate in indulgence, though of course the standard of a



prophet claiming to supersede Jesus Christ yields a very different result. (Stanton, TheTeaching of the Qur'an, p. 27).

3. Jesus and Muhammad - The Cross and the Hijrah.

It is not often realised how many similarities there are between the ministries of Jesus and

Muhammad up to the point of Muhammad's departure from Mecca for Medina. As Jerusalemwas the centre of Judaism at the time of Jesus. so Mecca was the focal-point of Arab

paganism during Muhammad's life. In each city stood a cube-like structure to which thekinsmen of the founders of the world's two greatest religions came. In Jerusalem it was theHoly of Holies in the Temple precincts in Mecca it was the Ka'aba. Just as Jews came fromall over to attend their feasts in Jerusalem (e.g. the Feast of the Passover, the Feast of theTabernacles), so Arabs flocked to Mecca for the various fairs held around the city each year (e.g. the Fair of-Ukadh, etc.).

Jesus and Muhammad both rose from among their own people and yet both stood firmlyagainst the religious practices of their kinsmen while acknowledging that the Lord of the holysites in their chief cities respectively was the true Lord. Allah was the "Lord of the Ka'aba"

but Muhammad opposed the idol-worship associated with the Arab shrine. Yahweh wasindeed the true Lord of the Temple in Jerusalem but Jesus violently opposed the form of religion being practiced within its courtyards and walls. On at least two occasions he drovethe moneychangers and those who sold sacrificial victims out of the Temple, accusing themof turning a place God had declared to be a "house of prayer" into a veritable "den of robbers" (Matthew 21.13). On the other occasion he accused them of making it a "house of trade" (John 2.16).

In both cases the cities rose in defiance of these men who promised nothing less than hell-fireto their most distinguished inhabitants (Matthew 23.33, Surah 54.43-48). Each came to a

point of crisis. When Muhammad's covenant with the believers from the Aus and Khazrajwas discovered by the Quraysh, they finally determined to make an end of him. Muhammadknew his life was no longer safe in Mecca - the point of decision had come. The Qur'an itself mentions the plot laid by the Meccans to kill him:

Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or

get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans, but the best of planners

is God. Surah 8.30

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests among the Jews at Jerusalemfinally took counsel together and made plans to kill him (John 11.53). Like Muhammad, hewas faced with a moment of destiny - should he remain in Jerusalem and endanger his life or should he move out?

The analogy extends further. An unexpected way of escape from a foreign source timeouslyopened before both men. Rejected by his own tribesmen, the Quraysh, Muhammad was givena welcome and a new haven of security by men from other tribes to the north of his city. SoJesus too was suddenly presented with a new field of ministry and probable shelter as heentered Jerusalem for the last time, knowing the plans that were being laid against him. Anumber of Greeks came to him, willing to hear him (John 12.20-21). Once again a foreign

people from the north promised a welcome relief from the now extreme designs of the chief



priests. Even the circumstances were identical - a feast in Jerusalem, a fair in Mecca. Thecoincidences are striking.

Thus far the analogy goes but no further. Muhammad and Jesus took contrary decisions. Theformer took a pledge from each man from Medina to defend and protect his life, even if heshould lose his own life in doing so. The latter renewed his pledge to give up his life so that

many of his followers might live. When Jesus heard that the Greeks wanted to see him, hemust have felt the same sense of relief that Muhammad felt in similar circumstances. But heknew his mission and the express purpose for which he had come into the world andimmediately responded by saying:

"The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a

grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit

. . . Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for

this purpose I have come to this hour". John 12.23-24, 27 .

Jesus came not to set up an earthly kingdom but to re deem the world and prepare the way for

many to become heirs of a heavenly kingdom. Muhammad left for Medina to establish theummah of Islam (Surah 2.143), the community of true believers, a "kingdom of God" onearth.

The Hijrah was, as we have seen, the pathway to jihad. Muhammad left Mecca only to takesteps immediately to interrupt its trade and ultimately to conquer and subdue it. The swordwas unsheathed to protect the fledgling Muslim community at Medina. As we have seen,convenient expedients were justified in the name of the establishment and progress of Islam.Rules, even God's own laws, could be bent whenever the Muslim ummah found itself inconflict with non-Muslim opponents. After Muhammad's death Abu Bakr, through manyconflicts, re-established Islam in the Arabian peninsula and his successor, Umar, soon sentout armed forces to subdue the lands around Arabia. Very significantly the Qur'anic

injunction to begin fighting (Surah 2.216) followed immediately after the Hijrah.

Muhammad employed the age-old method of establishing an earthly dominion - force of arms. At Badr he despatched many of his former enemies including the notorious Abu Jahl.The Qur'an itself proclaims vengeance on his other great enemy, his uncle Abu Lahab:

Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, perish he! Surah 111.1 (Arberry).

The later passages of the Qur'an give Muslims the right to take up arms against all-comerswho threaten the Muslim ummah and to slay them wherever they be found (Surah 2.190-191). The book even contains an open licence to make war on all who do not acknowledgeIslam, including Christians, until they "feel themselves subdued" (Surah 9.29).

Muhammad was a patient and tolerant preacher of monotheism and justice in Mecca but,after the Hijrah, became a ruler determined to sustain his power and the exclusive identity of his people, a theocratic community, by force of arms and by the subjugation of his enemies.

For Mohammed the exodus to Medina meant a surprisingly rapid development of his

position in power, which completely revolutionised conditions in Arabia, and before long

was to have world-wide consequences; but in his own character it effected a decided



downward move and a loss of the ideal. (Buhl, "The Character of Mohammed as a Prophet",

The Muslim W orld , Vol. 1, p. 360).

But when he was transferred into the atmosphere of Medinah, he offered very littleresistance to the corrupting action of the new social position . . . The figure of Mohammed loses in beauty, but gains in power. (Caetani, "The Development of

Mohammed's Personality", The Muslim World , Vol. 4, p. 364).

Not only could Jesus have found shelter among the Greeks but he could also have musteredthe support of all in Galilee to establish his ministry (John 6.15). When faced with the crucialdecision, however, he took the opposite one to that taken by Muhammad. The Prophet of Islam chose the Hijrah, the spring of jihad for the subjugation and, where necessary, thedestruction of his enemies. Jesus chose the cross, the symbol of his love and the means of salvation for all who were by nature the enemies of God (Romans 5.10). When Pilate askedhim whether he had pretensions to set himself up as a ruler of his people ("Are you the kingof the Jews?" John 18.33), he gave a very important and striking answer:

"My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight,

that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world". John

18.36

"My servants would fight", he said, just as Muhammad's companions did to protect andestablish his earthly ummah. But Jesus came to make the kingdom of heaven accessible tomen on earth and to establish a spiritual people constituting one body over all the earth, not to

be gathered into an earthly community to be protected from all other tribes and nations, but to be united in one spirit, secure and prepared for a kingdom ready to be revealed in the lasttime. How different his attitude to that of Muhammad!

Muhammad sought to conquer by force, Jesus by love. At times Muhammad wrought the

destruction of his enemies. Jesus prayed that his might be forgiven and live:

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23.34

As he hung on that cross, he was an apparent failure. It seemed his labours had been in vain.The Hijrah took Muhammad from the depths of disconsolation to the prime of success but thecross took Jesus to an early grave.

The Muhammadan decision here is formative of all else in Islam. It was a decision for

community, for resistance, for external victory, for pacification and rule. The decision for the

cross - no less conscious, no less formative, no less inclusive - was the contrary decision.

(Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 93).

But even as his earthly course came to its close, its eternal, immeasurable effects were beingrealised. A thief crucified with Jesus, one who had no other hope of salvation, turned to himhumbly requesting him to "remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23.42).The answer reveals all the glorious implications of the choice Jesus made for the salvation of many rather than the establishment of his rule in an earthly form and his own personal

protection:



Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. Luke 23.43

There are many Muslims who argue that their prophet's decision was justifiable and that hisenemies deserved their fate. But how does his course at Medina compare with that onesupreme manifestation of love and compassion at Calvary which knows no equal?Unfavourably, to say the least. On the other hand, we can comfortably meet the Muslims on

their own ground by comparing the destinies of our respective founders.

The crucifixion of Jesus stands with his resurrection. The only historical record of his deathon the cross testifies unambiguously to his resurrection to life after three days and hisascension to heaven forty days later. Who really succeeded in his mission - Muhammad, wholies dead and buried in Medina, or Jesus, who reigns in life in heaven above? The Hijrah ledMuhammad to Medina, the seat of his earthly ummah. The cross led Jesus to resurrection andglory in the kingdom of heaven - the realm of eternal life.

Muhammad chose an earthly ummah and duly went the way of all flesh as his earthly bodyreturned to dust in a city made of dust. Jesus preferred a heavenly kingdom and duly preparedthe way for many as his heavenly body returned to heaven and a city which has eternalfoundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11.10).

The image of Him whose kingdom was not of this world, who did not strive nor cry, whose

servants were never to draw the sword in His defence, forces itself upon the mind, in silent

and reproachful antithesis to the mixed and sullied character of the Prophet-soldier

Mohammed. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 201).

4. A Christian Evaluation of Muhammad's Character.

The awesome objective of Jesus' ministry and the outstanding sacrifice he made to achieve itstand as high above the course of Muhammad's ministry as the heavens are high above the

earth. In no less a degree does the profound character of the Saviour of the world tower over the personality of the Prophet of Islam. A Muslim writer states:

Even if Muhammad had sent ten thousand missionaries over the length and breadth of

Arabia he could not have received such homage unto God as he did by means of his

successful wars. (Sarwar, Muhammad: The Holy Prophet , p. 323).

This statement may be entirely consistent with the Muslim mentality of outward triumph andsuccess but it is out of character with the marvellous standards and example set by the Son of man, who has achieved more enduring results through his true messengers who have spreadthe effects of his salvation by word of mouth rather than by the sword of war. (We exclude

ventures such as the Crusades which were the very antithesis of all that Jesus preached andstood for. The propagation of Islam by "successful wars" is, however, fundamental to Islamas Sarwar duly shows).

Believers were never commanded to spread the religion of Christ by means of a holy war

(Jihad), but, on the contrary, they were called to endure every kind of wrong and contumely,

and did willingly suffer many and great afflictions and persecutions for proclaiming the

Gospel. Most of the Apostles drank the cup of martyrdom in the cause of religion, and their



oft-repeated command to all believers was, that they should bear patiently all sufferings for

Christ's sake. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 72).

The fruits and successes of their labours will be known and made manifest at the only placewhere the value of a man s life can be truly tested - at the judgment seat of God on a Day yetto be revealed. Kenneth Cragg suggests that it may be true that "too much is made of

Muhammad's circumstances and too little of his obligations to the absolutes of every age"(The Call of the Minaret , p. 92). The question is not whether he had a generallycommendable character. A Christian evaluation of his character rightly begins by askingwhether his manner was exemplary in every way and at all times as Jesus' truly was. In thisrespect, as will be seen all the more in the following two chapters, he fails to meet the mark.

The specific character of Islam and the transcending path of salvation brought to erringsinners by Jesus Christ can be distinguished in many instances, but the following traditionoffers a typical example:

Narrated Jabir: A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he

had committed an illegal intercourse . . . the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death.(Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 8, p. 531).

The judgment was fair on legal grounds (Leviticus 20.10), but Muhammad's role can becompared with that assumed by Jesus when he was placed in a similar situation. When theJewish doctors of the law produced a woman similarly self-condemned for adultery, Jesusimmediately made her detractors examine themselves to see whether they were indeedworthy to stand as God's prosecutors, judges and executioners over her. "Let him who iswithout sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8.7), he replied. As they allwent out, convicted of their own sinfulness, he graciously pardoned the repentant woman inthese comforting words:

"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said "No one, Lord". And Jesussaid, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again". John 8.10-11.

He had come to bring salvation to all and his own death to follow shortly was the ransom bywhich she was delivered from her prescribed fate. Here the whole difference between Islamand Christianity is fully revealed - the law enforced compared to grace freely bestowed. TheHijrah did not release Muhammad from the law, but the cross of Christ opened the door for repentant men and woman to obtain the forgiveness of their sins and a place in the eternalkingdom of heaven.

He certainly knew nothing of the real teaching of Jesus Christ. Had he known these things he

would have seen how superior was the legal system he sought to supersede, how muchhigher the Christian morality he endeavoured to set aside. (Sell, The Historical Development

of the Qur'an, p. 188).

Even a fervent apologist for Muhammad was constrained to draw similar conclusions whencomparing Muhammad with Jesus:

The religion of Christ contains whole fields of morality and whole realms of thought which

are all but outside the religion of Mohammed . . . the character of Jesus of Nazareth stands



alone in its spotless purity and its unapproachable majesty. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed

and Mohammedanism, p 293, 294).

Perhaps the final judgment can be made to rest on the last statements made by Jesus andMuhammad respectively before they died. We have already seen how Jesus, at the last,sought the forgiveness and salvation of the Jews who had hated, opposed and finally crucified

him. How unfavourably Muhammad's last recorded utterance compares:

'Umar b. Abd al-Aziz reported that the last statement made by the Apostle of Allah (may

peace be upon him) was: O Lord, perish the Jews and the Christians. They made churches of

the graves of their Prophets. Beware, there should be no two faiths in Arabia. (Muwatta

Imam Malik , p. 371).

"Perish the Jews and the Christians" - famous last words indeed! A Muslim valiantly says of his prophet "As to the Christians, he nearly killed himself for their sake. He loved them as noone has ever loved them before or after" (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet , p. 105).There is no substance in these words. They are out of place and the Prophet of Islam

unworthy of their sentiments. They seem to be far more suited to the lowly man of Nazareth,except that he really was killed for their sake. Nevertheless the Muslim effort to apply toMuhammad praises due only to Jesus Christ perhaps indicates the awareness in Islam of thesurpassing worth of the Christian Saviour - he who stands alone above all men of every ageas the perfect example of love, righteousness, purity and truthfulness.


B. HIS TREATMENT OF HIS PERSO NAL ENEMIES.

1. Were Muhammad's Wars Purely Defensive?

We have, in the last section, seen what a great difference there was between the Prince of Peace and the Prophet of Islam. A more detailed examination of his attitudes towards hisenemies, especially his personal foes, reveals a flaw in his personality not readily explainedaway. It is here that we find a weak point in Muhammad's character and one which troublesMuslim apologists.

To set forth this period in the Prophet's career objectively, without offending modern

Muslim susceptibilities, is difficult in the extreme. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 84).

Before passing on to individual examples, let us consider the whole question of jihad from ageneral standpoint. It is invariably claimed by Muslim writers today that Muhammad's warswere purely defensive. "Islam seized the sword in self defence, and held it in self-defence, asit will ever do". (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 218). In this way they endeavour to set aside thecharge that Muhammad took the sword to his enemies, seeking their destruction and their

possessions as booty and plunder.One writer goes so far as to say:

Persia and Rome were thus the aggressors, and the Muslims, in sheer self-defence, came

into conflict with those mighty empires. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 463).



This is extremely hard to credit from an historical perspective. There is no evidence that thePersian or Byzantine empires had any designs on the Hijaz in Arabia during Muhammad'stime, let alone the fledgling Muslim community at Medina. On the other hand, when Umar was caliph, the Muslims took the fight to Greek and Persian soil and conquered their territories.

Muhammad, during his ministry, was at no time threatened by an invasion from the north.His chief concern was the Quraysh and, next to them, the hostile pagan Bedouin tribes of theHijaz. But even in this context he is blandly portrayed as a harmless defender of the faithagainst relentless plots and threats from those around him. Such claims are, from an historical

perspective, unjustifiable. Yet they are found in many works, of which the followingstatement is typical:

People who accuse Muhammad of fighting the Quraish forget that the Quraish were the

aggressors and that during all these years Muhammad had no option but to defend himself

and his followers. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet , p. 87).

The claim that one is fighting purely in self-defence is one of the most elliptical ever made bymen and nations throughout human history. Israel used it when conquering the GolanHeights, West Bank of the Jordan, and Sinai Desert in 1967. The conquest of these territorieswas, it was alleged, essential to protect the nation from the hostile Arab states round about.Hitler made a similar claim when invading Russia in 1941, alleging that he was protecting theAryans from the Bolsheviks. Indeed the Quraysh could just as well have claimed that their expeditions to Medina were purely defensive exercises to protect their peaceful caravan tradewhich Muhammad was intent on disrupting. The Muslim claim that his wars were purelydefensive appears to be more rhetorical than historical in substance.

One writer even has the audacity to say of the Meccan caravan trade: "These caravansconstituted a grave threat to the security of Medina". (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: S eal of the

Prophets, p. 111).

Some authors will go to great lengths to exonerate Muhammad and remove the stigma thatthe raiding parties have left on his character. These caravans were invariably lightly mannedand armed. Even the large annual caravan from Mecca to Syria had to pass Medina by aspecial route each year to avoid capture and, when Abu Sufyan learnt that a raiding party wascoming out of Medina to meet him on his return in 624 AD, he had to hasten on to protect thecaravan and was compelled to call for a force from Mecca to escort him. The "grave threat"was, in truth, the other way around.

Within a hundred years the Muslim hordes, by force of arms, had conquered territories fromSpain in the West to India in the East. Was this all purely defensive? What threat faced the

small community of Muslims in Medina from the shores of Spain and frontiers of France?The thesis that Muhammad never took the sword for aggressive purposes appears very weak in the light of this famous verse from the Qur'an, known as the ayatus-saif , the "verse of thesword":

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find

them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and Iie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).

Surah 9.5



They were only to be spared if they repented and became Muslims, the verse continues.Another wishful claim, made in bold defiance of the facts of history, is that Muhammad"never killed a single prisoner of war" (All, The Religion of Islam, p. 483). We have alreadyseen how Muhammad had Abu Azzah executed after the Battle of Uhud. Another was an-

Nadhr ibn al-Harith who was ordered to be beheaded by Muhammad after the Battle of Badr for the capital offence of challenging Muhammad's revelations and composing surahs and

stories like those in the Qur'an. (The Qur'an boldly invites all-comers to attempt to produce passages equal to its own in Surah 11.13 but Muhammad was sorely tried whenever anyoneventured to do so). Yet another victim at Badr was Uqba ibn abi Muait.

The Battle of Badr has been celebrated in Islam as its first true moment of glory and yet evenhere we find Muhammad and his companions bent on vengeance and the destruction of thosewho had persecuted them. A Muslim writer gives us a useful insight into the thoughts of theMuslims as they prepared for the first battle they were to fight for Islam:

Before entering battle, they resolved to direct their attention to the leaders and nobles of

the Quraysh. They planned to seek them and to kill them first, remembering the persecution

and travails they had suffered at their hands in Makkah, especially the blocking of the road

to God and to the holy mosque. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. 229).

Another unedifying spectacle that greets the reader is the reaction of Muhammad when helearnt of the death, on the same battlefield, of the man who had persecuted him so muchduring his days in Mecca:

Among the leaders of Quraish who met their death was Abu Jahal, chief of the clan of Beni

Makhzoom, the Apostle's bitterest enemy. Muhammad send 0a servant to search the field

for his corpse. When he found it, he cut off his head and threw it down at the feet of the

Apostle who cried ecstatically, "The head of the enemy of God Praise God, for there is no

other but He!" (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad , p. 186).

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves" is the advice of the Apostle Paul (Romans 12.19),following the teaching and example of his Master (Luke 6.27-31). Not so the dictum of Muhammad, who constantly plotted revenge against his personal enemies and delighted in itwhen it was achieved.

2. The Assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf.

Shortly after the Battle of Badr an incident occurred, widely reported in the Hadith, whichMuir describes as another of those dastardly acts of cruelty which darken the pages of theProphet's life" (The Life of Mahomet , p. 238). It was the clandestine killing of a Jew, Ka'b ibn

Ashraf, who "was at Mahomet's instigation assassinated under circumstances of the blackesttreachery" (Stobart, Islam and its Founder , p. 158). He had been one of those poets who hadirritated Muhammad with his satirical verses. After Badr he mourned the leaders of theQuraysh and visited Mecca to stir up a reprisal raid against the Muslims. What ultimatelytranspired is described in unemotional language in the traditions:

Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b ibn Ashraf?". Muhammad bin

Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative.



Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like". The Prophet replied, "I

do". (Sahih at-Bukhari , Vol. 4, p. 168).

In another tradition Muhammad ibn Maslama's statement "allow me to say what I like" isinterpreted to mean that he should be allowed to say a "false" thing to deceive Ka'b. (S ahih

at-Bukhari , Vol. 5, p. 248). An early biographer is quite unambiguous in his record of this

commission:

The apostle said "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try". He said "O apostle

of God, we shall have to tell lies". He answered "Say what you like, for you are free in the

matter". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 367).

It is hardly any wonder that writers like Muir and Stobart speak so harshly of Muhammad'sconduct in this matter. This was a direct order to effect the murder of one of his opponentscoupled with a licence to resort to any manner of lies to achieve it. Muhammad's companionof the same name duly took advantage of the freedom given him to use deceitful means todispose of the unsuspecting Jew:

Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship

between them and said: This man (i.e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect

charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When he heard this, Ka'b said: By

God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: no doubt, now

we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his

affairs will take. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 991).

The subtle claim that Muhammad had burdened the Medinan Muslims (Ibn Maslama was of the Aus tribe) duly persuaded Ka'b that the men with him meant him no harm. His own foster

brother Abu Natilah, also among the party, was even more convincing than his companion:

He said: I am Abu Na'ilah, and I have come to you to inform you that the advent of this man

(the Prophet) is a calamity for us. The Arabs are fighting with us and they are shooting from

one bow (i.e. they are united against us). We want to keep away from him (the Prophet).

(Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabeqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 36).

Ibn Sa'd goes on to say that when these men, who claimed they had come to purchase foodand dates from him, finally met Ka'b again during the evening, he talked freely with them andwas "pleased with them and became intimate with them" (op. cit., p.37). Coming closer tohim on the presence that they wished to smell his perfume, Ibn Maslama and the othersimmediately drew their swords and killed him. They returned to Muhammad uttering the

takbir (" Allahu Akbar " - Allah is Most Great).When they reached the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him; he said: (Your) faces be lucky.

They said: Yours too, O Apostle of Allah! They cast his head before him. He (the Prophet)

praised Allah on his being slain. When it was morning, he said: Kill every Jew whom you

come across. The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They

were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night.

(Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 37).



This affair discredits Muhammad's claim to be a prophet. Who can read these sordid detailswithout being nauseated in his spirit? Muslim biographers, as ia to be expected, have soughtto exculpate their Prophet in this matter.One has very artfully rewritten history by giving noindication that Muhammad had any part in this murderous scene. Claiming that Ka'b hadvexed the Muslims of Medina with false accusations against their womenfolk, he puts theresponsibility for his assassination at the feet of the Muslims alone without any reference in

his narrative to Muhammad's part in it:

They were so incensed and irritated by him that, after unanimously agreeing to kill him, they

authorized Abu Na'ilah to seek his company and win his confidence. Abu Na'ilah said to Katb,

"The advent of Muhammad was a misfortune to all of us". (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad ,

p. 244).

One can see how awkward Muhammad's role in this matter was for the Egyptian author.Finding no way to justify him, he expediently left him out of the affair altogether.

It is tendentious of Haykal not to reveal that it was not the Muslims but Muhammad himself

who took the initiative in having him killed, a fact about which there is no doubt in IbnHisham's account. "Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf?" (Weasels, A Modern Arabic


Other Muslim writers have produced a more imaginative defence of their Prophet's action.They have given it a forensic touch by claiming that, as ruler in Medina, Muhammad had aright to order the execution of those who were guilty of high treason. One writer alleges that"Christian controversialists" have "shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and thenecessity of a swift and secret execution (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 74). Mitigation of Muhammad's action is sought in legal terminology, viz. "sentence", "execution", etc. Another writer seeks to remove the sting in the course of this affair by the use of similar terms:

When the Holy Prophet was convinced of these various offences of Kaab, he determined

that Kaab had earned the ultimate penalty several times over ... He, therefore, decided that

Kaab would not be executed publicly, but silently without any fuss. (Zafrulla Khan,


Muhammad at this stage was anything but the undisputed ruler of Medina and the deviousmethods adopted to despatch the offending Jew, when exposed to public view as they so

blandly are in the traditions, still leave the firm impression that this was an act of cold- blooded murder coupled with a host of lies, both of which had the sanction of the Prophet of Islam.

It is not surprising to find such incidents leading to strange teachings in Muslim writings. Onewriter comments on the fate due to "traitors" in these words:

And a traitor guilty of high treason is an outlaw and may be killed by anyone without any

special authority. May God guide us all to the Truth and spread peace and unity amongst

mankind! (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet , p. 195).



These words almost defy comment! Well does the author appeal to God for guidance into theTruth - he is much in need of it. His licence to all and sundry to take the law into their ownhands by lynching those whom they consider to be "traitors" (Ka'b never espousedMuhammad's cause) seems hardly consistent with his professed desire for peaceamong men.But his comment does give a truer picture of what really happened that night than the legaleuphemisms of men like Syed Ameer Ali and Muhammad Zafrulla Khan.

3. The Murder of Abu Rafi.

On many occasions Muhammad showed commendable magnanimity towards his enemies butevery now and then we are faced with individual cases which seriously compromise his claimto be God's final messenger to mankind. Another Jew, Abu Rafi, one of the chiefs of theBanu Nadhir exiled after the Battle of Uhud, was also murdered at his instigation. Abu Rafi'strue name was Sallam ibn abi al-Huqaiq and he lived in one of the forts at Khaibar beforeMuhammad's conquest of the settlement. This tradition tells its own story:

Narrated Al-Bara: Allah's Apostle sent Abdullah bin Atik and Abdullah bin Utba with a group

of men to Abu Rafi (to kill him) . . . (Abdullah said) "I called, 'O Abu Rafi!' He replied 'Who is

it?' I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I

came to him, pretending to help him, saying with a different tone of my voice, 'What is

wrong with you, O Abu Rafi?' He said 'Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man

has come to me and hit me with a sword!' So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow

proved futile again, and on that Abu Rafi cried loudly and his wife got up. I came again and

changed my voice as if I were a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I

drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break". (Sahih

al- Bukhari , Vol. 5, pp. 253, 254).

The narrative is unsavoury, to say the least, and once again we have the usual ingredients - a

calculated murder accomplished through deceit and presence. Ibn Ishaq informs us that whenAbu Rafi's wife asked the group who they were they politely answered "Arabs in search of supplies" (S irat Rasulullah, p. 483). It is no wonder that Islam does not, even to this day,reprobate every form of dishonesty. A Muslim writer unashamedly says:

Falsehood is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable

and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people,

than telling the truth. (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 255).

How much more reliable are the absolute standards set out in the teaching of Jesus whowarned that anyone given to even a little dishonesty in any given circumstance was dishonestthrough and through (Luke 16.10). Indeed in one statement made by Jesus we have a perfectanalysis of the source of the motivation behind the murders of Ka'b and Abu Rafi and the liesaccompanying them, and his words might just as well have been addressed to all thoseinvolved in their so-called "executions":

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a

murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no

truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the

father of lies. John 8.44



Furthermore we are told in the Hadith that both these murders were accomplished secretly atnight. The Bible gives sound reasons why such evil deeds are performed under the cover of darkness:

Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Forevery one who does

evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. John

3.19-20

It is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret. E phesians 5.12

4. A Christian Perspective and Conclusion.

It is often claimed by Muslims that their Prophet's actions were consistent with both thestandards of his day in Arabia and with those of many of the prophets of Israel in pre-Christian times (ea. David's scheme to kill Uriah the Hittite, etc.). Syed Ameer Ali says of themassacre of the Banu Quraydhah: "We simply look upon it as an act done in completeaccordance with the laws of war as then understood by the nations of the world" (The S pirit

of Islam, p. 81). This brings us back once again to relative standards - the only ones, it seems, by which Muhammad and his religion can be justified. The defence sometimes takes adifferent form - it is alleged that the Muslims acted according to the basic principles of human nature. Here is an example:

It was not in their nature to suffer such injustices or to submit to such tyranny for long

without thinking of avenging themselves. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. 198).

It is precisely at this point that Islam becomes something of an anachronism, an outdatedform of religion which was, centuries earlier, replaced by one that was far better. When Jesuscame into the world a new covenant was introduced, one far better than the one it replaced(Hebrews 8.6). One of the better essences of this new covenant is the universal pouring out of

the Holy Spirit on all who truly belong to Jesus Christ so that they may no longer be bound totheir ordinary natures but to the new nature within them which has Divine qualities (cf. 1Corinthians, 2.12). As Hayka' says of Mohammad and his companions, it was "not in their nature" to suffer patiently, leaving vengeance to the Lord. But this very thing is in the natureof true Christians because they are born of the Holy Spirit and have divine power to becomewhat God truly wants men to be. How graciously these words of a follower of Jesus comparewith the spirit of the followers of Muhammad:

For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what

credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you

do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval. For to this you have

been called, for Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should followin his steps. 1 Peter 2.19-21

Jesus Christ brought a new morality into the world. He showed that earthly survival andsecurity were not paramount objectives for men and nations but rather that men should seek to become like God in their characters. He died and rose again to make such things possible.He introduced a higher standard of righteousness, one much superior to that of Islam.



For the Islam of Mohammed, coming after Christ, reverted to the lower types before him.

The Prophet of Islam was in fact precisely the type of Messiah after which the Jews of

Christ's day hankered, and which Jesus Christ Himself definitely rejected, from the Mount of

Temptation and from the Mount of Calvary. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 63).

When Muhammad found that the Jews and Christians were ultimately not going toacknowledge his claims, he became very antagonistic towards them. The Qur'an says of boththese groups "God's curse be on them!" (Surah 9.30). The original words in Arabic, however,are qautalahumullaah which mean, quite literally, "Allah kill them". Jesus was also facedwith a people who would not receive him. As he passed through Samaria on his way toJerusalem, the Samaritans refused to accommodate him. Two of his disciples exclaimed"Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9.54).This is the spirit of human nature, the spirit of vengeance, the spirit of Islam. But Jesus turnedand rebuked them, saying:

"You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy

men's lives but to save them". Luke 9.55

The wondrous forbearing love of the Saviour of the world stands out, in all his teaching andactions, above the spirit of Islam. It was he who set the perfect example of love before theworld when he prayed for the salvation of his enemies even as they crucified him, and badehis disciples do likewise: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless thosewho curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6.27-28). Indeed when Jesus gave a

parable to demonstrate what true love was just after he had been rejected by the Samaritans,he chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story (Luke 10.33).

The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early

Christianity. Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with

which its confessors suffered death; they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the

readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 242).

On the night Jesus was betrayed he called his betrayer his friend (Matthew 26.50), healed oneof the soldiers who came to arrest him (Luke 22.51), and prayed for a disciple who was todesert him (Luke 22.32). The next day, when all human vindictiveness was let loose againsthim, he commended Pilate (John 19.11), comforted a man who but a few hours earlier hadreviled him (Luke 23.43, Matthew 27.44), and sought the forgiveness of his murderers (Luke23.34). This was the spirit of the man Jesus Christ. The same spirit has been manifested inthousands of true Christians since his ascension to heaven. Encouraged by his example andfortified by the Holy Spirit, his followers have also loved their enemies and prayed for theforgiveness of their murderers (Acts 7.60).

From the moment of his ascension to the moment of his return, his perfect standard is publicly portrayed before all men. The spirit of the Christian Gospel is the heart of truereligion, one which summons human character to perfection, sets an incomparable exampleof it (Ephesians 5.2), and provides the Spirit by which such perfection is attainable. The

prophets who came before Jesus Christ looked forward earnestly to the coming of their Redeemer, the Messiah, and when he came he introduced a religion and way of life vastlysuperior to that which went before. If the best thing that can be said for the spirit and attitudesof Muhammad and his companions is that they were no different to those who came before



Jesus Christ, then this is one of the best reasons for not accepting the religion he introduced.It may compare favourably with Judaism but is considerably inferior to the spirit of trueChristianity.

Although Mohammed had many noble qualities and was prophetically gifted with the

inspiration of monotheism, his moral character broke down under the stress of temptation.

Is it not pathetic that such a vast number of the human race is looking to him as the sole

interpreter of God and as their guide for life and death? (Trowbridge, "Mohammed's View of

Religious War", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 3, p. 305).


C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS MARRIAGES.

1. Muhammad and his Wives.

For twenty-five years Muhammad was married to only one woman, his faithful and uprightwife Khadija, but after her death he took a number of wives. The exact number is not certain

but it is believed that he had thirteen wives in all, nine of whom succeeded him. The polygamy he practiced, and which he allowed to Muslims in general, has often been lookedupon as a further weakness in his character. A brief examination of his marriages after thedeath of Khadija will assist us to draw our own conclusions.

Before the Hijrah Muhammad married S auda bint Zam'ah, a widow with a son who had beenamong the emigrants to Abyssinia. She was over thirty years of age. At about the same timehe was betrothed to Ayishah whom he married formally three years later in Medina. She washis favourite wife and a woman who played a large part in the early development of Islam. At

Medina she was once left behind during a journey home and was brought back by one of Muhammad's companions, Safwan, who had emigrated from Mecca. A scandal spread inMedina as sinister accusations were levelled against the two but, after being estranged fromher for a while, Muhammad received a revelation (Surah 24.11-20) upholding her innocenceand reproving those who had falsely accused her. They were subsequently beaten for their slanders.

Ayishah features prominently in the Hadith. A great number of traditions are attributed to her and her opinion was widely sought in many matters as she was a woman of considerableintellect and knowledge. One of the early Muslims said of her:

I have not seen any one having more knowledge of the sunnah (practice) of the Apostle of

Allah, may Allah bless him, than Ayishah, nor more intelligent in opinion if her opinion was

sought, or having better knowledge of the verses as to what they were revealed about, or in

calculating the faratid (inheritance). (Ibn Sa'd, K itab at-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 481).

After Ayishah Muhammad married the daughter of Umar, Hafsah, whose husband was killedat Badr. He then married Unm S alamah and Zaynab bint K huzaymah in quick succession.Zaynab died, however, within three months of her marriage to Muhammad. His next marriagewas to a young woman named Juayriyah of the Banu Khuza'ah, defeated in an attack by



He had occasion to visit the house of Zaid, and upon seeing Zainab's unveiled face, had

exclaimed, as a Moslem would say at the present day when admiring a beautiful picture or

statue, Praise be to God, the ruler of hearts! The words, uttered in natural admiration, were

often repeated by Zainab to her husband to show how even the Prophet praised her beauty,

and naturally added to his displeasure. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 235).

Zaid then determined to divorce her but, upon approaching Muhammad, was told to keep her as his wife. Things did not improve, however, and Zaid duly divorced her. Shortly afterwardsMuhammad himself took her in marriage, giving by far the biggest wedding-feast he hadgiven for any of his wives. A scandal soon broke out because he had married the ex- wife of his own adopted son, something frowned upon by the Arabs as tantamount to incest. Arevelation in the Qur'an soon justified the marriage:

Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: Retain

thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God. But thou didst hide in thy heart that which God

was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou

shouldst fear God. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary

(formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no

difficulty to the believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons,

when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality their marriage) with them. And

God's command must be fulfilled. Surah 33.37

The biography of at-Tabari suggests that Muhammad was visibly moved by Zaynab's beautywhen he beheld her on this occasion and in many works this incident has led to a severecensure of Muhammad because it seems that he had caused the divorce between her and Zaidand had manipulated the situation so that he could marry her. This censure may well beunfounded. Zaynab was his own cousin and Muhammad had known her for many years and itis hard to believe that after all this time he was suddenly infatuated by an opportune view of

her beauty. There seems to be much merit in the argument that Muhammad would have takenher in marriage himself at first rather than give her in marriage to Zayd (Haykal, The Life of

Muhammad , p. 295).

There is therefore a strong presumption that in the case of Zaynab bint Jahsh, Muhammad

was not carried away by passion . . . it is unlikely that he was swept off his feet by the

physical attractiveness of Zaynab. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 330, 331).

Furthermore the marriage caused no rift between Muhammad and Zaid and he remained loyalto Muhammad until his death on the battlefield at Muta. "One of the greatest tests of theProphet's purity is that Zaid never swerved from his devotion to his master" (Ali, The S pirit

of Islam, p. 236). It is, however, hard to find a motive for the marriage if the attractiveness of this woman for Muhammad is denied altogether and it must be presumed that he had a deepspirit of affection for her. In his favour we must also remember that he steadfastly encouragedZaid to keep her as his wife even when Zaid expressed a desire to divorce her. On the balanceof probabilities Muhammad must be acquitted of the charge that he caused the divorce andtook advantage of it to satisfy his own whims and desires.

As pointed out already, what shocked the Arabs was the fact that Muhammad had marriedwithin the customary prohibited degrees of relationship.



One point is tolerably certain, and that is the reason for the criticism of Muhammad's action

by his contemporaries. They were not moved in the slightest by what some Europeans have

regarded as the sensual and voluptuous character of his behaviour . . . in their eyes it was

incestuous. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 330).

A Western writer says of the Arab scruple about the marriage of a man to his adopted son'sex-wife: This custom was such as Muhammed had every reason to abolish, and this heactually did (Roberts, The S ocial Laws of the Qur'an, p. 49). The Qur'an, in the verse quoted,states that God himself had ordained the marriage for the specific purpose of abolishing theArab custom, but the writer just quoted views the matter as purely incidental to the

predicament Muhammad found himself in through his marriage with Zaynab:

It will thus be seen that the only reference made by the prophet to the matter of adoption is

due entirely to self-interest; the desire to set himself right with his followers in the affair

regarding Zainab. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qur'an, p. 51).

It is possible that Zaynab was the real pursuer in this case as she boasted constantly to Zaid of

Muhammad's expression of favour towards her. After the marriage she continued in much thesame vein as she boasted to the other wives of the prophet that her marriage alone had beenratified in heaven (Stobart, Islam and its Founder , p. 162). She was obviously very keen tomarry Muhammad and found much comfort in the verse quoted where God is alleged to havearranged her marriage: "We joined her in marriage to thee". Muhammad apparently spentmuch time with her and it is hardly surprising to find his youngest wives, Ayishah andHafsah, beholding the relationship between them with some jealousy (Zaynab was mucholder than both of them).

Narrated Aisha: Allah's Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of

Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to

either of us, she would say to him: It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling

resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir. We did so and he replied No, but I was

drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I

have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it. (Sahih al-Bukhari ,

Vol. 6, p. 404).

Muhammad loved perfumes and sweet-smelling spices but despised garlic and the like andthis charge must have been keenly felt by him. One feels inclined to treat this tradition withsome caution, however, as it may well have been invented, or more probably adjusted, to fitthe permission given to Muhammad in Surah 66.2 to absolve himself from an oath taken to

please his wives. As we shall see in the next part of this section, the verse has generally beentaken to refer to a far more serious matter relating to another wife where the same consortsAyishah and Hafsah again teamed up against him. It is not uncommon to find traditions inBukhari's S ahih which are very similar in style to others in earlier S irat literature but whichneatly remove any details considered to be dishonouring to Muhammad. We will come acrossanother in the section on Surah 53.19 to follow but at this stage, insofar as this traditioncontains the germ of an incident in Muhammad's life, it does illustrate the spirit in which hisyoungest wives reacted to his subsequent marriages.



Muhammad's marriage with Zaynab nevertheless exposes him to censure when it is viewedfrom a Christian perspective. At the same time the Qur'an also exposes itself to criticalreview in its sanction of the whole affair. As we have seen, Surah 33.37 states that, evenwhile Zaid was still married to Zaynab, it was the will of Allah that Muhammad should bemarried to her and he is reproved for encouraging Zaid to remain married when God hadsomething else in mind.

At last Zaid divorced her. It was not Zaid who did so but it was the Will of God. God ordered

Muhammad to marry her. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet , p. 375).

This contrasts most unfavourably with the express will of God as stated in the Bible: "For Ihate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel" (Malachi 2.16). It is most significant that thisdecree is upheld in the Hadith as well:

Ibn Umar reported the Prophet (may peace be upon him) as saying: Of all the lawful acts the

most detestable to Allah is divorce. ( Sunan Abu Dawud , Vol. 2, p. 585).

One is reminded of the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees where the latter claimedthat God had made divorce lawful. Jesus answered that, from the beginning, God had madeone woman for the one man, adding "What therefore God has joined together, let not man putasunder" (Mark 10.9).

Muhammad married a woman divorced from her husband. Sarwar says that this was not justlawful in God's eyes but was his express will. This is extremely hard to believe of the all-holyGod who hates divorce. On the contrary, Muhammad's marriage with Zaynab takes on a verydifferent perspective and becomes exceptionally censurable when examined in the light of what Jesus said about precisely such marriages:

He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. Luke 16.18

Surah 33.37, far from revealing that God specifically wills certain divorces so that his prophets may marry the wives of other men, appears to be a thoroughly unwarrantedrelaxation of God's express laws, also set forth very firmly in these verses:

A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives ... accordingly she will

be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is still alive. Romans

7.2,3.

Muhammad may not deserve the charge that he had a passionate desire for Zaynab andschemed his marriage with her, but his claim to prophethood does well appear to fall to the

ground when this matter is considered in the light of the revealed law of God as found in theChristian Bible. Under that same light the Qur'an also appears to invalidate its claim to be theWord of God when it seeks to excuse the whole affair by alleging that it was all according tothe predetermined will of God.

3. The Jealousy of Muhammad's Wives.

At least nine of Muhammad's wives survived him. The Qur'an only allows Muslims up tofour wives at a time (Surah 4.3), but Muhammad was entitled to as many as he chose until the



Qur'an forbade him to take any more (Surah 33.52). As already mentioned, polygamy, assanctioned and approved in the Qur'an, has been regarded in non-Muslim circles as one of theweaknesses of Islam. Sensitive to any charge against the infallibility of the teaching of their religion and the practice of their prophet, Muslim writers invariably seek to justify polygamy.The Qur'anic verse allowing up to four wives adds the condition "If ye fear that ye shall not

be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (a captive) that your right hands possess"

(Surah 4.3), and the argument usually put forward is that polygamy is perfectly in order provided the wives are given equal treatment. As Muhammad had many wives he is oftenstrongly defended against the allegation that he could not have treated them equally. Thesurest way to discover the truth of the matter is not to ask whether he himself was persuadedthat they were so treated, but to enquire from his wives whether they ever felt any jealousyfor one another or whether any friction was caused by their very number in the household.One writer claims:

But did any one of them ever raise the least complaint about any action of the Prophet

during or after his lifetime? No, never. Can there be any bigger testimony to the Prophet's

justice, equality (Masawat), love and consideration? (Zain, The Prophet of Islam: The Ideal

Husband , p. 42).

A study of the evidences shows that this statement is based on the author's idealism rather than historical facts for there are many traditions recording that Muhammad's wives were

jealous of one another and not always pleased with him either. Indeed on one occasion hekept aloof from them for a while and threatened to divorce them all.

We have already seen that Ayishah and Hafsah expressed some displeasure to Muhammadover the length of time he spent with Zaynab bint Jahsh. Being the youngest of his wives, it isnot surprising that they were usually at the heart of Muhammad's domestic problems. IndeedUmar, Hafsah's father, not only found that Muhammad's wives argued with him quiteregularly but even suspected that his daughter envied Ayishah as well because Muhammad

clearly regarded her as his favourite wife. He was prompted to enquire into the relationship between Hafsah and Muhammad by a sharp remark made by his own wife on one occasion tohim:

She said, How strange you are, O son of al-Khattab! You don't want to be argued with

whereas your daughter, Hafsa surely, argues with Allah's Apostle so much that he remains

angry for a full dayl Umar then reported how he at once put on his outer garment and went

to Hafsa and said to her O my daughter! Do you argue with A1lah's Apostle so that he

remains angry the whole day? Hafsa answered By Allah, we argue with him. Umar said Know

that I warn you of Allah's punishment and the anger of Allah's Apostle. O my daughter! Don't

be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of the love of Allah's Apostle for

her (i.e. Aisha). (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 406).

It was Muhammad's custom to spend one day at a time with his wives in order but on oneoccasion the irrepressible Hafsah discovered him with Mariyah in her own apartment on theday properly reserved for her alone. A Muslim writer is refreshingly frank in his narrative of this incident:



As she waited for them to come out, her jealousy broke all bounds. When, finally, Mariyah

left the quarters and Hafsah entered, she said to the Prophet: "I have seen who was here. By

God, that was an insult to me. You would not have dared to do that if I amounted to

anything at all in your eyes". At the moment Muhammad realized that such deep-lying

jealousy might even move Hafsah to broadcast what she had seen among the other wives. In

an attempt to please her, Muhammad promised that he would not go unto Mariyah if shewould only refrain from broadcasting what she had seen. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p.

436).

He goes on to say that Hafsah could not keep her promise as jealousy continued to affect her disposition and that she discussed the matter with Ayishah. The only thing he omits from thestory is the statement made by all the commentators who record it that the promise made byMuhammad was actually in the form of an oath. They add that Muhammad was later freedfrom this oath by a Qur'anic revelation:

O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee?

Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But rod is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. God has already

ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases); and God is your

Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. Surah 66.1-2.

Bukhari and others say that this verse refers to the incident where Muhammad was told thatthe honey he had eaten with Zaynab smelt like a bitter herb.One must take seriously the factthat the story about Muhammad's vow to avoid Mariyah's company in future is not recordedin the major Hadith and Sirat literature but only in later commentaries and is thereforefounded on weak historical authority. This has prompted a Muslim writer to say that thewhole story of Mariyah's intimacy with Muhammad in Hafsah's apartment on her day isabsolutely false and malicious and that it is repudiated by all the respectable commentators of the Koran (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 235).

On the other hand this story has come down purely through Islamic sources and could hardlyhave been widely accepted within the Islamic heritage if it had been invented. Unfortunatelythe Qur'an is somewhat vague at this point, saying only that the sanction to dissolve the oatharose out of the disclosure by one of Muhammad's wives to another of a matter of confidence(Surah 66.3) told by him to the first. This could refer to either story and, although Bukhariconfirms that the two wives spoken of were the provocative young consorts Hafsah andAyishah (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 408), this also does not help as it was these two whowere the participants in both cases. A Western writer, however, makes a very interestingobservation:

But the jealousy of Mary's Sisters showed itself in a more serious way, and led to an incident

in the Prophet's life which the biographers pass over in decent silence; and I should gladly

have followed their example if the Coran itself had not accredited the facts and stamped

them with unavoidable notoriety. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 413).

It is the Qur'an's treatment of the matter that makes it probable that the incident with Mariyahis really the one referred to. Firstly, if the oath spoken of was purely that relating to honey, itis hard to believe that such an issue would have been made of it in the Qur'an. One recentMuslim commentator notes the seriousness of the matter when he says "The sacred words



imply that the matter was of great importance as to the principle involved, but that the detailswere not of sufficient importance for permanent record" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.1569). The discreet omission of factual details in the Qur'anic passage, however, tends all themore to support the suggestion that a more sensitive matter was behind it.

Secondly, Surah 66.3 adds that Muhammad confirmed a part of the allegation made by the

spouse and repudiated a part. Again, details are significantly omitted, but it is probable thatMuhammad confirmed that he had been with Mariyah in Hafsah's apartment but deniedhaving intercourse with her. It is hard to see how the confirming and repudiating of parts of the charge can be made to fit the somewhat petty story about the honey Muhammad had eatenwith Zaynab.

Thirdly, the same verse states plainly that a matter purely between Muhammad and one of hiswives was disclosed to another. This is inconsistent with the honey story as Ayishah andHafsah were both well aware of the matter all along, having mutually conspired to misleadMuhammad. It does indeed seem that Surah 66.1-2 was a convenient revelation to enableMuhammad to break his vow not to go to Mariyah again. A Christian commentator says"From the Christian standpoint, he appears to have been guilty of breaking a solemn vow, and

that in order to gratify unholy passion" (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on theQur'an, Vol. 4, p. 158). The Bible gives a very solemn warning about the taking of oaths:

When you make a vow to the Lord your God you shall not be slack to pay it; for the Lord

your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you. But if you refrain from

vowing it shall be no sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what has passed your lips, for

you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.

Deuteronomy 23.21-23.

If God sanctions the breaking of a vow by one of his apostles, how can we be sure that hewill be faithful to his own promises? Vows and oaths are sacred things, but Surah 66.1-2

seems to undermine the whole purpose and value of oaths.

Shortly after this a timely revelation in the Qur'an gave Muhammad the right to abandon thefixed sequence he had followed with his wives up to this time:

Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleases, and thou mayest receive any

thou pleases: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set

aside. Surah 33.51

Ayishah had openly complained of her jealousy towards those women (who are not named)who had "offered themselves to Allah's Messenger" (S ahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 748) and who

gradually increased the size of the household as Muhammad under Qur'anic authority (Surah33.50), duly took them as his wives (presumably Ayishah had at least Zaynab bint Jahsh andJuwayriyah in mind). As her own days to exclusively enjoy Muhammad s company grewfurther apart, her frustration naturally increased and when Muhammad claimed divinesanction to follow any sequence he chose, his young wife Ayishah, with a tongue as sharp asher wit, exclaimed:

I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p.

295).



It appears that his decision worked in her favour for the renowned commentator Zamakshari,commenting on Surah 3.49-52, says of Muhammad that he used to put off five temporarily inorder to take four to himself, the four being Ayishah, Hafsah, Umm Salamah and Zaynab bintJahsh (Gatje, The Qur an and its Exegesis, p. 91). Despite this it is clear that Ayishah

possessed no small degree of envy for the other wives she had to share her husband with. Her caustic reaction to Muhammad's marriage with Juwayriyah has already been noted and, when

Mariyah at last gave Muhammad a son at Medina, Ayishah was anything but delighted. WhenMuhammad brought the infant Ibrahim to her and proudly boasted of the likeness betweenfather and son, she coldly answered "I do not see it". William Muir wryly says that she"would gladly have put Mahomet out of conceit with the little Ibrahim" (The Life of

Mahomet , p. 412).

4. Polygamy in Islam from a Christian Perspective.

One cannot help feeling that Ayishah's expressions of jealousy are perhaps the best judgmentthat can be passed on the whole defence that polygamy is justified where all the wives aretreated equally. She was the only virgin Muhammad married and, although most traditionssay that Muhammad married Sauda before her, she openly claimed that she was the first

betrothed to him after the death of Khadija. She said of Sauda (whom she held in highesteem):

"She was the first woman whom he (Allah's Apostle) married after me". (Sahih Muslim, Vol.

2, p. 748).

If this was indeed so, then we need to appreciate the growing frustrations of a young virgin- bride seeing her husband taking other wives along with her in what must have seemed to her like an interminable procession of new weddings, apartments and the like.

The Christian Scriptures plainly teach that a husband is to regard his wife as his equal

(Ephesians 5.33) and Jesus himself confirmed the divine decree that a man, married to hisone wife, becomes one flesh with her (Matthew 19.5). When God saw that Adam needed ahelpmeet he made but one woman for him, not four (or, worse still, nine). The point is thateach man is not called upon to treat his wives equally with one another but to treat his onewife as his own equal. An equal relationship between a man and a woman cannot be sharedwith others. The woman is called to devote herself with unreserved loyalty to her onehusband (Genesis 3.16). In the same manner the husband is called to an equal spirit of undivided love and devotion towards his one wife (Ephesians 5.25-31). It surely goes withoutsaying that the husband cannot love his wife with an equal devotion when he has to divide hisaffection among a host of consorts.

Ayishah's frustrations and jealousies are the best proof that Muhammad could not treat his

wives equally - if for no other reason that he did not regard her with the same total, undividedaffection that she regarded him. She may have been his favourite wife but her grievancesclearly were motivated, perhaps only sub-consciously, by the fact that she was not his only wife. Paradoxically, the fact that Muhammad singled her out as his favourite wife is further

proof that he did not treat his wives equally. There is more than enough evidence inMuhammad's own marital affairs to prove that polygamy cannot ultimately be reconciledwith God's perfect purpose for human marriage. It is no wonder that the perfect revelation of his will through the Gospel of his Son simultaneously outlawed polygamy. Muhammad hadenjoyed a twenty-five year marriage with Khadija which was, in all respects, unimpeachable.



Unfortunately the same cannot be said for his many marriages at Medina and one can onlysympathise with the young Ayishah who obviously regretted that she could not enjoy thesame undivided devotion from her husband that she willingly offered to him.

As said before, the Christian faith is the fullest revelation of God's perfect will for all men.Included in this revelation is a rejection of polygamy. As God made man to reflect his own

glory, so he made one woman for the first man to reflect the glory of that man (1 Corinthians11.7). Muhammad did well to preach and practice monotheism but he would have doneequally well to preach and practice monogamy. To this day Muslim writers are on thedefensive when seeking to justify polygamy. One says:

All the Prophets of the Old Testament, married more wives than one, which is proof that

polygamy is not inconsistent with the highest standard of spirituality. (Zafrulla Khan,


This argument falls down for reasons already given. The highest standard of spirituality wasnot revealed through the prophets in old covenant times but through the revelation of the new

covenant in all its perfections as introduced by one who likewise far excelled all the prophetsof old, Jesus Christ himself. Another writer is not quite as subtle in his apologetic for Muhammad - he says of the Zaynab affair Muhammad's violation was not one of a cosmiclaw but one of a social law, which is permissible to every great man (Haykal, The Life of

Muhammad , p. 288). This is indeed a peculiar line of reasoning and one which exposes thewriter's difficulty in justifying his Prophet's actions. Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived and his greatness did not give him the privilege of breaking God's laws but rather was

proved in his perfect conformity to those laws in every aspect of his life. A more appropriateassessment of Muhammad's actions follows:

The Qur'an teaches us that in one or two matters the moral law was relaxed by God for

Muhammad's benefit as a special privilege because of his being God's apostle and the

sanctity attaching to that high office! Could the divorce between Religion and Morality bemore complete? (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent , p. 81).

Far from the marriages of Muhammad being proof that he was the ideal husband (as Zain puts it), they rather are evidence of an inherent weakness in Islamic morality.

Once more the thing that disquiets is that this is the man who stands forth as the ultimate

ideal of humanity, and all the unedifying matters of Zainab, Miriam, Ayesha, Rihana, and the

rest are dignified as the signs of God's special favour to His prophet. In manipulations of the

marriage laws at which even sixteenth-century Popes of Rome drew the line, Allah showed

the most accomodating spirit in seventh-century Arabia. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p.

67).

Although monogamy has become the norm in many Muslim societies today, this trend is notto Islam's credit but is rather a sign of the consciousness of God's real will for men andwomen and the beat way in which a marriage can develop into a truly happy union. By takingto himself more than double the number of wives he allowed to his followers, Muhammadseems to have been something of a champion of polygamy rather than an advocate of monogamy and his tolerance of plural marriages, together with his schemes to rid himself of



his personal enemies, negate his claim to be a true prophet of God. A Christian assessment of his character leaves him far short of the ideal - an ideal worked out to perfection in JesusChrist - and the only conclusion to be drawn is that, despite his many qualities, he cannot beconsidered as the man God chose to be his best and final messenger to all mankind. Thathonour belongs to Jesus Christ alone.

The Nature of Muhammad's Prophetic Experience

A. AN-NABI UL-UMMI: THE UNLETTERED PR OPHET.

1. The Muslim Emphasis on Muhammad's Illiteracy.

An assessment of the nature of Muhammad's prophetic experience is a far more complex task than that of his personality. Before analysing the subject generally it seems appropriate tointroduce it with a brief study of an interesting description of his office in the Qur'an in theseverses:

Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their

own (Scriptures), - in the Law and the Gospel . . . so believe in God and his Apostle, the

unlettered Prophet. Surah 7.157, 158.

The title that concerns us is "the unlettered Prophet", which reads an-nabiyyal-ummi in theoriginal Arabic. To better understand Muhammad's concept of his own assumed prophethoodit is clear that we need to know what he meant by this expression, particularly as it has beenfairly widely interpreted. There can be no dispute about the word nabi which in both Hebrewand Arabic simply means prophet, but it is the qualifying adjective ummi that has led to suchvaried interpretations. In most English translations it is rendered unlettered, perhaps wisely

so, because this word can also yield various meanings.

Muslim writers usually allege that the word really means illiterate and that it substantiates theclaim that Muhammad could neither read nor write. In a note to his translation of Ibn Ishaq'sS irat Rasulullah, Guillaume says "Practically all Arab writers claim that he meant that hecould not read or write" (p. 252). The English convert to Islam M. M. Pickthall, in histranslation of the Qur'an, directly interprets the title and his text speaks of the Prophet whocan neither read nor write. Another translator, who attempts no English rendering of the wordummi in his work but leaves it in its original form, nevertheless says in a footnote meaningone who neither writes nor reads a writing (Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 351). Muchthe same is said by Muhammad Asad: 'unlettered' (ummi), i.e., unable to read and write,which also appears in a footnote in his commentary (The Message of the Qur'an, p. 226).

The reason for this fairly regular interpretation in Muslim writings is that Muhammad'salleged illiteracy is considered to be substantial evidence that the Qur'an must have beenrevealed to him from heaven. They ask how such an outstanding book could have beencomposed by one who could neither read nor write. It is not surprising therefore to find thatthey determinedly seek to interpret this somewhat ambiguous expression the unletteredProphet" in the way that will best suit their purposes. Like Muhammad himself they are verytouchy about any critical analysis of his prophetic claims and react very unfavourablytowards any non-Muslim writers who suggest an alternative interpretation. Another Muslim



translator, referring to Sale and Palmer who take the expression to imply illiteracy (Saleactually renders it "the illiterate Prophet" in his translation), describes them as "Christianwriters not altogether blinded by their hatred of Islam" (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur'an, p. 158).One can see how sensitive this issue has become for them as a result of their cherished

presuppositions.

There is no reason therefore why Mohammedans should emphasize the illiteracy of theProphet except to bolster up their theory of the Koran as a miracle. (Zwemer, "The 'Illiterate'

Prophet" - Could Mohammed Read and Write? The MuslimW orld , Vol. 11, p. 362).

It is by no means certain that Muhammad was illiterate but it is probable that he was and theQur'an does say of him that he neither recited nor transcribed a book beforehand, which doesseem to give support to the Muslim claim. Nevertheless, far from proving that he could nothave composed the Qur'an, it paradoxically tends to strengthen the suggestion that he did!The Qur'an has a number of garbled accounts of historical events, contains manyanachronisms, and often fails to distinguish between fact and myth (details will follow in thechapters on the sources of the Qur'an). These are all typical of the kind of errors we would

expect to find in the oracle of a man who, being illiterate, simply relied on what he heardfrom others and could not correct himself by careful study of the relevant written sources.

In all fairness, however, it must be said that those who interpret ummi to mean illiterateappear to be forcing a meaning into the word which it does not readily yield. It is obviouslyimportant that we should know what Muhammad's conception of his prophetic role was andthe best way to do this is to seek the best interpretation that can be gained from a study of theexpression in its context rather than by reading a preconceived, preferent meaning into it. Theword comes from the same root letters as ummah, a very common word in the Qur'an alreadyconsidered, meaning a people, community or nation, and Arberry significantly translates thewhole expression an-nabiyyal-ummi as "the Prophet of the common folk". The word ummah never simply means an illiterate community but it can well mean an uneducated community

and it appears to carry this meaning on one or two occasions in the Qur'an, though in aspecial context as we shall see. At this stage, however, it seems that the interpretation of theword "unlettered" to mean "illiterate" stretches its meaning too far and that without referenceto its context.

2. Did Muhammad Consider Himself a Gentile Prophet?

A common interpretation of the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi by Western scholars is "theGentile Prophet", meaning that Muhammad, acknowledging that the previous prophets wereall Jews, made a special claim to be an exceptional, non-Jewish prophet.

Rabbi Abraham Geiger, however, has clearly shown that the word rendered unlettered in

this verse really means "Gentile", as opposed to Jewish. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the

Qur'an, p. 131).

Another author says that ummi "is almost certainly intended to render the conception 'gentile'(roughly as held by the Jews)" (Watt, What is Islam? p. 76). Another writer says of the titlean-nabiyyal-ummi in Surah 7.157:



But the manner in which this expression is thrown into this verse and the next raises the

conjecture, which with us amounts to an opinion, that this appellation came originally from

the Jews, who used it in expressing their contempt for the Gentile prophet , the term Ummi

meaning Gentile in the technical sense. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the

Qur'an, Vol. 2, p. 237).

Yet another writer says much the same thing:

Postulating that prophecy was the exclusive privilege of Israel, they refused torecognise the claims of the omni, 'gentile' prophet. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and

Institutions, p. 28).

This interpretation also does not really seem to give the meaning of the word ummi. This timeit is placed against the background of the Judaeo-Christian dogma that all the true prophetswere of Israel's line (cf. Romans 9.4-5). It is extremely doubtful whether Muhammad ever saw himself in this context.On the other hand he speaks in the Qur'an of prophets sent tovarious tribes beforehand, such as the prophet Hud sent to the people of 'Ad (Surah 7.65) and

the prophet Salih sent to the people of Thamud (Surah 7.73). In both cases the Qur'an addsthat each of these prophets was akhahum, that is, a brother of the community to whom he wassent. Furthermore on more than one occasion the Qur'an says that a messenger was sent tokulli ummah, that is, "to every community" at one time or another (Surah 10.47, 16.36). Onemust therefore reject the suggestion that Muhammad saw himself as a unique, non-Jewish

prophet.

Another interesting and somewhat novel interpretation has been suggested by H. G. Reissner in an article in The Muslim World . He refers to the Talmudic distinction between true Jews,who followed Judaism wholeheartedly, and the Ben Israel who were the rural people of thenation and who were not overtly Jewish in their manners and customs. He goes on tocompare this distinction to the two expressions used in the Qur'an for the Israelite nation,

namely Yahudu, meaning Jews, and Banu Israil meaning the people of Israel. He suggeststhat, as the Qur'an often speaks unfavourably of the Yahudu but constantly refers to God'sfavour on the Banu Israil, Muhammad was adopting the Talmudic categories and was relatingthem to his own negative experiences with the rich merchants of Mecca and the more positiveresponses he received from the general masses of the common people. He theorises:

The ummiyyun in the Prophet's appraisal, consequently, seem to have assumed the

character rather of non-mercantile and non-intellectual people, nearer to, and better

capable of, a genuine understanding of the unadulterated message of the Lord . . .

Muhammad looked upon himself as theummi or "popular" prophet in a sense somewhat

similar to, but, of course, much more comprehensive in comparison with modern occidental

popular movements and fronts. The ummi prophet was to be the leader of the massesagainst privileged minorities of wealth and sophistication. (Reissner, "The Ummi Prophet and

the Banu Israil of the Qur'an", The MuslimW orld , Vol. 39, p. 277, 278).

The interpretation is very interesting and calls to mind a suggestion once made to me personally by a Muslim school-teacher that ummi meant "universal", meaning therefore thatMuhammad was a universal prophet for all peoples. Both these interpretations are consistentwith the meaning of the word ummah (a people) and rightly imply that Muhammad was, in a



sense, a people's prophet. Nevertheless neither seems to be derived from a careful study of the context of the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi in the Qur'an (so likewise the meaningsilliterate and Gentile). Reissner gets closer to the mark when he says:

Two Medinese Surahs of the Qur'an bear out that the Prophet was fully aware of the

cleavage between "those who have been given the Book and theummiyyun (Sura 3.19)".

(Reissner, "The Ummi Prophet and the Banu Israil of the Qur'an", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 39,

p. 279).

It is this very distinction between those who have a kitab, a scripture, and those who do not,the ummiyyun, which sets the context in which we must seek the real meaning of theexpression and we are now in a position to discover what it really is.

3. The Prophet of the People without a Scripture.

Throughout the Qur'an the Jews and Christians collectively are called Ahlal- K itab, meaning"People of the Scripture", and a cursory study of the contrast drawn in the Qur'an between

this group and the ummiyyun, the "unscriptured people", shows that the ummi prophet meansthe prophet of the people without a scripture, that is, one raised from among them and to givethem a book with sound religious education.

Noldeke shows that the word ummi is everywhere used in the Koran in apposition to Ahl ul-

kitab, that is the Possessors of the Sacred Scriptures; therefore it cannot signify one who

does not read and write; but (as we have seen from the Arabic authorities themselves) one

who did not possess or who had no access to former revelations. (Zwemer, "The 'Illiterate'

Prophet" - Could Mohammed Read and Write? The MuslimW orld , Vol. 11, p. 352).

One verse in the Qur'an very comprehensively shows that this is precisely the image

Muhammad had of himself as the an-nabiyyal-ummi:It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to

rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,

- although they had been, before, in manifest error. Surah 62.2

The unlettered Prophet clearly means one drawn from a people, hitherto uneducated in divinecounsels, to give them a scripture by which they may be purified of their ignorant ways and

be instructed in divine wisdom. Indeed the times before the coming of Islam among the Arabsare often referred to as Jahiliyya, that is times of ignorance reminiscent of Paul's descriptionof pre-Gospel times among the Gentiles (Acts 17.30). In the verse quoted above the Arabicword for the unlettered is once again al-ummiyyin and one Muslim commentator gets to the

heart of the matter when he says of them in a comment:

The Unlettered : as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People

of the Book. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1545).

The Qur'an constantly emphasises its Arabic state ( Innaa anzalnaahu Qur'aanaan arabiyyan - We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an - Surah 12.3) and this strengthens the view that



Muhammad constantly viewed himself as drawn from the hitherto ignorant Arab peoples to be their prophet and to make them a people of the scripture as well.

The emphasis can be taken as sustaining, if not indeed requiring, the conclusion that the

illiterate prophet of 7.157 and 158 means in fact the unlettered prophet, in the sense of a

prophet for those as yet without Scriptures. (Cragg, The Mind of the Qur'an, p. 17).

Another Muslim writer likewise refers to the view that Muhammad, as the ummi prophet, sawhimself as the prophet called out to raise his people to the level of those who had formerlyreceived the Scriptures:

The imam Jafer-e-Saduk reckons it a special favor of heaven that the prophet was untaught

by man, and says further that he was raised up among a people, who, although they had

letters, had no divine books, and were therefore called ummy. (Majlisi, The Life and Religion

of Muhammad , p. 87).

Another verse which brings out very clearly the deliberate distinction in the Qur'an between

the Ahlal K itab,the scriptured people, and the ummiyyun, the unscriptured people, is this one(already referred to by Reissner above):

And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: Do ye (also) submit

yourselves? Surah 3.20

In the original the relevant words are uwtul kitaaba wal ummiyyin , clearly the "scriptured"and the "unscriptured". In another verse we read of ummiyyuuna laa yaalamuunal kitaab,unlettered people in that they know not the Scripture (Surah 2.78). It is quite clear from acontextual study of the Qur'anic usage of the word ummi in its relevant forms that it does notmean "illiterate" or "Gentile" but rather "unscriptured". Richard Bell confirms this

conclusion:If the verse is carefully read, however, without a preconceived idea of its meaning, the most

natural way to take it is of people without written scriptures. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the

Qur'an, p. 34).

Although St. Clair-Tisdall, in the book already quoted, interprets ummi as Gentile, in another work he draws this same conclusion about the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi:

Muslims generally render this by "the unlettered Prophet" and say he could not read or

write. This, however, is hardly credible. A better rendering is "the Gentile Prophet", i. e., one

who did not belong to "the People of the Book", and was unacquainted with the scriptures

of the earlier prophets. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent , p. 150).

A well-known Orientalist seems to get right to the point when he says of the enigmatic littleword ummi:

The word is an adjective predicative of Muhammad's mission rather than descriptive of his

person. "The unlettered Prophet" is "the Prophet for the (as yet) unscriptured". There were

antecedent Scriptures and there were peoples whom these Scriptures had "made". Arabs



were not among them . . . "The Prophet of the Scriptureless" (an Arab, for Arabs, in Arabic

understood) seems, then, the sense, most adequate to what the Qur'an decisively is, of the

phrase an-nabi al-ummi . (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 59).

Muslims strongly claim that the title means that Muhammad was illiterate and presume thatthey are doing his prophetic claims a great service in doing so. As we have seen, thisinterpretation can be made to rebound very effectively on them. They seem to miss a similar impact clearly intended behind the correct interpretation of this expression. Muhammad'sargument is really that the Qur'an must be a revelation because it comes through an ummi

prophet, one who knew not any Scripture beforehand, and from a people who wereummiyyun, uninstructed in such matters. "When Muhammad is represented here as illiterate,what is being said is that he could not have acquired knowledge from earlier revealed books"(Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 270). One is reminded of an incident in Jesus' lifewhich seems to bring a very relevant focus on the argument implied in the title the Qur'angives to Muhammad. When Jesus stood up at the Feast of the Tabernacles and taught withgreat wisdom, the learned Jews exclaimed:

How is it that this man has learning when he has never studied? John 7.15

How did he "know his letters" when he was unlettered and had not been through the Jewishtheological schools? In a similar way this seems to be the thrust behind Muhammad's claimthat he, likewise, was an ummi prophet. The very context of the title in the Qur'an strengthensthis theory all the more. In Surah 7.157 Muhammad, claiming to be an ummi prophet, onehitherto unscriptured, yet charges that the scriptured folk will find him foretold in their ownScriptures, the Tawrat (the Law) and the Injil (the Gospel). Although not from a learned

people - learned in the Scripture, that is - he is nonetheless mentioned in the Scriptures. Incalling himself the ummi prophet at this very point, he obviously intends to give weight to his

prophetic claims by implying that it is a marvel that a prophet should appear, delivering aScripture with wisdom, learning and divine counsel, when he himself had never been so

instructed, rising as he did from the very ummiyyun he was now leading into the knowledgeof the great truths contained in all the revealed scriptures.

We have now identified the concept Muhammad had of his prophetic office and are thus ableto make a more balanced study of the subjective side of his prophetic experience.


B. MUHAMMAD'S CO NCEPT OF REVELATIO N.

1. The Early Visions and Experiences.

We have already examined the historical record of the manner in which the "revelation" cameto Muhammad at first and now proceed to analyse the character of Muhammad's religiousexperience in greater detail.

While there is something sudden and dramatic about the first revelations, it is important toconsider that Muhammad was not caught in his tracks, as it were, in the way that the ApostlePaul was confronted while journeying to Damascus to oppose the early Christian Church. For



some time it had been his custom to retire to a cave on Mount Hira outside Mecca for solitarycontemplation of the meaning of life and the pagan practices of his kinsmen.

According to the Muslim tradition, the calling occurred suddenly; however it is known that

Muhammad had occupied himself with religious questions for some time previously, either

consciously or unconsciously. (Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 5).

Muhammad was now approaching his fortieth year. Always pensive he had of late become even more thoughtful and retiring. Contemplation and reflection engaged hismind, and the moral debasement of his people pressed heavily on him. His soul was

perplexed with uncertainty as to what was the right path to follow. Thus burdened, hefrequently retired to seek relief in meditation amongst the solitary valleys and rocksnear Mecca. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: S eal of the Prophets , p. 23).

Right from the beginning one discovers much that is subjective in the development of hisconviction that he was called to be the messenger of his Lord. It is probable that the incidentat the Ka'aba a few years earlier, when he was singled out to replace the sacred black stone in

the house of Allah, had a profound effect on him and initiated the belief that he was markedout as the man to lead his people into the true worship of God. (Incidentally, whenMuhammad had all the stone idols in the Ka'aba destroyed after the city had capitulated tohim many years later, the black stone was spared and retained its ancient sanctity). It is hardto doubt, however, that the initial visions he received were genuine and real in one form or another. The Qur'an describes these manifestations in striking language:

For he appeared (in stately form) while he was in the highest part of the horizon; then he

approached and came closer, and was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;

So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant - (Conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.

The (Prophet's mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw. Will ye then dispute

with him concerning what he saw? For indeed he saw him at a second descent, near the

Lote-tree beyond which none may pass: near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-

tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!). (His) sight never swerved nor did it go wrongs!

For truly did he see of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Surah 53.6-18.

In another passage the Qur'an again states explicitly that Muhammad had a definite vision:"And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon" (Surah 81.23). Another verse statesclearly that the vision was given by Allah himself: "We granted the Vision which we showedthee" (Surah 17.60). The confident manner in which Muhammad claimed that he had had atleast two definite visions strongly suggests that he really did see a strange being on thehorizon. He described the second vision in these words:

"Once while I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and sawto my surprise, the same Angel as had visited me in the cave of Hira. He was sitting on a

chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, Wrap

me! Wrap me!" ( Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 452).

One of the early biographers of his life, Waqidi, was equally emphatic about these phenomena: "The first beginnings of Mahomet's inspiration were real visions. Every visionthat he saw was clear as the morning dawn" (quoted in Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 49).



What strengthens the suggestion that there was something very real, and not simplyhallucinatory or, still less, fictitious, about these visions is not only the confident nature of Muhammad's claim but also the fact that he carefully confined these visions to just two whichhe had at the beginning of his course (being the occasions when Surahs 96.1-5 and 74.1-7were revealed). If he had been a charlatan, he would probably have regularly embellished andincreased his visionary claims as he went along.

He describes the incidents in a way which clearly shows that the visions were strict

exceptions. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 50).

The main point of both visions is that Muhammad has actually seen the heavenlyfigure from whom the "inspiration" of his religious activity came, and the word nalaz,"descent" seems to imply that the figure had come down to earth. (Bell,"Muhammad's Visions", The Muslim World , Vol. 24, p. 150).

Bell adds "The fact that he went back after all, and reasserted in Surah lxxxi that he had seenthe messenger on the clear horizon, is I think an indication that something of the sort hadreally happened to him" (op. cit., p. 154). The second thing that tends to accredit these visionsis Muhammad's initial reaction to them. Instead of boldly asserting that he had seen an angelof God, he was considerably disturbed for some time and questioned whether the earlyrevelations were really coming from heaven.

We can only gather with certainty that there was a time (corresponding with the deductions

already drawn from the Coran itself) during which the mind of Mahomet hung in suspense,

and doubted the reality of a heavenly vision. (M~ir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 50).

The best proof of the reality of Mohammed's belief in the reality of the revelation, andof the completeness of his sincerity, is that he fell at the first into a state of doubtconcerning it. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 46).

This openly-expressed doubt about the source of the revelations strengthens all the more thesuggestion that Muhammad really did see these two visions which took him somewhat bysurprise. Nevertheless it is very interesting to find that Muhammad initially believed thatthese manifestations were probably demonic. A Muslim writer sets out his immediatereaction to them:

Naturally he was scared, and intimated to his wife, Khadija, the fear that he might even be

possessed by an evil spirit . . . Stricken with panic, Muhammad arose and asked himself,

"What did I see? Did possession of the devil which I feared all along come to pass?" . . .

When he calmed down, he cast toward his wife the glance of a man in need of rescue and

said, "O Khadijah, what has happened to me?" He told her of his experience and intimatedto her his fear that his mind had finally betrayed him, and that he was becoming a seer or a

man possessed. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. 73-75).

He feared that he had become a kahin (soothsayer) or, worse still, that he was majnun (possessed of a jinn, the Qur'anic name for a demon. The words both come from the sameroot letters and do not just mean that a person is mad, as is sometimes suggested, but actuallydemon-possessed).



That he was possessed by a Jinni - for him, with his beliefs, an evil spirit - was his first

thought, and only gradually did he come to the conviction that this was divine inspiration,

and not diabolical obsession. (MacDonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 33).

The Qur'an itself states that the Quraysh specifically charged that Muhammad was indeedmajnun - "a man possessed" (Surah 44.14 - in Surah 37.36 it is sha'irimmajnun, "a poet

possessed") and that a jinn had seized him (Surah 34.8). On many occasions Muhammad isconsoled in the Qur'an against such charges, for example: maa anta bini 'mati rabbika

bimajnun - "Thou art not, by the grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed" (Surah 68.2, cf. alsoSurah 81.22), and is cleared of the charge that he is seized with a jinn (Surah 7.184). Theseconstant declarations in the Qur'an that the revelations were not from diabolical sources yieldthe impression that Muhammad's fears in this respect were not confined just to the first twovisions he had.

From the assurances that he was not mad, nor prompted by jinn, it may perhaps be inferred

that he sometimes wondered if this was the case. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p.

23).

It has been customary in some Christian circles to claim that it was Satan himself whoappeared to Muhammad and that he "revealed" the whole Qur'an to him piecemeal over thelast twenty-three years of his life. Muslims naturally find this explanation intolerablyoffensive and, in our view, it is too simplistic to be summarily accepted. Nevertheless, havingconceded the reality of the visions, we are bound to ask what the real nature of the

phenomenon was. Muslims dogmatically claim that it was the angel Gabriel who came toMuhammad, yet the Qur'an only once refers to Jibril as the medium of the revelation (Surah2.97) while stating elsewhere that it came down with the Ruhul-Amin, the Faithful Spirit(Surah 26.193). The identification of Gabriel as the Qur'anic messenger is significantly onlymade in a very late passage of the Qur'an after Muhammad had had many dealings with Jewsand Christians. The very fact that Muhammad himself initially had feared that a demonic

figure had appeared to him and that he compared his experiences with those of the poets inArabia who were also believed to be possessed by jinn nonetheless gives considerablesupport to the suggestion that his visions were possibly occultic. It is also noteworthy that ittook his wife Khadija and cousin Waraqa to persuade him otherwise. Muhammad's ownuncertainty about the nature of his initial visions, and the fact that no later Qur'anic revelationwas accompanied by such manifestations, strengthen the view that while the visions mayhave been real, they could well have been occultic rather than heavenly in character. Nocertain judgment of the nature of these visions can sincerely be made by anyone who does notaccept the Muslim claim that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, and the questionwhether the Qur'an really had a divine origin can only be answered by a study of its contentsand sources rather than the nature of Muhammad's prophetic experiences. Our conclusion,therefore, must be left until we treat this subject later in this book.

2. The Exoteric Character of the Revelations.

Although the visions ceased, it is recorded that the revelations of Qur'anic passages wereinvariably attested by outward, physical phenomena. Ayishah reported:

Verily, al-Harith Ibn Hisham said: OApostle of Allah! how does revelation dawn upon you?

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Sometimes it dawns upon me in the form of



the ringing of a bell, and that is very hard on me; (ultimately) it ceases and I remember what

is said. Sometimes the angel appears to me and speaks and I recollect what he says. Ayishah

said: I witnessed the revelation dawning upon him on an extremely cold day; when it ceased,

I noticed that his forehead was perspiring. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 1, p.

228).

The other major traditions all say that the angel, when it appeared to Muhammad, did so inhuman form, though in the Qur'an we have already seen how strongly Muhammad claimed tohave seen the angel only on the two specific occasions it mentions and the testimony of theQur'an is more reliable than that of the Hadith. Another tradition says:

Ubada b. Samit reported that when wahi descended upon Allah's Apostle (may peace be

upon him), he felt a burden on that account and the colour of his face underwent a change.

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1248).

In another work we read that one of Muhammad's companions witnessed one of theseoccasions and reported that "The Prophet's face was red and he kept on breathing heavily for

a while and then he was relieved" (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 476). To Muslims thesemanifestations confirm the claim that Muhammad was receiving divine revelations, whereasmany others have charged that he suffered from fits of epilepsy and that these were mistakenfor prophetic phenomena. Muslim writers set out to refute this suggestion by variousarguments. Under the heading "The Slander of Epilepsy", one says:

To represent the phenomenon of Muhammad's revelations in these terms is, from the

standpoint of scientific research, the gravest nonsense. The fit of epilepsy leaves the patient

utterly without memory of what has taken place. In fact, the patient completely forgets that

period of his life and can recollect nothing that has happened to him in the meantime

because the processes of sensing and thinking come to a complete stop during the fit.

(Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. lxxii).

It is indeed true that epilepsy, as a simple disease, reduces the faculties of its victim and henot only forgets what happened to him but, even during the fit, does not know what he isdoing. Another writer says:

The question may well be asked: Has epilepsy - this sad and debilitating disease - ever

enabled its victim to become a prophet or a law-giver, or rise to a position of the highest

esteem and power? (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 12).

Another favourite argument is that the phenomenon only occurred when Muhammad was

receiving the revelations:

To begin with, this condition begins only when Muhammad's Prophetic career starts at

about the age of forty, there being no trace of it in his earlier life. Secondly, tradition makes

it clear that this condition recurred only with a revelatory experience and never occurred

independently. (Rahman, Islam, p. 13).



Rahman's first point is not well-founded. Early biographers state that Muhammad had strangeexperiences while he was being cared for by his wet-nurse, Halima. On one occasion he felldown in a kind of stroke and when he finally stood up his face was quite livid. Ibn Ishaqstates that two men clothed in white had seized him and opened his chest.

It was probably a fit of epilepsy; but Moslem legend has invested it with so many marvellous

features as makes it difficult to discover the real facts. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 6).

The myth around the story is that two angels took out his heart, cleansed it of impurity, andreplaced it in his body! It is doubtful whether the Christian Apostle had such a thing in mindwhen he said "purify your hearts" (James 4.8). Other traditions say the cleansing andremoving of Muhammad's heart happened just before the mi'raj. When the story is stripped of its fanciful features, one is left with a record of psychic experiences occurring duringMuhammad's youth.

When approaching his fifth year, he appears to have become subject to certain epileptic fits,

which alarmed his foster-parents, as such attacks were attributed to the influence of evil

spirits, and made them resolve to rid themselves of their charge. (Stobart, Islam and itsFounder , p. 47).

That the foster-parents feared that he was possessed of a demon is confirmed in Ibn Ishaq'snarrative and the clear evidence that Muhammad was subject to such attacks even in hisyouth does imply that the later phenomena were not entirely unusual. Nevertheless the twomain arguments that epilepsy adversely affects its victims and that Muhammad's experienceswere always accompanied by revelations do seem to refute the suggestion that his later effects were caused by natural epileptic fits (presuming, of course, that they did alwayscoincide with the revelations. The truth may well have been adjusted to suit the theory).

It is not our purpose to pass judgment on these physical phenomena, but it should be pointed

out that men can be subjected to a different type of seizure which very closely resemblesepilepsy. During the life of Jesus a young boy was brought to him who was "an epileptic"(Matthew 17.15) and who suffered extreme forms of epilepsy (he would suddenly fall down,

be convulsed. and be unable to speak). There is no doubt, however, that this epilepsy was notnaturally but demonically induced as all three records of the incident (in Matthew 17, Mark 9and Luke 9) state that Jesus exorcised the unclean spirit in the child and healed the boy.Without passing judgment on Muhammad, let it nevertheless be said that anyone subject tooccultic influences could well find that seizures similar to epileptic fits would occur atappropriate times and, instead of causing a loss of memory, would have just the oppositeeffect and leave firmly induced impressions on the recipient's mind. Throughout the worldmissionaries have related cases of precisely this nature. To this day such phenomena are notuncommon among oriental ecstatics and mystics and they are widely reported.

Once again, no judgment is offered of Muhammad's experiences, but the point here madeagain tends to support Muhammad's initial fears that he was possessed of a jinn. It shouldalso be said that we do not believe that Muhammad was crudely demon-possessed in the formthat some unfortunately are. It is nevertheless true that "even Satan disguises himself as anangel of light" (2 Corinthians 11.15) and it is our opinion, though not our judgment, that thevisions and physical experiences that Muhammad had may well have been induced byoccultic forces to confirm his confidence that he had been divinely commissioned, whereas



the religion and book he left as a legacy to millions of men and women have jointly becomeremarkable stumbling-blocks to the acceptance of the one true revelation of God for this ageas found in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

3. The Esoteric Nature of Muhammad's Experiences.

Until recently Muslim writers and theologians had made no attempt to analyse the subjectiveside of Muhammad's prophetic experiences.

The prophet was purely passive - indeed unconscious: the Book was in no sense his, neither

its thought, nor language, nor style: all was of God, and the Prophet was merely a recording

pen. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 158).

Therefore it has always been presumed that the Qur'an was mechanically dictated to him andthat he was merely the instrument of the revelation. Anyone wishing to know aboutMuhammad's personality should therefore look into the Hadith, the traditions of his life andteachings. Yet, while much of the Hadith sheds valuable light on Muhammad, much of it is

unreliable in that it has either been marvellously embellished or quite simply invented. TheQur'an is the one sure, faithful record of Muhammad's life, however vague it may be at timesabout the details of the incidents it refers to. One cannot help feeling that the Muslim world,in denying that the text of the Qur'an has anything to do with Muhammad's own experienceand the conscious development of his prophetic concept, is really missing so much of the truecharacter of the man.

The Biblical writing-prophets and apostles not only record divine truths but, in doing so, giveexpression to the manner in which these truths moulded and enlightened their owndeveloping spiritual perceptiveness. In this way the realisation of the counsels of God in thehuman experience are best recorded for the tuition of the human race. If the Qur'an was

purely a dictation, entirely independent of Muhammad's own personal consciousness, it

cannot bridge the gap between the character of the divine nature on the one hand and thehuman spirit and experience on the other. Yet an open reading of the book leaves one withthe firm impression that it conveys as much of the growing prophetic consciousness of itsmediator as of anything else.

In place of a crystallised man who passes through life without suffering the least

modification, Mohammed, as we conclude from the Koran, passed through innumerable

metamorphoses, developing almost from day to day in view of the stern exigencies of the

struggle for existence and the unforseen incidents of a highly agitated life. Mohammed

passed through great moral transformations, and died, after a tempestuous career of more

than a quarter of a century, a man profoundly different from the one who set out on the

grand struggle. (Caetani, "The Development of Mohammed's Personality",The MuslimW orld , Vol. 4, p. 354).

We see the warner of the Arabs rise to the status of the universal messenger of God for allmankind, one who first considered such matters as the Day of Judgment, the worship of theone true God, and the destiny of all men to heaven or hell as of supreme importance, later considering his own domestic affairs and personal problems to be of equal weight, givingthem much prominence in the later passages of the Qur'an.



His position can appropriately be described as an "altered state of consciousness". (Fry and

King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p. 62).

In no way do we suggest that he consciously and deliberately composed the Qur'an - hegenuinely believed that the passages were being revealed to him, yet they clearly foundexpression in his consciousness rather than in his ears. Therefore, while distinguishing

between the thoughts of his own mind and the Qur'anic revelations, Muhammad neverthelessdid personally enter into the latter and allowed them to give shape to his own developing

prophetic consciousness. The common Qur'anic word for revelation is wahy and the Qur'anicrevelation itself is described in these words:

It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him. Surah 53.4

This translation is not strictly correct. The common word for sending down in the Qur'an isnazzala in its various forms, but in this verse the words are In huwa illa wahyuyyuwha,meaning literally, "it is nothing but an inspiration inspired", a wahy, which is awha toMuhammad (the words are from the same root letters and are simply the forms of the noun

and verb respectively). The word has interesting meanings when considered in its contexts inthe Qur'an.

Nor does the word awha, used in v.4, necessarily imply the communication of the words of

the Qur'an. The later developed Muslim dogmatic takes wahy to be the highest form of

inspiration, and to consist in the communication of the actual words of the revelation to the

prophet by an angel intermediary. But as used in the Qur'an itself, the wordswahy, awha by

no means always or even generally have that sense. Usually some such word as suggest,

prompt, put into the heart of, is a better translation than reveal. (Bell, "Muhammad's

Visions", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 24, p. 146).

Bell continues by pointing out how the word is so used in the Qur'an. In Surah 16.68 it is said"And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations".The word for "taught" is again awha, meaning that the impulse so to build is "suggested" tothe instinctive tendencies of the bee. It cannot be said that God revealed this mechanically tothe bee by way of direct verbal revelation. So again:

Even when the agent of wahy is Allah, and the recipient a messenger or prophet, what is

communicated is not the words of a revelation, but, as in most of the instances already

given, a practical line of conduct, something to do, not to say. It is "suggested" to Noah to

build the ark, and he is to build it under Allah's eyes, and at His "suggestion" or "prompting",

xi.39, xxiii.27. (Bell, "Muhammad's Visions", op. cit., p. 147).

Bell duly concludes "We are justified therefore in concluding that, at any rate in the early portions of the Qur'an, wahy does not mean the verbal communication of the text of arevelation, but is a "suggestion", "prompting" or "inspiration" coming into a person's mindapparently from outside himself" (op. cit., p. 148). Another writer likewise says:

The noun wahy and the verb awha occur frequently in the Qur'an in the contexts where the

sense of 'reveal by direct communication' is inappropriate. (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, p.

55).



Only in recent times have some bolder Muslims ventured into the subjective side of Muhammad's experiences. While the following summary may not be symbolical of orthodoxteaching, it appears to be a far truer assessment of Muhammad's own concept of therevelation:

The Qur'an is thus pure Divine Word, but, of course, it is equally intimately related to the

inmost personality of the Prophet Muhammad whose relationship to it cannot be

mechanically conceived like that of a record. The Divine Word flowed through the Prophet's

heart. (Rahman, Islam, p. 33).

It therefore seems that, while Muslim dogmatics have always claimed that a mechanicaldictation of the Qur'an was made to Muhammad, the truth is that the book is very much the

product of the experience Muhammad himself had of his developing prophetic character andthat the passages are codifications in his own words of the striking perceptions heexperienced which he believed were being directly suggested to him from external sources,coupled as they were with his regular side-effects.

It is not our view that God was the author of the Qur'an but at the same time we do not believe that it was fraudulently composed by Muhammad consciously as its author. A studyof its sources will confirm that this statement is true in one sense: "That Mohammed wasreally the author and chief contriver of the Koran is beyond dispute" (Sale, The Preliminary

Discourse to the K oran, p. 68). Nevertheless it is not true to say that Muhammad deliberatelyforged the book as a revelation and, as a pious impostor, consciously attributed it to Allah.His subjective sincerity forbids such a conclusion.

The chief question for us is whether or not Muhammad believed in the message himself. All

his life he maintained that he had got his message from God, and I do not think that there

can be any doubt that in the beginning of his activities at any rate he believed fully and

firmly in his mission. (Hammershaimb, "The Religious and Political Development of

Muhammad", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 39, p. 196).

That Mohammed acted in good faith can hardly be disputed by anyone who knows the psychology of inspiration. That the message which he proclaimed did not come fromhimself, from his own ideas and opinions, is not only a tenet of his faith, but also anexperience whose reality he never questioned. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his

Faith, p. 47).

These matters can only be satisfactorily explained and understood on the assumptionthat Muhammad was sincere, that is, that he genuinely believed that what we nowknow as the Qur'an was not the product of his own mind, but came to him from God

and was true. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 325).

There is no concession to Islam in these statements. Watt rightly adds: "To say thatMuhammad was sincere does not imply acceptance of the Qur'an as a genuine revelationfrom God; a man may without contradiction hold that Muhammad truly believed that he wasreceiving revelations from God but that he was mistaken in this belief" (op. cit.). Another writer puts the matter well when he says:



If we say that such 'revelations' were believed by Mahomet sincerely to bear the divine

sanction, it can only be in a modified and peculiar sense. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p.

504).

We can conclude by saying that our Christian sense of honesty and fairness demands that wegive credit where credit is due and that we allow Muhammad a considerable degree of

personal sincerity in his subjective confidence that the Qur'an was a revelation from Godhimself. Nevertheless we find that the actual process of the revelation was equally subjectiveand characterised in good measure by Muhammad's own personal temperament. The finalform it takes tells us as much about his own personality as it does about anything else and ananalysis of the development of the Qur'anic text will show ultimately just how much thefinished product bears the mark of its human mediator rather than its alleged divine author.(A study of its origins and sources, which follows, will prove conclusively that Muhammadwas the real author of the book, notwithstanding his sincerity).

4. The Development of the Qur'anic Revelation.

Mohammed undoubtedly spoke the real truth when he stated that he had never dared todream that such an honour would come to him. "Thou didst never expect that the Book

would be given thee. Of thy Lord's mercy only hath it been sent down" (28,86) . . .

Consequently, the revelation was for him an absolute miracle, an unexpected and

inexplicable act of Allah's mercy. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 69).

So persuaded was Muhammad that the "suggestions" he was constantly receiving were fromGod that he openly claimed that, although he could perform no signs and wonders as other

prophets had done, the Qur'an itself was a miracle, a true mu'jizah. The word is only appliedto the miracles of prophets and has the root meaning making weak, implying that such a signweakens the opposition of the prophet's opponents and enemies. The miracles of others, suchas saints, are called karamat . Nevertheless it should be noted that neither word appears in theQur'an which always uses the word ayat , signs, for miracles (and also speaks of the bayyinat ,evidences of Jesus, in Surah 5.113).

It was the one miracle claimed by Mohammed - his "standing miracle" he called it; and a

miracle indeed it is. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 343).

The writer, a strong defender of Muhammad, merely echoes the conviction of the Muslimsthroughout the ages. A study of certain aspects of its development, however, shows not onlyhow much the mind of Muhammad is impressed on the book, but equally how he, perhapssub-consciously, moulded its form and content. Firstly, it happened occasionally thatMuhammad's close companion Umar would venture to give him some advice on a subject

and, very soon afterwards, the same advice suddenly became part of the revelation. IbnMerdawiyya used to say:

"Umar used to have an opinion on a certain subject and lo! a Qur'anic revelation came down

in accordance with the same". (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 17).

To this day within the Ka'aba precincts there is a spot called maqami-Ibrahim, the station of Abraham, where every Muslim should pray at least once during the pilgrimage. It is said thatUmar and Muhammad were walking around the Ka'aba when Muhammad suddenly stopped



and said, "this is the place where Abraham prayed after building the Ka'aba". Umar thensuggested, "should we not take it ourselves as a place for prayer?" Muhammad answered thatnothing like this had been revealed to him but, lo and behold, that very night this verse cameto him:

And take ye the Station of Abraham as a place of prayer. Surah 2.125

One of the major authors of Hadith literature gives the following tradition with reference tothis verse and other similar occasions where Umar's advices promptly became part of thedeveloping revelation:

Narrated Anas: "Umar said, 'I agreed with Allah in three things', or said, 'My Lord agreed

with me in three things. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Would that you took the station of

Abraham as a place of prayer". I also said, "OAllah's Apostle! Good and bad persons visit

you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils ".

So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know

that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, "You

should either stop (troubling the Prophet) or else Allah will give his Apostle better wivesthan you". When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, "O Umarl Does Allah's Apostle

not have what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?" Thereupon Allah

revealed: "It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives

better than you muslims (who submit to Allah) . . ." (66.5)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 11-

12).

One cannot help being struck by the words "My Lord agreed with me in three things". Thestriking feature of all these incidents is not only the fact that Allah gave the same advice toMuhammad that Umar had given, but also that he always gave it just after Umar in each case.The coincidences are found not only in the content of the revelations but also in the timing of

their disclosure! It seems that Umar's advices struck Muhammad as particularly sound and, inhis own subjective way, he allowed them to be formed in his mind in the form which all theother "revelations" were coming to him and correspondingly declared them to be such.

There is yet another occasion recorded where the advice of Umar was once again promptlymatched by a similar revelation containing very much the same advice that he had given:

Omar records in perfectly good faith how when the Prophet went to say prayers over the

dead Hypocrite Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, he remonstrated with the Prophet for paying such

honours to his enemy; not without astonishment at his own boldness in thus criticising the

conduct of the messenger of God. But shortly after the Prophet produced a revelation "Pray

not thou over any of them who dies at any time, neither stand thou upon his grave ". ToOmar the coincidence did not apparently suggest the remotest suspicion; to us the

revelation appears to have been nothing more than a formal adoption of a suggestion of

Omar, which the Prophet supposed to represent public opinion. (Margoliouth,Mohammed

and the Rise of Islam, p. 218).

These incidents all very strongly support the contention that the Qur'anic text is, in so manyways, an expression of the mind of Muhammad rather than the dictated words of Allah.



Secondly, Muhammad's experiences and the concept he had of his own prophethood areremarkably paralleled in the case of Mani, the celebrated false prophet who at one timeobtained so much influence in Persia (Tisdall, The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 184).

Explicitly, however, Mani had claimed that he was the last in the succession of messengers

from God, so that in the Arabic sources it is recorded that his followers called him "the Seal

of the Prophets". As such Mani had issued his own Scriptures and had set forth a "new law"

for his community. This is what Muhammad does. (Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 79).

Mani also believed that someone was crucified by the Jews in place of Jesus which is also theteaching of the Qur'an (Surah 4.157). Significantly he also claimed to be the Comforter

promised by Jesus - a claim made universally by Muslims today on behalf of Muhammad in pursuance of the Qur'anic claim that Muhammad's advent was predicted by Jesus (Surah7.157, 61.6).

On the other hand, however, it is affirmed that Mani gave himself out as an apostle of Christ,

of his very nature, as the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom Jesus had promised, and as Christ

himself. (Andrae, Mohommed: The Man and his Faith, p. 104).

Muhammad was not the first to appeal to these verses as a prophecy of himself. It iswell known that Mani, or Manes, renowned in Persian fable as a wonderful painter,made the same claim to be the "person" referred to by Christ. Only Mani distinctlyclaimed to be the "Paraclete", probably (like Muhammad) in order to win over ill-informed Christians to his side. (Tisdall, The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 191).

Like Muhammad Mani also claimed that messengers had been sent to every nation. Onecannot help again concluding that the claims of this man had reached Muhammad's ears andthat they too were absorbed into his own unique thought-process as applying to himself andthus soon became a part of the revelation as well.

The yearly influx of pilgrims from distant parts made Mecca a receptacle for all kinds of

floating knowledge, which he appears to have imbibed with eagerness and retained in a

tenacious memory. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet , p. 23).

The third aspect of the development of the Qur'anic revelation that strikes us is the manner inwhich very convenient passages were revealed to Muhammad at opportune times. We havealready considered a number of these, namely the justification of his marriage with Zaynaband the freedom to absolve himself from an oath and to take whichever wife he chose at anytime without following the strict order he had previously observed. The timely Qur'anicsanction of the Nakhlah raid during a month in which fighting was prohibited is another

typical example.

For whenever anything happened which perplexed and gravelled Mohammed, and which he

could not otherwise get over, he had constant recourse to a new revelation, as an infallible

expedient in all cases; and he found the success of this method answer his expectation.

(Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the K oran, p. 68).



His revelations, henceforth, are so opportune and fitted to particular emergencies, thatwe are led to doubt his sincerity, and that he is any longer under the same delusionconcerning them. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet , p. 237).

We must nevertheless allow for the fact that, while the Qur'an is believed to be the uncreatedWord of Allah, Muhammad did obviously believe that it was "applicable to the changing

circumstances of his own situation" (Jeffery, The Qur'an as S cripture, p. 80), and that, in avery special way, the revelations were not only intended to cover the spectrum of history anddestiny to come but also the developing experience of his own prophethood. So the Qur'anhas many passages where deliberate guidance is given for particular events in Muhammad'slife and comments are made on battles, etc. which had just taken place. These particular

passages became known as al-asbabun-nuzul , occasions of revelation, and no exception can be taken to the nature of the majority of these passages. (The prophets and apostles of oldfrequent! received divine guidance for immediate situations. The messages given in suchspecific cases were to be distinguished from more general revelations. In the New Testament,the Greek word rhema is usually used for the former and logos for the latter). On the other hand, as in the examples we have quoted, we cannot help but see how expedientlyMuhammad produced revelations to help him get over awkward situations whenever these

arose. The tenet that appropriate revelations could come to deal with contemporary events inMuhammad's life is fair in principle, but it gave scope for the release of convenient passages

justifying his actions when these could not be excused in any other way.

The doctrine offered the temptation to suit his revelations to the varying necessities of the

hour. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 70).

The study of Muhammad's prophetic experience and his concept of prophethood is a complexone, nonetheless it consistently produces the impression that much of the Qur'anic text is areflection of his own personality. His image is so stamped on the whole unfoldingdevelopment of the revelation that we must conclude that, while he believed the book was

made known to him from above, it really is an expression of his own experiences andthoughts. One writer says:

On one occasion after the death of Muhammad when his favourite wife Aishah was asked

what he was like, she replied: 'His nature was as the Qur'an'. This must be taken to mean

that from her intense and intimate experience of the Prophet she formed the impression

that he was an incarnation of the revealed Book. (Lings,W hat is Sufism? p. 33).

The marked relationship between Muhammad and the Qur'an tends rather to suggest that the book is the product of his own contemplations and an expression of the developing perceptions of his mind. The dogma that the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad without his personality being involved in any way far too simplistically overlooks the obvious connection between the two. It does seem to be a valid assumption that the Qur'an is, in a very real way,Muhammad's own book and one which ultimately tells us more of his complex personalityand convictions than any other record we have of his remarkable life and assumed propheticcourse.

At the same time it is noteworthy that the unique character of his concept of revelation isfound in the style and nature of the Qur'an itself. To Muhammad, the prophet is merely aninstrument to whom the revelation comes in a book form, and God himself is always the



author of the book and every verse in it, even though these may finally be expressed in the prophet's own words after he had assimilated the thrust of the messages being suggested tohim.

This particular attitude led perforce to the precept that all the prophets had been called andinspired in the same way. In the Qur'an we find each of them recast in the Muhammadan

mould - a book is revealed to them in which God is always the author. The Injil , the Gospel,is a book revealed to Jesus in which God is the author. So likewise the Tawrat to Moses andthe Zabur to David. While Muhammad 'a prophetic consciousness may possess an unusualcharacter when viewed in the light of the Biblical concept of revelation, the Qur'an deftlyremoves the contrast by superimposing his concept upon the whole course of prophetichistory.

The striking feature of the Biblical prophetic essence that we find lacking in the Qur'an is the principle that the prophets were not only commissioned to call men to the good but also to pave the way for the coming Messiah, the Redeemer of the world, whose advent theyregularly foretold. Here is the real heart of the difference between the two concepts - and onewhich unfortunately works to the detriment of Islam and its assessment of the prophetic

office.


C. SATAN'S INTERJECTIO N AND ITS IMPLICATIO NS.

1. A Compromise in Muhammad's Ministry.

Widely reported in the early S irat literature (see the section on Hadith for a discussion of theS irat and Hadith literature) is a story of an unusual compromise made by Muhammadsometime after the first emigration to Abyssinia. One account of this compromise reads:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had seen his people departing from him. He was

one day sitting alone when he expressed a desire: I wish, Allah had not revealed to me

anything distasteful to them. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, approached

them (Quraysh) and got close to them, and they also came near to him. One day he was

sitting in their assembly near the Katbah and he recited: "By the Star when it setteth"

(Qur'an 53.1), till he reached "Have ye thought upon Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the

other?" (Qur'an 53.19-20). Satan made him repeat these two phrases: These idols are high

and their intercession is expected. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, repeated them,

and he went on reciting the whole surah and then fell in prostration, and the people also fellin prostration with him. Al-Walid Ibn al-Mughirah, who was an old man and could not

prostrate, took a handful of dust to his forehead and prostrated on it . . . They were pleased

with what the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had uttered. They said: We know that

Allah gives life and causes death. He creates and gives us provisions, but our deities will

intercede with Him, and in what you have assigned to them, we are with you. These words

pricked the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. He was sitting in his house and when it

was evening, Gabriel, may peace be upon him, came to him and revised the surah. Then



Gabriel said: Did I bring these two phrases? The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I

ascribed to Allah what he had not said. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab at-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 1, p. 237).

There is no record of such a thing happening at any other time during Muhammad's life andyet it was recorded by all four of the early biographers, namely Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi andIbn Sa'd. Today the only surviving edition of Ibn Ishaq's work, the S irat Rasulullah, which

has come down in the form of a reclension by Ibn Hisham, does not include this incident.There is concrete evidence, however, that it was originally a part of the work and Tabari

plainly stated that he got his record from him via Salama. An analysis of this issue will follow but at this point it will be useful to repeat the original record in Tabari's work which has now been reinstated in Ibn Ishaq's S irat by the English translator of his work, Alfred Guillaume.

When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on him and he was pained by their

estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed that there should come to

him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his

people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so

difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was

dear to him. Then God sent down "By the Star when it sets your comrade errs not and is notdeceived, he speaks not from his own desire", and when he reached His words "Have you

thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other", Satan, when he was

meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it (se. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his

tongue these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved'.' When Quraysh

heard that they were delighted and greatly pressed at the way in which he spoke of their

gods and they listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet

brought them from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip.

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 165).

The Arabic word gharaniq refers to certain cranes which fly at a great height. The paganMeccans, impressed by the splendour of these birds, therefore described their goddesses byan analogous reference to them. When Muhammad quoted the very words used by theMeccans to exalt their goddesses, they said to one another "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in excellent fashion" (Ibn Ishaq, S irat Rasulullah, p. 166). Then, however, the narrativealso records the visit by Gabriel to Muhammad that night in which he denied revealing thesewords to him while he was at the Ka'aba.

Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, "What have you done, Muhammad? You have

read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what he did

not say to you". (Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 166).

In both of the works quoted it is stated that it was Satan who interjected while Muhammadwas reciting Surah 53 and that he had "suggested" the Meccan expression of praise to the

pagan goddesses to Muhammad. Accordingly "God annulled what Satan had suggested" (op.cit., p. 166), and the following denunciation of these idols was substituted for it:

Have ye seen Lat and Uzza and another, the third (goddess), Manat? What! For you the male

sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! These

are nothing but names which ye have devised. Surah 53.19-23.



The story is quite striking, particularly as it is out of character with the one sustained cause of conflict between Muhammad and his people, namely his otherwise unwavering proclamationof the unity of God and the rejection of their goddesses and idols. Nonetheless, whereas thestory is widely discounted in Islam for obvious reasons, it is generally credited in Westernwritings. Its wide circulation in the early biographies and the sudden return of those who fledto Abyssinia (Ibn Sa'd states that they returned purely because they heard of the prostration of

the pagan Meccans with Muhammad - K itab at-Tabaqat al- K abir , Vol. 1, p. 238), appear toargue strongly for its authenticity.

Pious Mussulmans of after days, scandalised at the lapse of their Prophet into so flagrant a

concession, would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be thus

summarily dismissed. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not in some shape or

other founded in truth, could ever have been invented. The stubborn fact remains, and is by

all admitted, that the first refugees did return about this time from Abyssinia; and that they

returned in consequence of a rumour that Mecca was converted. To this fact the narrative

affords the only intelligible clue. (Muir, The life of Mahomet , p. 80).

It is important to keep in mind that this story is not a calumny from without, but areport embedded in Muslim Tradition itself. Its content requires us to hold that, beingso apparently compromising, it could not have been fabricated. (Cragg, The E vent of

the Qur'an, p. 142).

The story is not found in all its details in the later Hadith collections but it does appear to beconfirmed in this brief tradition in Bukhari's S ahih, regarded universally by Muslims as themost authentic work of Hadith and as second only to the Qur'an in reliability:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat-

an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with

him. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 363).

"Surat-an-Najm" is the same Surah 53 which Muhammad was reciting according to thenarratives we have quoted. What else could have prompted all present, both Muslims and

pagans, to prostrate behind Muhammad but the concession made to the Meccan goddesses?One can understand the Muslims following any lead Muhammad gave (see the quote fromIbn Ishaq) but it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that the pagan Meccans would have

joined Muhammad in worship at the end of the Surah if he had quoted it as it now stands withsuch a vehement denunciation of these same goddesses by name. The story does appear tohave a compelling historical foundation.

2. Modern Muslim Reactions to the Story.

The story itself reflects so poorly on Muhammad and strikes so deeply at the heart of Muslimsentiments about his integrity that it is not surprising to find that modern Muslim writersreject it vehemently. One gives a defence of his prophet in these words:

In fact this chapter (No. liii) which describes Muhammad's Miraj which took place about the

end of the tenth year of his mission had not been revealed when the first emigrant returned

from Abyssinia. For the man who had declared that he would not give up his work for any



kingdom on earth to have made any concession in the conception of Godhead s an

unthinkable idea and against the whole tenor of the Qur'an. (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy

Prophet , p. 99).

The second argument is, we do believe, a very considerable one for the narrative indeedclashes with the otherwise uninterrupted proclamation of the unity of God and denunciationof idols by Muhammad. This is, however, an argument that rests on principles of consistencyrather than historical evidences or cogent proofs. The other argument is weak in that there isno concrete proof that the first part of Surah 53 refers to the mi'raj which followed theemigration to Abyssinia. As shown already, it almost certainly refers to one of Muhammad'sinitial visions, limited by the Qur'an itself to the two he had when his ministry began.Unfortunately one finds that virtually all Muslim arguments of a factual nature against thisstory are equally weak. Another writer credits the story but argues that one of the paganMeccans near Muhammad made the exclamation in favour of the idols when Muhammadreached the words "Have ye seen Lat and Uzza and another, the third (goddess), Manat?"(Surah 53.19). He concludes: "This is the version given by Muslim historians andtraditionists" (Ali, The S pirit of Islam, p. 34). This is a patently inaccurate statement. The

quotes given from Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishaq clearly show that Muhammad himself spoke thewords and both record how the lapse came as a result of his own desire to reconcile hismessage with the sentiments of his kinsmen.

Another writer states: "Tabari, the most authoritative biographer of the Holy Prophet, makesno mention of the offending verses" (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: S eal of the Prophets , p.45). This is an equally untrue claim as Tabari not only records the whole story but claims heobtained it from Ibn Ishaq through Salama. Contrast this statement: "Tabari, however, whomentions the Satanic verses, seems to suggest that Muhammad repented of the compromisethe same day" (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad , p. 128).

Others allege that the "satanic verses" (the laudation of the three goddesses) do not fit in the

Surah between verses 20 and 21 (so Khalifa, The S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 103).Again the argument is ill-founded for the words are said to have been replaced by thedenunciation verses which are now recorded in the Surah.

We must therefore assume, as the historical kernel of the tradition, that Sura 53.19 ff. once

embodied a different wording, implying acceptance of the pagan conception of the gods, an

implication which Mohammed subsequently felt to be incompatible with belief in the one

God. (Andrae, Mohamned: The Man and his Faith, p. 21).

The writer adds: "In style and rhythm the two Satanic lines fit admirably into the originalSura" (op. cit.). The evidences certainly seem to be well-founded and the arguments against

them strained to the point of glaring factual inaccuracy. The rejection of the story is clearlymotivated by the unpalatable nature of its contents rather than a consideration of its factualhistoricity. There are numerous other stories relating to Muhammad's life of no better historical foundation than this one which are nevertheless usually admitted. Indeed in manycases incidents with a much weaker claim to authenticity are accepted as genuine. A recentapologist for Muhammad has written a biography in which he makes it plain that he hasrelied chiefly on the earliest biographies for his facts, in particular Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd andWaqidi (Lings, Muhammad , p. 349), and has unquestioningly included many stories of nogreater authority than the story of Muhammad's concession to the Meccan idolaters. This



story, however, is omitted without any reference to it whatsoever. Clearly it is rejected, not because it has a poor historical foundation, but because it records a damaging lapse made byMuhammad during his ten year ministry at Mecca.

But the question at issue cannot be whether or not the tradition is acceptable, but rather

whether or not it is authentic. (Weasels, AModern Arabic Biography of Muhammad , p. 75).

Another argument favoured by Muslim writers is that "it is utterly inconsistent with thewhole concept of Prophethood and indeed with the righteousness of the Holy Prophet, peace

be on him, that he could have been influenced by any Satanic incitement at any time"(Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: S eal of the Prophets , p. 45). Another writer makes much thesame point: "It contradicts the infallibility of every prophet in conveying the message of hisLord" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. 107). This argument is, however, purely subjectiveand one based on the presupposition that Muhammad was a true prophet. The non-Muslimcannot be persuaded by such a line of reasoning, particularly when an objective study of itshistorical sources tends to confirm the story. Working from the starting -point of theauthenticity of the narrative rather than Muhammad's supposed prophethood, one is inclinedto conclude that the incident in some measure discredits Muhammad's prophethood rather than the other way around.

3. Did Ibn Ishaq Record the Story of the Satanic Verses?

We have already mentioned the omission of this story from Ibn Hisham's recIension of IbnIshaq's S irat Rasulullah. As this reclension is the only record of Ibn Ishaq's work thatsurvives, Muslim writers immediately claim that Ibn Ishaq therefore never recorded it andseek to strengthen their claim by a quotation from another source:

Ibn Ishaq, for his part, did not hesitate at all to declare it a fabrication by the zindiqs. (Haykal,

The Life of Muhammad , p. 107).

In the year 150 after the Hijra, Ibn-Ishaq was quoted by Abu Habban in his treatise Al-Bahr

Al-Mohit , to have exposed the whole story about the goddesses as an invention of al- Zanadiqah , those who do not recognise Islam while still nominally attached to it or to anyother religion. (Khalifa, The S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 102).

It is hard to believe that the zindiqs, the "freethinkers", not only composed the story but alsosucceeded in ensuring that it would be so widely accepted by the earliest biographers.Our records of the incident are found purely within the Islamic heritage and not outside it.Furthermore the claim that Ibn Ishaq rejected the story is also based on a secondary source,and then only a work by an author of no real prominence. Indeed the omission of the story inthe text today is also dependent on a secondary source.

It is not Ibn Ishaq but rather Ibn Hisham who has omitted this tradition in his edition.

Sometimes Haykal confuses the names of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, which leads in the

present instance to an incorrect statement. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of

Muhammad , p. 59).

The arguments for and against the original inclusion of the story are all based on secondarysources - Tabari, Ibn Hisham, Abu Habban - but Tabari is an author of considerable



prominence and a compelling one for the claim that it was indeed a part of Ibn Ishaq's work.The record of his reliance on Ibn Ishaq for the narrative suggests that Ibn Hisham may wellhave expunged it from the original text and prompts one writer to say:

There is reason to suspect that Ibn Hisham was not quite so trustworthy as his great

authority Ibn Ishac. Certainly there is one instance which throws suspicion upon him as a

witness, disinclined at least to tell the whole truth. We find in Tabari a quotation from Ibn

Ishac, in which is described the temporary lapse of Mahomet into idolatry; and the same

incidents are also given by Wakidy from other original sources. But no notice whatever of

the fact appears in the biography of Ibn Hisham, though it is professedly based upon the

work of Ibn Ishac. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. lxx).

This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Ibn Hisham's edition contains nounfavourable stories about Muhammad, and yet in his introduction he openly complained of "scurrilous attacks on the prophet" (Guillaume, introduction to Ibn Ishaq's S irat Rasulullah,

p.xxxi) in the original work.

There are many evidences in other works, which quote from the S irat , that Ibn Hisham'sedition is incomplete and the story of the "satanic verses" was almost certainly one of thoseexpunged from the text by him. Recently a Muslim publishing house in India has reprintedHughes' great work, A Dictionary of Islam, and has introduced the reprint with these words ina "Publisher's Note":

The Publisher has very meticulously gone through the pages and has expunged the remarks

derogatory to Islamic faith, published in the original edition. (Hughes, ADictionary of Islam,

p. vi).

This statement seems to sum up perfectly the similar action taken by Ibn Hisham against the

original text of Ibn Ishaq's work. Not long ago new evidence came to light strengtheningconsiderably the claim that the story of Muhammad's lapse was part of Ibn Ishaq's originalwork. There is, in the Qarawiyun mosque library at Fez in Morocco, a manuscript entitled K itab al-Maghazi (Book of the Campaigns) which, among other sources, contains a record of lectures given at one time by Ibn Ishaq on the life of Muhammad which includes the story of the concession made by Muhammad to the pagan Meccans The narrative is very similar tothat in Tabari's work except that the actual "satanic verses" are only referred to and notactually quoted in the text.

The MS. agrees with Salama's report from Ibn Ishaq that the emigrants returned from

Abyssinia because they heard of the conversion of Quraysh in consequence of the

concession to polytheism, but strangely enough it does not quote the offending words.

(Guillaume, New Light on the Life of Muhammad , p. 38).

On a balance of probabilities it does seem that the story was included in Ibn Ishaq's originalwork as in the other early biographies. A point that also strengthens this conclusion is the factof the return of the emigrant Muslims which is credited by Ibn Hisham to the Meccanconversions in his reclension of Ibn Ishaq's original S irat :



The apostle's companions who had gone to Abyssinia heard that the Meccans had accepted

Islam and they set out for their homeland. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 167).

Unless the story of the concession to their pagan goddesses was part of the original text justat this point, this remaining statement is largely unintelligible. It is highly unlikely that therumour of such a phenomenal turn of events, that is, the conversion of all the pagan Meccans,

should have been left unexplained by Ibn Ishaq. It is far more likely that Ibn Hishamexpunged the story of the satanic verses from the text but unwittingly left a reference to it inhis reclension. As the saying goes, his slip is showing!

There can be little doubt that Ibn Hisham cut out some of the text which came to him

because he gives no reason for the sudden conversion of the people of Mecca and leaves it

unexplained. (Guillaume, New Light on the Life of Muhammad , p. 38).

Modern Muslim writers suggest that it was the conversion of Umar that prompted the returnof the emigrants (ea. Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet , p. 95), but this does not explainwhy they almost immediately set out for Abyssinia again. Haykal makes the same suggestion

(The Life of Muhammad , p. 105) but, before he came across the story of Muhammad's lapseas it is recorded in William Muir's book, he had already composed his own book in the formof published articles and, having relied almost exclusively on Ibn Ishaq's work in the form of Ibn Hisham's reclension, he duly made the supposed conversion of the Quraysh the reason for the return. Only when he found out why this supposed conversion took place, and that theconcession had been made by Muhammad and not by the Quraysh, did he alter his work andstate that the return of the emigrants was caused by Umar's conversion.

It does not argue for the objectivity of Haykal's investigation of this tradition that before he

knew Muir's book he did indeed make the conversion of Quraysh the reason for the return

of the emigrants to Mecca. (Weasels, AModern Arabi_ Biography of Muhammad , p. 76).

It is our considered opinion that the Muslims have made a sorry mess of their defence of Muhammad and their rejection of this story and it seems that they would have done better tohave relied solely on the argument that it is out of character with Muhammad's sustainedrejection of idolatry.

4. Support for the Story in the Qur'an.

Had there been not the slightest allusion to this story in the Qur'an, one might yet be inclinedto discount it, but there are two passages in the book which uncannily coincide respectivelywith the suggestion that Satan interjected during Muhammad's recitation of Surah 53 and thatMuhammad was slowly becoming inclined to yield to his kinsmen in some measure to

reconcile himself to them.

But the Qur'an itself seems to me to bear out the fact that the suggestion was made and

afterwards withdrawn. (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment , p. 56).

Indeed the story is so strange that it must be true in its essentials. It is unthinkable thatanyone should have invented such a story and persuaded the vast body of Muslims toaccept it. Moreover there is a passage in the Qur'an which describes something of thiskind. (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and S tatesman, p. 61).



The verse referred to by Watt is the one which seems to refer quite openly to the interjectionmade by Satan. It is:

And We have sent before thee no messenger or prophet but as he recited (a portion of Our

message) Satan cast forth (suggestions) in respect of the recital. Then Allah abolishes what

Satan casts forth, and Allah continues His revelations; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. Surah

22.52 (Daryabadi).

The word for "revelations" in the original is ayat , often used for "signs" but also regularlyused for verses of the Qur'an itself. The great Muslim commentator on the Qur'an,Zamakhshari, openly interpreted this verse as referring to the occasion when Satansubstituted something in accordance with the wish which the Messenger of God had sheltered(Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 54). This was hardly surprising as the narrative inTabari's work, which he claimed was derived from Ibn Ishaq's S irat , plainly states that theverse was revealed to Muhammad immediately after the lapse to relieve his grief.

Zafrulla Khan, in one of his typically bold but completely inaccurate statements, says: "The

Holy Quran excludes emphatically any idea of Satan being capable of influencing anyrighteous person, let alone a prophet or messenger" ( Muhammad: S eal of the Prophets , p.45). This claim is seriously undermined by Surah 22.52 which makes the exact point that thewriter is at pains to deny. Another somewhat more credible defence is offered by a Muslimcommentator on this verse:

Moreover, it is absolutely inconceivable that such an important incident as the Prophet's

having accepted the intercession of idols should have been mentioned in the Qur'an eight

years after it happened. The 53rd chapter, in which the change is said to have taken place,

was revealed before the fifth year of the Prophet's call, while this chapter was revealed on

the eve of the Prophet's departure from Makkah. (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 658).

The argument, however, does not take into account the well-established fact that most of theSurahs of the Qur'an are composite chapters of various passages dating from different

periods, often made up of both Meccan and Medinan verses. In an introduction to Surah 22 inhis translation of the Qur'an, Richard Bell says:

The surah has in fact become quite disjointed. Vv. 51-53, addressed to the prophet

personally, are quite out of connection. (Bell, The Qur'an Transtated , Vol. 1, p. 316).

He goes on to give possible occasions for the inclusion of the verses mentioned and allowsfor an earlier date than the main body of the Surah. It is therefore quite possible that Surah22.52 dates prior to the rest of the Surah and refers directly to the occasion of the "satanic

verses". W. M. Watt, in another book, comments on the same verse:

This passage is a justification for some previous alteration in the text of the Qur'an; one

strand of tradition holds that it applies to verses originally proclaimed as following 53.19,20.

(Watt, Companion to the Qur'an, p. 156).

The strand referred to is the Ibn Ishaq/Tabari source aforementioned. We must surelyconclude that Surah 22.52 is a Qur'anic reference and clue to the story of the concession to



the pagan Meccans when we consider that there is no other occasion suggested in the Islamictradition literature for the revelation of this verse. Muslim commentators who reject the link identified in the Ibn Ishaq/Tabari strand nevertheless cannot suggest an alternative incident or event which can explain the statements made in the verse.

The other verse which appears to allude to the occasion of the "satanic verses" is this one

which helps us in some measure to see the inner workings of Muhammad's mind:

And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to

substitute in Our name something quite different: (In that case), behold! They would

certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst

nearly have inclined to them a little. Surah 17. 73-74.

This verse also appears to refer to the same occasion, in particular the yearnings felt byMuhammad for a reconciliation with his kinsmen which led to the ejaculation in favour of their goddesses. Once again no reasonable alternative suggests itself. There is no other occasion in Muhammad's life referred to in the sources to which these enlightening verses

can relate. Furthermore, as with Surah 22.52, we are not proposing a convenient link betweenthe verses and the story. Ibn Sa'd plainly states that they were revealed in consequence of Muhammad's concession to the pagan goddesses and his subsequent reversion to his original

position (Ibn Sa'd, K itab at-Tabaqat al- K abir , Vol. 1, p. 237).

5. The Implications of the Compromise.

It is our opinion that this story is almost certainly genuine, not only because of its record inmany early works, but perhaps even more because those records which seem to omit it,namely the Qur'an itself, the S ahih of Bukhari, and the present edited version of Ibn Ishaq'sS irat , contain elements obviously relative to it and otherwise unintelligible. Furthermorecertain details in the story are strikingly factual, for example the note that one old man did not

bow down but applied some of the dust of the ground to his forehead. This little incident is just the sort of thing an eye-witness would particularly observe, but it is hardly the sort of otherwise irrelevant evidence that a fabricator would think of or care to include.

In the last chapter we analysed in some depth the subjective side of Muhammad's propheticexperience and concluded that the Qur'anic composition had much to do with the developing

prophetic consciousness of his mind. This story has important implications in this respect. ToMuhammad's positive credit there is a highly commendable consistency in his dogmaticmonotheistic preaching but, as so often said before, the exception proves the rule. It is quiteconceivable that in his early days he underwent a prolonged tension in his mind as he soughtto reconcile himself to his people.

The whole story gives an extremely interesting insight into Muhammad's soul.

(Hammershaimb, "The Religious and Political Development of Muhammad", op. cit., p. 201).

It may be assumed that the lapse was no sudden event. It was not a concession won bysurprise, or an error of the tongue committed unawares, and immediately withdrawn.(Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 80).



The honour paid to the interceding goddesses may well have seemed an innocuous buteffective means of effecting the reconciliation. This is no mere speculation. In later days asimilar means suggested itself. After his gory battles with his kinsmen near Medina,Muhammad did find a very successful way of reconciling himself to them and one whichagain required a concession on his part, but, on this occasion, it really did prove effectivewithout a damaging lapse on his part. I refer to the pagan pilgrimage practices around Mecca

which Muhammad adopted without amending their rituals in any material way. He simplyretained the outward form while amending the inward purpose of the pilgrimage.

The former attempt at a reconciliation proved disastrous, however, and he obviously realisedfairly quickly that he had made a concession which betrayed the heart of his ministry. Whilethe transferring of the blame to Satan may appear to have been an easy way out, it is probablethat he identified his inclination to pacify his kinsmen as one bearing all the elements of suggestion (the Qur'anic wahy) that the motivations of his heart towards the praise of Allahalone also bore. It was logical, therefore, to conclude, as in the words attributed to the angel Idid not bring you this, that if the suggestion had not come from Allah, it must have comefrom Satan.

We conclude, then, that the heart of the matter has to do with a semantic struggle to mean

and convey. Tradition about an actual compromise has simply formalized or fossilized a

point in that ongoing tension, while the idea of Satanic interjection has given the highly

charged ambiguities of a real encounter a simplistic shape that conceals a more subtle

travail. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 144).


C. AL-MI'RAJ: THE ALLEGED ASCENT TO HEAVEN.

1. The Story of the Mi'raj in the Hadith.

One of the most famous Islamic monuments in the world is the Dome of the Rock whichstands on the site of the original Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is the third-holiest in theMuslim world after the Ka'aba in Mecca and Prophet's Mosque in Medina andcommemorates the alleged occasion of Muhammad's ascent through the seven heavens to thevery presence of Allah. It stands above the rock from which Muhammad is believed to haveascended to heaven. The narrative of this as cent is recorded in all the major works of Hadithin some de tail, but there is only one verse in the Qur'an openly refer ring to the incident andin a limited context at that.

The traditions basically report that Muhammad was asleep one night towards the end of his prophetic course in Mecca when he was wakened by the angel Gabriel who cleansed his heart before bidding him alight on a strange angelic beast named Buraq. Muhammad is alleged tohave said:

I was brought al-Burg who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than

a mule, who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and



came to the Temple (Bait-ul Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the

prophets. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 101).

Some traditions hold that the creature had a horse's body and angel's head and that it also hada peacock's tail. It is thus represented in most Islamic paintings of the event. The journeyfrom Mecca to Jerusalem is known as al-Isra, "the night journey". At Jerusalem Muhammad

was tested in the following way by Gabriel (some traditions place this test during the ascentitself):

Allah's Apostle was presented with two cups, one containing wine and the other milk on the

night of his night journey at Jerusalem. He looked at it and took the milk. Gabriel said,

"Thanks to Allah Who guided you to the Fitra (i.e. Islam); if you had taken the wine, your

followers would have gone astray". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 196).

After this began al-Mi'raj, "the ascent". Muhammad passed the sea of kawthar , literally thesea of "abundance" (the word is found only once in the Qur'an in Surah 108.1), and then metvarious prophets, from Adam to Abraham, as well as a variety of angels as he passed through

the seven heavens. After this Gabriel took him to the heavenly lote-tree on the boundary of the heavens before the throne of Allah.

Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the lote-tree of the utmost boundary).

Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as

big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, "This is the lote-tree of the utmost boundary".

(Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 5, p. 147).

This famous tree, as-sidratul-muntaha, is also mentioned twice in the passage in Surah 53describing the second vision Muhammad had of Gabriel (Surah 53.14,16) where he also sawthe angel 'inda sidrah, "near the lote-tree". Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but

Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslimsto pray fifty times a day:

Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers. When I returned with this order of Allah, I

passed by Moses who asked me, "What has Allah enjoined on your followers?" I replied, "He

has enjoined fifty prayers on them". Moses said "Go back to your Lord (and appeal for

reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 1, p. 213).

Muhammad allegedly went back and forth between Allah and Moses till the prayers werereduced to five per day. Moses then told him to seek yet a further reduction but Muhammadstopped at this point and answered Moses:

I replied that I had been back to my Lord and asked him to reduce the number until I was

ashamed, and I would not do it again. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 187).

Allah then said whoever observed the five times of prayer daily would receive the reward of fifty prayers. Muhammad then saw some of the delights of paradise as he returned to Gabrieland Buraq and then beheld the torments of the damned before going back to his bed in Meccathat same night. This, briefly, is the narrative of the ascent.



2. The Night Journey in the Qur'an.

As said already, the Qur'an has only one direct reference to this whole episode and it is foundin this verse:

Glory to (God) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to

the Farthest Mosque whose precincts We did bless, - in order that We might show him some

of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). Surah 17.1

The "Sacred Mosque" (al-masjidul-haram) is interpreted to be the Ka'aba at Mecca and the"Farthest Mosque" (al-masjidul- aqsa) the Temple at Jerusalem (also referred to as al-baitul-muqaddas - the "holy house"). The great mosque which presently stands next to the Dome of the Rock is accordingly known today as the "al-Aqsa" mosque.

The verse is somewhat vague as it refers only to "signs" that Allah would show him. What isimportant, however, is the fact that the verse refers purely to the "journey by night" (asra),from Mecca to Jerusalem, and makes no mention of the ascent through the heavens (mi'raj) at

all. Indeed the Qur'an nowhere directly refers to nor outlines the supposed ascent - a strikingomission if it was a genuine experience. Some Muslim commentators have sought allusionsto it elsewhere in the Qur'an but the passages quoted are too weak to be relied on with anycertainty.

Those who know how large a part the Miraj, or miraculous journey on the Borak, bears in popular conceptions of Mohammedanism will learn with surprise, if they have not gone muchinto the matter, that there is only one passage in the Koran which can be tortured into anallusion to the journey to heaven. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p.186).

There are some who say that the vision referred to in Surah 53.6-18 (see page 100) refers to

the Mi'raj, but we have already seen that Muhammad recited this very Surah at the time of thefirst emigration to Abyssinia, and the passage must therefore refer to one of the very earlyvisions as the Mi'raj is only said to have taken place some years later just before the Hijrah.Another hadith supports this conclusion by identifying this passage more clearly:

Masruq reported: I said to Aisha: What about the words of Allah: Then he drew nigh and

came down, so he was at a distance of two bows or closer still . . . (53.8-10)? She said: It

implies Gabriel. He used to come to him in the shape of men; but he came at this time in his

true form and blocked up the horizon of the sky. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 112).

The occasion Ayishah records is plainly identified as one of those where Muhammad hada

vision of the approaching angel in the sky rather than a manifestation of the angel during their ascent through the heavens. If the verse had referred to the Mi'raj, Ayishah would have surelymentioned the fact, but it patently refers to an independent occasion.

Furthermore the narratives in the Hadith expose a glaring anachronism. After proclaimingthat he had been to Jerusalem Muhammad was allegedly asked to describe the Temple. He issaid to have replied:



I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said:

How many doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it

and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. (Ibn Sa'd,K itab

al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 1, p. 248).

Another tradition states that when the Qurayah disbelieved him, Muhammad answered "Allahlifted me before Bait-ul-Maqdis and I began to narrate to them (the Quraish of Mecca) itssigns while I was in fact looking at it" (S ahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 109). There is a real problemhere for the structure had been destroyed more than five hundred years earlier and the site atthat time had become a rubbish-dump and was so discovered by Umar when he conqueredJerusalem some years later. It cannot be said that Muhammad saw a vision of the Temple as ithad been before it was destroyed for the Quraysh were asking him to describe contemporaryJerusalem as he saw it that very night. How could he have counted the doors of a buildingthat no longer existed?

The whole story of the Mi'raj as found in the Hadith may well be a pure fiction, a conclusionthat will be reinforced through a study of its sources shortly. Here let it be said that it is not at

all certain that Muhammad ever claimed that he actually ascended to heaven. It is possiblethat he merely related a striking dream, which he took as a vision, in which he imagined his journey to Jerusalem. Al-Hasan reported:

One of Abu Bakr's family told me that Aisha, the Prophet's wife, used to say: "The apostle's

body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat

Rasulullah, p. 183).

These words clearly teach that Muhammad never left his apartment the whole night.Furthermore the Qur'an plainly restricts the journey to the Isra as we have seen. It is probablethat what was originally nothing more than a dream of a journey to Jerusalem has beentransformed into an actual physical event which was followed by an ascent through theheavens to the throne of Allah himself.

The suggestion that even the Isra was only a dream is strengthened by the fact that theanachronism appearing in the Hadith is also found in the Qur'an for the latter also states thatMuhammad was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem in Surah 17.1 quoted above. Although theQur'an does not refer to the baitul-muqaddas but only to the masjidul-aqsa, it is clear that thesame shrine is intended as the Qur'an in the same way describes the baitullah, the Ka'aba inMecca, as the masjidul-haram. Furthermore the context establishes this interpretation for,only a few verses later, the Qur'an actually records the destruction of the second Temple inJerusalem and here simply describes it as al-masjid (Surah 17.7 - the word today is only usedof a Muslim mosque but in the Qur'an it is commonly used for any holy sanctuary).

Although Muhammad obviously knew of the destruction of the second Temple, it seems he believed that it had been rebuilt like the first one. The fact that he first chose Jerusalem as hisqiblah before turning to the masjidul-haram in Mecca adds considerable weight to thissuggestion for he would hardly have chosen the former if he had known that no masjidul-aqsa stood on the site at that time, where the mosque of this name now stands, but only acompost heap.



It seems appropriate to conclude that the experience Muhammad had was really only a dreamwhich characterised his illusions about Jerusalem, and that the whole story of the Mi'raj isaccordingly nothing more than a mythical fantasy imaginatively built upon it.

3. A Literal Event or a Mystical Experience?

Orthodox Muslims hold that the Mi'raj was a literal, bodily ascent to heaven, but others havesuggested that it was purely a mystical experience. The distinction goes back to the early daysof Islam and is summarised in the following quote:

The belief in the Ascension of the Prophet is general in Islam. Whilst the Asha'ri and the

patristic sects believe that the Prophet was bodily carried up from earth to heaven, the

Rationalists hold that it was a spiritual exaltation, that it represented the uplifting of the soul

by stages until it was brought into absolute communion with the Universal Soul. (Ali, The

Spirit of Islam, p. 447).

To this day those who believe that Muhammad actually went up to heaven and back remain

overwhelmingly in the majority and the event is commemorated once a year during thelailatul-mi'raj, "the night of the ascension", which falls on the 27th night of the Islamicmonth of Rajab. In more recent times, however, prominent Muslim authors have rejected the

possibility of a physical ascent and have offered an assortment of alternative spiritualinterpretations.

Now, it is agreed by all that Muhammad's Ascension was a matter of seconds or minutes

instead of being days, months or years, and the words used for it by all biographers is Miraj ,

the same as used by God for the ascension of the angels or spirits who have no bodies . . .

The Miraj is nothing but Inspiration or Revelation raised in degrees. (Sarwar, Muhammad:

the Holy Prophet , pp. 119, 122).

Since "faith" is an abstract concept, it is obvious that the Prophet himself regardedthis prelude to the Ascension (the cleansing of his heart) - and therefore the Ascensionitself and, ipso facto, the Night Journey to Jerusalem - as purely spiritual experiences.But whereas there is no cogent reason to believe in a "bodily" Night Journey andAscension, there is, on the other hand, no reason to doubt the objective reality of thisevent. (Asad, The Message of the Qur'an, p. 997).

Haykal has a novel view - he alleges that the discoveries of modern science, e.g. thereproduction of images on television and voices on radios, etc., proves that forces of naturecan be transferred from one place to another, and so concludes: "In our modern age, scienceconfirms the possibility of a spiritual Isra' and Mi'raj . . . Strong and powerful spirits such as

Muhammad's are perfectly capable of being carried in one night from Makkah to Jerusalemand of being shown God's signs" (The Life of Muhammad , p. 146). Quite what is meant bythe latter statement, only the author can know. Nevertheless his interpretation is typical of modern attempts to cast the ascension into a mystical mould, reminiscent of the rationalisticinterpretations of the "free-thinking" age of early Islam when similar attempts to explain theMi'raj in rationalistic terms were made.



In fact Haykal returns to the standpoint of the Mu'tazila, who also rejected the realistic

understanding and denied that the ascent into heaven had occurred in the body. (Weasels, A

Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad , p. 84).

The fanciful nature of the traditional story of the Mi'raj has made more educated Muslimsrealise that the orthodox interpretation is perhaps more consistent with the marvellous tales of the Arabian Nights than the world of reality. Even the early biographer Ibn Ishaq had hisdoubts about the narrative. In his introduction to the S irat Rasulullah, Guillaume states: "Inhis account of the night journey to Jerusalem and the ascent into heaven he allows us to seethe working of his mind. The story is everywhere hedged with reservations and termssuggesting caution to the reader" (p. xix).

A famous biographer perhaps gets to the heart of the matter by suggesting that, asMuhammad was already looking northwards towards Medina for the future of his ministryand had decided to adopt Jerusalem as the qiblah, the imaginations of his mind by day

probably became the fantasies of a dream by night: "The musings of the day reappeared inthe slumbers of the night" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 117).

At this stage we are bound to ask on what authority it may be suggested that the story of theMi'raj, as recorded in all its details in the traditions, was purely a mythical adaptation of asimple dream. Did later scribes put it all together as a pious figment of their fertileimaginations? Not at all. Another modern Muslim author gives us a clear indication as to whymuch of it is an acute problem to recent scholars.

The doctrine of a locomotive mi'raj or 'Ascension' developed by the orthodox (chiefly on the

pattern of the Ascension of Jesus) and backed by Hadith is no more than a historical fiction

whose material comea from various aourcea. (Rahman, Islam, p. 14).

Let us now, in closing, examine these sources on which early traditionists relied for their

details of the story.

4. The Sources of the Alleged Ascent.

Stories strikingly similar to the Mi'raj are found in various religious works predating the timeof Muhammad and it is virtually certain that later scribes borrowed elements from these tocreate the story found in the Hadith.

In these later narratives of the Mi'raj we find mythology unrestrained by any regard for

reason or truth. We must now inquire what was the source from which the idea of this night

journey of Muhammad was derived. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p. 225).

Stobart refers to Surah 17.1 as Muhammad's "simple account of what was probably only adream prompted by his waking thoughts" and relieves him of responsibility for the fancifulnarratives found in the Hadith:

For the details of this revelation, with all its later embellishment of curious and extravagant

fiction, drawn from the legends of the Haggidah, and the dreams of the Midrash and the

Talmud, the prophet cannot, in fairness, be made responsible. (Stobart, Islam and its

Founder , p. 141).



Stobart refers to Jewish works where accounts similar to that of the Mi'raj are found, but perhaps the real origins of the Islamic account of Muhammad's ascent to heaven are thosestories found in Zoroastrian works which are strikingly parallel to the Mi'raj. Tisdall statesthat "The story may have incorporated elements from many quarters, but it seems to have

been in the main based upon the account of the ascension of Arta Viraf contained in a Pahlavi book called 'The Book of Arta Viraf"' (The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 226), where we

find remarkable coincidences. Arta Viraf was a saintly priest who had a mi'raj of his ownsome four hundred years before the Hijrah:

It is related that; when this young Arta Viraf was in a trance, his spirit ascended into the

heavens under the guidance of an archangel named Sarosh, and passed from one storey to

another, gradually ascending until he reached the presence of Ormazd himself. When Arta

Viraf had thus beheld everything in the heavens and seen the happy state of their

inhabitants, Ormazd commanded him to return to the earth as His messenger and to tell the

Zoroastrians what he had seen. All his visions are fully related in the book which bears his

name. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p. 227).

There are numerous details in the narrative which correspond to those in the Hadith. Just asGabriel guided Muhammad through the heavens, so Sarosh, one of the great Zoroastrianarchangels, guided Arta Viraf. Likewise he came into the presence of Ormazd and visited

paradise and hell as well.

It is unnecessary to point out how great is the resemblance between all this and the

Muhammadan legend of Muhammad's Mi'raj. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p.

229).

The Zoroastrians also teach that there is, in paradise, a marvellous tree called humaya inPahlavi which corresponds closely to the sidrah, the lote-tree of Islam. Indeed the

Zoroastrians even relate that their founder also passed through the heavens and visited hell.

In the fabulous Zerdashtnama there is also an account of Zoroaster having ages before

ascended to the heavens, after having received permission to visit hell, where he found

Ahriman (the devil). (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 80).

In his other book St. Clair-Tisdall comments that Ahriman, the Satan of Zoroastrianism,"closely corresponds with the Iblis of the Qur'an" (The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p.230). It certainly seems that the whole account of the Mi'raj is a subtle adaptation done byMuslim divines sometime after the subjugation of Zoroastrian Persia during the Arabconquests in the early days of Islam.

We may conclude that tradition has nonchalantly adorned the story of Muhammad's dreamwith marvellous records of an ascent through the heavens. It is highly probable thatMuhammad himself declared no more than that which we find in the Qur'an - that he had avision or a dream in which he was carried to Jerusalem and there saw various signs. The isra of the Qur'an has been transformed into the mi'rov of the Hadith. In a very subjective way theformer may well have been a vision or, more probably, a strange dream, but the latter doestruly seem to be no more than a pious fiction drawn from the fables of other religious recordsand works.



The Qu'ran: The Scripture of Islam

A. THE COMPOSITIO N AND CHARACTER OF THE QUR'AN.

1. The Nature and Form of the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is almost the length of the New Testament but its structure and form is verydifferent to it. It consists of the revelations allegedly made to Muhammad in which God ishimself at all times the speaker. We can only briefly introduce the book in these pages butwill give some insight into its character and form.

The Qur'an has 114 surahs, or chapters, of varying length and there is no chronologicalsequence of these chapters in the book. The order of the surahs, excepting the S uratul-

Fatihah which we will shortly outline in some detail, is generally from longest to shortest.Paradoxically most of the earlier surahs are at the end of the book and the later surahs at the

beginning. Each has a title, usually taken from a word or name either at the beginning of the

surah or somewhere in its text. Some introduce the major themes of the surah, e.g. S uratu-Yusuf (Surah 12) which deals solely with the story of Joseph, and S uratu-Maryam (Surah 19)which devotes much of its content to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Every surah but one (Surah9) begins with the heading Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim, meaning "In the Name of Allah, theCompassionate, the Merciful". These words are not only found repeatedly in the Qur'an butare a form of grace, are found as titles on letterheads, are engraved on buildings, and arecommonly recited by Muslims in various situations. The expression is generally referred to inMuslim parlance as "The Bismillah".

The Basmalah: "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful", is, after the

Shahadah, the most familiar epitome of Muslim devotion. It is used in the recognition of

God in all the ventures and vicissitudes of life even more widely than the confession itself.(Cragg", The Call of the Minaret , p. 40).

The S hahadah is the other famous testimony and creed of Islam which we will consider in alater chapter. Each surah is broken up into brief sections known as ruku'ah as Muslims deemit commendable to make a bow in reverence, a ruku, at the end of the recitation of each of these sections. They are designated in the Qur'an by the Arabic letter 'ain in the margin andare accompanied by the section number and number of verses in each case.

A non-Muslim who ventures to quote, for example, "the fortieth chapter of the Qur'an" might be surprised to be told that there are only thirty chapters in the Qur'an. This is because the book is also broken up into thirty sections of roughly equal length, each of which is known as

a juz (or, in Persian, a siparah). There is a specific reason for this.

'Juz' (pl. A jza' ). Persian Siparah. Thirty divisions of the Qur'an, which have been made to

enable the devout Muslim to recite the whole of the Qur'an in the thirty days of Ramazan.

Muhammadans usually quote their Qur'an by the Siparah or Juz' and not by the Surah.

(Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 492).



The division of each juz is not as obvious as that of each surah where the title of the surah isinserted in the text, often in distinctive script or decoration. In older, hand-writtenmanuscripts of the Qur'an each juz is often identified by a special medallion alongside thetext.

At the head of some of the surahs, just after the Bismillah, are a few Arabic letters not

forming a word. The purpose and significance of these letters, notwithstanding a host of suggestions, is unknown. At least six surahs begin with the letters alif, lam, mim.

There are twenty-nine Surahs of the Qur'an which begin with certain letters of the alphabet.

These letters, the learned say, have some profound meaning, known only tothe Prophet

himself, although it seems probable that they are simply marks recorded by the amanuensis.


The very word al-Qur'an means "the Recitation", and Muslims believe that the actual ritualof regularly reciting its text in the original Arabic merits much favour with Allah. There is nomerit in reciting a translation. Muslims prize their book in its original Arabic tongue and no

true Muslim will refer to anything other than the Arabic text as the Qur'an itself. The Qur'anopenly calls its adherents to recite its verses: wa ratiliil qur'aana tartiilaa - "and recite theQur'an in slow, measured rhythmic tones" (Surah 73.4).

The revelation thus involves a recitation or something to be recited; and this indeed is the

meaning of the probably originally Aramaic word Qur'an, which came to signify the

revelation in its totality as well as single parts of it. (Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 5).

The recitation of the Qur'an, known as tilawah, is so seriously regarded that many Muslimsgo to great lengths to learn the correct pronunciation of the words, a pursuit now developedinto a science known as 'ilmul-tajwid , the "knowledge of pronunciation" It seems evenMuhammad himself was concerned to be scrupulous in this matter:

Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an before our Prophet, may Allah bless him, once every year

in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he recited it twice before him.

Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading conforms to the last recitation by Gabriel. (Ibn

Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 243).

Before a recitation of the Qur'an a Muslim will recite the words a'uuthu billaahi minash-

shaytaanir rajiim which mean "I take refuge in Allah from Satan the stoned". These wordsare taken almost directly from a verse in the Qur'an which encourages such action:

When thou dost read the Qur'an, seek God's protection from Satan the Rejected One.Surah

16.98

The word ar-rajim properly means "the stoned" as it is the description the Qur'an gives to thedevil as a result of Abraham's supposed act of throwing atones at him when he sought to

prevent Abraham sacrificing his son. The event is commemorated in a ceremony in the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca of which more will be said in a later chapter.



A Muslim who learns the Qur'an by heart is called a hafiz (a "guardian" of the text) and professional reciters of the book are known simply as qurra ("reciters"). There are numeroushadith commending the recitation of the Qur'an, too many to be recorded here, but they serveto show how important this practice is in Islam.

2. The Qur'an's Description of Itself.

The Qur'an has much to say about itself and a brief study of some of the verses relating to itwill assist us to understand the conception Muhammad had of the book he believed was beingrevealed to him. Firstly it is taught that the original Qur'an is preserved on a tablet in heavenand that the text in use today is a copy of it:

Nay, this is a Glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved! Surah 85.21-22.

Secondly it is believed by Muslims that the text was brought down by Gabriel one night(during the month of Ramadan just before Muhammad's call) to the first heaven from whichthe angel revealed its contents piecemeal to Muhammad, as occasion required, over theremaining twenty-three years of his life. This belief arises from Qur'anic verses alluding tothe revelation:

By the Book that makes things clear, We sent it down on a blessed night. Surah 44.2-3.

Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind.S urah 2.185

The Qur'an also emphasises its claim that God is its author and preserver. In one place it issaid Ar-Rahmaanu-allamal-qur'aan - "The Compassionate has taught the Qur'an" (Surah 55.1-2), and elsewhere the Qur'an vindicates itself again in these words:

This is indeed a Qur'an most honourable, in a book well-guarded, which none ahall touch butthose who are clean: a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. Surah 56.77-80.

These regular occasions in the Qur'an, where the book seeks to defend its divine origin, standin striking contrast to the text of the Bible where God's Word is simply set forth as "Thussays the Lord" without any justification of the book or its declarations being deemednecessary. Other texts of this nature in the Qur'an are these:

Or they may say, "He forged it". Say, "Bring ye then ten Suras forged, like unto it,and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than God! - If ye speak the truth!S urah 11.13

Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, theywould surely have found therein much discrepancy. S urah 4.82

In two of the verses already quoted we find the Qur'an described with an adjective, somethingso common in the book, that it has led to the compilation of the "Names of the Qur'an", whichalso include other titles given to it. In Surah 85.21 the title is Qur'aanum-Majiid , "a GloriousQur'an", and in Surah 56.77 it is Qur'aanun- K ariim, "a Qur'an most honourable". In Surah36.2 it is al-Qur'aanil-Hakiim, "the Qur'an full of wisdom". One finds today in most printed



Qur'ans a title page with the words al-Qur'anul-Majid , "the Exalted Qur'an", or al-Qur'anul- Hakim, "the Wise Qur'an", etc. One such Qur'an is entitled "Qur'an Karim ws Furqan Adhim"(the Glorious Qur'an, the Exalted Criterion). In a glossary Kenneth Cragg explains theQur'anic title al-Furqan (Surah 25.1):

Furqan. One of the names of the Qur'an, as the criterion or that by which truth is

distinguished from falsehood and right vindicated against wrong. (Cragg", The E vent of theQur'an, p. 189).

A striking anomaly is the absence of the title "The Holy Qur'an" not only from the book itself, but from compilations of its names, especially as this is the most common title used for the Qur'an in English by Muslims today. One writer seeks to explain away the anomaly inthese words:

Although some non-Arabic speaking Muslims describe the Book as "The Holy Qur'an" the

corresponding Arabic adjective muqaddas is actually never used for the simple reason that

the holiness of the Book is too deeply implied and understood to need mentioning. (Khalifa,

The Sublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 5).

As the Qur'an clearly delights in describing itself with whatever titles it considersappropriate, this is a strange line of reasoning to justify the omission of the title "HolyQur'an". Or are the wisdom, exaltation and glory of the book not so obviously "deeplyimplied" that they need to be pointed out to the reader? A Western writer is certainly far moreto the point in this matter when he says:

The Qur'an is the scripture of Islam. It is called the Noble Qur'an, the Glorious Qur'an, the

Mighty Qur'an, but never the Holy Qur'an, save by modern Western-educated Muslims who

are imitating the title Holy Bible. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 47).

One cannot help feeling that there is much significance in the omission of this title in theQur'an. The book has many virtues indeed, but one of its obvious deficiencies, in comparisonwith the Bible, is its attitude to holiness. The book nowhere approaches the realms of holinessand righteousness which are the foundation of the doctrine of God in the Bible, the "holy Godwho shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5.16), and the corresponding denial of any

potential for true holiness in man as he is by nature until made regenerate by the Holy Spirit.

3. Important Surahs of the Qur'an.

The most important Surah of the Qur'an is the first one, the S uratul-Fatihah, the "O peningChapter". It is quite unique because it is the only place in the book where the words are solely

those of worshippers addressing God, or, as it has been put, it is "the only place where theQur'an 'prays "' (Cragg", The Mind of the Qur'an, p. 83). A Muslim scholar, Abdul Jabir,comments in a very similar vein on the character of the Surah: "God has enunciated thischapter in the language of his servants, in order that they might thus address him" (quoted inWherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur'an, Vol. 1, p. 288). The Surah reads:

y In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

y Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;

y Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment.



y Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.

y Show us the right way, the way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,

y Those whose (portion) is not wrath. and who go not astray.

Surah 1.1-7 .

Muhammad himself regarded this Surah as the foremost of all the revelations he claimed to

have received, saying "There has been revealed to me tonight a surah which is dearer to methan all the things of the world" ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 97). He thereafter recited "theFatihah" as it is now commonly called. On a later occasion he said to a companion:

Shall I not teach you the most important Surah in the Qur'an? He said it is "Praise be to

Allah, the Lord of the Worlds". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 490).

This surah is recited during every one of the prescribed times of prayer and is regarded as themost important part of the worship ritual: "The principal part of the service is the recitation of the opening chapter of the Quran, called the Fatiha" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for

Modern Man, p. 104). Muhammad is reported to have said:

He who does not recite Fatihat al-Kitab is not credited with having observed prayer. (Sahih


On another occasion he declared that, at the end of the recitation of this surah by the Imam,the worshipper should conclude by saying Amin, the Arabic equivalent of our "Amen".Muhammad claimed that all the angels say the amin at the end of the surah and that everyMuslim who also recites the amin and duly coincides with them will have his sins forgiven(S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 416). Much the same was taught in the Christian Church inthose times as well in respect of the Lord's Prayer. So attached has the amin become to thesurah that a number of even the best Qur'anic manuscripts of earlier centuries include it as

part of the actual text.

The surah contains the first three of the ninety-nine names of Allah, the "Most Excellent Names" (al-asma'ul-husna) being ar-Rahman, "the Compassionate", ar-Rahim, "theMerciful", and al-Malik , "the Sovereign". It also contains a common title for the wholereligion of Islam, as-S iratal- Mustaqim, "the straight path". Another verse from the Qur'anthat has relevance here is:

And We have bestowed on thee the Seven Oft-Repeated (Verses) and the Grand Qur'an.

Surah 15.87

Muhammad stated that this verse referred to the Fatihah and that the "seven oft-repeated"( saba'ul-mathani) were the seven verses of the surah and that "the Grand Qur'an" here (al-

Qur'anal-Adhim) was also a title for the surah ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 37). Another title for the surah is U mmul-Qur'an, the "Mother of the Qur'an". Its importance to Islam can hardly beover-emphasised.

The next most important surah is found just before the end of the Qur'an and is entitled theS uratul-Ikhlas, the "Chapter of Purity", which has a heavy monotheistic emphasis andcontains two further titles of Allah, as-S amad , "the Eternal", and al-Ahad , "the One". It reads:



Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He

begotten; and there is none like unto Him. Surah 112.1-4.

It is reported that Muhammad said "By Him in Whose hand my life is, this Surah is equal toone-third of the Qur'an" (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 494). Not only is this chapter also heldin great esteem but it has important implications for Christian contact with Muslims:

The one hundred and twelfth chapter of the Koran is held in particular veneration byMohammedans. According to a tradition of the Prophet it is equal to one-third of thewhole revelation; and on another occasion he asserted that the foundation of theheavens and the earth rested on this short surah. We call attention to it for threereasons: It is the chapter most frequently quoted against Christians and best known inevery part of the world of Islam as a defiant summary of Mohammed's revelation; it ismost often selected by calligraphers for the exercise of their artistic skill; and itsinterpretation in the doctrine of the Sufis gives new points of contact for the

presentation of the Christian message. (Zwemer, "Surat al-Ikhlas", The Muslim World ,Vol. 26, p. 325).

Abu Hurayrah once reported "I went with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) andhe heard a man reciting Surah Ikhlas and said: He is assured. I asked, Of what, Apostle of Allah? He answered: Of Paradise" ( Muwatta Imam Malik . p. 99). Little more need be said toshow how important this surah too is to the Muslims.

The only surah of length that holds an almost equal importance for the Muslims is the 36thSurah named S uratu-Ya-S in after the two letters ya and sin, appearing as typical unexplainedletters heading the surah. This surah is found in Muslim prayer-books, very often as aseparate booklet, and its recitation is highly esteemed. Tirmithi, one of the great collectors of Hadith, records that Muhammad said: "There is certainly a heart for everything and the heartof the Qur'an is Ya Sin. Whoso reads Ya Sin, Allah writes for him in exchange of its reading

the rewards of the reading of the whole Qur'an ten times" (Karim's Mishkat-al-Masabih, Vol.4, p. 684).

Finally the last two verses of the second surah, the S uratul-Baqarah ("Chapter of theHeifer"), are also held in great esteem. It was narrated by Abu Masud that Muhammad said"If somebody recited the last two verses of Suratul Baqarah at night, that will be sufficient for him" (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 491). These verses contain a declaration of the Islamicfaith together with an exhortation to pray for forgiveness and relief from the burden of sin,

promising that "on no soul cloth God place a burden greater than it can bear" (Surah 2.286),reminiscent of the words of Jesus in Revelation 2.24.

4. Muslim Reverence for the Qur'an.

One cannot but admire the wonderful reverence shown by the Muslims towards their holy book. It is quite true to say that they hold it in awe. Old hand-written Qur'ans aremasterpieces of calligraphy and decoration. The Fatihah and, usually, the first few verses of the Suratul-Baqarah, are enclosed within a finely decorated frontispiece in each Qur'an whilesurah headings are usually also finely decorated.

No Muslim will place or read a Qur'an on the ground. Neat hand-wrought Qur'an stands arekept in mosques and often at homes for this purpose. In each home the Qur'an should obtain



the highest place and it is therefore placed on a stand above all the other features in the home,carefully wrapped in a covering. Every Muslim should perform an ablution before touching itand should kiss it once it is opened. In Surah 56.79 quoted earlier in this section the Qur'an isdescribed as that "which none shall touch but those who are clean" and a hadith says:

The book written by the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) for 'Amr b. Hazm

contained this also that no man should touch the Holy Qur'an without ablution. (Muwatta

Imam Malik , p. 94).

A word should be said about the diction of the Qur'an in closing. Its uneven rhyme, strikingcharacter, and forceful language almost mesmerise its readers when a qira'ah takes place (acantation of the Qur'an, in a chant, as opposed to the normal tajwid , that is, correct recitation).

A Muslim writer says: "The fact is that the harmonious intermingling of sound, sense andforce of the language of the Qur'an is beyond human prowess" (Sarwar, Muhammad: the

Holy Prophet , p. 390). Even Christian writers have been constrained to comment on its styleand one writer says:

The Qur'an is regarded by the Muhammadan world in general as the great outstanding

miracle of Islam. We must admit that in some passages, especially those which describe the

majesty and attributes of God, its sublime language is comparable only to that used by some

of the Old Testament prophets. Muhammad, when challenged by his opponents to work a

miracle, referred them to the Qur'an and challenged them in return to produce even one

Sura like it. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p.15).

Nonetheless the argument that the Qur'an is inimitable in its style, content and rhyme, is purely subjective in that it depends largely on the preconceived attitudes of its readers, just asit is said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and is limited to the Arabic language alone.

Another Christian writer brings the fancies of the Muslims to the ground with a soundobservation:

Among learned Franks it is considered indisputable that there are books in the Greek, Latin,

English, German and other languages, more admirable in style than the Koran . . . But if

learned Mohammedans should say that the Koran is more eloquent than any book in any

language whatever, it behoves them, before making this assertion, to have acquired a

thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, English, French, Hindu, Chinese, and

all other languages of note; else they cannot sustain their position that the Koran is more

noble and elegant than any book in the languages of the world. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq;

or Balance of Truth, p. 86, 87);

The challenge to "bring ten surahs like it" is, in our view, principally fictitious because thelanguages of the world are so diversified and varied and because no one can act as absolute

judge of the relative merits of different poetical or literary works. Certainly those who arehardly educated in the great classics of literature throughout the ages can hardly makedogmatic assumptions about their holy book with any degree of sincere conviction. In thesame way we can just as easily say that any ten chapters of the Biblical writings or Psalms arethe equal of the Qur'an, if not superior to it - and who is to judge between us?




B. THE MECCAN AND MEDINAN SURAHS.

1. The Style and Emphasis of the Meccan Surahs.

One of the great difficulties confronting a reader of the Qur'an is the general lack of chronology in the sequence of its chapters. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that manyof the surahs are composite chapters of passages dating from both Muhammad's years of

preaching in Mecca and his years as leader of the Muslim community in Medina. Nevertheless, as pointed out already, the shorter, more striking surahs generally date from theMeccan period and the longer, somewhat cumbersome passages of the later surahs date fromthe Medinan period.

The early Meccan surahs are all somewhat similar and concentrate on the issues which firstimpressed themselves upon Muhammad, namely the waywardness of his people, the

judgment to come, and the destiny of all men to heaven or to hell. Here is a typical passage:

O manl What has seduced thee from thy Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created thee,

fashioned thee in due proportion, and gave thee a just bias; In whatever Form He wills, does

He put them together. Nay! But ye do reject Right and Judgment! But verily over you (are

appointed angels) to protect you, kind and honourable, writing down (your deeds): They

know and understand all that ye do. As for the Righteous, they will be in Bliss; and the

Wicked, they will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment, and they will

not be able to keep away therefrom. And what will explain to thee what the Day of

Judgment is? Again, what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the

Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the Command, that Day,

will be (wholly) with God. Surah 82.6-19.

Throughout these early passages Muhammad stands forth purely as one sent to call his peopleto the good and to admonish them against the punishments awaiting evildoers. Innamaa anta

munthir - "Verily you are but a warner" (Surah 79.45), is the address found in various formsin these passages (so also Surahs 74.2, 87.9).

Muhammad is several times reminded, in the Meccan period, that his only task is al-balagh,

communication. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 146).

The great dispute between pagan Arab idolatry and the exclusive unity of God only comes to

the fore in the later Meccan surahs. In the same way Allah, the name for God, also only begins to appear with regularity in these later Meccan surahs as well, the more impersonal ar-

Rabb (the Lord) being generally preferred in the very earliest surahs.

But in Mohammed's first preaching, the announcement of the Day of Judgment is much

more prominent than the unity of God, and it was against his revelations concerning

Doomsday that his opponents directed their satire during the first twelve years. (Hurgronje,

Mohammedanism, p. 34).



The generally prophetic character of the Meccan surahs, as opposed to the legalistic form of most of the Medinan surahs, at the same time marks the earlier surahs with far more grandeur and humility before God than those to come later. One moving early surah addressed toMuhammad commends itself assuredly to any sincere reader of the Qur'an:

By the Glorious Morning Light, and by the Night when it is still, Thy Guardian-Lord hath not

forsaken thee, nor is He displeased. And verily the hereafter will be better for thee than the

present. And soon will thy Guardian- Lord give thee (that wherewith) thou shalt be well-

pleased. Did He not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter (and care)? And He found thee

wandering, and He gave thee guidance. And He found thee in need, and made thee

independent. Therefore, treat not the orphan with harshness, nor repulse the petitioner

(unheard); but the Bounty of thy Lord - Rehearse and proclaim! Surah 93.1-11.

Just as we found a sharp distinction in the biographical section at the beginning of this book between the sincere warner of Mecca and the somewhat opportunistic ruler of Medina, so itdoes not surprise us to find a similar contrast between the Meccan and Medinan surahs. Onecannot help wondering what our final assessment of Muhammad would have been if he had

been killed just before the migration to Medina. Certainly his years in Mecca, characterised by the fine spirit of the contemporary Qur'anic passages, leave a generally positiveimpression on the student of his life's course.

The beginning of the Moslem propaganda was the free, honest and sincere expansion of a

religious mind moved by a profound conviction of the Supreme Truth, and by a sincere

desire on the Prophet's part to raise first himself, then his most intimate friends and

relations, finally all his fellow Arabs from the barbaric error of idolatry in which they lay

supine. (Caetani, "The Development of Mohammed's Personality",The Muslim W orld , Vol. 4,

p. 363).

2. The Character of the Medinan Surahs.

One of the easiest ways of distinguishing between the two periods is the manner of address inthe Medinan surahs. Whereas the Meccan passages usually speak to Muhammad himself or tomen generally, the Medinan passages are often addressed to Muhammad's followers with theintroduction Yaa ayyuhallathiina aa'manuu - "O ye who believe!" What follows is often of alegislative nature and it is true to say that the laws of Islam (the shari'ah) are found

principally in the passages dating from Muhammad's migration to Medina. Whereas theMeccan surahs are prophetic in character and striking in style, these later surahs are generallylegalistic and are more leisurely in style.

Those parts of the Qur'an belonging to the Medinan years are predominantly legal and

political. Their concern is with campaigns, confiscations, customs, and behavior, rather than

with patriarchs and preaching. (Cragg", The Call of the Minaret , p.82).

The Medinan surahs deal with the abolition of usury (Surah 2.278), the laws of inheritance(4.11-12), the prohibited degrees of relationship (4.23), the property of orphans (4.6-10), the

prohibitions on wine and gambling (5.93-94), and the like. The following is but the firstquarter of a long verse dealing with the need to reduce all contracts to writing and to havethem witnessed:



O ye who believel When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations

in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as

between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as God has taught him, so let him

write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord God and not diminish

aught of what he owes. Surah 2.282

The whole verse, one of the longest in the Qur'an, makes tedious reading and contrasts withthe sharp, pithy exclamations of the earliest surahs. "The slovenliness, the trailing sentences,the mechanical rhymes of the later portions of the Qur'an, have often been remarked on"(Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian E nvironment , p. 96). Another writer makes asimilar comment on the generally uninspiring character of the Medinan surahs:

The sentences are long and unwieldly so that the hearer has to listen carefully or he will miss

the rhyme altogether; the language has become prose with rhyming words at intervals. The

subject matter is laws, comments on public events, statements of policy, rebukes to those

who did not see eye to eye with the prophet, Jews especially, and references to his domestic

troubles. Here imagination is weak and stock phrases are dragged in to conceal the poverty

of ideas though occasionally the earlier enthusiasm bursts out. (Tritton, Islam, p. 16).

One of the most significant distinctions between the two periods is the amount of attentionwhich the Qur'an pays to Muhammad himself in the later surahs. Although the Meccan surahsare often directly addressed to him, he is very rarely the subject of the revelations, but in theMedinan surahs he comes regularly to the fore. Passages dealing with the Day of Judgmentand the destiny of mankind give way to new revelations concerned much with the immediateconcerns of his private life. He is given special permission to exceed the limit placed onMuslims not to take more than four wives at a time (Surah 33.50-52), believers arecommanded to salute him (33.56), and are even given strict details regarding etiquette to beobserved when approaching his apartments:

O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, until leave is given you, for a meal, (and

then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when

ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys

the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but God is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth.

Surah 33.53

These passages contrast sharply with the humble tone of an earlier surah where he is rebukedfor alighting a blind man who came to him to enquire about his message while he wascourting wealthy pagan Arab merchants:

(T

he Prophet) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man(interrupting). But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual

understanding)? Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him? As

to one who regards himself as self-sufficient, to him cost thou attend; though it is no blame

to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding). But as to him who came to thee striving

earnestly, and with fear (in his heart), of him west thou unmindful. Surah 80.1-10.



In the biographical section of this book we have already seen how, during the Medinan period, Muhammad began to regard himself as God's supreme apostle and final messenger toall mankind while considering himself purely a warner to the Arabs at the start of his course.The exalted image he obtains in the later passages and the attention paid to his personalaffairs characterise much of the Medinan surahs:

There springs into the front line the person of Mohammed with an almost shamelessprominence. (Caetani, "The Development of Muhammad's Personality", The Muslim W orld ,

Vol. 4, p. 361).

At the same time the stories of the Biblical prophets are remoulded into a fairly regular formvery similar to his own prophetic course and experience. Many of these stories consist of dialogues between a prophet and his kinsmen in which the former preaches monotheism andright-living to the latter who have strayed from the path (So Noah, Surah 21.76-77; Abraham,Surah 37.83-99; etc.). Indeed the conversations are even couched in precisely the samelanguage used by Muhammad in debate with his own Meccan kinsmen. Hud, the prophet of the 'Ad people, is said to have discoursed with his countrymen in this manner (only relevant

statements are here included for the sake of brevity):"O my people! Worship God! Ye have no other god but Him" . . . the leaders of the

unbelievers among his people said "Ah! We see that thou art an imbecile" . . . He said "O my

people! I am no imbecile, but (I am) an apostle from the Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds! . .

. Do ye wonder that there hath come to you a message from your Lord through a man of

your own people, to warn you?" . . . They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship

God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? Bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so

be that thou tellest the truth!" He said . . . "Dispute ye with me over names which ye have

devised - ye and your fathers - without authority from God? Then wait: I am amongst you,

also waiting". Surah 7.65-71.

This passage almost perfectly symbolises Muhammad's own struggle with the paganMeccans. He too concentrated on proclaiming the unity of God, was rejected as one

possessed, and likewise defended his claims. (Hud, as in all the Qur'anic stories of the prophets it records, is made to describe Allah in typically Qur'anic terms, e.g., rabbil-'alamin - "The Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds"). Again there is the emphasis on the prophet beingcalled from his own people who, however, preferred the cult-worship of their ancestors.Muhammad likewise threatened his people with destruction and was challenged to bring itabout (Surah 8.32) and, like the supposed prophet Hud, reviled their idols as asma'

summaytumuu haa antum wa aabaa 'ukum - "names which you have devised - you and your fathers" (Surah 7.71, 53.23). Another writer says of Muhammad's tendency to remould thestories of the former prophets to fit his own experiences:

What, however, is of more interest to our present study is that the stories of the previous prophets, in whose succession he claims to stand, come to be accommodatedto that same pattern. Vague and indefinite figures in the early Meccan passages, their stories gradually take form and, as they appear in his later preaching, they tend moreand more to fall into a stylized pattern, viz. the pattern which he has as the

background of his thought of his own mission. (Jeffery, The Qur'an as S cripture, p.47).



It has rightly been said that much of the Qur'an is a collection of stories of prophets andevents culled from Jewish and other sources upon which the personality of Muhammad hasindelibly been impressed. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of the very altercationsrecorded in the book between earlier prophets and their people, for in these cases even the

personalities of those prophets have given way to that of Muhammad himself. (Hud is not aBiblical prophet but the passage quoted is perhaps the most striking example of a parallel

between a Qur'anic narrative of a former prophet's experiences and Muhammad's own lot).One cannot help concluding that, far from being a book of divine origin, the Qur'an is reallylittle more than the impress of Muhammad's thoughts and perceptions upon the material heimbibed.

From a careful perusal of the suras of this second period, it may safely be said that there is

nothing in them which an Arab, acquainted with the general outline of the Jewish history

and legend, and of the traditions of his own country, and possessed of some poetic fire and

fancy, might not have written, and that the hypothesis of a divine origin is in no way

required to account for them. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder , p. 107).

3. A Summary of the Contrast between the Two Periods.

In conclusion it seems appropriate to quote a few authors who make their own commentsupon the contrast between the Meccan and Medinan passages. Believing that the Qur'an iseternal and that it was mechanically dictated to Muhammad, Muslim writers are generallydisinclined to admit the contrast. They fear to allow any idea of a development in theQur'anic text as this seems to imply that it had much to do with Muhammad's growing

prophetic consciousness. One writer, however, who has the courage to openly admit thisdevelopment (as we have seen - p. 109), accordingly has no difficulty identifying thedistinction between the two periods:

A voice is crying from the very depths of life and impinging forcefully on the Prophet's mind

in order to make itself explicit at the level of consciousness. This tone gradually gives way,

especially in the Medina period, to a more fluent and easy style as the legal content

increases for the detailed organization and direction of the nascent community-state.

(Rahman, lslam, p. 30).

He goes on to say: "It is interesting that all these descriptions of experiences and visions belong to the Meccan period; in the Medina era we have a progressive unfolding of thereligio-moral ideal, and the foundation for the social order for the newly institutedcommunity but hardly any allusions to inner experiences" (Rahman, Islam, p. 128). Another writer also alludes to the developing character of Muhammad's prophetic consciousness inthe contrast between the Meccan and Medinan surahs:

Yet the revelations which he received, in Mecca so passionate and overwhelming, seemed in

Medina to become increasingly, though perhaps unconsciously, the result of reason and

thought. (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad , p. 231).

It is not our opinion, however, that the phenomenon is purely one of a logical development.The Medinan passages do not compare in style, diction or content with the elevated spirit of the Meccan passages and this retrogression, rather than true "development", is symbolic of



the similar deterioration we find in the character of the persevering prophet of Mecca who became the autocratic and, at times, ruthless ruler of Medina. Other writers comment in asimilar way on the less inspiring nature of the Medinan passages:

In the earlier chapters these verses are short, just as the style is living and fiery; in the later

chapters they are of lumbering length, prosaic and slow, and the rhyme comes in with often

a most absurd effect. (MacDonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 31).

Yet the style of the Koran shows the change for the worse. As its sincerity, in thedeepest sense of the word, seems to diminish, its subject-matter gets more and moremundane and prosaic; and with that the fire, the terseness, the rhymed beauty of thestyle gradually fades away into prolixity, tameness, obscurity, wearyingrepetitiousness. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 48).

The style of the Coran, though varying greatly in force and vigour, has for the most part lost the stamp of vivid imagination and poetic fire which marks the earlier Suras.It becomes, as a rule, tame and ordinary both in thought and language. Occasionally,

indeed, we still find traces of the former spirit. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. 328).To do justice to the book, however, the passages mentioned by Muir as those manifesting the"former spirit" should be mentioned. The first is:

God! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, the Eternal. No slumber can seize

him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in

His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as)

Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He

willeth. His Throne cloth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in

guarding and preserving them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). Surah 2.255

This is the famous ayatul-kursi, the "Verse of the Throne", named after the throne of Goddescribed in it. The other striking passage from the Medinan period is a rare verse, of obvious

beauty, which tends to move into the mystical realm in its description of God's glory and hasaccordingly been highly esteemed by the Sufis, the mystics of Islam, of whom we will hear more later:

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a

Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in a Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star:

lit from a blessed tree, an Olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose Oil is well-nigh

luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God cloth guide whom He will to

His Light: God cloth set forth Parables for men: and God cloth know all things. Surah 24.35

These two passages are rightly highly esteemed by the Muslims and are typical of theconstant endeavour in the Qur'an to glorify God in suitable terms. Nevertheless they doappear to be more easily related to the earlier surahs of the Meccan period than the otherwiselegislative spirit of most of the Medinan passages. It is in the Meccan surahs that we find"quite a number of verses expounding this theme of God's goodness and power. Indeed,quantitatively this is by far the most prominent aspect of the message of the early passages"(Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 63).



The Muslim world, nonetheless, rarely approaches the Qur'an with a desire to analyse itsteaching, sources or development in a critical way, and prefers simply to dogmatically claimthat it is the true and final revelation of God. Let us, then, press on to a brief examination of some of its teachings, its collection, and its sources, to see whether this claim can trulywithstand the acid test of a critical analysis.


C. SIGNIFICANT QUR'ANIC DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS .

1. The Qur'anic Doctrine of Abrogation.

The Qur'an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according

to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e., declare null and void, his

earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given

rise to the Qur'anic science known as Nasikh wa Mansukh, i.e., the "Abrogators and the

Abrogated". (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 66).

There are a number of passages in the Qur'an which teach that Allah cancels certainrevelations and teachings he has given and substitutes them with new revelations. The most

prominent verse in the Qur'an which sets forth this doctrine is this one:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute

something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things? Surah

2.106

In the early days of Islam it was widely accepted that this meant that some of the earlier partsof the Qur'an were superseded by later revelations. For example, in some passages wine isregarded as having good and bad effects (Surah 2. 219) and at first the Muslims in Medinawere bidden not to come to their daily prayers in a state of intoxication (Surah 4.43). Later,however, the drinking of wine was prohibited altogether (Surah 5. 93-94). Accordingly theconsumption of all alcoholic beverages was henceforth forbidden in Islam. In some cases itwas taught that even the sunnah (the example of Muhammad's life as recorded in the Hadith)could abrogate the teachings of the Qur'an. The Qur'an teaches that the penalty for adultery isa hundred stripes (Surah 24.2) but it is recorded in all the works of Hadith that it wasMuhammad's practice to stone adulterers to death. To this day the sunnah prevails over theQur'an in Arabia where those guilty of adultery are put to death. (On the other hand thesecond caliph, Umar, once stated that the Qur'an itself originally taught that adulterers were

to be stoned - we will return to this subject in the next section).The great commentators Baidawi and Zamakshari both taught that Surah 2.106 meant that thefull revelation of God's will could be deferred and that he could make certain allowances inearlier revelations which were to be disallowed in later revelations.

Baydawi's comment on the latter verse is illuminating on the significance of the principle of

"abrogation" for Islam. "The verse", he says, "is proof that abrogation and the deferring of

revelation - since the original revelation is qualified by "if " - and any commands that the



latter may include, are valid. The reason for it is that laws are formulated and verses

revealed as they are required, to suit the good of mankind. ... This varies with the time and

the individual; as, for example, the necessities of life, which may be beneficial at one time

and harmful at another". (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 163).

The author adds in a footnote that at an earlier point in the same passage Baidawi also said"Abrogation of a verse indicates that it has ceased to be a pious act to recite it, or that any law

based upon it has ceased to be valid, or both" (op. cit.). This great Muslim commentator clearly believed that, if a verse was abrogated, both its recitation and its contents were of noeffect. The other great commentator, Zamakshari, taught precisely the same thing. In histafsir (commentary) on Surah 2.106 he says:

To abrogate a verse means that God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To

cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated; that

is, he commands Gabriel to set forth the verse as abrogated by announcing its cancellation.

(Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 58).

He even goes on to say that such verses even disappeared by Gabriel's express commandfrom the Qur'anic text. There remain clear cases, however, where the Qur'an records both themansukh verse (the one cancelled) and the naskh verse (the new one that cancels it).

Thus the command appropriate at Mecca, to spend a large part of the night in devotions was

abrogated at Medina where the Muslims, especially Muhammad himself, had responsible

work to do during the day; but the abrogated verses were allowed to remain in the Qur'an.

(Watt, W hat is Islam? , p. 228).

The earlier passage exhorts Muhammad to spend about half of each night in prayer andrecitation (Surah 73.1,4), but in a later verse in the same surah (73.20), where it

acknowledged that Muhammad and his companions spend at least a third and, at times, up totwo-thirds of the night in prayer, Allah himself relaxes the commandment. He allows for theability of the Muslims to determine precisely the hours of the night, that some are in ill-healthor on various journeys, and commands them instead simply to read as much "as may be easy"for them. Another verse in the Qur'an which teaches the doctrine of abrogation is this one:

By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message) so thou shalt not forget, except as

God wills. For he knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. Surah 87.6-7 .

One highly respected Muslim commentator of the Qur'an of more recent times allows thatSurah 2.106 does indeed teach clear doctrine of abrogation:

What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that God's Message

from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and

exigencies of the time. That form was as different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and

then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Qur'an. There is

nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an,

p. 46).



On the other hand he says of the later verses (Surah 87.6-7): "There can be no question of thishaving any reference to the abrogation of any verses of the Qur'an" (p. 1724). He alleges thatit is simply one of God's mercies that we should innocuously forget former events andrevelations "lest our minds become confused"! The great early commentators, however,settled the interpretation of these verses upon the teaching of the other verse (Surah 2.106)and their conclusion was that Allah had expressly caused Muhammad to forget the abrogated

passages and had deleted them from the developing text of the Qur'an.

What was eventually settled as the joint exegesis of Q 87 and Q 2 (the interpretation of each

of these verses operating upon that of the other) was that there were indeed verses once

revealed to Muhammad as part of the 'total Qur'an revelation' which, however, have been

omitted from the collected texts of the Qur'an, the mushaf . That had by no means occurred

from Muhammad's having merely forgotten them. Q 87 refers to God's will and Q 2 uses the

root nsy in the causative. God had caused Muhammad to forget in conformity with the

mysterious divine intention as to the final contents of the Book of God. (Burton, The

Collection of the Qur'an, p. 48)

Whether all the abrogated verses were deleted from the Qur'an or whether some remain in thetext was never determined, and still is by many fugaha (jurists) of Islam, is that the Qur'anteaches quite clearly that some of its earlier revelations can be superseded and replaced bylater revelations. This doctrine has become unpalatable to many modern Muslims, however,as it tends to undermine their conviction that nothing in the Qur'an has ever been changed,neither in its text, nor in its teachings. There are yet other verses, nonetheless, supporting thisdoctrine of abrogation:

When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in

stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. Surah 16.101

God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.S urah 13.39

All these verses, however, are interpreted by modern Muslims to mean that the Qur'anabrogates the previous revelations, especially the Tawrat of Moses and the Injil of Jesus. Onesuch commentator says:

That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The

two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really. to the abrogation, not of the

passages of the Qur'an, but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had

taken. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 30).

Another apologist says of Surah 2.106: "If one law, namely the biblical law, is cancelled, thena better one is given to Muhammad" (Khalifa, The S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism p. 95).Surah 13.39 may well refer to the cancelling of previous books as the verse just preceding ittalks of apostles sent before Muhammad and closes with the statement that each kitaba (scripture) revealed to them was only likulli ajal - "for each period" (Surah 13.38). Surah16.101, however, speaks purely in the context of the Qur'an itself and the following versesare a defence of the book against its detractors. Furthermore it is not said in this verse thatGod cancels a kitab by replacing it with another, but rather that he substitutes an ayah, a word



generally meaning "sign" but, in the context of scriptural revelation, referring solely to averse of a book and not the book itself. This verse, therefore, clearly teaches that Allahsubstitutes one verse of the Qur'an for another, and it was this claim that made the Qurayshallege that Muhammad was "but a forger", for it appeared to be a very expedient way of explaining the anomaly of earlier verses being "substituted" or "forgotten".

Yusuf Ali translates the next verse as "Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation fromthy Lord in Truth" (Surah 16.102) which tends to imply that the whole Qur'an is therevelation spoken of in the previous verse which replaces other, earlier revelations, such asthe Tawrat and Injil. The translator has not been entirely accurate in this interpretation,however, for there is no word for "revelation" in the original text in Surah 16.102. Usually he

puts explanatory clauses in parentheses, but here simply inserts the word as though it is adirect translation from the original, which it is not. The text actually reads: Qul nazzalahuu

ruuhul qudusi mirrabbika bil haqq and, literally interpreted, it simply means "Say, it is sentdown by the Holy Spirit from thy Lord in Truth". The word ayah does not appear in theoriginal verse. If a noun had to be supplied, it would more properly be al-kitab or al-Qur'an.

In Surah 2.106 the word for "revelations" is once again ayat , invariably used of actual verses

of the Qur'an and not of the whole book or other scriptures. The Qur'anic word to expresslydescribe an earlier revelation in a scriptural form is always kitab and not ayah. The latter word is often used of God's signs and communications (Jesus himself is called an ayah -Surah 19.21), but it is never used specifically of a previous scripture. Furthermore, if theQur'an teaches that it is former scriptures that God causes to be forgotten, then Surah 87.6-7and Surah 2.106 must be interpreted to mean that Allah had caused Muhammad to forgetthese rather than earlier verses he had received. "But as Muhammad had never learnt the lawof Moses, he cannot be said to have forgotten it" (Sell, The Historical Development of the

Qur'an, p. 37). It is surely more reasonable to conclude that the Qur'an is referring to actualrevelations made to Muhammad himself which had later been substituted or "forgotten".

One understands the attempts by modern Muslim writers to explain away the obviousmeaning of these verses. They certainly do tend to imply that Muhammad found he wasforgetting some of his earlier recitations and, as his mission developed, became aware of theneed to replace or amend earlier teachings. There appears to be some substance in theconclusion of the Quraysh that Muhammad himself was artfully adapting his Qur'an to suitthe needs of the moment as he went along.

2. The Stories of the Biblical and other Prophets.

The Qur'an is hardly a book of history. Not only does its composition cover nothing morethan a twenty-three year period early in the seventh century AD, but the book itself containsno chronology of the historical events it alludes to or otherwise records.

It is remarkable that there is no definite date given to any event in the Koran. And there is

also a marked absence of place-names. Only from tradition do we know anything of when or

where the various chapters were revealed. (Zwemer, The Cross above the Crescent , p. 217).

Not only are no details given in the Qur'an of any sequence in the contemporary events of Muhammad's life but the book also makes virtually no reference to current events outside theHijaz (the area of Arabia near the Red Sea where most of the action in Muhammad's ministrytook place). There is one notable exception - Surah 30 begins with a mention of a recent



defeat of the Byzantines by the Sassanids of Persia, "the only instance in the Qur'an of aworld-historical allusion outside Arabia" (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an, p. 24). Yeteven here the Byzantines are called Ar-Rum - "The Romans" (Surah 30.2), an apparentmisnomer for the predominantly Greek armies of Byzantium (now Istanbul). It is probable,however, that the ruling European forces in the Middle East and North Africa werecollectively called Romans after many centuries of rule by the Roman Empire in these

regions.

It is the stories of the Biblical prophets that particularly lack any manner of logical sequencein the Qur'an. In some places there are lists of prophets which are hardly given in any sort of order. In the following verse the early patriarchs are given in the correct sequence (thoughIshmael is discounted as a prophet in the Bible), but the names of the prophets thereafter arecompletely mixed up:

We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: We sent

inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and

Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. Surah 4.163

One cannot help presuming that Muhammad had a fairly sound knowledge of the history of the patriarchs from Noah to the sons of Jacob but was somewhat at sea regarding thesequence of the prophets that followed. Indeed the later prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi,with the exception of Jonah, are conspicuous purely by their absence in the Qur'an.

While the patriarchs are vigorously Quranic figures, the great prophets of the Bible from the

eighth century BC onwards, are entirely absent. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur'an, p. 173).

There is nothing of the teaching of the writing prophets of the Old Testament, and practically nothing of the teaching of the New Testament. (Watt, Muhammad:

Prophet and S tatesman, p. 54).

On the other hand there are numerous stories in the Qur'an relating to the earlier prophets and New Testament figureheads which are borrowed from Jewish Talmudic sources and Christianapocryphal writings respectively. Examples of these are found in the sections on Qur'anicorigins and sources to follow. It seems that Muhammad's knowledge of the Bible was limitedto information from secondary sources, though this knowledge did improve as time went on.

The needs of his profession do not appear to have made him actually a student - yet there is

no question that as the Koran grew in bulk, its knowledge of biblical stories became

somewhat more accurate: and though this greater degree of accuracy may have been at

times due to the Prophet's memory, it is more likely that he took such opportunities as

offered of acquiring more information. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p.106).

An example of the growing accuracy of the Qur'anic records of the events in the lives of theBiblical prophets proves the point. In Surah 26.160-175 one finds a brief record of thedestruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and of a typical conversation between the prophet Lotand his unbelieving people. Lot was delivered with his family "except an old woman wholingered behind" (Surah 26.171, as also 37.135). The story is roughly repeated in Surah27.54-58, except that in this case, as in all the other later records of this event, the woman is



now positively identified as his wife (Surah 27.57). There is as yet no hint of the involvementof the angels who came as God's messengers in human form to destroy the cities but, in later

passages, they finally appear while the narratives of the whole episode are simultaneouslyembellished with further information.

In Surah 15.51-77 there is a brief record of the visit of the angels and their mission.

Furthermore Abraham is now linked to the story of the destruction of these cities (typicallynot mentioned by name in the Qur'an) in that the angels visit him first to announce their

purpose (v.58-60) as in the Bible (Genesis 18.16-22). When they come to Lot, however, theydisclose their true identities immediately as well as their design and call on him to leave bynight with his household (v.63-66). Only after this do the townsmen come to Lot to demandhis guests and, as in the Bible (Genesis 19.8), Lot offers them his daughters (v.71). Therecord is very similar to the Biblical account except that in the Bible the angels only maketheir true identities known after the altercation with the tribesmen (Genesis 19.11) and onlythen command him to prepare to leave with his family as they make their mission known tohim (Genesis 19.12-13). The Qur'anic error in placing these disclosures before the visit of thetownsmen leads to a somewhat irrational situation:

In S. 15 apparently no sequence of the events is presented, since it is told that the

conversation of Lot with the people follows after the notification of the angelic rank of the

visitors. This is not logical, for in that case Lot need not have been afraid of being

importuned by the people and there would have been no need of "offering" his daughters.

(Baljon, Modern Muslim K oran Interpretation, p. 38).

In Surah 11.74-85 Muhammad finally gets it right. Once again the angels come to Abrahamand this time the Qur'an mentions the prayer he offered to deliver the cities. Furthermore thedisclosure of the identities of the angelic guests and their purpose to deliver Lot and hisfamily and destroy the cities is now rightly placed after the altercation with the townsmen(v.81-82). Now the fears of Lot about the security of his guests when the townsmen arrive

makes sense. He is said to have "felt himself powerless" (v.77) to protect them and openlyexpresses his regret that he could not summon powerful support on their behalf (v.80). Onlyat this point do they disclose their true identities as angelic messengers and only now is hecalled to leave with his family by night. All this is consistent with the Biblical narrative but iscontradictory of the account in Surah 15 where the disclosures are said to have been made

before the townsmen confronted Lot.

All these features strongly support the statement made by Margoliouth that, as the Qur'andeveloped, so its record of the events relating to the Biblical prophets became significantlymore accurate. This conclusion can hardly be resisted in the circumstances:

Again, in the first four of the passages just quoted nothing suggests any awareness of the

connexion between Abraham and Lot, and indeed some matters suggest ignorance of it; on

the other hand, in the last three passages there is explicit mention of the connexion with

Abraham. If there were only one or two instances of this sort of thing they could easily be

explained away; but there are a great many; and the Western critic therefore finds it difficult

to resist the conclusion that Muhammad's knowledge of these stories was growing and that

therefore he was getting information from a person or persons familiar with them. (Watt,

Muhammad at Mecca, p. 159).



That Muhammad derived much of his knowledge of the prophets from those around him is backed up further by the fact that many of the names it gives to these prophets are not in their original form but rather in the form we find in the Greek texts of the New Testament, whichis most significant because Arabic is a Semitic language in many respects closely related toHebrew while it is considerably different to Greek. The prophets Jonah and Elijah are calledYunus and Ilyas respectively in the Qur'an, and the New Testament Greek forms of their

names are likewise Yunas and Elias. The names of these prophets, therefore, as well as others(ea. Ishaq for Isaac) in the Qur'an, are given in neither their proper Hebrew nor Arabic forms

but in the corresponding Greek form.

But the point is most important, especially as the Quran claims to be an Arabic Quran and a

revelation to the Arabs in plain unequivocal language. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 62).

It seems fair to conclude that, in all these instances, the Qur'an records nothing more thaninformation which Muhammad received respecting the Biblical prophets, not through adivine revelation from heaven, but purely through communications between himself and theJews and other knowledgeable folk he chanced to meet.

3. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in the Qur'an.

One of the most significant features of the Qur'an is the attention it pays to Mary, the mother of Jesus. She is the only woman mentioned by name in the book and features so prominentlythat the 19th Surah is named after her, namely S uratu-Maryam. Yet, despite the eminent

position she holds in the Qur'an, much of its teaching about her is derived from apocryphalsources and no small amount of confusion about her true role is found in the book.

There are several references in the Qoran to the legends contained in the apocryphal

gospels, suggesting that the Prophet's knowledge of Christianity may have been derived

from some such sources. The most commonly quoted examples of this nature are, firstly, the

statement that Mary was brought up in the Temple in Jerusalem, where she was fed byangels. This tradition was to be found in the "Protevangelium of James the Less", an

apocryphal work, and also in certain apocryphal gospels produced in Egypt. (Glubb,The Life

and Times of Muhammad , p. 295).

In the story referred to we find that the mother of Mary, a "woman of Imran" (Surah 3.35),dedicated her child while it was still in the womb to the Temple service but was surprised tofind that it was a female when it was born (v.36). Nevertheless the Qur'an states that Godaccepted her dedication and that she was committed to the care of Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, and remained constantly in her mihrab (v.37). The word today refers to theniche in all mosques giving the direction of Mecca but in this case refers to her "chamber" in

the Temple. (The mihrab in the great mosque at Cordoba in Spain is in the form of a smallchamber). That it was actually intended to be in the Temple itself is strengthened by thestatement that Zachariah alone had access to her (v.37) for only the Levitical priests couldventure into the inner parts of the Temple and the High Priest alone into the Holy of Holies,and that but once a year.

Although Mary's mother is not named, some of the works of Hadith say that her name wasHannah and most Qur'anic commentators thus describe her. Both ancient and modern



commentaries on the Qur'an accept that this was her real name. One of the more recentcommentaries says:

By tradition Mary's mother was called Hannah (in Latin, Anna, and in English, Anne), and her

father was called Imran. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 131).

Another commentator says of the "wife of Imran" that she is "Mary's mother, Jesus'grandmother, known as Hannah or Anne" (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur'an, p. 52A). It is further said in this passage in the Qur'an that Zachariah was astonished to find that, although Marywas always shut up in her chamber, she was always supplied with food. When he askedwhere it came from, she answered huwa min 'indillah - "it is from the realm of God" (Surah3.37). It is needless to add, surely, that all this has no equivalent in the Biblical record of thelife of our Lord's mother. Where then does it all come from? In the quote from Glubb's

biography we are given one of its origins - the heretical "Protevangelium of James the Less".We have here a relevant quote from this apocryphal work:

Anna said, as the Lord my God liveth, if a child, either male or female, be born unto me, I will

offer it as a gift to theL

ord my God, and it will be in his service all the days of its life ... Andshe gave the breast to the child and called its name Mary ... And Mary remained like a dove

in the Temple of the Lord, and received food at an angel's hand. (Tisdall,The Sources of

Islam, p. 53).

It is quite clear where this strange story originated. One finds many things salt about Jesus inthe Qur'an derived from similar apocryphal works which circulated in and around Arabia atMuhammad's time (e.g. a claim that he spoke from the cradle, Surah 19.29-30, which isderived from the "Arabic Gospel of the Infancy", so-called because the surviving manuscriptsof this work are significantly all in Arabic!). Tisdall adds that this story of Mary'sconfinement and sustenance in the Temple is also found in other writings:

The legend of Mary's being brought up in the Temple is found in many other apocryphal

works besides the one we have here quoted. For example, in the Coptic "History of the

Virgin" we read:- 'She was nourished in the Temple like the doves, and food was brought to

her from the heavens by the angels of God. And she was wont to do service in the Temple;

the angels of God used to minister unto her. But they used often to bring her fruits also from

the Tree of Life, that she might eat of them with joy'. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the

Qur'an, p. 159).

One can hardly blame Muhammad for the composition of this strange story but, by includingit in the Qur'an, he has made his book teach strange things about the mother of Jesus. In factthe whole story is a marvellous confusion of various passages in the Bible. Mary is clearlyconfused with Elijah, for a start, for he was the prophet confined to solitude who was fed byravens who brought him food from above (1 Kings 17.6). Nevertheless it is the name given toMary's mother, namely Hannah, that really gives us the clue as to where the composers of thestory obtained their material.

It is striking to find that Hannah, Mary's supposed mother, prayed for a child and promised todedicate it to the service and worship of the House of God. Even Sunday-school children willguess that Mary has, in this case, been confused with Samuel, for it was his mother, the true



Hannah. who thus prayed for a child no less than a thousand years earlier and promised todevote him to the service of God:

And she vowed a vow and said, "O Lord of Hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of

thy maidservant, and remember me, and not forget thy maidservant, but wilt give to thy

maidservant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall

touch his head". 1 Samuel 1.11

When Samuel was born he was duly dedicated to the House of the Lord (1 Samuel 1.28) andit was he who anointed David King over Israel. One can clearly see where the confusionarose, but how did it come about? We have to go back to the time of Mary to find out. InLuke's Gospel we find this most enlightening passage:

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was

of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow

till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and

prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of

him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Luke 2.36-38.

One can clearly see now how the anachronism came about.Once again we have a womanwhose original Hebrew name was Hannah and yet we find that it is this woman whoremained in the Temple night and day, significantly worshipping and fasting for a good manyyears. Mary has clearly been confused, not only with Elijah and Samuel, but with Anna the

prophetess as well! It is clear that the two respective Hannahs - the mother of Samuel and thedaughter of Phanuel - have been confused with one another and the story in Surah 3 in theQur'an is therefore clearly a peculiar blending of the two totally different stories in the Bibleabout these two women.

What makes this connection even more certain is a perusal of the praises given to God byHannah and Mary respectively after they had been blessed with the conception of their holysons through the power of God when such conceptions were most unlikely. Part of Hannah's

prayer reads:

"My heart exults in the Lord;

my strength is exalted in the Lord.

My mouth derides my enemies,

because I rejoice in thy salvation.

There is none holy like the Lord,

there is none besides thee;

there is no rock like our God.

... The bows of the mighty are broken,

but the feeble gird on strength.



Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread,

but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger".

1 Samuel 2.1-2, 4-5.

Now compare her prayer with these words extracted from the famous Magnificat, the oracleof praise which Mary uttered when Jesus was conceived in her womb:

"My soul magnifies the Lord,

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, ...

For he who is mighty has done great things for me,

and holy is his name.

And his mercy is on those who fear him

from generation to generation.

He has shown strength with his arm,

he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,

He has put down the mighty from their thrones,

and exalted those of low degree;

He has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent empty away".

Luke 1.46-47, 49-53.

The two oracles are remarkably similar and the perceiving reader will immediately see thatHannah was a type of Mary just as her son Samuel was a type of Jesus Christ andforeshadowed his coming. On the other hand, some less perceptive minds strangely confusedthe stories of Hannah and Mary, compounded the confusion by further mixing up the storiesof the two Hannahs in the Old and New Testaments respectively, and then added a bit of flavour from the story of Elijah to the final concoction to produce the bewildering narrativefound in the apocryphal writings which has even more startingly found its way into the text of the Qur'an as a story true to history and authenticated by divine revelation!

As if all this were not enough, we even find Mary confused with Miriam, the sister of Aaron,in the Qur'an as well! In the Surah named after Mary we find that, when the child Jesus was

born, her neighbours said to her:

"O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a

man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" Surah 19.27-28.



Some Muslims have alleged that Mary really had a brother named Aaron, but this is purespeculation and inconsistent with the fact that the only one named in the Qur'an, called

Harun, is specifically called the brother of Moses (Surah 20.30). It is hard to resist theconclusion that Muhammad confounded the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron, the first high-priest of Israel.

Having heard a Mary mentioned in the story of Moses and another in the story of Jesus, itdid not occur to him to distinguish between them. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of

Islam, p. 61).

As compared with men of book-learning, Mahomet was undoubtedly ill-informed;otherwise he could not have confused Miriam the sister of Moses with Miriam themother of Jesus, as he is said to have done. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet , p. xii).

The title "sister of Aaron" is given to Miriam in Exod. xv.20, and it must be from this passage that Muhammad borrowed the expression. The reason of the mistake whichidentifies the Mother of our Saviour with a woman who lived about one thousand five

hundred and seventy years before His birth is evidently the fact that in Arabic bothnames, Mary and Miriam, are one and the same in form, Maryam. (Tisdall, The

Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 150).

In this case Muhammad's error cannot be attributed to an apocryphal writing as in the case of Hannah and Samuel. This time the confusion is entirely his own. Indeed, during his ownlifetime, he was confronted by Christians with this anachronism and the answer he gave isvery interesting:

Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked

me: You read "O sister of Harun" (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was

born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I

asked him about that, whereupon he said: The people (of the old age) used to give names

(to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 1169).

Accordingly most Muslim efforts to explain away the anomaly follow this line of reasoning.It is extremely hard to credit, however, as there is no other instance in the Qur'an whereanyone else is so called. Muslim writers often claim that Christians find an anachronism here

purely because they are ignorant of Arabic, yet one struggles to find another example of sucha figure of speech in the Qur'an. One writer refers to the non-Biblical prophets Hud and Salihwho are called brothers of their people (Surah 11.50 and 11.61 respectively) and says of thosewho allege that Muhammad confounded the mother of Jesus with the sister of Aaron:

Clearly they were unaware that the word akha is often used in the Qur'an not to mean

"blood-brother" but "related to", i.e. of the same nation or tribe. (Khalifa, The Sublime

Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 72).

Actually the word is only used in this context in a few passages which duplicate each other where the two prophets spoken of are so described. This is how "often" the word appears inthis context in the Qur'an. In every other case it is always a blood-brother who is referred to(in fact the word is used most commonly for Aaron who is invariably described as the brother



of Moses as we have seen. In the light of the subject now at hand, namely the title "sister of Aaron", this is very significant as it is hard to believe that Aaron would so often be called the

brother of Moses in the direct sense if this other clause "sister of Aaron" was intended to betaken indirectly). Furthermore the prophets spoken of were not named after other figureheads

but simply as brothers of their people generally - a very different use of the expression"brother" from the title "sister of Aaron". Khalifa's defence is hardly convincing. It seems that

he is hoping that all his readers are indeed as ignorant of Arabic as he supposes thoseChristians to be whom he sets out to refute, for he implies that the Qur'an regularly uses theword akha (brother) in the sense of "related to" which is simply not the case.

Furthermore it is important to point out, on the other hand, that the Qur'an nowhere speaks of a "sister" who is "related to her people". The only word used in the Qur'an for "a sister" isukhtun and it appears in Surah 4.12 where it obviously refers to an immediate blood-sister asthe verse deals with immediate degrees of inheritance from one who has left no ascendants or descendants. Sisters are also spoken of in Surah 4.23 and 4.176 and blood-sisters are onceagain clearly intended. In Surah 19.28 Mary's companions address her Yaa ukhta Haaruuna -"O sister of Aaron"! A proper exegesis of the word "sister" here consistent with the use of theword elsewhere in the Qur'an can only yield the meaning "a blood-sister of Aaron". There is

no warrant whatsoever for the interpretation "one who is related to Aaron".

Even if it was intended to carry this meaning we would still be faced with extreme difficultiesfor it leads to untenable suppositions. Another Muslim writer comments on the use of theexpression in Surah 19.28:

Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of

Moses, she was called a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife

of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i.5 as one "of the daughters of Aaron"). (Asad, The

Message of the Qur'an, p. 460).

It is true that people descended from famous forefathers in the Bible are often described assuch, e.g. the names given to Jesus "the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1.1),

but they are always actually descended from them as Elizabeth was from Aaron. Only thetribe of Levi could act as priests and both Aaron and Zachariah, together with his wifeElizabeth, were actually descended from Levi.

Mary, on the other hand, was descended from Judah through the line of David (Luke 1.32).She was not related to Aaron in any specific way at all, other than as an Israelite, like him,descended from Abraham. She was not even of his tribe. Whatever "relationship" existed was

purely national and ethnic - the remotest there could be. It is true Elizabeth is called her "kinswoman" in Luke 1.36 but, if there had been any intermarrying between their ancestors inany way, it must have been on Elizabeth's side. One of her ancestors must have married into

the tribe of Judah (which is hardly surprising as, after the exiles to Assyria and Babylon, thistribe constituted the overwhelming remnant of Israel that finally returned to the promisedland). On the other hand it is expressly stated in the Bible that Jesus is an eternal high-priestafter the order of Melchisedec and he, therefore, could not have been descended in any wayfrom Levi through Aaron. Accordingly his mother Mary likewise could not have had anyLevitical blood in her and so was in no way descended from or related to Aaron:



Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the

people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to

arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For

when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For

the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has

ever served at the altar. For it is evident that ourL

ord was descended from Judah, and inconnection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more

evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest,

not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent , but by the power of an

indestructible life. Hebrews 7.11-16 (my italics).

This passage makes it quite plain that Jesus had no lineal connection with Aaron whatsoever.Furthermore, whereas it was common to call people the sons or daughters of illustriousancestors, they were never described as their brothers or sisters. This holds true for both theBible and the Qur'an. The attempts by Muslim commentators to explain away the strangeconfusion between the true sister of Aaron and the mother of Jesus are simply unconvincing.This impression does indeed seem to be very appropriate:

The Commentators have in vain endeavoured to explain this marvellous confusion of time

and space. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 49).

The evidence in favour of the claim that Muhammad erred at this point is, on the contrary,entirely persuasive. As pointed out already, the original name of Mary was the same as that of the actual sister of Aaron, Miriam in Hebrew and Maryam in Arabic. If there had been no realsister of Aaron by that name, the title given to Mary would still have seemed inappropriate.But, as there really was a Miriam, sister of Aaron, the anachronism so obviously presentsitself. What strengthens this conclusion is the fact that Miriam is distinctly called the "sister of Aaron" in the Bible:

Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand. Exodus 15.20

We have seen that ukhta Harun in the Qur'an must mean the blood-sister of Aaron and this is precisely what Miriam was. Muhammad has clearly confused Maryam, the mother of Jesus,with this woman. Furthermore the evidence is strongly substantiated by the name given toMary's father in the Qur'an. In the Bible we read that Jochebed "bore to Amran, Aaron andMoses and Miriam their sister" (Numbers 26.59). So the father of Aaron and Miriam was aman called Amran - and yet this is the very name given to the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Qur'an' He is called Imran, the Arabic form of Amran (as Ibrahim is the Arabicform of Abraham). Mary, accordingly, is expressly called Maryamabnata 'Imraan - "Mary,daughter of Imran" - in the Qur'an (Surah 66.12). So she is not only called the sister of Aaron

but also the daughter of Imran. We therefore have a double-proof of the fact that she has beenconfused with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron and daughter of Amran.

Lastly, it may well be asked, why is Mary called the "sister of Aaron" in the Qur'an if she isnot confused with Miriam? We have shown that she was in no way descended from him andno more closely related to him than to any other patriarch or figurehead of Israel.Accordingly, what relevance is there in the appellation? Why was she called after Aaronrather than Moses, Elijah, Joseph, Solomon, or some other prophet? Not only can one find no



relevance in the title, the passage quoted above from the Book of Hebrews also makes it plainthat it is, on the contrary, ill-conceived and quite inappropriate.

Despite the laborious attempts at explanation by Muslim commentators, it can scarcely be

denied that a gross anachronism has here slipped into the Koran. (Frieling, Christianity and

Islam, p. 63).

Let it be said in conclusion that, whereas the Qur'an is a truly remarkable book and one of many virtues, it hardly justifies its claim to be the Word of God.

The Collection and Sources of the Qu'ran

A. EVIDENCES FOR THE COLLECTIO N OF THE QUR'AN.

1. Modern Muslim Attitudes to the Text of the Qur'an.

It is universally believed throughout The Muslim World that the Qur'an in circulation today is precisely that which Allah revealed to Muhammad, that nothing whatsoever has beenchanged, that no passage has been omitted from the text, that no man added to it, and that,down to the last letter, it has been preserved intact by the power of God. This hypothesis isthen summarily adduced as proof that the book must be the Word of God, one which theQur'an itself sets forth: Innaa nahnu nazzalnaath-thikraa wa innaa lahuu lahaafidhuun -"Indeed We sent down the Admonition, and will verily guard it" (Surah 15.9). Muslimwriters boldly allege:

All the great religions of the world have their sacred books but it is the proud claim of Islam

that the Qur'an is the only sacred book to have survived absolutely unchanged since it was

first revealed and written down fourteen hundred years ago. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur'anand Orientalism, p. 3).

The purity of the Qur'anic text is and will forever remain the greatest miracle of allhistory. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. xcvi).

It is a truly miraculous fact that the text of the Quran has been preserved absolutely pure and entire, down to the last vowel point. (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 89).

It is true that the Qur'an has been exceptionally well preserved and its text is very much that

which was first compiled at the inception of Islam. Even Christian scholars have been quick to admit this fact:

There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so

pure a text. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet , p. xxi).

Nonetheless a study of the early collection of the book will show that the popular sentimentsof the Muslims, as expressed in the quotes above, are not entirely supported by the evidencesat hand. One cannot help immediately detecting, in these quotes, certain claims that suggest



that the wish is father to the thought. Zafrulla Khan goes so far as to allege that even thevowel points of the Qur'an are totally unchanged to this day, and yet the history of the Qur'antext shows that diacritical points distinguishing the Arabic consonants and the relative vowel

points were only introduced at least two hundred years after Muhammad's death. The earliestQur'ans, in kufic and other scripts, all had only seventeen consonants (whereas the Arabicletters distinguished by diacritical points, etc., today number twenty- nine) and none were

accompanied by vowel points. Likewise scrupulous human preservation of the text can hardly be termed a divine miracle. No more does the preservation of the text in the memories of thequrra (Qur'an "readers") justify this claim. No amount of human effort, no matter howremarkably punctilious or scrupulous it may be, can be adduced as proof of a divine miracle.

As we analyse the history of the text of the Qur'an we will find that, like the Bible, it hassuffered from variant readings and other vagaries, notwithstanding the fact that it has beencarefully preserved as a whole. This statement anticipates the only conclusion that can bedrawn from an analysis of the evidences:

It may be assumed that the Qur'an in its present form contains the greatest part of the

revelations which actually occurred; on the other hand, one cannot support the claim that it

includes all of the revelations. (Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 23).

Before proceeding, it is useful to point out at this stage that the Muslim attitude to the Qur'andoes not derive from an exhaustive study of the historical evidences available but rather from

preferred presuppositions. The Qur'an has never been subjected to the form of textualcriticism so intensively applied to the Bible in recent times. Muslims mistake this as a signthat the Qur'an does not suffer from the minor textual defects found in the Biblical texts.Once one ventures upon such an analysis, however, one finds that the results are invariablythe same, as we shall see.

Is there any serious textual criticism of the Islamic Scripture? How far have Muslims gone in

taking the Qur'an in proper terms of historical analysis? Are they not impossiblyfundamentalist in their attitudes? When will the break come? (Cragg, The Mind of the

Qur'an, p. 183).

When the early Muslims began to have contact with Christian communities they discoveredthat the teachings of the Bible contradicted those of the Qur'an in many ways and that theywere fundamentally Jewish and Christian rather than supportive of Islam as the Qur'anclaims. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and the Muslims immediately felt boundto allege that the Biblical texts must have been corrupted, and so it is to this day. The claimsfor the purity of the Qur'an text, allowing not the slightest "corruption", were a naturalcorollary to this allegation and are made, consciously or otherwise, for this very purpose to

the present day. An objective study of the sources, however, will show that "the textualhistory of the Qur'an is very similar to that of the Bible" (Guillaume, Islam, p. 58), and thatthe Muslim efforts to push the transmission of the texts of the two books to opposite extremesis the product purely of wishful thinking.

2. The Qur'an at the End of Muhammad's Life.

Muhammad's death was quite unexpected, so much so that Umar threatened to despatch tothe same fate those who dared to allege that it had occurred. What was the state of the Qur'an



itself at this untimely juncture? The records in the Hadith are somewhat confusing but allagree on one point - the collection of the Qur'an text into its final form only took place after Muhammad's death.

To begin with, it is quite certain that when the Prophet died there was no collected, collated,

arranged body of material of his revelations. What we have is what could be gathered

together somewhat later by the leaders of the community when they began to feel the need

of a collection of the Prophet's proclamations, and by that time much of it was lost, and

other portions could only be recorded in fragmentary form. (Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture,

p. 91).

This is the general opinion of most Western scholars who have made a study of thecompilation of the Qur'an. Jeffery was the scholar par e xcellence in this field among English-speaking students of the subject and in another work he again makes the same point:

Nothing is more certain than that when the Prophet died there was no collected, arranged,

collated body of revelations. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an, p.

5).

As pointed out already, the early traditions are not always clear, but we do believe that a verysound conclusion can be drawn from them and one consistent with the evidences.

Nonetheless one does find some scholars seeking to discount the traditions and therebyestablish favoured hypotheses. One such scholar is John Burton who, in a recent work, hassought to prove that the Qur'an text that has been handed down was in fact quite simply thatwhich Muhammad himself actually defined, collected and arranged towards the end of hislife. He is constrained to admit, however, that his thesis is e x vacuo as far as the evidences areconcerned and indeed somewhat contrary to them. He duly allows that the traditions, whileconflicting at times, are nevertheless unanimous in teaching that the Qur'an was not collected

in its present form before Muhammad's death:The Muslim reports are not in fact in disagreement) they are in perfect agreement, for

common to all of them is the constant and unvarying allegation that, whoever may have

been the first to collect the Qur'an texts, it was certainly not the Prophet to whom they had

been revealed. (Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, p. 160).

It is widely stated in the works of Hadith that the first attempt to collect the Qur'an was onlymade during Abu Bakr's short reign as caliph after Muhammad's death. A widespread revoltfollowed his demise in Arabia and, in one of Abu Bakr's major campaigns to quell it, at theBattle of Yamama, many of the qurra were killed. This event allegedly prompted him toendeavour to preserve the Qur'an in a written, collected form. One of the narratives reads:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had

been killed ... Then Abu Bakr said (to me): 'You are a wise young man and we do not have

any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So

you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)'. By

Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier

for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, 'How will you do



something which Allah's Apostle did not do?' Abu Bakr replied, 'By Allah, it is a good project'.


Zaid is then said to have responded to the appeal and set about collecting the text of the book.One thing is clear from the narrative - the collection of the Qur'an is said to have been onething expressly which Allah's Apostle did not do. On the other hand it is taught elsewhere in

the Hadith that at least four companions had collected the whole Qur'an during Muhammad'slifetime, one of whom was the same Zaid:

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik, "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the

Prophet?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin

Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 488).

Another early collector of Hadith adds that there was a fifth but that there was some disputeas to his identity. He is said to have been one Tamim al-Dari (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-

K abir , Vol. 2, p. 457). One detects immediately a degree of uncertainty about the earlycollection of the Qur'an text.

What should we do then with the other two traditions of Bukhari which are in harmony with

Ibn Sa'd in assigning the collection of the Kur'an to the lifetime of the Prophet? (Mingana,

"The Transmission of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 7, p. 228).

The other tradition from Bukhari, attested by all other major works of Hadith, makes it plain,however, that the actual collection of the Qur'an was only undertaken after Muhammad'sdeath. This tradition, as pointed out already, was very widely attested. Zaid clearly knew theQur'an well but the suggestion that he knew it perfectly, and in its entirety, is contradicted bythis statement attributed to him:

So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf

stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last

Verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with

anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 478).

It was quite obviously a widespread search that Zaid conducted and the statement that one passage (Surah 9.128-129) was found with only one man shows that no one knew the whole book by heart. He could not find another supposed hafiz who knew it. It is then stated that thecompleted text was kept by Abu Bakr and, after his death, by his successor Umar and, uponhis demise, by his daughter Hafsah.

Let it be said, in passing, that the sources relied on by Zaid - date palms, white stones, etc. -

were hardly conducive to the compilation of a perfect text from which nothing was lacking.What evidence is there that he did, in fact, remarkably compose a perfect copy from such

brittle resources? Indeed, if anyone had known the whole book by heart, all his efforts wouldhave been unnecessary. Any one of the qurra could simply have dictated it to him. The stepshe took, however, strongly imply that the texts of the Qur'an were loosely scattered in various

places and that those he consulted generally knew and remembered different texts.Furthermore the mushaf (the written codex) that he finally compiled was, let it be noted,assembled not by the decree or direction of the Almighty but purely at his own personaldiscretion, no matter how careful he almost certainly was to arrange an authentic copy.



3. The Uthmanic Collection of the Qur'an.

The traditions would have us believe that the first official collection of the Qur'an wastherefore made by the caliph Abu Bakr and yet we find that, instead of being copied and

promulgated as the standard text of the Qur'an, it was strangely preserved, if not concealed, inthe private possession of the first two caliphs and thereafter under the bed, so tradition tells

us, of Hafsah, very much a recluse after the death of Muhammad.

Thus, if the death of so many Moslems at al-Yamamah endangered the preservation of the

text, why did Abu Bakr, after making his copy, practically conceal it, entrusting it to the

guardianship of a woman? (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim

W orld , Vol. 5, p. 381).

We shall return to this question to give a probable answer shortly. In the meantime, however,it is of great interest to us to find that during the reign of the third caliph Uthman this copywas brought to the fore as word was brought from the out-lying provinces that the Muslims inthese areas were reciting the Qur'an in different ways. The sequel is set out in the following

tradition:

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of

the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they

differ about the Book (Qur' en) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a

message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile

the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to

Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and

Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman

said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the

- Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'.

They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the originalmanuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had

copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary

manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 479).

This tradition informs us quite clearly that other manuscripts of the Qur'an, some in sections,others complete, had been written out and that they were in use elsewhere in the conqueredterritories. Uthman's order that they should be burnt indicates that there were serious textualdifferences between them and the manuscript in Hafsah's possession.

The traditional account of what led to the next step in the fixing of the form of the Qur'an

implies that serious differences of reading existed in the copies of the Qur'an current in thevarious districts. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p. 42).

It is practically certain that none of the other texts was identical to that compiled by Zaid for Abu Bakr, as not one was allowed to be spared destruction. Uthman's drastic action impliesthat the differences between these texts were serious textual variants and that they affectednot just the manner of the recitation of the Qur'an but its actual form and content. Thereforethe Qur'an text that has been handed down through the centuries is not that to which thecompanions of Muhammad gave their unqualified assent but purely one form of it,



uncorroborated in every point by the others in circulation, which was finally established asthe standard text to the exclusion of the others.

Attempts have been made to avoid this conclusion by claiming that all Uthman did was to

remove dialectal peculiarities that had crept into the pronunciation of the Qur'an as it was

recited, and have a standardized type of text written out in the pure dialect of the Quraish.

This matter of Quraish dialect is indeed mentioned in the traditions referring to this

Recension, but to pretend that it was merely a matter of dialectal variations is to run

counter to the whole purport of the accounts. The vast majority of dialectal variations would

not have been represented in the written form at all, and so would not have necessitated a

new text. (Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 96).

Rather, his aim was to select from amid a welter of rival Qur'an texts, each claimingto be the uniquely authentic record of what had been revealed to Muhammad, a singletext to be officially promulgated as the te xtus receptus of the Muslims. No deviationfrom this text would be henceforward tolerated, or indeed possible, for it is alsoreported that Uthman required the destruction of all other recorded Qur'an texts.

(Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, p. 138).

Indeed even the commission by Uthman to Zaid and the other three redactors indicates thatHafsah's copy of the Qur'an had hardly been regarded as an infallible text per se. Thedirection given that the text should be standardised in the Quraysh dialect shows that the four men were given some liberty to revise Hafsah's manuscript where they considered thisnecessary to bring it into line with its original language. Indeed the reason for this is mostinformative: "This was because Zaid was a Madinite while his colleagues were Quraish" (Ali,The Religion of lslam, p. 26). It is to be presumed that, as Zaid was the sole compiler of Hafsah's text, there were Medinese dialectal variants in his work which needed to becorrected by the other three. Furthermore the Hadith go on to inform us that even after thisrecension by the four scribes, Zaid recalled a verse which was lost:

Zaid bin Thabit added, 'A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the

Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with

Khuzaima bin Thabit al-Ansari'. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 479).

The verse was Surah 33.23. Accordingly even this copy can hardly be regarded as a perfectcollection of the Qur'an to the last word or letter, nothing added or missing from it. It is trulysaid that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and, whereas the Qur'an may have beenremarkably transcribed, even perhaps to the point of inerrancy, from the time of Uthman, theweak link is the first one and it is found just at this point where the evidences show that theargument for the textual perfection of the Qur'an cannot be taken back from the time of

Uthman to Muhammad himself.

Uthman's commission decided what was to be included and what excluded; it fixed the

number and order of the suras, and the 'outline' of the consonantal text (that is, its shape

when the dots distinguishing letters are omitted). (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p.

44).



Among the other texts destroyed were two by the wellknown and highly respected qurraAbdullah bin Mas'ud and Ubayy bin Katb, the latter in fact being known as sayyidul-qurra -the "Master of the Readers". It is said of his text:

We have no knowledge of when his Codex was made, but we do know that before the

appearance of the Uthmanic standard text his Codex had already come into vogue in Syria . .

. His Codex is definitely stated to have been among those destroyed by Uthman. (Jeffery,

Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an, p. 114, 115).

We will have more to say about the other famous companion of Muhammad shortly. Nonetheless, even though their codices were actually destroyed, records were kept of thereadings in them which differed from those in the text standardised by Uthman.

Uthman's text was intended to standardize the consonantal text, yet for long after Uthman's

time there is evidence that variant traditions as to the consonantal text survived among the

learned, and we can gather a great mass of material as to the readings in the text of Ubai or

Ibn Mas'ud. (Jeffery, "Progress in the Study of the Qur'an Text,'' The MusIim W orld , Vol. 25,

p. 8).

Accordingly we must conclude that the text which was finally imposed on The Muslim World by Uthman was not one which his predecessors Abu Bakr and Umar had established as thestandard text of the Qur'an but rather merely one among a whole selection of codicescompiled by different qurra and other companions of Muhammad. This explains the unusualsolitude which surrounds the preservation of Zaid's text from the time of its compilationunder Abu Bakr to its public exposure during Uthman's reign. It is not that Zaid's text was

perfect and the others imperfect - Zaid's text was simply one among many which was singledout to be the preferred text.

Modern criticism is willing to accept the fact that Abu Bakr had a collection of revelation

material made for him and, may be, committed the making of it to Zaid b. Thabit. It is not

willing to accept, however, the claim that this was an official recension of the text. (Jeffery,

The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 93).

That Abu Bakr was one of those who collected revelation material was doubtless true.He may possibly have inherited material that the Prophet had stored away in

preparation for the K itab. That he ever made an official recension as the orthodoxtheory demands is exceedingly doubtful. His collection would have been a purely

private affair, just as quite a number of other Companions of the Prophet had made personal collections as private affairs. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Te xt of

the Qur'an, p. 6).

It needs to be repeated that these were actual varying written collections of the Qur'an. Thesuggestions by modern Muslim writers that the only differences in those days in the recitationof the Qur'an were found purely in the pronunciation of vowel points cannot be seriouslysustained. It is only written texts that can be consigned to the flames, not niceties of

pronunciation of vowel points that do not appear in the written text. It must be presumed thatthere were actual consonantal and, indeed, clausal variants in their texts.



The mass of variant readings that has survived to us from the Codices of Ubai and Ibn

Mas'ud, shows that they were real textual variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities.

(Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 97).

Why, then, did Uthman not order a general revision of the whole Qur'an by calling in the prominent qurra for a broadly- based convention to compile as authentic a text as possible?Why did he summarily impose Zaid's text on the whole Muslim world, the recension of onlyone man uncorroborated by others, as the standard text of the Qur'an? A study of thecircumstances of the time answers this question. Uthman was a most unpopular caliph,accused by some of Muhammad's more prominent and influential companions of catering for his own household, the descendants of Umayya, who had generally opposed Islam until givenno choice but to throw in their lot with Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. Uthman was

placing many of these in high positions - an act destined to rupture Islam after his death. Itwas through this action that irreligious men like Mu'awiya and Yazid, descendants of Muhammad's archenemy Abu Sufyan, subsequently obtained control of the caliphate.

This danger was noticed by the more loyal and religious followers of Muhammad, especially

the qurra who had much influence in the empire, "a class of men who had acquired, thanks totheir being continually with the Prophet, a fairly complete knowledge of the Koranicrevelations and of all the customs and rules of life, culled from the reformer" (Caetani,"Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim World , Vol. 5, p. 386). As the Qur'anremained the final authority in all matters of life and conduct in Islam, these men were asevere threat to Uthman's untidy reign and their authority as experts in the text and teachingof the Qur'an gave them much influence over the centres beyond Uthman's immediate controlin Medina. Indeed the manuscripts compiled by these men soon became the standard texts inthese cent res.

The most important fact that Tradition has preserved in connection with these early Codices,

however, is the fact that certain of them came to attain the position of metropolitan

Codices. Thus we read that the people of Kufa came to regard the Codex of Ibn Mas'ud as ina sense their Recension of the Qur'an, the people of Baara the Codex of Abu Musa, the

people of Damascus the Codex of one Miqdad b. al-Aswad, and the Syrians other than the

folk of Damascus, the Codex of Ubai. (Jeffery, The Qur'an as Scripture, p. 94).

Now when we come to the accounts of Uthman's recension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter of removing dialectal peculiarities in reading, butwas a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for the whole empire.Apparently there were wide divergences between the collections that had beendigested into Codices in the great Metropolitan centres of Madina, Mecca, Baara,Kufa and Damascus, and for political reasons if for no other it was imperative to have

one standard Codex accepted all over the empire. (Jeffery, Materials for the Historyof the Te xt of the Qur'an, p. 8).

The purpose, therefore, of Uthman's decree was not just to standardise a text of the Qur'an for the whole Muslim world but to remove with one stroke the growing influence of the qurraand to nullify the threat that they posed. Quite clearly the caliph sought to undermine their authority in religious matters by destroying their Qur'anic esteem.



It is very significant that the Qurra were violently opposed to Uthman because of this act,

and there is evidence that for quite a while the Muslims in Kufa were divided into two

factions, those who accepted the Uthmanic text, and those who stood by Ibn Mas'ud, who

had refused to give up his Codex to be burnt. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of

the Qur'an, p. 8).

We are not therefore surprised to find that this highhanded political blow aroused the anger of the qurra and other more religious factions even more against the caliph and that theysucceeded in murdering him not long afterward.

We may well believe that the measure taken by the third caliph, of issuing an official edition

and ordering all unofficial copies to be burned, was a political necessity. That this act

brought about an insurrection wherein he was murdered is the most probable explanation

of the first civil war of Islam. (Margoliouth, "Textual Variations of the Koran", The Muslim

W orld , Vol. 15, p. 336).

It is most probable that this was the real reason for Uthman's action and one whichcontributed to his assassination. The standardising of the Qur'an text was purely incidental tohis efforts to establish control over the Muslim empire and to neutralise the potential of arevolution headed by those whose influence was assured through their knowledge of theQur'an.

Uthman ordered the compilation of a single official text of the Koran, and the violent

suppression, the destruction by fire of all other copies existing in the provinces. Such an act

called for considerable political courage, for it was an open challenge to the whole class of

the Readers and an effectual attempt to put an end to the monopoly of the sacred text that

they claimed. (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 5.

p. 389).

It does not suit Islamic tradition to admit as much and it was certainly to its advantage to havea standard text universally accepted in the world of Islam. Later contacts with the Christianworld made this eventuality all the more suitable to the Muslim cause. A single Qur'an text

proved to be a healthy foundation for an attack on the supposed variations and differences inthe Christian scriptures. The evidence of the manner in which that text became universalised,however, was seen to be its own Achilles Heel and therefore it became very convenient toremould it into the form in which we now have it, where the codex of Abu Bakr is not seen asa private copy in the possession of the caliph but rather as one publicly declared to be anofficial recension.

T

hese considerations explain the anxiety of traditionists to invent a previous compilation of the sacred text during the reign of the unimpeachable Abu Bakr, the perfect and saintly

Caliph, for in this way Uthman appears only as the copier of the text left by Abu Bakr.

(Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 5, p. 390).

Uthman's action then is not seen for what it really was - a stroke of policy against theinfluential qurra through the enforcement of the text of the Qur'an in his possession to theexclusion of rival texts - but rather as a pious reestablishment of the authority of a text long

before publicly drafted as the standard text of the Qur'an. If nothing else, Abu Bakr's prompt



action to privately conceal and store the manuscript compiled by Zaid undermines this theoryand very strongly supports the contention that it was merely a personal copy, a codex nomore important or accurate than all the others simultaneously being compiled.

4. The Codex of Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud.

A special degree of attention should be given to the codex of the Qur'an compiled byAbdullah ibn Mas'ud of whom we have heard already. The Hadith which refer to hisexceptional knowledge of the Qur'an are well worth recording here as they undergird theconclusions already drawn about Uthman's text. Ibn Mas'ud was a very early convert to Islamand the first to proclaim Muhammad's message openly in Mecca. When his codex wasordered to be destroyed in favour of Zaid's text, he said:

There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there

is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know

that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that

camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 488).

He had been one of Muhammad's closest companions and had obtained quite a reputation as areader of the Qur'an. At Kufa his text was widely recognised as authoritative and authentic aswe have already seen.

When Uthman sent to Kufa the official copy of his standard text with orders that all other

texts should be burned, Ibn Mas'ud refused to give up his copy, being indignant that the text

established by a young upstart like Zaid b. Thabit should be given preference to his, since he

had been a Muslim while Zaid was still in the loins of an unbeliever. (Jeffery, Materials for

the History of the Text of the Qur'an, p. 20).

Ibn Mas'ud certainly had a head-start over Zaid who only became a Muslim after the Hijrah.In his book The S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism, Mohammad Khalifa states that this Zaidibn Thabit was "among the first to believe in Islam" and that he was appointed as one of Muhammad's scribes (p. 36). It seems the author is confusing him with Zaid ibn Harithahwho was Muhammad's adopted son (the husband of Zaynab who married Muhammad after her divorce from him) and who was indeed one of the first to believe his message. Thecompiler of Abu Bakr's codex, however, came from Medina and only followed Islam someyears later. Furthermore it is expressly stated in many works of Hadith that Ibn Mas'ud wasone of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an text, if not its most prominent scholar andchampion:

Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said,

"That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying, 'Learn the Qur'an from four: fromAbdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh

bin Jabal, and Ubai bin Ka'b"'. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 5, p. 96).

The same tradition in the S ahih Muslim also makes special mention of the fact thatMuhammad deliberately named Ibn Mas'ud first, implying that he was the foremost authorityon the Qur'an (Vol. 4, p. 1312). Zaid is not even mentioned in the list. Yet another tradition



says that Ibn Mas'ud delivered a sermon in Kufa when Uthman's order concerning theuniform reading of the Qur'an was issued. He declared:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read

according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.

By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the

Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks

and playing with the youth. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al-K abir , Vol. 2, p. 444).

The transmitter of the tradition, Shaqiq ibn Salamah, added: "Subsequently I sat in the circlesof the Companions of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and others but nonecontradicted his statement" (op. cit.). Another tradition from the same source says that whenAbu Zabyan, an early convert to Islam, was asked which of the two readings of the Qur'an he

preferred, that is, the reading of Zaid or that of Ibn Mas'ud, he replied the latter, adding thatwhenever Gabriel revealed or recited the Qur'an to Muhammad during Ramadan each year,Ibn Mas'ud was the first to learn of it (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat al- K abir , Vol. 2, p. 441).

It therefore appears from the aforegoing traditions that Ibn Mas'ud was widely regarded as afar greater authority on the text of the Qur'an than Zaid and, as Muhammad specificallysingled him out as the first person to whom anyone should go who wished to learn it, hiscodex had far better grounds for being regarded as the best text available. It ia little wonder that he sought to disobey the caliph's order and preserve his copy. Indeed the record of thetextual variants between his text and that of Zaid is very substantial. One or two will bementioned shortly. All this proves quite conclusively that Zaid's codex can hardly beregarded as a perfect reproduction, to the last letter and with nothing omitted, of the Qur'an asit was handed down by Muhammad to his companions. Such a conviction may appeal to the

popular sentiments of the Muslims but it is seriously undermined by the wealth of evidencesleft to us in the Hadith - the other great historical heritage of Islam.

Some Muslim writers seek to avoid the implications by alleging that the textual variants inthe collections of Ibn Mas'ud and others were purely marginal glosses and notes (so Khalifa,The S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 49), just as they claim that such variants wereconfined to vowel points and did not affect the text of the Qur'an itself. The records thus far considered show quite plainly that the reason given by Uthman for his order against the other written manuscripts of the Qur'an text was that they contained serious textual variants anddiffered from his text and from one another. Little more need be said to show that sucharguments of Muslim apologists today are hardly founded on an objective analysis of theevidences at hand but rather upon the desire to uphold their preferred claim that the Qur'anhas not been altered in any way.

If it should be alleged, as it sometimes is, that the evidences considered are based purely onthe Hadith and are therefore unreliable, it must be said that there is no alternative chain of evidence anywhere in the history of Islam to tell us how the Qur'an came to be written in theform in which we now have it. There is no other source to consult. Those who claim that its

present form is its own testimony must tell us who transcribed it from Muhammad, whatevidence they have to prove conclusively that it is complete and always accurate, and on whatauthority they make these claims.



In fact the Qur'an is a most unsuitable testimony to its own supposed textual perfection. It is aterribly disjointed book. Its surahs are not arranged in any sort of chronological order and thevarious passages in these surahs deal with all sorts of issues, more often than not having noconnection with one another. A compact narrative like the Book of Esther in the Bibl e mightwell be its own testimony in this respect but the Qur'an, a collection of fragmentary texts and

passages compiled into an unharmonious whole without respect to sequence or theme, is not

the kind of book that can testify to its own textual accuracy.

The records in the Hadith, on the other hand, are an historical heritage, indeed the historicalheritage, in Islam, informing us how the Qur'an was reduced to its present form. One cannot

prefer bold, wishful claims in favour of the Qur'an's supposed perfection, unsupported by anyfacts or evidences, against a factual and historical record widely reported in different worksto the contrary. Such evidences cannot be dismissed in favour of pure speculation.

5. The Case of the "Stoning verses".

Widely reported in the Hadith is a tradition which makes Umar report that the punishment for adultery, according to the K itab Allah, the "Book of Allah", was death by stoning,

notwithstanding the verse found in the Qur'an today which prescribes a different penalty:

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred

stripes. Surah 24.2

The tradition referred to is found in all the recognised works of Hadith and reads as followsin one of them:

God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him Part of what he sent down was

the passage on stoning; we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned

and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no

mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which

God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and

women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684).

Not only did Umar make this disclosure but he also gave a fairly sensitive prologue to it toexplain what he was going to say and why he was doing so. The preamble reads as follows inanother record of the tradition:

Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, Umar

stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said "Now then, I am

going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it

portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to theothers wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand

it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 8, p. 539).

In Ibn Ishaq's S irat Rasulullah Umar is recorded as saying that if anyone could not receive(that is, assent to) what he was to say, he was not entitled to deny that he had said it. It is quitclear that he was very serious about what he wished to convey and anticipated a mixedreaction. It appears that the "stoning verse" (the ayatur-rajam) was, by the time he made his



disclosure, not only omitted from the Qur'an but was generally unknown to the younger section of the Muslim community. He obviously expected that there would be an adversereaction to his statement, especially as the verse he promoted was at variance with the penalty

prescribed in Surah 24.2:

There is concrete evidence that there was much substance in his claim, notwithstanding the

fact that the verse was not known widely. Firstly, had it come from an obscure source, itmight well have been discounted, but coming from one of the closest and most prominent of Muhammad 'a companions, it can hardly be summarily ignored or gainsaid. Secondly, thereare many traditions which record that Muhammad did indeed pass the stoning penalty onadulterers. Here is an example:

Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him)

acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah

(may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 350).

In the record of Umar's speech from the pulpit in this same work of Hadith, a part of the

actual verse is recorded and Umar is said to have recited it to the congregation assembled inthe mosque in Medina. It reads: ash-shaykhu washshaykhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa - "the adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them" ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p.352). Some Muslims say it is hard to find a place in the Qur'an where these words can beinterposed, yet other works state that they belonged to a much larger passage now missingfrom the Qur'an. Abu Ubaid's K itab Fada'il al-Qur'an contains a folio on verses missing fromthe Qur'an, which includes the "stoning verse", and gives it in its complete form:

Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you

read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three", I answered. Said he, "Yet it used

to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the Verse of Stoning". Said I,

"And what is the Verse of Stoning?" He said, "If a grown man and woman commit adultery,

stone them without hesitation, as a warning from Allah, for Allah is mighty, wise". (Jeffery,

"Abu Ubaid on Verses Missing from the Qur'an", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 28, p. 62).

The same folio has another tradition in which Umar is said to have declared: "Some peoplesay, 'What is this about the stoning? there is nothing in Allah's book except scourging',whereas the Apostle stoned and we stoned with him. By Allah, were it not that people mightsay that Umar had added something to Allah's book, I would have written it in just as it wasrevealed,' (op. cit., p. 63). This supports the suggestions that Umar's apprehensions about hisdisclosure stemmed partly from the fact that it was contrary to the teaching of the Qur'an as itnow stands in Surah 24.2. The same tradition recorded about the lengthy passage missingfrom Surah 33 (S uratul-Ahaab) is also recorded in the as-S unanul- K ubra of Ahmad ibn al-

Husain al- Baihaqi and is quoted on page 80 of Burton's The Collection of the Qur'an. Thewriter adds that "this version of the stoning verse is a fair imitation of the Qur'an style" (op.cit.). It is also useful to point out that in another tradition regarding the punishment for stoning two men brought a case to Muhammad and expressly requested him to decide it "inaccordance with the Book of Allah". The one man's bachelor son had committed adulterywith the other's wife. Muhammad then said "I will take a decision for you both in accordancewith the Book of Allah" ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 351). The boy was to be whipped ahundred times and exiled for a year, the woman was duly stoned after admitting the adultery.The tradition makes it clear that the sentences were expressly in terms of the revealed "Book



of Allah" (i.e. the Qur'an) and harmonises the apparently contradictory penalties by prescribing flogging for the unmarried and stoning for the married. This interpretation of Muhammad's sunnah holds in many schools of Islamic jurisprudence to this day.

There are some Muslims who try to find proof of stoning for adulterers in the Qur'an as itstands today, and they usually refer to a verse which states that women guilty of lewdness

should be confined to their houses till death overtakes them (Surah 4.15). It takes a fertileimagination to make these somewhat vague words teach expressly that those guilty of adultery are to be stoned! In any event, if the command was retained in the Qur'an, Umar would hardly have spoken as he did, saying that it was only his fear that he would be reviledfor adding to the Qur'an that restrained him from summarily inserting the missing verse.Furthermore, Umar claimed that the verse not only prescribed the supreme penalty but that itwas to be expressly by stoning . That verse is now missing from the Qur'an and that is whyUmar raised the issue. A better assessment of the situation is found in this quote:

Thus the Qur'an not only speaks of flogging, and not death, as punishment for adultery, but

it positively excludes death or stoning to death. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 617).

This same author, however, has an ingenious solution to the problem of the missing verses.He alleges that when Umar spoke of the K itab Allah he was not referring to the Qur'an but tothe Jewish Torah and adds: "In all likelihood Umar only spoke of rajm as the punishment for adultery in the Mosaic law and he was misunderstood" (p. 620). On top of this he has theaudacity to conclude: "That the present Torah does not give stoning as the punishment for adultery is clear proof that the text has been altered" (p. 618)! Such an elliptical line of reasoning almost defies comment. On the other hand it is hardly likely that Umar would havespoken of the Torah, not by its common name, but as K itab Allah, when he must have knownthat his hearers would automatically presume that he was speaking of the Qur'an. Likewisehis insistence that the verse was one of those revealed to Muhammad makes it extremelyunlikely that he was contemplating writing it into the Torah! It is also most improbable that

he would have handled the matter as delicately and sensitively as he did had he been referringto any other book than the Qur'an itself, the sacred scripture of Islam.

The widespread stoning of adulterers in Muhammad's time does tend to imply that the versedisclosed by Umar was originally a part of the Qur'an text. If so, it is just one of those

passages that is now excluded from the Qur'an (more will be mentioned shortly), proving thatthe Qur'an text, as we have it today, is somewhat incomplete.

6. Variant Readings in the Qur'an.

A selection of the more prominent variant readings that were known to exist will serve toillustrate, in closing, what has thusfar been said. Although the early Qur'an manuscripts of

Ibn Mas'ud and others were destroyed, a record was kept of the differences that existed between the various texts that had been compiled.

In the fourth Islamic century there were three books written on this question of the Old

Codices which had some influence on later studies. These were the works already

mentioned of Ibn al-Anbari, Ibn Ashta and Ibn Abi Dawud. In each case the book was entitled

K itab al-Masahif , and in each case the work, while dealing with the Uthmanic text, its

collection, orthography, and the general Massoretic details with regard to it, dealt also with



what was known of the Old Codices which it had replaced. (Jeffery, Materials for the History

of the Text of the Qur'an, p. 10).

In the book quoted Arthur Jeffery lists, on page 17, the thirty-one different books and recordsconsulted which list the various different readings between the texts. Jeffery's own list in his

book is a composition of the many hundreds of variant readings recorded in these works. In

many cases there is agreement between a number of the codices on readings that differ withthe Uthmanic text in each case.

No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just

mentioned (i.e. Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy) is extensive. (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an,

p. 45).

To start with, Surah 2.275 begins allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those whodevour usury will not stand . Ibn Mas'ud's text had the same introduction, but after the lastword there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, on the "Day of Judgment"(Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Te xt of the Qur'an, p. 31). Talha's codex also

recorded this variant as part of the original text (op. cit., p. 343).

In the same surah we find that, whereas verse nine begins Yukhaadi'uunallaaha - "they woulddeceive Allah", Ibn Mas'ud's text read Yakhda'uunallaaha - "they do deceive Allah". Thecompiler comments that the Uthmanic form "may be regarded as an attempt to soften the ideaof deceiving Allah which is suggested by the alternative reading" (Jeffery, Materials for the

History of the Te xt of the Qur'an, p. 16). In many cases one finds that the variants in theextra-Uthmanic texts tend to improve or elaborate on the Uthmanic form (e.g. the gloss inSurah 2.275), whereas on other occasions, as here, the reverse is true. In the case of Surah 2.9it appears that the Uthmanic form is an adaptation of the original which was probablyregarded as too harsh and theologically questionable.

Still on the same surah, Ibn Mas'ud had an interesting variant reading in the first verse. Itreads in the authorised Uthmanic text Thaalikal kitaabu laa rayba fiih - "This is the Scriptureof which there is no doubt" (Surah 2.1). Ibn Mas'ud's text began Tanziilul kitaabu, making thewhole verse read "It is the Scripture sent down, of which there is no doubt". The word usedfor sending down, tanzil , is commonly used in conjunction with the Qur'an itself elsewhere inits text (e.g. Surah 36.2-5 where al-Qur'aanul-Hakiim, "the Wise Qur'an", is described as

being tanziilal-'Azitsir-Rahiim - "sent down by the Mighty, the Merciful").

Surah 5.92, in the accepted text, contains the clause fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaam - "fast for three days". Many of the other codices supplementing the Uthmanic text but agreeing withone another, add the expression mutataabi'aat , meaning that the expiation for an unfulfilledoath was a fast on three successive days. Among those who had this reading were the famousIbn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka-'b. It was also included in the texts of Ibn Abbas, Satid ibnJubair and other less prominent qurra.

Tabari (ob. 310 A.H.) quotes authorities for the assertion that Ubayy b. Ka'b and Abdallah b.

Mas'ud added the word successive, making the penance much more severe. He adds that as

the word is "not found in our copies", we cannot build anything upon it; the analogy of

compensation for failure to fast in Ramadan (ii. 181) indicates that the days need not be

successive, still it would be safer to make them so. Shafi'i (ob. 204 A.H.) seems to leave it to



the individual Moslem to choose the reading which he prefers. It is a conceivable view that

the word successive might have been added or omitted by the Prophet himself.

(Margoliouth, "Textual Variations of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 15, p. 335).

A very famous variant reading occurs in Surah 3.19 which reads in the authorised text Innaddiina 'indallaahil Islaam - "the religion before God is Islam", i.e., the Submission. IbnMas'ud's text is said to have had the word al- Hanifiyyah - "the True Way" in place of Islaam (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Te xt of the Qur'an, p. 32). This may well be anearlier title for Muhammad's religion, especially as there were a group of monotheistic"hanifs", as they were called, in Mecca during his early days. Significantly both titles areapplied to Abraham in the same surah. He is called haniifaam-muslimaan, being, "true infaith, submissive" (Surah 3.67).

Later Muslim scholars always take the word in this sense, sometimes also using hanif as

equivalent of 'Muslim', and the hanifiyya as equivalent of 'Islam'. (Watt, Bell's Introduction

to the Qur'an, p. 16).

Another writer also concludes that the variant reading in Ibn Mas'ud's text suggests "that atone time Haniflyya was used to denote the doctrine preached by Mohammed and was onlylater replaced by Islam" (Gibb, Mohammedanism, p. 26). Yet another writer says of the wordal-Hanifiyyah:

This word was read instead of 'Islam' by Ibn Mas'ud in Qur'an 3. 19/17, and was presumably

the original reading. It also occurs in sayings of Muhammad to the effect that the religion he

took to Medina was the Hanifiyah . . . The variant in the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, too, is a

reminder that early Medinan passages of the Qur'an may have been revised to bring them

into line with the later nomenclature. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 304).

These readings we have considered are only a fraction of the number recorded in the workscited by Arthur Jeffery but they do serve to show to what extent the earliest codices of theQur'an differed from one another. The codex of Abu Bakr which Uthman finally authorised atthe expense of all the others was, so it appears, just one among many, varying with all of them to one degree or another. There may be one standard text of the Qur'an today, but theevidence weighs heavily against the assertion that this text, merely a reproduction of just oneof the early codices, is coincidentally a perfect replica of the original Qur'an, to the very lastletter, as it was delivered by Muhammad to his companions.

In closing it will be useful to mention a few further passages affecting the text of the Qur'anspoken of in the major works of Hadith. Surah 2.238 urges the Muslims to observe their

prayers carefully, and emphasises salaatil wusta - the "middle prayer". Ayishah is reported to

have told Abu Yunus, her freedman, to add in the words wa salaatil 'asr - "and the afternoon prayer" - to the text of the Qur'an as "she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah" ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 64; so also S unan Abu Dawud , Vol. 1, p. 108).

It is also widely reported that the Qur'an originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people who had been breast-fed by the same woman.

A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that

ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by



five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time

(found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 740).

Ayishah clearly stated that the verses, one abrogating the other, were part of the Qur'an text.Today neither is found in it. In another similar tradition we read that Abu Musa al-Ashari toldthe qurra of Baara, an early Muslim centre in the province of Iraq:

We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at . I have,

however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were

two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing

would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501).

In these few pages we have merely considered a selection of evidences regarding thecollection of the Qur'an and its early textual history. Nevertheless the material reviewedshows quite conclusively that there is no substance in the claim that the Bible has beencorrupted while the Qur'an has been preserved totally free of textual error. This is a pioussentiment and nothing more than an expedient fallacy of the Muslims. Indeed it is fair to say

that the history of the Biblical text compares most favourably with that of the Qur'an. What isgood for the goose here is equally good for the gander. There are a number of variantreadings in the Bible and the authority of one or two short passages is uncertain, but we haveseen in these pages that precisely the same legacy is found in the history of the Qur'an text.

No one can summarily dismiss the evidences - they are too widespread and well-grounded inauthoritative works to be casually ignored in favour of cherished presuppositions.Furthermore there is yet another consideration:

It is fair to note, in this whole connection, how different any way are the textual issues in the

Qur'an from those of the Biblical literature. It is confined to twenty-three years and one

locale and one solitary spokesman and personality. The period between its utterance and its

canon is relatively brief. (Cragg, The Mind of the Qur'an, p. 185).

As the text of the Bible covers a period of nearly two thousand years and a host of differentauthors, and dates centuries before the Qur'an, it is quite remarkable to find that the variantreadings in its text are no more prevalent or extensive than similar readings and passagesaffecting the Qur'an. If such variant readings are not found in the early manuscripts of theQur'an surviving to this day, it is not because they never existed. The Christian Church has, inthe interests of truth, carefully preserved the variant readings that are found in the earlyBiblical texts, but the Muslims at the time of Uthman deemed it more expedient to destroythe variant readings found in the Qur'an in the interests of standardising one harmonious textfor posterity (even though the contents remain assembled together in an unharmoniouswhole). Here alone lies the difference between the textual history of the two books - and it is

not one which works to the advantage of the Qur'an.


B. JEWISH INFLUENCES IN THE QUR'AN.

1. Muhammad's Debt to Judaism.



We have already seen that many of the narratives in the Qur'an and Hadith have extra-Islamicorigins. In this section we shall briefly examine the substantial presence of Jewish historicaland mythical material in the Qur'an. Indeed there is so much of it that whole books have beenwritten on the subject and it is striking to find how heavily Muhammad relied on his Jewishcontacts for the passages and teachings he ultimately set forth as part of the divine revelation.

So much, indeed, was Muhammad indebted to the Jews for a great portion of his teachingon this and other subjects that the Qur'an has been described as a compendium of Talmudic

Judaism. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p. 55).

One finds many of the Old Testament stories of the prophets reproduced in the Qur'an,sometimes in a precis form where the Qur'anic record is a faithful, though often vague,summary of the original Biblical narrative (e.g. the story of Jonah in Surah 37.139-148). Onother occasions the Qur'anic narratives contain elements of Biblical truths confounded withfolklore and fables extracted from the Talmud and in some cases (such as the story of Abraham and the idols which we shall presently consider) the sources are entirelyMidrashic/Haggadic and are accordingly purely fictitious.

This accounts for the seeming discrepancies between the stories of :he Bible and the Koranic

version of the same narratives. However, in relating the Koranic version of the biblical story

to the Aggadic source as indicated in our study, the discrepancies almost entirely disappear.

For, astonishingly enough, the biblical narratives are reproduced in the Koran in true Aggadic

cloak. (Katsh, Judaism in Islam, p. xvii).

Virtually all the Qur'anic records which are reliant on Jewish sources can be traced either tothe Bible or to Talmudic records such as the Midrash, Mishnah, etc. There are, however, afew occasions where one finds narratives obviously reliant on Jewish historical sources whichare today unknown to us (for example the story of the sacrifice of Abraham's son which haselements not found in the preserved works of Judaism as it is recorded in Surah 37.100-113).It seems indeed that Muhammad was reliant on Jewish materials but we must ask how hecame by them in the course of his mission.

Whether Muhammad was illiterate or not cannot be truly established - what is certain,however, is that he could read neither the scriptures of the Jews nor their folklore ascontained in the Midrash and other Talmudic records. If he had been able to do so he wouldhardly have confused the two as often as he did. (Our earlier study of the expression an-

nabiyyul-ummi also confirms this impression). There were, as we have seen, a host of Jewishcommunities settled in Medina and other parts of the Hijaz from which he almost certainlyobtained his knowledge through direct conversation or from other secondary sources.

For it is important to know that Mohammed was acquainted with Jewish teachings not byreading the Bible, Talmud and Midrash, but through serious conversations with the Jews.

(Rosenthal, Judaism and Islam, p. 8).

The many errors that occur in the Qur'an show that Muhammad received hisinformation orally, and probably from men who had no great amount of book-learningthemselves. (Tisdall, The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 133).



The possibility of borrowing from Judaism lay for Muhammad, partly in theknowledge which might be imparted to him by word of mouth through intercoursewith the Jews, and partially in personal knowledge of their Scriptures; while allowinghim the first source of information, we must deny him the second. (Geiger, Judaism

and Islam, p. 17).

The somewhat disjointed nature of many of the Jewish narratives in the Qur'an, such as thestory of Lot already considered in an earlier section, strongly supports the suggestion thatmuch of the information that Muhammad was receiving was coming to him piecemeal. Not

being able to distinguish between the assortment of materials reaching him, he allowed themindiscriminately to be formulated in his thoughts until they assumed the form of all the other "revelations" coming to him and were then duly proclaimed as such.

The impression the Kuran makes on the reader is that its Jewish fibre has been spun from

hearsay and scraps of information gathered from conversation with different persons.

(Guillaume, "The Influence of Judaism on Islam", The Legacy of Israel , p. 134).

The way that such things came to him seems to have been very much like this: He gota scrap of history; he got an allusion; he got a telling phrase; he got a hint of acharacter. He carried that away, and then with that as a centre and with his broad ideaof the story - generally a very inaccurate idea - as material, he built up for himself again what he had heard. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 214).

Let us proceed to briefly examine a few of these stories in the Qur'an where Biblical truth has been marvellously confused with Talmudic folklore.

2. The Story of Abraham and the Idols.

The Qur'an has a story about Abraham which is not found in the Bible. He is said to have

challenged his father and his people about their error in worshipping the idols they had made.When they resisted his approaches, he waited until they had gone and then broke all the idolsexcept the biggest one. Afterwards he was summoned to answer for his deed. The sequel isset out in this passage of the Qur'an:

They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?" He said: "Nay, this

was done by - this is their biggest one! Ask them, if they can speak intelligently!" So they

turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!" Then they were

confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not

speak!" (Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides God, things than can neither be of any

good to you nor do you harm? Fie upon you, and upon the things that you worship besides

God! Have ye no sense?" They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, if ye do (anything atall)1" Surah 21. 62-68

After they had thrown him into a fire, Allah is said to have spoken to it, saying: "O Fire! Bethou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham" (Surah 21.69) and so he was deliveredunharmed from the flames. A somewhat briefer record of the whole story is found in Surah37. 91-98 and there are many other passages in the Qur'an referring to it. Although it has no

parallel in the Bible, it is a remarkable reproduction of a story found in the Midrash Rabbah,



an old Jewish book containing much folklore embellishing Biblical material. The narrative inthis work is quoted in full in one of St. Clair Tisdall's books and a relevant part of it reads:

Terah was a maker of idols. Once he went out somewhere, and seated Abraham as salesman

in place of himself ... Once a woman came, carrying in her hand a plate of wheaten flour. She

said to him, "Here! Set this before them" He arose, took a staff in his hand, and broke them

all in pieces; then he gave the staff into the hand of the one that was biggest among them.

When his father came, he said to him, "Who has done this unto them?" He (Abraham) said

to him, "What is hidden from thee? A woman came, bringing with her a plate of wheaten

flour, and said to me, 'Here! Set this before them'. I set it before them. This one said, 'I shall

eat first', and that one said, 'I shall eat first'. This one, which is the biggest among them,

arose, took a staff, and broke them" He (the father) said to him, "Why cost thou tell me a

fable? Do these understand?" He (Abraham) said to him, "And do not shine ears hear what

thy lip speaketh?" (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p. 74).

It takes very little imagination to see that this fable is practically identical in both the Qur'an

and the book of Jewish commentary.Comparing, now, this Jewish story with what we saw of it in the Coran, little difference will

be found; and what there is no doubt arose from Mahomet hearing of it by the ear from the

Jews. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 22).

In reply it is sufficient to state that only ignorant Jews now place any reliance uponsuch fables, since they do not rest upon anything worthy of the name of tradition. Theonly reliable traditions of the Jews which relate to the time of Abraham are to befound in the Pentateuch, and it is hardly necessary to say that this childish tale is notfound there. (Tisdall, The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 78).

We have deliberately chosen this story, as well as the one about the slaying of Abel by Cainwhich follows, because there is clear evidence to show, not only that the Qur'anic narrativeshave parallels in Jewish folklore, but also how the fable came about. We are able to trace theQur'anic passages to sources which reveal how they came to be composed in the first place.The whole story of Abraham and the idols i^ founded upon a mistranslation of a Biblicalverse.

A Jewish scribe, Jonathan Ben Uzziel, in his Targum misquotes Genesis 15.7 which reads "Iam the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldees". The word U r is a Babylonian wordfor the city from which Abraham came out and is again mentioned by name in Genesis 11.31.So also Jerusalem's original name was U r-S halim, the "City of Peace". The scribe, however,took the word to be Or , a Hebrew word meaning "fire", and interpreted the verse to mean "Iam the Lord who brought you from the fire of the Chaldees" and comments accordingly onGenesis 15.7:

Now this happened at the time when Nimrod cast Abraham into the oven of fire, because he

would not worship the idols, that leave was withheld from the fire to hurt him. (Tisdall, The

Sources of Islam, p. 23).



It is most unlikely that this scribe invented the whole story. It is probable that he is merelyrepeating a tradition that had been current in Jewish folklore for some time. We can see quiteclearly how it came about, nonetheless.

But it is somewhat difficult to understand how a Prophet like Mahomet could have given

credence to such a fable, and entered it in a revelation held to have come down from

heaven. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 24).

Muslim writers most significantly generally avoid the issue of the sources of the Qur'an intheir writings. Even an apologist like Khalifa, who alludes to this subject in his book The

S ublime Qur'an and OrientaIism (p. 13), nevertheless leaves the evidences entirelyuncontested. This is hardly surprising as they are quite clear and prove conclusively thatmuch of the Qur'an is derived from Jewish fables.

That Muhammad was in error in many instances about Jewish history is proved all the more by the name he gives to Abraham's father in the Qur'an. His true Jewish name was Terah butin the Qur'an he is called Azar (Surah 6.74) - "evidently el-Azar, derived from the Eliezer of

Genesis 15.2" (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 68). The verse tells us thatAbraham had prayed for a eon lest his slave, Eliezer, be his heir. Muhammad clearlyconfounded the name of Abraham's father with that of his servant! Another writer refers to anarticle by one S. Fraenkel in a European journal and says that "he argues convincingly thatthe Qur'anic form is due to a confusion on Muhammad's part of the details of the Abrahamstory as it came to him, so that instead of his father Terah he has given the name of Abraham's faithful servant E liezer " (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, p. 55).The anachronism does appear to be fairly obvious.

It cannot be suggested that the Jews had taken a true story from the original Torah and turnedit into folklore. The Qur'an accuses them of declaring their traditional writings to be scripturerevealed from God (Surah 2.79) - it nowhere charges them with turning their Holy Scripture

into folklore. What we would like to know, however, is how that same folklore came to beHoly Scripture in the Qur'an - especially when, as in a case such as this, its origin can betraced to a misconception about the meaning of a word in the true Torah!

3. The Story of Cain and Abel in the Qur'an.

The Qur'anic account of the murder of Abel by his unrighteous brother Cain is a typicalmixture of elements from the Bible, Midrash and Mishnah. In fact the brief narrative in Surah5.30-35 gives us a fine example of the manner in which Jewish material was reachingMuhammad. It begins with a record of the sacrifices offered by the two sons of Adam, statesthat one was accepted and the other rejected, and duly sets out the sequel in which Cain, inhis jealousy, slew Abel. Thus far the record agrees with the story of the incident in Genesis 4

except that the Qur'an gives no indication why only one of the sacrifices was accepted. Thedistinction between the two was probably not known to Muhammad. Alternatively he couldnot perceive the significance of Abel's sacrifice of a lamb - a symbol of atonement and self-abasement - as opposed to Cain's offering of cakes he had made which symbolised a spirit of unwarranted self-righteousness before God.

Thereafter, however, the story in the Qur'an has a sequel not found in the Biblical narrative.When Cain had killed Abel he did not know what to do with his body, but God is said to haveintervened in a strange way.



Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of

his brother. Surah 5.34

Once again one finds a striking parallel between the Qur'an and a Jewish book of myths andfables. The Pirke Rabbi E liezer , a typical rabbinical writing from the Midrash, contains thisstory:

Adam and his companion sat weeping and mourning for him (Abel) and did not know what

to do with him as burial was unknown to them. Then came a raven, whose companion was

dead, took its body, scratched in the earth, and hid it before their eyes; then said Adam, I

shall do as this raven has done, and at once he took Abel's corpse, dug in the earth and hid

it. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p.80).

The similarity between this story and the verse quoted from the Qur'an is as obvious as thecase of Abraham and the idols already considered.

A slight difference between Kuran and Midrash is that in the latter the sorrowing and

perplexed parents saw the raven's act; in the former, Cain the murderer witnessed it. But

the sequel is extraordinary. (Guillaume, "The Influence of Judaism on Islam" The Legacy of

Israel , p. 140).

One cannot help drawing the conclusion that Muhammad had derived this story from hiscontacts with the Jews of the Hijaz and that the slight differences between the Jewishnarrative and the form it obtains in the Qur'an are typical of those one would expect to find inthe record of a man relying exclusively on hearsay and secondary sources because he couldnot read the books from which the Jews were quoting. "The story of the world's first murderer affords a most informing example of the influence of a Jew behind the scenes" (Guillaume,op. cit., p. 139).

In the next verse in the Qur'an we find a quote from the Mishnah, a phenomenon proving allthe more that the revelations were hardly coming from above but were a strange assortmentof passages culled from Biblical, Midrashic and Mishnaic sources compiled by a man whocould not distinguish between them. The verse begins:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless

it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole

people: And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

Surah 5.35

At first sight this verse seems to have no connection with the preceding narrative. Why thelife or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind is not at all clear.When we turn to another Jewish record, however, we find the link between the story andwhat follows. Once again we find that it derives from a strange interpretation of a Biblicalverse. We read:

We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, 'The voice of thy brother's

bloods crieth' (Genesis 4.10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural,

that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show



that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race,

but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved

the whole race. (Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4.5)

Once again, as in the case of the misunderstanding about the statement in Genesis 15.7 whichled to the story of Abraham being brought out of "the fire" of the Chaldees, we find that the

passage in the Mishnah, repeated in the Qur'an, is derived from an interpretation of a Biblicalverse. Because the word for blood is in the plural in Genesis 4.10, an ingenious rabbiinvented the supposition that all Abel's offspring had been killed with him which signifiedthat any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had noknowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, hearing it related, simplyset out the rabbi's suppositions as the eternal decree of God himself!

Now if we look at the thirty-fifth verse of the text above quoted, it will be found almost

exactly the same as these last words of this old Jewish commentary. But we see that only

part is given in the Coran, and the other part omitted. And this omitted part is the

connecting link between the two passages in the Coran, without which they are

unintelligible. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 16).

The former part of the passage as it stands in the Mishnah is omitted in the Qur'an, possibly because it was not fully understood by Muhammad or his informant. Butwhen it is supplied, the connexion between verse thirty-five and the preceding verses

becomes clear. (Tisdall, The Original S ources of the Qur'an, p. 66).

This brief passage in the Qur'an, when analysed in the light of parallel passages in the Bibleand the Talmud, shows quite clearly to what extent Muhammad's revelations were reallynothing more than a repetition of information coming to his ears, some of it Biblical and trueto history, the rest predominantly mythical and fictitious. In conclusion it needs to be pointedout once again that the parallels between the Qur'anic narratives and Jewish folklore cannotgive support to the fancy that the Jewish records contain remnants of genuine historicalevents. As in the case of the story of Abraham and the idols, we have been able to trace thecoincidental passages to an original source - once again a rabbi's imaginative suppositionsabout a verse in the Bible.

4. The Qur'anic Account of the Golden Calf.

Muhammad's limited knowledge of Jewish history led him into much confusion in histhoughts, evidence of which appears again in this passage which records a statementsupposedly made by God to Moses at the time of the idolatry of the Israelites in thewilderness:

"We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray". Surah 20.85

A little further down (v.88) we read that "the Samiri" had brought out of the fire before the people the image of a calf which they promptly worshipped when it seemed to low like a realcalf! In the same Midrashic work Pirke Rabbi E liezer we read:

There came forth this calf lowing, and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael

entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p. 132).



Samael, according to Jewish tradition, is the Angel of Death. Quite clearly the Qur'anicnarrative is again founded on a Jewish tradition, but one must ask why Muhammad does notmention the angel but speaks rather of one of the people, the "Samiri"? The use of the articlein the ascription as-S amiri shows clearly that this was not a man's personal name. Muslimcommentators seem to be unwittingly hitting the mark when they interpret it, as theygenerally do, to mean the "Samaritan". The obvious problem is that the Samaritans, as a

people, only arose some centuries after the exodus of the Israelites!

But since the city of Samaria vas not built, or at least called by that name, until several

hundred years after Moses' death. the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be

startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently

occur. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p. 113).

How then did Muhammad come to confuse the Samaritans with the story of the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at the beginning of the exodus? One writer says "As the city of Samaria did not arise till some four hundred years after Moses, it is difficult to imagine howit came to be entered in this story" (Tisdall, The S ources of Islam, p. 38). Actually the

difficulty can be resolved quite easily. Another writer suggests the likely origin of thisanachronism:

There can be no doubt that the Muslim authorities are right in saying that it means "The

Samaritan". The calf worship of the Samaritans may have had something to do with the

Qur'anic story. (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, p. 158).

When Israel seceded from Judah during the reign of Rehoboam, the king they chose,Jeroboam, set up two golden calves in Samaria so as to turn the Israelites away from going upto worship at the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12.28-29). During a later period God spokeagainst this practice of theirs through one of his prophets:

I have spurned your calf, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will it be till

they are pure in Israel? A workman made it, it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken

to pieces. Hosea 8.5-6.

It is highly probable that the Jews, who revelled in making the Samaritans a scapegoat for their problems, had deliberately confused this passage with the story of the golden calf in thewilderness and had blamed them for the latter sin as well. Alternatively Muhammad hadheard the passage from the Book of Hosea and had himself confused the two occasions, notknowing that the Samaritans only became a nation after the people of Israel had settled inSamaria. Either way one is still forced to conclude that this is yet another proof that theQur'an is not a divine revelation but rather a composition of the stories Muhammad obtained

from various sources during his mission.

These examples of borrowed elements from Judaism in the Qur'an are merely a selection of agreat number that could be given. One is dismayed, however, to find that Muhammad oftendoes what the Jewish composers of folklore were inclined to do at times. Stories are extractedfrom the Bible which are embellished with marvellous fables but the moral of the story isinvariably lost in the process:



We have seen how the Qur'anic account of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel misses the wholeethic behind the acceptance of the one and rejection of the other. So likewise the Qur'anfollows Jewish tradition in adding fabulous details to the story of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon but misses the whole thrust of the purpose of her journey - "she came fromthe ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon" (Luke 11.31).

Of the queen's interest in the wisdom of Solomon, which plays such a part in the Biblicalnarrative, and still more in the Jewish midrash, not a word is said here. This feature must

have been known to Mohammed, but it did not suit his purpose. (Torrey,The Jewish

Foundation of Islam, p. 115).

It seems fair to conclude that much of the Qur'an conveys the imaginative fables of theJewish rabbis of pre-Islamic times rather than the revealed will and purposes of God. Let usnow press on to a very brief selection of similar teachings from non-Jewish sources.

T

he Collection

an

d Sources of the Qur'an

C. OTHER QUR'ANIC ORIGINS AND SOURCES.

1. The Story of the "Seven Sleepers".

In a previous chapter we saw that, apart from the prevalence of Jewish materials in theQur'an, Muhammad also made use of apocryphal Christian works as well. In this chapter weshall consider a further example of this kind and will then close with a story which appears to

be a combination of various New Testament elements.

The Qur'an contains a strange tale in Surah 18.9-26 to the effect that a few youths, true

believers in God, took refuge in a cave where they fell asleep for a number of years. Theyaccordingly became known as ashabal-kahf - "Companions of the Cave" (Surah 18.9) - andwhen they awoke, they were amazed to find that they had slept for so long.

The story has many parallels in apocryphal Christian works, such as the Acta S anctorum bythe Syriac writer Jacob of Sarug compiled before his death in 521 AD. "The oldest mentionof the legend in the east we find made by Dionysius of Tell Mahra in a Syrian work of thefifth century AD; in the west by Theodosius in his book on the Holy Land" (Gibb andKramers, S horter E ncyclopaedia of Islam, p. 45). The story has become known as that of the"Seven Sleepers" because it is generally agreed that there were seven of them, though somesay eight. The cave was allegedly in Ephesus and the story in these works states that theywere Christians fleeing from persecution during the reign of Decius the Emperor who died in

251 AD. It is said that after they had hidden in the cave it was sealed, but that during thereign of Theodosius the Second nearly two hundred years later, the cave was opened and therefugees duly awoke and, when one went through the city, he was astonished to findChristianity triumphant. Then they all met the Emperor at the cave, told him God had

presented them as a witness, and duly expired. If this story was in any way founded onBiblical narratives like the myths in the Midrash, it could only be from Matthew 27.52-53.



No Christian ever dreamt that the tale was true; but such as the nurse.tells her children of

"the cat and the mouse", etc. But the Prophet has entered it with all gravity in the Coran for

the instruction of his followers. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 48).

The story in the Qur'an is clearly yet another of those pre-Islamic fables that found its wayinto the Qur'an alongside true Biblical narratives. This conclusion is strengthened by the factthat the Qur'anic story is extremely limited and uncertain at times. There is no mention of thetime or place when it occurred, nor does the Qur'an reveal that the men involved wereChristians. Muhammad also did not know their number-- the Qur'an says that some say three,others five, and yet others seven, without giving its own decision on the matter (Surah 18.22)- and he likewise did not know how long it was, saying three hundred years with perhaps anadditional nine (Surah 18.25).

From the whole style of the passage we perceive that Muhammad had no written document

and no reliable informant at hand who could give him exact particulars of the affair. . . . It is

clear that to an oral form of the story he was indebted for the particulars given in the

Qur'an, and not to Divine revelation, as he claimed to be. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the

Qur'an, p. 146).

The ambiguity about the number of sleepers and the years they slumbered, coupled with theomission of vital details in the story, shows that the passage in Surah 28 did not come fromal-'Alim, "the All-Knowing" Lord of the Universe, but was simply Muhammad's own versionof it according to the limited knowledge he possessed.

2. The Table Sent Down from Heaven.

There is one story in the Qur'an which appears to have been compiled either by Muhammadhimself through a misunderstanding of various New Testament narratives, or by Christians of

pre-Islamic times whose record of the story has not been preserved. The story begins:

Behold! The Disciples said: "O Jesus the son of Mary' Can thy Lord send down to us a Table

set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear God, if ye have faith". Surah 5.115

After Jesus had allegedly prayed that such a table might be sent down, God duly furnishedone fully prepared from heaven but warned those who sat at it that no further unbelief would

be tolerated (Surah 5. 116-118). A very interesting feature in this passage is the word for table - ma'idah - which is derived from a similar Ethiopian word used by the AbyssinianChristians for the "Lord's Table", that is, the communion sacrament of the Christian Church.It is used only in verses 115 and 117 of this passage and appears nowhere else in the Qur'an.How did this strange story come about? One writer says: "Its origin is no doubt to be found in

the Supper which Jesus partook of with his disciples the night before his death" (Tisdall, TheS ources of Islam, p. 60). Others suggest another possible source. One says that it is "aconfused echo either of the Eucharist or the feeding of the 5000 or an amalgam of both"(Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an, p. 44) and another comments: "It has beendemonstrated several times that the passage v.112-15 is a confusion of the Gospel story of thefeeding of the multitude with that of the Lord supper" (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of

the Qur'an, p. 178). There is yet another New Testament story from which elements mayhave been borrowed, namely Peter's vision:



But what doubtless led to the idea that the Table descended from heaven was the passage

in the Acts of the Apostles (x. 9-16). (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur'an, p. 178).

It may well be that all these passages influenced the fabrication of the story in one way or another but in our view it is probably only a perversion of the story of the Last Supper andthe suggestion in the Qur'an that the table came from heaven does not have its origin in the

story of Peter's vision in Acts but rather these words of the Israelites during the exodus whichare remarkably similar to those attributed to Jesus' disciples in Surah 5.115:

They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the wilderness?" Psalm 78.19

As we have already seen that the mother of Jesus was confused with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron in the Qur'an, it is not surprising to find Jesus himself here confoundedwith Moses to whom the words were originally spoken.

Clearly Muhammad obtained much of his material for the Qur'an from Christian sources eventhough these were obviously secondary and unreliable. Right from the start of his prophetic

mission he had discourses with Christians. Even his first wife Khadija had a Christian cousinand we read of him: "Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-Islamlc Periodand used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him towrite" (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 452).

It is far more probable that much of what he wrote was not the New Testament but mythicalrecords retained in apocryphal Christian works circulating throughout Arabia. Muhammadshows only too often that his materials were identical to those floating around the ArabianPeninsula at his time a coincidence which implies that the Qur'an is not a revelation fromGod who is omniscient but the composition of a man who was restricted to the limitedsources of information available to him. And this implication can lead to only one possibleconclusion:

Now, if we can trace the teaching of the Coran, or any part of it, to an earthly Source, or to

human systems existing previous to the Prophet's age, then Islam at once falls to the

ground. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 2).

As said already, Muslim writers generally avoid the issue of the sources of the Qur'an in their writings, apparently because the evidences are incontrovertible. One writer laments their attitude and says of the extra-Islamic sources of the Qur'an:

All this information and more is quite generally available for those who desire to investigate

the sources of the Koran. Serious students know that they are serving the highest religious

duty when they acknowledge facts that can be verified. Whenever a previous belief or adoctrine they have accepted conflicts with the facts they have learned, they then make their

belief conform to the truth. (Calverley, "Sources of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 22, p.

67).

In this case, however, such an acknowledgement of the true facts by the Muslims must resultin a denial of their belief in Islam altogether for if the divine origin of the Qur'an is disproved,the whole carpet is pulled out from under Islam. We credit Muhammad with a degree of sincerity by allowing that he did not deliberately or consciously play the part of a forger and



that he was subjectively convinced that the manner in which he reproduced his materials took the form of a divine revelation, but an objective study of the mythical Jewish and apocryphalChristian sources of the Qur'an shows convincingly that however sincere he was, he was justso much sincerely wrong.


D. ENGLISH TRANSLATIO NS OF THE QUR'AN.

1. The Translations of Alexander Ross and George Sale.

In 1649 Alexander Ross published the first English version of the Qur'an under the title The

AlCoran of Mahomet . It was not a direct translation from the original Arabic but was donefrom a French version published a few years earlier. Unfortunately Ross had no knowledge of Arabic and his proficiency in French left much to be desired so that the translation itself isextremely defective and at times misses the sense of the original altogether. Nevertheless it

served to introduce the Scripture of Islam to the English-speaking world and for nearly ahundred years was the only translation available.

This version today serves chiefly to reveal the attitudes pervading in England in those daystowards Islam. Ross introduces his translation with a preface "to the Christian Reader" and init he says of the Qur'an:

Thou shalt finde it of so rude, and incongruous a composure so farced with contradictions,

blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables, that some modest, and more rationall

Mahometans have thus excused it . . . Such as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains

only to translate it out of French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson, that hath

infected a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an Antidote, toconfirm in thee the health of Christianity. (Ross, The AlCoran of Mahomet , p. A2, A3).

The book ends with a brief biography of Muhammad and closes with a "Caveat" to consider "what use may be made of, or if there be any danger in reading the Alcoran" in which he is atsome pains to defend the very fact of an English translation of the holy book of "the Turks"as against the presupposed criticism of those who might think that it was a way of allowinginto England the "dismall night of Mahometane darkness" (op. cit., p. Ef3). Describing theQur'an elsewhere as a "gallimaufry of errors", he goes on in his caveat to say:

If you will take a brief view of the Alcoran, you shall finde it a hodgepodge made up of these

four ingredients: 1. Of Contradictions. 2. Of Blasphemie. 3. Of ridiculous Fables. 4. Of Lyes.

(Ross, op. cit., p. Ff2).

It was only in 1734 that the first genuine translation of the Qur'an into English appeared,though once again the author relied heavily on another work. George Sale published histranslation under the simple title The K oran with a subtitle commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed". As states on the title page, his translation was indeed a direct rendering fromthe original Arabic, but his interpretation was considerably influenced by a Latin versiondone by one Marracci.



As Ross had done before him, Sale supplemented his translation with additional material. He prefixed his work with a fairly lengthy introduction to Islam entitled The Preliminary

Discourse, printed about sixty years ago independently of the translation as a separate book, but usually found included in the earlier editions of his translation. He also complemented hiswork with "Explanatory Notes taken from the most approved commentators". In 1898 histranslation was reprinted in four volumes which contained a greatly enlarged supplement of

notes by E.M. Wherry entitled A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur'an. Unlike the publication by Ross, Sale's translation and Preliminary Discourse were remarkably preciseand have stood the test of time.

Incidentally, our examination of these extracts from Sale's translation and the comparison of

them with the Latin translation of Marracci have shown what a very careful and accurate

piece of work was done more than two hundred years ago, at a time when students of the

Arabic language had practically none of the equipment in the way of dictionaries and

grammars which are available in the languages of Europe today. (Shellabear, "Is Sale's Koran

Reliable?", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 21, p. 142).

Nevertheless Sale's Koran has been vilified by Muslim writers. Some have objected, for example, to his constant interpretation of passages speaking of struggling and fighting in theway of God as meaning physical warfare, an interpretation out of favour with many modernMuslim commentators who seek to soften such passages by suggesting that only spiritualwarfare in the soul is meant. This is by no means clear from the texts usually cited, however,and such interpretations only serve to expose the sentiments of those who desire to eliminatea theme considered unacceptable today but one which was regarded as perfectly consistentwith true religion at the time of Muhammad. Sale usually put such interpretations in italics inhis text, or commented on them in his footnotes, and they were invariably not his own

preferred suppositions but simply the interpretations of the earliest commentators, in particular the highly-respected al-Baidawi, as they were recorded in Marracci's original Latinedition. One writer says of Sale's translation and interpretations:

Sale's translation is extremely paraphrastic, but the fact that the additional matter in italics

is, in nearly every case, added from the commentary of El-Beidhawi, makes it the more

valuable to the reader. (Zwemer, "Translations of the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 5, p.

251).

It seems that the real reason for the widespread Muslim antagonism to Sale's translation andnotes is that they were the first serious assessment of the Qur'an by a Christian author and onewhich did not attempt to gloss over teachings and dogmas in the book which tend to reflectsomewhat poorly on its claim to be of divine origin. Such a thing as a critical or objectiveanalysis of the teaching, sources and ethics of the Qur'an is unknown in the Muslim world to

this day. Indeed any Muslim writer with the courage to produce such a study would soon bevehemently denounced as a renegade. It was chiefly because Sale was willing to publish adiscourse and translation that set the heritage of Islam in an objective perspective that histranslation has been disapproved of by Muslim writers.

2. The First Muslim Translations of the Qur'an.

It was not until 1905 that the first Muslim translation of the Qur'an into English appeared andit was only in 1920 that a widely-accepted version was finally published. This was The Holy



Qur'an published by Maulvi Muhammad Ali of the moderate Lahore branch of theAhmadiyya Movement. The translation was published as an interlinear English/Arabic textand was supplemented with copious footnotes explaining the text. It was also introduced witha fairly lengthy preface (90 pages) discussing the teachings and collection of the Qur'an.Although this translation is a fairly accurate rendering of the original Arabic, it often exposesthe subjective convictions of its author in passages that appear to be a preferred interpretation

rather than an objective translation of the original. The Ahmadiyya Movement denies thegeneral Muslim belief that Jesus was raised alive to heaven without being put on the crosswhile another was made to look like him and was crucified in his place, and teaches insteadthat he came down alive from the cross and died many years later in Srinagar in India. TheQur'an has only one verse which refers to the crucifixion and, after denying that the Jews ever crucified Jesus or killed him, it says wa laakin shubbiha lahum (Surah 4.157). This means"But so it was made to appear to them", that is, that it was made to appear to the Jews theyhad crucified Jesus. Ali avoids this by interpreting the phrase to mean "but (the matter) wasmade dubious to them". He comments on the whole verse in a footnote:

The word does not negative Jesus' being nailed to the cross, but it negatives his having

expired on the cross as a result of being nailed to it . . . The story that some one else was

made to resemble Jesus is not borne out by the words of the Qur'an. (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.

241, 242).

A translation entitled The Meaning of the Glorious K oran by an English convert to Islam, M.M. Pickthall, was published in 1930 and it was followed in 1934 by another done by oneAbdullah Yusuf Ali entitled The Holy Qur'an. These two translations have become the most

popular editions in English in the Muslim world though both have serious defects.

Yusuf Ali's translation has become the most widely approved translation of the Qur'an amongthe Muslims and for this reason it is the translation used throughout this book (except whereindicated otherwise). This work truly deserves popularity for, although the author was a

Shi'ite Muslim, it is a work that breathes out freshness and rarely shows sectarian bias such asis found in many other Muslim translations. Its principal shortcoming (which the reader will

probably have noticed already) is that the translation does not flow easily at times and toomuch use is made of capital letters. The author is at times also too liberal in hls rendering of

basic Arabic expressions, eg. "Cherisher and Sustainer" for Rabb (Surah 1.2), a wordmeaning simply "Lord".

Yusuf Ali has based his work on Muhammad Ali's model. He so supplemented his translationwith explanatory notes numbered in sequence but, in this case, the notes are usually homileticand display his purpose to edify his readers with a spiritual understanding of the text. AWestern author comments on the book as a whole:

The author is evidently a sincerely religious man, who has endeavoured to apply his religion

to the problems of life as he has found them, and tells us where he has found help and

inspiration for better and fuller living. The whole spirit of his work is admirable, and makes it

a real document of religious worth. As it is a work laid before scholarship it will necessarily

have to submit critical examination, but the critic is the first to pay homage to the evident

sincerity of the author. (Jeffery, "Yusuf Ali's Translation of the Qur'an , The Muslim W orld ,

Vol. 30, p. 55).



He adds a succint observation, however: "His counselling is wise and on a high ethical plane- much higher, some will suspect, than that of the text on which he is commenting" (op. cit.,

p. 58). Nevertheless, like Muhammad Ali before him, much of his commentary is apologeticand at times polemical and Christian readers will find much to question, especially his use of the Bible in his notes where one cannot help agreeing that "he has not escaped a certainingenuousness in his use of it" (Jeffery, op. cit., p. 61).

That Yusuf Ali's translation has stood the test of time and is preferred to this day above other versions in the Muslim world is perhaps the best testimony to its general reliability. It is our view, however, that it suffers from many defects, some of which have been pointed out in this

book, and cannot be regarded as a classic.

3. A Selection of Later English Translations.

During the latter part of the 19th century two further well-known translations were publishedin England. The first was The K oran by J.M. Rodwell published in 1861 which was the firstattempt by any translator to put the surahs into some sort of chronological order. Ultimatelythis effort has detracted from the value of the books those familiar with the transmitted form

of the text or brought up on the Arabic original will have difficulty locating specific passages.This problem is compounded by the author's decision only to number the tenth consecutiveverse of each surah.

The translation also suffers from inaccuracies in the use of tenses and particles - but scores inits choice of words to convey the meaning of the original Arabic. It is this writer's opinionthat Rodwell's translation is one of the best to come from an English author. Apart from itsminor grammatical defects it is a fine work and a pleasure to read.

The second translation was done in 1880 by E.H. Palmer and was entitled The Qur'an,

translated . This version concentrates on rendering as closely as possible the sharp, almostnervous tone of the original Arabic into English. It was the first attempt to produce the spiritof Muhammad's orations in their original lively form in a translation. Palmer's version thus

became an important contribution to this field.

Although Rodwell's version approaches nearer to the Arabic, Palmer states that in this also

"there is too much assumption of the literary style". In his own translation he has attempted

to render into English the rude, fierce eloquence of the Bedouin Arabs and has succeeded, I

believe, almost to the same degree as Doughty in his "Arabia Deserta". Where rugged or

commonplace expressions occur in the Arabic, they are rendered into similar English;

sometimes the literal rendering may even shock the reader as it did those who first heard

the message. (Zwemer, "Translations of the Koran", The MuslimW orld , Vol. 5, p. 251).

In this century only two translations of note by English authors have appeared. The first was by Richard Bell entitled The Qur'an Translated . It appeared in 1937 and has met, like somany others, with a mixed reception. This translation also makes an attempt at giving somesort of chronological order to the text but, unlike Rodwell's version, wisely retains theoriginal sequence of the surahs. As pointed out already in this book, most of the surahs,especially the longer ones, are composite chapters of passages from different periods of Muhammad's ministry. Bell alone has endeavoured to break the surahs up into their constituent parts. He supplemented his work with notes as well but they usually take the form



of brief interpretations of specific clauses rather than commentaries on the text such as wefind in most Muslim translations. The usual criticism of his work is that the divisions he

proposes cannot be proved and in many cases are disputable The author himself was notunaware of this likelihood and comments in his translation:

The reconstructions of passages will, no doubt, seem arbitrary, thus presented without the

arguments which support them. In some cases the author would be the first to admit

uncertainty, but he hopes that examination will disclose a sufficient number of certain

results to justify the methods which he has adopted, and that he will be given credit in other

cases for having made an honest effort to understand the passage as it stands before

resorting to hazardous reconstructions. (Bell, The Qur'an Translated , Vol. 1, p. viii).

His work is nevertheless an extremely important contribution to this field and serves as amost useful model of the probable divisions of the original revelations. The translation itself concentrates on textual accuracy and is therefore a valuable reference work.

The other renowned translation of recent date is that by A.J. Arberry entitled The K oran

Interpreted . The chief feature of this work is the endeavour of its author to make the Qur'ando in English what the original Arabic does so strikingly - and that is to impress its spirit andrhythm on the ear of the hearer. We have already seen that the Qur'an is to be recited as wellas read and throughout the centuries the sonorous character of its text has had an almostmesmerising effect on many of those who hear it carefully recited in Arabic. It is this effectthat Arberry has attempted to capture in his translation and with a considerable degree of success. Its only drawback is that, like Rodwell's version, the individual division of verses isnot brought out and only the fifth consecutive verse of each surah is numbered. Neverthelessit is almost certainly the best translation of the Qur'an into English available and isrecommended to all who seek a version which combines textual accuracy with the spirit andthrust of the original.

4. More Recent Muslim Translations of the Qur'an.

Quite a number of new translations have appeared from the Muslim world in recent years. In1956 N.J. Dawood's The K oran appeared, significantly first published in England. LikeRodwell's, the surahs are not placed in their original order but in a supposed chronologicalform and the verses are not individually numbered. The work has a pleasing literary style butlacks the sharpness of the original.

Two further translations appeared in 1971.One was the version of Maulaaa Abdul MajidDaryabadi entitled The Holy Qur'an published in two volumes in Pakistan. He followedMuhammad Ali and Yusuf Ali in adding a substantial commentary to the interlinear English/Arabic text but his work is an interesting contribution in that it is chiefly comparativeand quotes extensively from the Bible. The translation itself has become a favourite withmany orthodox Indian Muslims and is preferred by them to its two predecessors. Whereas theformer works were somewhat interpretive, Daryabadi's is a strict translation of the Arabicoriginal. A one - volume publication without his commentary has this note:

This English Version is a Translation of the Arabic Text not its Paraphrase or Adoptation.

(Preface).



This translation, however, suffers from serious English grammatical weaknesses. One cangive the author a degree of the benefit of the doubt by presuming that in many cases a

pleasing style has been sacrificed in the interests of an accurate rendering of the text, but itmakes heavy reading for those whose home language is English. This work will remain in theshadows of Yusuf Ali's popular version but the preference of some of the orthodox school for Daryabadi's edition gives it a place of importance in this field of study.

The other version published in 1971 was a work simply entitled The Qur'an by a follower of the Ahmadiyya Movement Pakistan's well-known Sir Zafrulla Khan. It begins with a typicalintroduction of some length. The English text has a literary style common to so manytranslations which simultaneously lose much of the character of the original. Only Arberryhas succeeded in combining both. Zafrulla Khan's work is, on the whole, a very freeinterpretation of the text and suffers from a sectarian bias. One can compare his translation of Surah 4.157 with that of Muhammad Ali already quoted. It says of the Jews' claim that theycrucified Jesus: "they slew him not, nor did they compass his death upon the cross, but hewas made to appear to them like one crucified to death" (Zafrulla Khan, The Qur'an, p. 96).This is hardly an objective translation or simple rendering of the original passage and istypical of the author's penchant for reading the preferred dogmas of his sect into the text of

the Qur'an.

In 1980 a translation by a Jewish convert to Islam, Muhammad Asad, appeared as a completework entitled The Message of the Qur'an. The author is one of the modern school of Islamicscholars who rationalise much of the teaching of the Qur'an and endeavour to present itsteaching in the spirit of 20th century modernism and scepticism about the actual physicalreality of alleged supernatural events in history. There has been a strong negative reaction tothis translation in much of the Muslim world as it denies miracles cherished by the orthodox,such as the physical ascensions of Jesus and Muhammad to heaven. In traditional Muslimstyle the translation is produced in an interlinear form with extensive notations. Once againthe author's convictions affect his translation which so often conveys a preferredinterpretation rather than an objective exposition of the original text. He holds to the schoolthat teaches that Jesus was not raised to heaven and so translates Surah 4.158: "God exaltedhim to himself" rather than "God raised him to himself" found in most translations. He adds afootnote which has caused much opposition to his work from orthodox elements:

Nowhere in the Qur'an is there any warrant for the popular belief that God has "taken up"

Jesus bodily, in his lifetime, into heaven. (Asad, The Message of the Qur'an, p. 135).

In 1979 another translation The K oran by Mufassir Mohammad Ahmad was published inLondon. It carries the strange claim that it is "the first Tafsir in English", presumablymeaning that it is the first commentary in English. The work has no notes but the author'sinterpretation is liberally written into the text itself which reads something like the Amplified

Version of the Bible.

Many years ago a student of Islam made an interesting observation in a lecture delivered tostudents of the Hartford Theological Seminary:

Just as in the case of the Old Testament there is no translation at present in existence that

can be called even approximately adequate, so in the case of the Qur'an there is no



translation that you can trust. That work is still to be done . . . Whichever view you take, the

translation of the Qur'an is still to come. (Macdonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 88).

The claim about the Old Testament may no longer be true but it is this writer's conviction thatthe translation of the Qur'an is yet to be published, even today. There is none that can becalled a classic, though the translations of Rodwell and Arberry are excellent individual

efforts. It is perhaps this very fact of individuality that explains why there is no translation of the Qur'an to compare with translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version or

New American Standard Version. These were done by committees of scholars and the resulthas been a remarkably consistent and accurate rendering of the original. Every well-knowntranslation of the Qur'an has been the work of an individual and, to one degree or another inevery case, the value of the final product is tempered by the presence of the author's own

personal convictions and interpretations. Perhaps in time a select body of Western andMuslim scholars will get together to produce a standard translation of the Qur'an. As long asMuslim suspicions about Western scholars of Islam persist, however, the desired eventualityremains unlikely.

The Hadith: TheTraditions of Islam

A. AN INTR ODUCTIO N TO THE SUBJECT OF HADITH.

1. Divisions between the Various Types of Traditions.

The heritage of Islam, particularly its jurisprudence, has four sources - two founded onhistorical records going back to the time of Muhammad and two on the development of thescience of interpretation in the early centuries of Islam The Qur'an has always been regardedas the primary legal source of Islam but, when it was found necessary to look elsewhere for

guidance, the early jurists of Islam turned to the Hadith.O

nly when both of these failed to provide the authority sought did they resort to ijtihad (interpretation) until they reached ijma (consensus). In the very early days of Islam Muslim authorities tended to rely on their ownopinions to establish their interpretation of what a prescribed law should be for any givensituation not founded on the Qur'an, a practice known as ra'y. The great jurist ash-Shafi'i,however, preferred to rely solely on traditions from the prophet and thereafter on the methodknown as qiyas (analogy) where interpretations were to be derived from comparisons withrelative subjects dealt with in the Qur'an or the traditions. Once Shafi'i's school of law wasfully established together with the other great schools founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, AbuHanifa and Malik, the "door" of ijtihad was closed and it was considered that ijma had beenreached on all necessary points of law (though the schools differ in many matters to this day

but mostly on minor points of interpretation). Accordingly Islamic jurisprudence has for

centuries known no real development and is based fundamentally on the four sourcesmentioned.

In this chapter we are concerned solely with the Hadith the record of Muhammad's actions,decrees and sayings. These are mostly juristic in content and emphasis, though much materialin the larger works of Hadith is purely historical.

It is not known when the practice of reducing the traditions of Muhammad's life to writing began. Muslim writers generally claim that all the genuine Hadith (the word means "a



message or a new "communication") were written down by Muhammad s companions either during his lifetime or shortly thereafter, but Western scholars doubt whether any were sorecorded and circulated before the Ummayad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbasids morethan a century after Muhammad's death.

It was during the reign of the Abbasids that the practice of collecting Hadith really took root

and many early Hadith scholars travelled all over the Muslim world to trace the traditions of Muhammad's sayings and decrees.

Unfortunately wholesale fabrication of Hadith during the early days made it difficult for genuine scholars to distinguish the true from the false, but eventually six major collectionswere recognised as authoritative works of Hadith containing, for the most part, true records.The divisions of Hadith took many forms. Where traditions were reported by a large number of companions, they became known as mutawatir , that is, "continuous", meaning that theywere successively reported by many authorities.

The Mutawatir are the traditions which have been transmitted throughout the first three

generations of the Muslims by such a large number of transmitters as cannot be reasonably

expected to agree on a falsehood. (Siddiqi,Hadith Literature, p. 193).

Such traditions are "very few in number and hardly ever touch on legal matters" (Juynboll,The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 11 ). The second coming of Jesus is attested

by seventy traditions from different sources and it is a typical non-juristic hadith unanimouslyrecognised. The next form of Hadith are known as mashur .

Mashur. - A tradition which in every age has been considered genuine by some learned

Doctor. This is the term generally used for traditions which were at first recorded by a few

individuals but afterwards became generally known. (Hughes,Notes on Muhammadanism,

p. 33).

Lastly, traditions transmitted by only one or two transmitters are known as ahad , that is,"isolated", from the Arabic root for "one". These divisions are broken up into many other detailed sub-divisions but all rely either on the number of authorities for the tradition or onthe nature of their origin. The latter, for example, are divided into musnad , traditions traced

back to Muhammad himself, mauquf , those only going back to his companions, and maqtu,those derived from his Successors. A tradition from a Successor directly traced toMuhammad is known as mursal . Naturally those going back to Muhammad himself areconsidered more genuine.

Another form of dividing the Hadith into degrees of reliability is that which analyses defects

in the reporters of traditions or in the textual content of the traditions themselves. Eachtradition begins with a list of its chain of reporters, known as its isnad , its "support", andconcludes with its content, its matn. There are three classes in this case as well.

These three classes are: (i) the Sahih or Genuine; (ii) the Hasan or the Fair; and (iii) the Da'if

or the Weak. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 192).



Once again there are a number of sub-divisions. The sahih and hasan traditions are graded asmaqbul (acceptable) while the da'if are treated with reserve. Hadith known to be fabricatedare known as mardud (rejected).

2. The Early Sirat Literature and the Musnads.

The early records of traditions can also be divided into different categories. We begin withthe S irat literature, as it is known, which consists of early biographies of Muhammad's lifecompiled between a hundred and two hundred years after his death. These contain many of the traditions found in the later major works of Hadith but are not true collections as such.They are purely biographical works in which the material is set out in a chronological form.The three major works of Sirat literature are Ibn Ishaq's S irat Rasulullah (the "Life of theMessenger of Allah", the earliest and most famous biography), Waqidi's K itab al-Maghazi ("Book of the Campaigns"), and Ibn Sa'd's K itab al-Tabaqat al- K abir ("Book of the Major Classes"). It has become fashionable in Muslim circles today to regard these works as inferior to the later Hadith collections. One writer says:

No Muslim scholar has ever attached the same value to the biographical reports as to

traditions narrated in the above-mentioned collections (i.e., Sahih al-Bukhari etc.). On the

other hand, all Muslim critics recognize that the biographers never made much effort to sift

truth from error. (All, The Religion of Islam, p. 66).

The chief reason for this attitude is really that the Sirat works contain records of Muhammad's life which are today regarded as unpalatable, for example, Muhammad'sconcession to idolatry which was recorded by all three major biographers. It is probable,however, that these works, in their own robust manner, contain a truer picture of Muhammad's life than the later collections which, in comparison, often betray evidences of refinement to improve the image of Islam's founder. (We have already cited two traditionsfrom Bukhari, i.e. those relating to Muhammad's wife Zaynab bint Jahsh and the occasion

where all the Meccans bowed with Muhammad after he had recited Surah 53, which areclearly revised editions of the original records which reflected rather poorly on him).

Ibn Sa'd was attached to Waqidi himself for some time and became known as K atib al-

Waqidi, the "secretary of Waqidi". His biography, like Ibn Ishaq's, has always been held inhigh esteem, notwithstanding the negative attitude of many Muslim writers. An author with amore positive approach says:

As Prof. Sachau says, Ibn Sa'd has shown in his work impartiality and honesty, thoroughness

and minuteness, and objectivity and originality. His impartiality and honesty have been

generally acknowledged ... Be it as it may, the Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd is one of the earliest

extant works on Asma al-Rijal , containing biographical notices of most of the important

narrators of the most important period in the history of traditions. It is a rich mine of many-

sided, valuable information about the early history of Islam. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.

177, 178).

Another early form of tradition literature consists of the Musnad works which can beregarded as the first attempts at a genuine collection of the Hadith. The name applied to thesecompositions indicates their character.



The characteristic of the Musnad , the earliest type of collection, was that hadith, quite

irrespective of their contents and subject-matter, were arranged under the name of the

Companion on whose authority they were supported (musnad ). (Guillaume, The Traditions

of Islam, p. 23).

The later works were usually arranged into sections where the Hadith were recorded andcategorised under topical headings. These earlier works, however, were compiled accordingto their isnads. All traditions going back to any particular companion were simply listedunder his name, irrespective of the subject-matter.

The most famous Musnad was that of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. It is an exhaustive work with a vast number of traditions. Thecompiler could not always sift the true from the false, however, and the collection's chief value today is to serve as a catalogue of the traditions circulating throughout the Muslimworld at the time of the rise of the Abbasids.

A much larger work, containing 28,000 to 29,000 traditions is attributed to Ahmad b. Hanbal

(164-241 / 780-855), one of the four doctors to whom the schools of cannon law are tracedback. The work was compiled from his lectures and enlarged by his son. While it contains

very many obviously far-fetched traditions, it has commonly been considered an important

work. (Robson, "Tradition, the Second Foundation of Islam", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 41, p.

31).

Like the early biographies, one cannot help feeling that there may be many traditions in thiswork which give a truer perspective of Muhammad's life, despite the presence of other fabricated hadith, than the more highly-acclaimed later collections of Hadith. During the

period of the Ummayad dynasty many traditions were fabricated to favour the caliphs fromthe descendants of Umayya, but when the descendants of Abbas, Muhammad's uncle,

overthrew the dynasty, it soon became fashionable and, indeed, expedient to quash thesetraditions and compose fresh ones favouring the Abbasid dynasty instead. Ibn Hanbal was anexception to this rule.

The Musnad is marked by a fearless indifference to the susceptibilities of the Abbasids.

Whereas the two great works of Bukhari and Muslim may be searched in vain for any

generous recognition of the merits of the Ummayads, Ahmad, who forsooth had little to

thank their successors for, preserves many of the traditions extolling the glories of the Banu

Ummaya which must at one time have been current in Syria. (Guillaume, The Traditions of

Islam, p. 24).

As a result Ibn Hanbal suffered greatly under the Abbasid caliphs al-Ma'mun and his brother and successor al-Mu'tasim. He was treated in a most cruel way, not only for his fearlessnessin recording unpalatable hadith, but for many other reasons as well.

But from the Mo'tazili creed no divergence was tolerated; to it every Muslim must conform.

Two dogmas were especially dear to the Caliph, namely, that the Kor'an was not eternal, and

that by the disembodied eye in the future life, the Deity could not be seen. The severest

pains and penalties, even to the death, awaited those who dared to differ. Bagdad was much

disquieted by the intolerant rigour of the Caliph and his doctors; the famous Ibn Hanbal was



again arrested, and being firm in the faith, was pitilessly scourged, and cast scarred and

senseless into prison. (Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall , p. 512).

3. The Distinction between the Hadith and the Sunnah.

One often comes across the terms Hadith and S unnah in the context of the record andexample of Muhammad's teachings, conduct and behaviour. At face value one can distinguish

between the two and say that the Hadith are the written records, transmitted by a chain of authorities, of the sayings and actions of Muhammad, whereas the Sunnah is the actual formof behaviour or code of conduct of the prophet which has become the prescribed norm for theuniversal Muslim community.

Moslem tradition is, however, a term which in Arabic is expressed not by one but by two

words, hadith and sunna. The former denotes a communication or a tale, in our case the oral

or scribal translation of the sayings or actions mentioned; the latter means "use" and

"tradition", in our case the exemplar way in which Mohammed used to act and to speak. So

hadith is the external, sunna the internal side of tradition; hadith is the form, sunna the

matter. (Wensinck, "The Importance of Tradition for the Study of Islam", The MuslimW orld ,Vol. 11, p. 239).

Another writer sums it up very succinctly: "Tradition, as a matter of record, is called Hadith;as a matter of obligation it is called S unnah" (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 98). In theearly days of Islam, however, there was a far greater distinction between the two. During thereigns of the four immediate successors of Muhammad known as the "rightly-guided caliphs"Islam spread rapidly. For a long time there were no prescribed laws for the whole Muslimcommunity and where a general code of legal maxims took root, these became the S unnah,the "example" or, more properly, the norm for the community. In those days there was noneed for the laws of Islam to be based directly on any prescribed, recorded practice of

Muhammad.The terms sunna and hadith must be kept distinct from one another ... The difference which

has to be kept in mind is this: hadith means, as has been shown, an oral communication

derived from the Prophet, whereas sunna, in the usage prevailing in the old Muslim

community, refers to a religious or legal point, without regard to whether or not there exists

an oral tradition for it. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 24).

It was only during the days of the great Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i, and as a result of hisinfluence and leadership in this field, that the Hadith became the standard of all Muslim

jurisprudence and the only true Sunnah, therefore, was the Sunnah of the Prophet as it wasrecorded in the transmitted traditions. Shafi'i decreed that no legal precept was binding unlessit was founded on a tradition. If there was no tradition, the correct maxim was to bedetermined by the process of analogy (qiyas) with other traditions which contained materialrelative to or comparative with the matter at hand.

For Shafi'i, the sunna is established only by traditions going back to the Prophet, not by

practice or consensus (Tr. III, 148, p. 249). Apart from a few traces of the old idea of sunna in

his earlier writings, Shafi'i recognizes the 'sunna of the Prophet' only in so far as it is

expressed in traditions going back to him. This is the idea of sunna which we find in the



classical theory of Muhammadan law, and Shafi'i must be considered as its originator there.

(Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 77).

As Schacht goes on to point out, while the terms Sunnah and Hadith are not reallysynonymous, Shafi'i's practice of making the Sunnah dependent exclusively on the traditionsled him, and with him the Muslim world to this day, "to identify both terms more or less

completely" (Schacht, op. cit., p. 77).

Some modern Muslim scholars would like to dispose of the Hadith altogether as anunreliable, outdated and inflexible rule of conduct, in favour of the Qur'an alone which, beingthe alleged Word of God, must contain all that is necessary for life and conduct and berelevant to every age. Yet it was precisely the limitation of the Qur'an in this respect that ledto the rise of the Hadith as the major source of Muslim law and practice. The fact that theSunnah of Muhammad has become so completely identified with the Hadith makes itimpossible that the Hadith can be dismissed without the whole foundation of Islam beingsimultaneously fractured.

Modern Islam yearns for creativity and in the interests of the new progress certain groups

have arisen which, if their utterances are taken at their face value, wish to reject all Hadith

and rely on the Qur'an. But in these groups there is hardly any awareness of the issues that

are at stake ... But now the only tradition is the verbal one, since the living Sunna, in so far as

it is there, now derives its validity from the Hadith through which lies the only avenue of our

contact with the Prophet and fundamentally also with the Qur'an as it was delivered to and

understood by the Community. For, if the Hadith as a whole is cast away, the basis for the

historicity of the Qur'an is removed with one stroke. (Rahman, Islam, p. 66).

The author goes on to comment: "For the Qur'an did not come in a vacuum. Hence the well-known paradox that even the thoroughgoing sceptics about the Hadith cannot resist

supporting their views by it whenever it suits them" (Rahman, op. cit., p. 67). The Hadi th,whether genuine or not, have become the real foundation of the ethics, laws and practices of Islam. There is no Sunnah now but that which is derived from the recorded traditions. Whilethe Qur'an remains the Scripture of Islam, the Hadith have become the major source of its

jurisprudence.

4. The Isnad - The Early Test of Authenticity.

We have already mentioned the two major features of each tradition, its isnad and matn.Although one would think that the sensibility, historical veracity or material probability of thecontents of each tradition would have been critically analysed to determine whether it waslikely to be authentic or not, this has not been the case. The collectors of Hadith made very

little effort to examine the internal evidences and generally confined themselves to anexternal test, that is, the reliability of the silsilat al-asanid , the "chain of supporting points",of each tradition. Thus the genuineness of each Hadith was determined by the identities of the

personalities who were alleged to be its transmitters.

For the verification of a tradition depended not primarily on the substance or matn but on

the isnad or chain of attestation. The question was not so much: Could the Prophet have



said this? Is it reasonable and in character? but rather: Who said that he said this? (Cragg,

The Call of the Minaret , p. 99).

Thus the isnad became the pivotal point on which the authority of all traditions was to betested. The test to be applied was purely whether the chain for each tradition was founded ona sequence of approved transmitters.

If the isnad to which an impossible sentence full of inner and outer contradictions is

appended withstands the scrutiny of this formal criticism, if the continuity of the entirely

trustworthy authors cited in them is complete and if the possibility of their personal

communication is established, the tradition is accepted as worthy of credit. Nobody is

allowed to say: 'because the matn contains a logical or historical absurdity I doubt the

correctness of the isnad '. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 140).

Generally speaking one can say that isnad criticism was the only method, practiced bythe traditionists, for sifting the genuine traditions from the spurious. The matn wasalmost never questioned; only if the content of a tradition with a sound isnad was in

flagrant contradiction to the Qur'an, it was rejected; if the content could in any way beinterpreted so that it harmonized with the Qur'an and other traditions, it was leftuncriticized. In all cases harmonization ( gam) was preferred to abrogation or rejection. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 139).

To give an example of a typical isnad, a tradition regarded as sound might begin with thefollowing chain of transmitters: "Affan ibn Muslim informed us that Hammad ibn Urwahrelated on the authority of Urwah that he received from Ayishah that the Apostle of Allahsaid..." and thereafter the content, the matn, would follow. It does seem, however, that thescience of isnad-verification may only have developed sometime after the collection of Hadith had begun for one of the earliest records of Hadith does not contain complete isnadsfor each tradition.

Malik, in his Muwatta, does not always trouble to give a complete isnad , which would

suggest that by his time the method had not hardened into a strict system. (Robson,

"Tradition, the Second Foundation of Islam", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 41, p. 27).

Just as the Hadith has become the ultimate arbiter of the Sunnah, so the isnad-system has become the foundation on which the veracity of the traditions has been tested. While neither may be foolproof or even generally reliable, they have become the major source of Islamiclaw and practice.


B. THE MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE.

1. The Six Accredited Collections and the Muwatta.

After numerous collections of Hadith had been made during the third century of Islam sixworks became recognised as authoritative. Two of them are believed to be completely



authentic, namely the S ahih al-Bukhari and the S ahih Muslim. The other four are also highlyesteemed but it is allowed by the Muslims that some of the Hadith in them are suspect andmay not be genuine. We shall outline these works in more detail shortly but a generalreference to them will serve to show what status they enjoy in this field today. The followingoutline summarises the general Muslim attitude towards these six major works:

It does not mean that all the ahadith recorded in these six books are authentic, it means thatmajority of them are authentic, with exception of the Sahih of Bukhari and that of Muslim in

which all are. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 105).

The importance of these six major collections for the heritage of Islam can hardly beoverestimated. They have become highly regarded throughout the Muslim world and aresecond only to the Qur'an itself as sources of authority for the laws and customs of Islam.

The veneration of Muslims extends, in addition to the two Sahihs, also to the above-

mentioned four Sunan books. Under the name al-kutub al-sitta, 'the six books', they

comprise the canonical hadith literature and as such form the main sources for traditional

law. (Goldziber, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.237).

There is another work, however, which should be mentioned in this context and that is the Muwatta of Imam Malik . It is a group of traditions of chiefly legal import put together by thefounder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. Because it is chiefly a corpus juris rather than a corpus traditionum, a collection of legal traditions rather than a generalhistorical work, a veritable Hadith al-Akham (body of juristic hadith assembled as afoundation for the fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam), it has not been as highly regarded as thetwo Sahihs. Its contents are also largely repeated in them and it has therefore been overlookedand is not included with the six major works.

The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal

traditions. Some Muslim authorities like 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and 'Abd al-

Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of

course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the

important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.

(Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13).

Furthermore this great jurist of Islam, the Imam Malik did not adopt the same dogmaticapproach that his colleague Shafi'i took towards the Sunnah, declaring that the only truesunnah was found in the Hadith and not in the ijma of Muslim scholars, no matter howunanimous it might be, when it could not produce relevant traditions to support it. A Westernwriter comment's on Malik's Muwatta:

Its intention is not to sift and collect the 'healthy' elements of traditions circulating in the

Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice by the ijma recognised in

Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from

the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux. Inasmuch as the book

has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies in the sunna rather than the

hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.198).



He adds: "Consideration of the Medinian ijma was so much the predominating point of viewfor Malik that he does not even hesitate to give it preference when it is in conflict to traditionsincorporated as correct in his corpus" (p.199). For Malik the value of the tradition literaturelay not in supplying a foundation for the laws of Islam but rather in illustrating theapplication of the legal maxims obtained through the ijma of the scholars of Islam. To Shafi'ieach tradition was a ratio decidendi, the root and foundation on which any question of law

was to be based or decided. To Malik the illustrative use of each tradition counted more thananything else. For him each tradition took the form of an obiter dictum, a passing referencewhich could help to elucidate a legal principle rather than become the authority on whichsuch principles were to be based. Nonetheless, as his Muwatta is one of the earliestcollections of traditions and as most of them were approved by Bukhari and Muslim, hiswork has an important place in the field of Hadith literature studies even to this day.

2. The Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim.

Of all the works of Hadith the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are regarded as the mostauthentic and authoritative. Indeed the very word sahih means "accredited". Of these two thecollection of Abu Abdallah Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari has pride of place as the most

highly regarded work of Hadith literature.

He devoted more than one-fourth of his life to the actual compilation of his work, and at the

end produced his epoch-making book which is accepted by most of the traditionists as the

most authentic work in Hadith literature, and which is considered by the Muslims in general

as an authority next only to the Qur'an. (Siddiqi,Hadith Literature, p.89).

Bukhari's complete collection was only recently translated into English for the first time byone Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University at Medina. His most welcomecontribution has increased the English-speaking student's access to the historical records of Islam. The whole collection has been published in an interlinear Arabic-English form in nine

volumes.

Although Bukhari's work is chiefly a general compilation of all known traditions of Muhammad's life considered to be authentic (it contains 7275 individual hadith, many of which are duplications, selected out of 600,000 allegedly known to him), he also concentratedin many cases on the juristic side of the tradition literature, except that in his case he groupedthe traditions under various headings dealing with specific points of Islamic law. In his timethe schools of law had been generally established and his objective was to catalogue thetraditions he regarded as authentic in relation to their respective topics of jurisprudence. Thefinal work significantly has many headings unsupported by any hadith. He either could notobtain the relevant hadith for these points or, more likely, he sought to demonstrate that therewere no known traditions relating to them which he considered authentic. He clearly chose

his headings first and thereafter grouped the various traditions under them.

It was therefore justly said ... the fiqh of Bukhari is in his paragraph headings. This tendency

of the book also explains the fact that B. occasionally gives paragraph headings without

being able to provide an appropriate hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.217).



The other great collector, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also sought not so much to complement theissues at stake in the fiqh, the lslamic jurisprudence, but rather to produce a collection of sound traditions, an authentic record, on which future studies of Hadith could be based.

We may therefore deduce that Muslim was not primarily concerned with the practical

application of his collection in a particular direction but intended, as he says in his preface,

to purify the existing hadith material of all dross: the unreliable and untrustworthy elements

which had attached themselves to this material in the course of time. (Goldziher, Muslim

Studies, Vol.2, p.227).

Like Bukhari he sought chiefly to provide a reference work for authoritative decisions of Muhammad rather than a direct statutory foundation. The legal emphasis and objective of these works nevertheless resulted in each one being considered one of the Musannaf , thecollections in which the traditions were grouped under specific topical headings (as opposedto the Musnad works which concentrated on grouping them under their isnads going back totheir earliest transmitters). Muslim records most of the hadith found in Bukhari's collection

but, whereas the former placed parallel versions of the same tradition under various headings

relating to various points of law, Muslim put them all together under their own topicalheadings. The former made the traditions fit his subject-titles, the latter made his subject-headings fit the subject-matter of the traditions.

The principal difference is the absence of the paragraph headings characteristic of Bukhari.

Muslim's work is arranged according to Fiqh, but he does not follow his plan so scrupulously:

thus, while Bukhari often arranges the same tradition with a different isnad under different

paragraphs when it is suitable to support more than one point of law and custom, Muslim

places the parallel versions together. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p.31).

While Bukhari's compilation is considered the more reliable of the two, Muslim's

arrangement of his material has been recognised as superior, and rightly so. While Bukharimade the traditions in his collection testify to his own schedule of various points of law,Muslim left them to speak for themselves. His work has also recently been translated for thefirst time into English in a four-volume edition.

3. The Sunan Works of Abu Dawud and Others.

The remaining four works are called sunan (the word has the meaning "path" or "way") because they concentrate on the example of Muhammad's actions and decrees insofar as these provide the ultimate foundation of all Islamic law. The work recognised as the best of thesecollections is the S unan of Abu Dawud which contains many of the hadith in the two Sahihs

but which also includes traditions not found there. He likewise was a scrupulous collector and

although some of his traditions are regarded as weak and suspect, he was aware of the problem and was careful to distinguish between sound and weak hadith in his work.

Abu Dawud did his best to deal faithfully with the material at his disposal. Unlike al-Bukhari

and Muslim, he includes material which is not very reliable, or even considered actually

unsound, but he does not fall to draw attention to it. (Robson, "The Material of Tradition",

The Muslim W orld , Vol.41, p.168).



His work has also very recently been published in English (so, incidentally, has the Muwattaof Imam Malik. One can only commend and sincerely appreciate the efforts of Muslimscholars to make the great works of Hadith accessible to the English-speaking world at thistime. Hopefully the remaining three Sunan works, which can very easily be published in afew volumes like the other three, will also soon be available in English).

Two collections very similar to Abu Dawud's are the Sunan works of at-Tirmithi and an- Nasai. The former is called a Jami ("collection") because it covers not only legal traditions but also, like Bukhari and Muslim, historical and other hadith as well. Nevertheless Tirmithiconfined himself to traditions on which the principles of Islamic law had already been basedand did not venture to record such as might lead to new interpretations. His collection istherefore primarily a reference work as well.

The Sunan of an-Nasai is more comprehensive than the former two insofar as he deals withthe legal material available to him. Unlike Tirmithi he did not limit himself to recordingindividual hadith as a resource work for issues concerning the jurists of his day but sought tocatalogue all the variant editions of each hadith known to him as Muslim had done beforehim. His work accordingly has a place of its own in the heritage of the tradition literature.

Al-Nasai's main object was only to establish the texts of traditions and the differences

between their various versions - almost all of which he quotes in extenso, instead of only

referring to them as Abu Da'ud and al-Tirmidhi had done. (Siddiqi,Hadith Literature, p.113).

The last work, the Sunan of Ibn Maja, is regarded as the weakest of all the six major works of Hadith literature and some traditionists prefer the Sunan of ad-Darimi to it. Nonetheless,although a great many authorities have openly declared some of the traditions found in thiscollection to be forged, it has established itself among the approved works.

The other scholars, such as Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi also recorded weak ahadith, but they

mostly noted them in their book, but Ibn Maja, even when he recorded a false hadith, wenton silently. Therefore a lot of discussion has gone on among scholars about this book to the

effect that some other books deserve to be mentioned in Six Principle works instead of that

by Ibn Maja. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 106).

Doubts were maintained longest about Ibn Maja because of the many weak (da'if )traditions which he incorporated into his corpus traditionum. (Goldziher, Muslim

S tudies, Vol.2, p.240).

In the eighth century after Muhammad's death a fine combination of the major hadith foundin all six works, the two Sahihs and the four Sunans, was put together by one Shaikh Wali ud-

Din and entitled Mishkat ul-Masabih, the "niche of lights . Various editions of this collectionhave appeared in English and it serves as a most useful guide to practically all the trulyrelevant hadith preserved in the kutub as-sitta the "six books", though most of the traditionsrecorded in it are purely juristic. It therefore serves as the Islamic equivalent of theRabbinical Mishnah in Talmudic Judaism.




C. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRADITIO NS.

1. Criticism of the Hadith Literature in the West.

Up to this stage our study of the Hadith and comments made pertaining to the authenticity of the traditions have followed the general Muslim attitude. Western scholars have, however taken a far more sceptical approach to the subject in the last century. The whole body of Hadith literature has been called into question and it has been suggested that none of thetraditions surviving can be accepted as genuine at face value. Conclusions of some of themore prominent writers to this effect read as follows:

In fine, we may from all that has been said, conclude that tradition cannot be received with

too much caution, or exposed to too rigorous a criticism; and that no important statement

should be accepted as securely proved by tradition alone, unless there be some farther

ground of probability, analogy, or collateral evidence in its favour. (Muir, The Life of

Mahomet , p. lx).

Every legal tradition from the Prophet, until the contrary is proved, must be taken notas an authentic or essentially authentic, even if slightly obscured, statement valid for his time or the time of the Companions, but as the fictitious expression of a legaldoctrine formulated at a later date. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan

Jurisprudence, p. 149).

There seems to be little doubt that practically the whole body of tradition wasspurious. (Robson, "Tradition: Investigation and Classification", The Muslim World ,Vol 1.41, p. 101).

Extensive studies into the legal character of most of the traditions have led Western scholarsto the opinion that, as the laws of the widespread Muslim community developed, so traditionswere forged to provide an authority for them allegedly stretching back to the time of Muhammad himself. After all, if the law was based on the decree of the founder of Islam, itcould hardly be queried or rejected. For some writers the fabrication of the whole traditionliterature has become such a fait accompli that every tradition is automatically treated as the

product, and not the source, of the early development of Islamic law. Efforts are thereforemade to place the origin of each hadith within the growing framework of Islamic law in thoseearly days.

Traditions from Companions are as little genuine as traditions from the Prophet, and must

be subjected to the same scrutiny in order to ascertain their place in the development of

legal doctrine. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 150).

Even Muslim scholars of Hadith freely admit that wholesale fabrication took place but arguethat the major works of Hadith literature contain, on the whole, genuine traditions only andthat the forgeries have largely been eliminated. Consensus has, at any rate, been reached onthe following points: that many traditions were fabricated to uphold the Ummayad andAbbasid dynasties respectively, that early schools of law created traditions to support their specific points of view, and that opposing schools fabricated similar hadith to counter these.



So widespread was hadith fabrication that a tradition was even invented to the effect thatMuhammad anticipated the forgery of sayings attributed to him and declared that whoever alleged that he had said anything other than what he did say would be cast into hell. Thismust surely rank as one of the most remarkable of pious frauds! Others produced a lessexclusive but nonetheless equally preemptive assessment of the practice of hadith fabricationto follow after Muhammad's death in the following saying which has been attributed to him:

"After my death sayings attributed to me will multiply just as a large number of sayings are

attributed to the prophets who were before me. What is told you as a saying of mine you

must compare with the Quran. What is in agreement therewith is from me whether I have

actually said it or not". (Guillaume, The Traditions of Istam, p. 53).

In the West, however, the prevailing distrust of the authenticity of the whole body of traditionliterature has led to the general conclusion that the Hadith represent what Islam becameduring its development and not what it was during the formative period of Muhammad's lifeand the early Caliphate.

The result is that the sum of tradition represents the history of the first two centuries of

Islam. (Tritton, Islam, p. 32).

In the first place it has become ever more evident that the thousands of traditionsabout Mohammed, which, together with the Qoran, form the foundation upon whichthe doctrine and life of the community are based, are for the most part theconventional expression of all the opinions which prevailed among his followersduring the first three centuries after the Hijrah. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 20)

As we investigate the sources of the traditions, we find that we know less aboutMohammed; but we learn more about the history of Islam. (Margoliouth, "OnMoslem Tradition" The Muslim World , Vol. 2, p. 121).

During the middle of the last century Sir William Muir first expressed the form of scepticismwhich has become the norm in Western studies of the Hadith to this day and his brief studywas followed up with a thorough criticism by the great Hungarian scholar Ignaz Goldziher.The latter's thesis has become the foundation upon which all succeeding studies have been

based and is found in the second volume of his Muhammedanische S tudien first published in1889 (the work quoted in this book is an English translation of his book). His most prominentsuccessor says of his study that he "has not only voiced his 'sceptical reserve' with regard tothe traditions contained even in the classical collections, but shown positively that the greatmajority of traditions from the Prophet are documents not of the time to which they claim to

belong, but of the successive stages of development of doctrines during the first centuries of Islam" (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 4).

Even though Islamic orthodoxy has accepted almost without question the formulation of theHadith literature in the early days (i.e. that the six major works are generally authentic,especially the two Sahihs, and that the other early collections contain many genuinetraditions), Muslim scholars tended to appreciate the Western interest in this subject in the

beginning. The pessimistic conclusions of the major scholars has, however, naturally madethem unwilling in recent times to sustain this appreciation and, while the works of thesescholars have been treated on the whole with respect, their Muslim counterparts have fallen



One of the best modern scholars of Islam perhaps advocates the most appropriate approach tothis subject when he says of the Hadith literature: "A healthy caution rather than outrightscepticism is likely to lead to reliable and constructive results" (Rahman, Islam, p. 49). ManyWestern scholars have also recognised that much of the tradition literature must be genuine:

But Tradition must contain a core of information coming from Companions, however

difficult it is now to decide what may be genuine and what may not. (Robson, "Tradition: The

Second Foundation of Islam", The MuslimW orld , Vol. 41, p. 25).

This is not, of course, to assert that the hadith literature is destitute of any historicalfoundation: such a conclusion would be unwarranted. But the undoubted historicalfacts do demand that each individual hadith should be judged on its merits.(Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 29).

The test suggested in this last quote is perhaps the best that can be applied. No generalopinion of the considerably varied nature of the traditions can be offered with any certainty.Each hadith must be analysed in the light of its content, likely origins, teaching, consistency,

and legal context. While we may openly question whether the isnad-system can validly serveas an infallible proof of the reliability of the traditions, it does not seem justifiable to place aquestion-mark over the whole heritage of Hadith literature as Western scholars have done.One needs to examine each tradition carefully to determine whether it is likely to be genuineand an example of how such a test can effectively be applied follows in the next section.

3. Selected Means of Testing the Hadith Literature.

There are, as has been indicated already, a number of ways of testing the various traditionsand many of them yield evidences which show that they were compiled generations after Muhammad's death. In this section we shall consider a few examples.

During the reign of the Ummayad caliph Yazid, grandson of Muhammad's archenemy AbuSufyan, Abdallah ibn az-Zubair, a close companion of Muhammad's grandson Husain,revolted against the caliph and made himself ruler of Mecca and then Medina. By the timeAbd al-Malik became caliph in Damascus about fifty years after the death of Muhammad, Ibnaz-Zubair had such control over Arabia that the Ummayad caliph was not able to perform the

pilgrimage to Mecca. Accordingly he built the Dome of the Rock between 685 and 691 ADin Jerusalem over the site of Muhammad's alleged ascent to heaven as an alternative place of

pilgrimage. (The building is designed in an octagonal form and the interior has a clear circlearound the rock for circumambulation by pilgrims in imitation of the rituals around theKa'aba). A year later, however, Abd al-Malik sent an army under al-Hajjaj, the scourge of theIraqi Muslims, to besiege Mecca and overthrow Ibn az-Zubair which duly ended the revolt.(The usurper was killed in the fighting). In the light of such historical developments one reads

the following tradition with much interest:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported it directly from Allah's Apostle (may peace

be upon him) that he said: Do not undertake journey but to three mosques: this mosque of

mine, the Mosque of Al-Haram and the Mosque of Aqsa (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Vol.

2, p. 699).



The mosques referred to are those in Medina, Mecca and Jerusalem in that order. It isextremely doubtful whether Muhammad made this statement as no Muslim ever made a

pilgrimage to Jerusalem during his lifetime and it was only during the caliphate of Umar thatJerusalem was conquered. No mosque stood in the city until Umar built a small edifice whichhas grown into what the Masjidul-Aqsa is today. During Muhammad's lifetime only theKa'aba was a place of special importance to the Muslims. His own crude structure in Medina

likewise held no fascinations as such for Muslim pilgrims and it was only after his death,when he was buried within its precincts, that it became a sanctuary for pilgrims to the Hijaz.In another tradition, however, we read:

Abu Hurairah reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said that one prayer

said in my mosque is better than a thousand prayers said in other mosques except the

Masjid al-Harem (Mecca). (Muwatta Imam Malik , p.93).

It is also hard to believe that this tradition is genuine for much the same reason, yet onecannot help noticing a distinction between them. In this latter hadith no mention is made of the mosque in Jerusalem - only those in Mecca and Medina are elevated above all others. It is

probable that the first tradition was invented by supporters of the Ummayads at about thesame time that the Dome of the Rock was built to give it equal status with the mosques of Mecca and Medina. The second tradition, however, was probably invented by the dissentersin Medina to counter it. A similar tradition bears out this probability all the more:

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Between my

house and my pulpit is a garden from out of the gardens of Paradise and my pulpit is above

my Fountain. (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 93).

A portion of the great mosque in Medina, with a few bushes and trees, has always beensealed off accordingly as a visible part of the "gardens of Paradise". The point of significancein this tradition, however, is the mention of Muhammad's pulpit as part of the hallowed

garden. During the reign of Mu'awiya, Abu Sufyan's son, an attempt was made to take this pulpit to Damascus.

In the 50th year of Hijra, Mu'awiya entertained the project of removing the pulpit and staff

of the Prophet from Medina to Damascus, now the capital of Islam . . . Mu'awiya was

dissuaded from his design by the consideration urged upon him, that where the Prophet had

placed his pulpit and his staff, there they should remain. (Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise,

Decline and Fall , p. 298).

The tradition was almost certainly invented post evento by the inhabitants of Medina to prevent any further efforts to remove the pulpit from their city. One cannot help seeing the

marks of fabrication in these traditions, anticipating as they do later developments in Islam.One writer says of the tradition making Jerusalem as much a place of pilgrimage for Muslimsas Mecca and Medina:

Abdul-Malik hit upon the expedient of enjoining a pilgrimage to the mosque he built in

Jerusalem instead of the orthodox journey to Mecca and Medina. All that was necessary was

to declare that a circumambulation of the holy place at Jerusalem possessed the same



validity as that enjoined at Mecca, and to procure for his assertion a confirmatory hadith

with an isnad going back to the prophet himself. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 47).

An Egyptian Muslim scholar, on the other hand, has questioned whether this tradition reallywas fabricated to support Abd al-Malik's objectives in the light of the fact that it does notspeak specifically of his structure al- qubbatassakhrah, the Dome of the Rock, but rather masjidul-aqsa:

And suppose Zuhri did invent this tradition, Sibai continues, why did he not put qubbat as-

sakhra instead of the Aqsa mosque? Mentioning the second only creates confusion in a

situation in which the attention is especially drawn to the first. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of

the Tradition Literature, p. 111 ) .

Traditions, however, were never fabricated in such a way that they blatantly promoted theobjects of their inventors for the forgery would then be all too apparent. The purpose wasalways veiled within the tradition which had to be interpreted to give the meaning in view.Furthermore as the Qur'an itself speaks of Muhammad's journey from Mecca to Jerusalem as

being from masjidul-haram to masjidul-aqsa (Surah 17.1), it is to be expected that the creator of the relevant hadith would seek to strengthen the influence of his tradition by using thesame terms as are found in the Qur'an. Of course no masjidul-aqsa whatsoever existed at thetime of Muhammad, but we have seen that he himself was led to believe otherwise and it isnot surprising therefore to find later traditions claiming that he advocated pilgrimages to thesite.

These are just a few examples of traditions that can be shown by analysis to be forged sometime after Muhammad's death. Whole books could be written on the subject, but these itemswill have to suffice as illustrations of the point.

4. The Reported Traditions of Abu Hurairah.

One can hardly consider the question of the authenticity of the Hadith literature withoutreference to Muhammad's companion Abu Hurairah for, on the one hand, he is the greatestreporter of traditions, having handed down well over five thousand - more than double thenumber recorded by any other companion. On the other hand, he has been exposed tocriticism throughout the ages, especially within the Islamic heritage. In this case theaccusation has generally been that Abu Hurairah himself has been the forger of the hadithattributed to him, as opposed to the usual conviction that the traditions were composed manyyears later and fathered on various companions.

Abu Hurairah only became a Muslim about three years before Muhammad's death and theearly Muslims wondered how someone who had known Muhammad for such a short timecould learn so many hadith from him. One tradition attributed to him does tend to reflect

poorly on his reliability. It is reported by the other great traditionist Abdullah ibn Umar thatdogs were to be destroyed unless they were kept for one of two purposes.

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "If someone keeps a dog neither for

guarding livestock, nor for hunting, his good deeds will decrease (in reward) by two Qirats a

day". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 7, p. 284).



Dogs, therefore, were only to be kept for watching herds or for hunting. Abu Hurairah'stradition reads as follows:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon

him) as saying: He who kept a dog except one meant for watching the herd, or for hunting or

for watching the fields, he lost two qirat of reward every day. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 827).

In this hadith we find that dogs who look after fields were to be spared in addition to thoseserving the other two purposes mentioned by Ibn Umar. The tradition has an interestingaddendum: "Zuhri said: The words of Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) wereconveyed to Ibn Umar who said: May Allah have mercy on Abu Huraira; he owned a field"(S ahih Muslim, op. cit.). Quite clearly Ibn Umar believed that Abu Hurairah had forged the

permission to preserve dogs who looked after fields to protect his own vested interests. As aWestern writer says, "A better illustration of the underlying motive of some hadith can hardly

be found" (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p.78).

The orthodox scholars of Islam, who regard the six major works as authentic, naturally do not

wish to query the genuineness of Abu Hurairah's traditions, making up, as they do such alarge part of the tradition literature. One writer, aware of the weaknesses attributed to him,assesses his contribution as follows:

He is believed by the Muslims to have been too pious and conscientious a Muslim to put into

the mouth of Muhammad any words which had not actually fallen from his lips, or to ascribe

to him anything that he had not done. But he does not appear to have been endowed by

nature with power of minute observation or a critical faculty strong enough to take

cognizance of all the circumstances in which the Prophet uttered certain words or acted in a

particular way. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 29).

O

ne of the most significant features of his traditions is the emphasis on the esoteric side of Muhammad's experiences. While most of the hadith are principally juristic, many relate to thesubjective side of religious experience and of these Abu Hurairah is invariably the originaltransmitter.

When the Prophet was no more, and his sayings became precious, Abu Hurairah won

himself fame and importance by being ready with an inexhaustible stock of them ...

Wherever a saying ascribed to Mohammed is mystical or sublime, wherever it is worthy of a

mediaeval saint or ascetic, Abu Hurairah is most likely to be the authority for it.

(Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 352).

The same writer draws a poignant conclusion: "The transformation of Mohammed in men'sminds from the character of statesman and warrior to that of saint and philanthropist is due inthe main to the inventions of Abu Hurairah, the first Traditionalist" (Margoliouth, op.cit.,

p.353). If such traditions had been fairly widespread among the earliest transmitters, onewould be inclined to treat them more seriously but, coming as they do chiefly from onesource, one cannot help being somewhat sceptical. Furthermore it is very significant that theauthor of most of the traditions should be regarded as the least reliable authority as this hasserious omens for the tradition literature as a whole.



If it is possible to expose just one Companion as unreliable, the firmly constructed apparatus

of tradition criticism begins to shake. It certainly topples over when this Companion happens

to be the one who, of all the Companions, has transmitted the greatest number of sayings

on the authority of the Prophet. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 13).

In some of the other collections of Hadith of far less authority it is recorded that the caliphUmar threatened to exile Abu Hurairah if he did not refrain from transmitting hadith,deliberately accusing him of telling lies in Muhammad's name. Whether these traditions aretrue or not cannot be established. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the criticism of Abu Hurairah's traditions does tend to reflect negatively on the authenticity of the Hadithliterature as a whole.

In conclusion it may be said that there is no certain way of testing which traditions aregenuine and which are not, but from the examples given in this chapter it is quite apparentthat many, even in the main works regarded as authentic by the Muslims, prove to bespurious upon critical examination. On the other hand a large proportion must be true and oneis inclined to treat hadith that are principally historical in character as probably genuine to

one degree or another. A question-mark must, however, hang over those that are moreconsistent with the developed fiqh of Islam, those that glorify Muhammad beyond the image presented in the Qur'an, and those that show evidences of being drawn from the records of other religions.

The Principal Duties of Islam

A. FUNDAMENTAL MUSLIM TENETS AND BELIEFS

1. Iman - The Faith of the Muslim.

In every religion one finds a distinction between what he adherent believes and what he does.This division of faith and practice is especially noted in Islam, the former being termed theiman of a Muslim and the latter his din. The well-known "Five Pillars of Islam" belong

principally to the practice of the religion. The faith of the Muslim has basically six articles.Five of them are named in this verse:

It is righteousness to believe in God, and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the

Messengers. Surah 2.177

In the original Arabic the exhortation is aamana, "to believe" (from which the noun iman comes), in Allah, the one true God; in the yawmil-akhir , the Last Day; in the malaa'-ikah, theangels, the heavenly messengers; in the kitaab, the Scripture, that is, the holy books revealed

by God; and in the nabiyyin, the prophets, the earthly messengers. Added to this is belief inqadar (or taqdir ), the divine "measure", that is, in effect, God's sovereign control over allthings and the irreversible destiny of the whole creation according to his express decrees. AMuslim is required to believe in these articles of faith. Denial of any of them leads to kufr theopposite of iman, namely deliberate unbelief. All these six articles constitute the basic iman othe Muslim and a fine definition of iman in Islam is found in this quote:



The word iman, generally translated as faith or belief, is derived from amana (ordinarily

rendered as he believed ) which means, when used intransitively, he came into peace or

security ; and, when used transitively, he granted ( him) peace or security . Hence the believer

is called al-mu'min, meaning one who has come into peace or security because he has

accepted the principles which bring about peace of mind or security from fear; and God is

called al-Mu'min meaning the Granter of security (59.23). (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.101).

It is not enough just to believe in God or even in tawhid , the unity of God. The true Muslimmust be able to identify his belief in God and therefore is required to acknowledge hisexpress communications to mankind through his angels and prophets as well as the Scriptureshe has revealed. An emphasis also falls on God's sovereign determination of the humancourse and experience and, just as Islam and Muslim come from the same root letters andmean "Submission' and "One who submits" respectively, so the true believer resigns himself to the Divine Will and does not deviate from its nature and decrees. It is not surprisingtherefore to find in the six articles of faith three that relate exclusively to this principle,namely God's undivided unity, the control he exercises over all things, and the Day of Reckoning to come.

At the same time one finds that such convictions of faith are to be exercised against the forcesarrayed in opposition to the Divine Will. An important verse in the Qur'an to this effect is:

Therefore, whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he has indeed laid hold on

the firmest handle. Surah 2.256 (Ali).

A Muslim therefore not only believes ( yu'min - another derivative of iman) in Allah but alsodisbelieves ( yakfur ) in Taghut (originally the name of one of the Meccan idols but in theQur'an used apparently as a name for the devil himself). K ufr in the Qur'an does not mean alack of faith in the truth but implies a deliberate disbelief and we therefore find that thosewho willingly reject God's messages are called K afirun, "disbelievers" or, even moreappropriately, blasphemers . So a true believer believes in God, his revelations, and hisdecrees, but disbelieves in the devil and his works.

Despite these positive elements, the word iman does not carry quite the same meaning as"faith" in Christianity. It is related purely to the concept of Islam itself, namely a submissionor simple resignation to God's will. The act of trusting or confiding in God, the essence of Christian faith is not conveyed in the basic meaning of iman. A more detailed analysis of thedistinction between these concepts and the effects they have on Christianity and Islamrespectively will be found in the chapter on Abraham's faith in the companion volume to this

book.

2. The Islamic Concept of God.

The heart of the doctrine of God in Islam is tawhid , the "unity" of Allah. Yet this doctrine,from a Christian point of view, proposes a bare unity, one which seems to restrict thecharacter of the divine being to a solitary personality in many ways detached from all that hehas created. The Qur'an sets him forth as entirely distinct from all that he has created andlater Islamic orthodoxy followed this theme even more ardently, believing that the further God could be removed from his creation, the greater he was. Accordingly it is not surprisingto find that, of all God's attributes, it is his power that most impresses the Muslims.



The essence of Allah is power which overrides all His mere attributes and enables Him to

exercise them or not as He pleases. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an, p.32).

Of all the Qur'anic terms, perhaps the most basic, comprehensive and revelatory atonce of divine nature of the universe is the term amr which we have translated aboveas order, orderliness or command. To everything that is created is ipso facto

communicated its amr which is its own law of being but which is also a law by whichit is integrated into a system. This amr , that is order or command of God, is ceaseless.(Rahman, Islam, p.34)

This awesome power that is vested in the Almighty finds expression in many forms. "Goddoeth what He willeth" (Surah 14.27) - no one can question his actions or decrees. He sets ona right path only those whom he pleases to guide (Surah 2.272). The theme of God'ssovereign power to direct the affairs of men, determine the future, act as he chooses, andcreate what he wills, is one of the commonest Qur'anic themes. Throughout the book there

pervades an atmosphere of divine control and foreknowledge respecting all things thathappen. This verse seems to sum it all up:

For to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He

createth what he pleaseth. For God hath power over all things. Surah 5.19

The last sentence occurs frequently in the Qur' an and one often finds it inscribed on plaquesin Muslim homes. It reads in Arabic: Wallaahu 'alaa kulli shay'in qadiir - a phrase regularlyon Muslim lips. No Christian doubts the awesome power and control that God has over everything but the Islamic emphasis on this attribute paradoxically tends to detract from hisglory in many ways. One of the side-effects of the determination to distinguish the character of God from his creation is that Muslims actually learn less of what he is really like and tendto think of him in negative terms. The following quote from the creed of the great earlyMuslim theologian an-Nasafi well illustrates the point:

The Originator of the world is God Most High, the One, the Eternal, the Decreeing, the Knowing, the

Hearing, the Seeing, the Willing. He is not an attribute, nor a body, nor an essence, nor a thing

formed, nor a thing bounded, nor a thing numbered, nor a thing divided, nor a thing compounded,

nor a thing limited: He is not described by quiddity, Mahiyah, nor by modality, K aifiyyah, and He

does not exist in place or time. There is nothing that resembles him and nothing that is beyond His

Knowledge and Power. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p.60).

While he goes on to speak of God's attributes in positive terms this section does show why ithas been suggested that Islam thrives on telling one what God is not rather than what he is.Al-Ashari, the famous Muslim theologian who deserted from the "free-thinking" Mutazilites

and who was largely responsible for the demise of this rationalistic group in Islamic history,likewise gave a very negative description of Allah's nature in his Makalat al-Islamipin, partof which reads as follows:

He is no body, nor object, nor volume . . . no place encompasses Him, no time passes by

Him. He cannot be described by any description which can be applied to creatures .. .

Nothing of what occurs to any mind or can be conceived by phantasy resembles Him . . .

Eyes do not see Him, sight does not reach Him ... no harm can touch Him, neither joy nor



pleasure can reach Him, nor is He moved by hurt or pain. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed ,

p.73).

In fact, of the forty-eight statements made about God in the whole creed, no less than forty-three are couched purely in negative terms. As the author of the book says, "This descriptionof the Godhead ... is chiefly negative" (op. cit., p. 74). One might well ask, just what can we

truly know about (,od if there is nothing in all that we see, heal or know that can assist us tocomprehend his nature? A Muslim writer has this to say:

Islam is monotheistic par excellence; the unity of God it teaches is the most categorical, the

clearest, the simplest, and therefore the strongest. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. xli).

The Christian analyst cannot help wondering whether Islam's "simple" concept of bareunitarianism, so often defined in negative terms, does not in fact weaken itself in that while itemphasises God's power, it does away with the complexity of his divine love and holiness asrevealed in the Triune God of the Bible. The proclamation that the second person of theDivine Trinity humbled himself by taking human form that he might establish a greater

relationship between God and his creation, and was thereafter "crucified in weakness" that hemight reconcile men to God and give them access in one Spirit to the Father, does wellappear to be the antithesis of the Islamic dogma that the further Allah can be removed anddistinguished from his creation, the more he is glorified.

In as far as Moslems are monotheists and in as far as Allah has many of the attributes of

Jehovah we cannot put him with the false gods. But neither can there be any doubt that

Mohammed's conception of God is inadequate, incomplete, barren and grievously distorted.

It is vastly inferior to the Christian idea of the Godhead and also inferior to the Old

Testament idea of God. ... Instead of arriving at his theology through the mind of Christ, as

revealed in the gospels and developed through the Holy Spirit's teaching in the epistles,

Mohammed went back to natural theology. He not use, or would not use, the channel of knowledge opened by the Incarnation. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God , p. 107, 109).

It is true that the Qur'an teaches that wherever men gather together in conversation, Allah isone among them (Surah 58.7) and that he is nearer to man than his jugular vein (Surah50.16). The Qur'an likewise speaks often of the wajhullah - the Face of Allah" - which true

believers seek and desire (Surah 6.52) and which no one can escape (Surah 2.115). Nevertheless there is no suggestion that men can enter into a relationship with God such as isfound in the Biblical relationship between the Eternal Father and his children.

The sheikhs of theology at al-Azhar today are still content with the definitions of al-Ghazzali.

But the very contemplation of so barren a deity "pours an ice-floe over the tide of human

trusts and causes us to feel that we are orphans in a homeless universe". Because Allah is

sufficient in and of himself, because he is the Altogether Other and cannot be compared to

anyone or anything, he is wholly aloof from his creatures. As Kraemer remarks, "One of the

favourite expressions about God (among Moslems) which testifies to an intense religious

feeling is, He whom everyone needs and who does not stand in need of anybody or anything.

Fellowship does not exist between God and man. God is too exalted for that". (Zwemer,

"The Allah of Islam and the God Revealed in Jesus Christ", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 36, p.315).



The Muslim cannot know God personally - the best he can endeavour to do is to walk in the sabilillah - the "Way of Allah" (another common Qur'anic phrase). Above all the Islamicconcept of God's power as an absolute quality in itself which cannot be revealed in any formthat might relate him to his creation deprives Islam of the awesome consciousness of God'sglory revealed in the revelation of himself in the man Christ Jesus. The Bible speaks of "Christ, the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1.24) - indeed a form of God's power truly

unknown to Islam. While it fears that his power will be limited if it in any way relates him tohis creation, it ironically limits that power in its own way by refusing to recognise that thereare other ways in which God can reveal his glory than by standing aloof from his creation asan eternal potentate.

3. God's Love in Islam and Christianity.

The prominence given to God's autocratic powers in Islam results in a jealously preserveddistinction between him and his creation as we have seen. Any suggestion that God is willingto reach down and meet man where he is and in grace express his willingness to enter arelationship with him seems, to the Muslim mind, to imply a strange deference on God's part,a sign of weakness more than anything else. Accordingly Islam neither understands nor

accepts the Christian confidence in God's personal grace and love towards wayward sinners,summed up in the expression "God is love" (1 John 4.8). Although the Qur'an speaks of love

between God and man, this love is really confined to devotion to duty on the part of man anda corresponding approval on God's part. There is no room for sentiment, sympathy or heartfelt affection in the Qur'anic deity.

The love of man for God is mentioned but is interpreted as 'veneration'. Orthodoxy with its

insistence on the transcendence of God cannot use the idea of love; that was left to the

mystics. (Tritton, Islam, p. 17)

To Mohammed the religious motive for a type of conduct that is pleasing to Allah is

primarily gratitude. The Prophet's sense of God's transcendence is so strong that hespeaks but rarely of love toward God (76.8, 3.29). (Andrae, Mohammad: The Manand His Faith, p. 72)

It would not be fair to say that the Qur'an portrays Allah as a soulless despot simply actingaccording to his own whims and fancies. The Muslim is promised that he is "full of kindnessto those who serve him" (Surah 3.30) and the next two verses speak openly of his love for those who love him:

Say: "If ye do love God, follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is

Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". Say, "Obey God and His Apostle": But if they turn back, God

loveth not those who reject faith. (Surah 3:31-32)

Nonetheless there is nothing in the Qur'an that approaches the Biblical "We love, because hefirst loved us" (1 John 4.19). According to the Qur'an God only loves (that is, approves) thosewho obey him - he does not love those who turn their backs on him. It is only in the Biblethat we find the grandest of all divine attributes - God's self-giving love to reconcile thosewho hitherto were his enemies: "But God shows his love for us in that, while we were yetsinners, Christ dies for us" (Romans 5.8). The Qur'anic word for love is hubbun as found inits various forms in the text. At best it corresponds to the Greek filia - a natural disposition



towards that which is found appealing. The word is nowhere used in a context correspondingto the common New Testament word for God's love, agape, implying a love which expressesitself in selfless compassion and affection not necessarily considering the worthiness of itsobject. The gift of God's Son as a sacrifice for the redemption of evil, godless men whomGod in love and pity chose to save is the ultimate expression of this kind of love. The Muslimconcept of God's love, as appears from Surah 3.31 quoted above, is chiefly expressed in the

bestowal of rewards as a favour towards duty performed.

This, however, is not identical with the New Testament conception of love as an attribute of

God; it rather signifies the affection with which the master responds to the loyalty of a

faithful servant. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur'an, p. 35)

The love of God which is spoken of in the Qur'an is not what is meant in the Bible bythe expression 'the love of God'. In the first place, it does not express an attribute of God Himself, but a relation which He assumes towards men conditioned by their attitude to Him . . . The expression 'the love of God' is thus seen to mean theapprobation of God. That which God approves he 'loves'. (Gardner, The Qur'anic

Doctrine of God , p. 45, 46).The latter author says of the Qur'anic word for love: "Of disinterested and unselfish love thereis no trace at all in the use of the word in the Qur'an" (op. cit., p. 47). As a result there is alsono scope for the development of a positive, experimental relationship of mutual love betweenGod and man. To Islam such a thing seems to detract from God's foremost attribute, his

power over and above all his creation. To Christianity there is nothing that so glorifies God asthe gracious, condescending love he has shown in reconciling believers to himself throughthe gift of his Son and in communing with them through the Holy Spirit whom he has pouredinto their hearts.

The Love of God in a Christian sense means either God's love to us or our love to him. Both

ideas are strange to Islam. An inter-communion of such tender regard between God and thecreature is seldom or never spoken of in the Koran. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God ,

p. 100).

As a German theologian has put it, "The God of Mohammed is in the wind, and theearthquake, and in the fire, but not in the still small voice of love" (quoted in Zwemer, op.cit., p. 101). Muslims boldly claim that Islam has the "simplest" and "purest" monotheism.On the contrary there is nothing to compare with the Christian concept of God - a lovingFather who has given the greatest display of his love that could ever have been given in thegift of his Son and who has entered into a deliberate fellowship with men through the gift of his Spirit. The trinitarian monotheism of Christianity reveals a God of outstanding grace, love

and glory. In comparison the "simple" monotheism of Islam fades into a bare and somewhatdeficient unitarianism.

4. Angels and Demons in the Theology of Islam.

There are many similarities between the Biblical and Qur'anic concepts of the existence andcharacter of angels and demons. The Qur'anic word for angels is mala'ikah and for demons

jinn. The former were created from nur (light), the latter from nar (fire). Whereas all demonsin the Bible are evil spirits, the jinn of the Qur'an consist of believing spirits as well as evil



spirits (a party of them is said to have embraced Islam after Muhammad had preached tothem just after his abortive visit to at-Ta'if - Surah 72.1).

There are four archangels according to Islam, namely Jibril , the angel of revelation (theBiblical angel Gabriel), Mikal (the Biblical Michael), Israfil , who will sound the trumpet atthe last day, and Azra'il , the angel of death described in the Qur'an as malakul-mawt , the

"angel of death" (Surah 32.11). The first two are mentioned by name in Surah 2.98 whereasthe names of the last two are only found in later works. The Qur'an mentions a number of other angels, either by name or according to their functions.

In the Kuran are further mentioned Harut and Marut, Malik the angel of the fire and his

companions the zabaniya; "Those who are near to Allah"; also writing and recording angels,

messengers and guardians of the fire. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed , p. 199).

Islamic tradition states that another angel, Ridwan, guards Paradise and that the dead arevisited by two further angels of hideous appearance, Munkar and Nakir who question thedeceased about his beliefs, his prophet and his religion. If the dead man answers satisfactorily

(i.e. that Muhammad is his prophet and that Islam is his religion), the angels depart from him,otherwise they torment him to the Last Day.

The Qur'an follows the Bible in teaching that there is one great demon who was responsiblefor the fall of Adam and Eve and the expulsion of the human race from the Garden of Eden( Jannatul-'Adn, said to have been in Paradise and a name for heaven itself in the Qur'an -Surah 9.72). As in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve ( Adam and Hawwa) were created

perfect but were tempted to sin by the Evil One.

The devil is called in the Qur'an indifferently by the Hebrew derivative Shaitan (Shatan) or

the Greek Iblis (diabolos). The name Shaitan is generally used with the epithet rajim =

stoned or accursed, sometimes marid or rebellious. He is one of the jinn, but he also appears

as an angel cast down from Paradise for his refusal to worship Adam. (Stanton, The Teaching


The Qur'an repeats, in its own words, the story of Adam's fall but alleges that Iblis wasrejected because he refused to bow down with the other angels after God had created man andhad commanded them to bow in obeisance before him:

Then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He

refused to be of those who bow down. Surah 7.11

The Bible plainly teaches that Satan was once the highest of angels but fell through his pride

in seeking to exalt himself and make himself like the Most High (Isaiah 44. 1215, Luke10.18). Although the Qur'an gives a different reason for his abasement, it confirms that hewas cast down and became the most evil of all God's creatures (Surah 7.13). Nevertheless onefinds that Muslim writers generally deny that Iblis had ever been an angel.

There is a popular misconception, into which many writers of repute have fallen, that Iblis or

the Devil is one of the angels. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 157).



A misconception held by several Orientalists is that Satan was originally an angel before being cast out of Heaven for not paying homage to Adam. The Qur'anicstatement about this problem is crystal clear (18.50). Iblis was of the Jinn, althoughthe injunction of homage was issued to him as it was to the angels. (Khalifa, The

S ublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p.216).

As the Qur'an states that he was minal-jinn, "from the Jinn" (Surah 18.50) and that he wascreated min-nar , "from fire" (Surah 7.12), Muslim commentators reject the Biblical conceptthat he was at first a genuine angel. On the other hand, in more than one passage it isexpressly said that it was only lil-mala'ikah, "to the angels", that the command came to bowto Adam and that they all did so illa-Iblis, "except Iblis" (Surah 2.34). It appears that theremay have been some confusion in Muhammad's mind regarding the original character of Satan. He clearly taught that he was one of the jinn and made of fire, and yet included himamong the number of his original state.

5. Was Muhammad able to Perform Miracles?

Another feature of the six articles of faith of iman that should be considered is the teaching of

the Qur'an regarding the miracles of the prophets, in particular the inability of Muhammad toemulate the ayat of the former prophets. The Qur'an is quite unambiguous in teaching thatMuhammad was not endowed with the power to perform miracles:

And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art

truly a warner, and to every people a guide. Surah 13.7

In Surah 17.90-93 the Quraysh question why Muhammad has not been able to perform signson earth or "cause the sky to fall in pieces". He is bidden to reply: Hal kuntu illa basharaar-

rasuulaa - "Am I anything except a man, an apostle?" (Surah 17.93) Even though the Qur'anis quite clear about this matter, one finds numerous traditions ascribing miracles to

Muhammad. The reason for this later development in his biography contrary to the teachingof the Qur'an is not hard to find:

Controversy with Christians on the rival merits of Jesus and Muhammad may fairly be

regarded as the origin of the pretended miracles, flatly contradicting the plain statement of

the great Arabian and those of many of his immediate followers that he was not sent with

power to work miracles. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 138).

A wealth of stories about Muhammad's power to make water flow from between his fingersand other fanciful elements abounds in the Hadith literature and in this case there can be nodoubt that such hadith, even if found in the works of Bukhari or Muslim, are forgeries andthat for a very good reason - "With respect to all such stories, it is sufficient to say that theyare opposed to the clear declarations and pervading sense of the Coran" (Muir, The Life of

Mahomet , p. liii). Significantly, however, one finds that such miracles are not as common inthe earliest works, e.g. Ibn Ishaq's S irat Rasulullah. Nonetheless some writes, including thegreat commentator al-Baidawi, believe that the Qur'an records a miracle in one passagewhich has duly been attributed to Muhammad as a work which he himself performed:

The Hour has drawn nigh: the moon is split. Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they

say "A continuous sorcery". Surah 54.1-2 (Arberry).



Apart from all the other miracles attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, the splitting of themoon referred to in this verse is also recorded as a sign which he performed:

Narrated Anas that the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle,

and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 4, p. 533).

It is highly probable, however, that this tradition was invented to make the Qur'an support theteaching of the Hadith that Muhammad could perform miracles. Nevertheless we have seenthat the Qur'an expressly denies that he had such powers and declares that he was nothingmore than a warner and that the Qur'an itself was his sole miracle.

Many modern writers interpret the splitting of the moon referred to in Surah 54 as a sign of the end times, even though it is mentioned in the past tense in the text. Maulana Daryabadi, inhis one-volume translation of the Qur'an, says: "The past tense has been used here as so oftenin the Qur'an, for the future" (The Holy Qur'an, p. 1454). The great Egyptian Muslim scholar Muhammad Rashid Rida also rejected the splitting of the moon as a sign performed byMuhammad:

The splitting of the moon is such an unusual phenomenon, Rida stated, that it is

incomprehensible why we have not been flooded with reports about it. The suggestion that

it occurred at night when everybody was asleep he rejected, arguing that it is improbable

that the Prophet would be abandoned by his Companions at a crucial moment such as this

when the pagan Meccans challenged him. To this Rida added that no report of the

Quraishites reacting to the miracle has come down to us. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the

Tradition Literature, p. 146).

Another writer makes the same point: "If Mohammed had really split the moon asunder, hewould most certainly have referred the Koreish and the Jews to this miracle, when they

demanded that he should show them one, and so have convinced them. But the fact is, thatwhenever he was thus pressed, he excused himself by acknowledging that he was not able towork a miracle" (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 107). It is probablethat the rending asunder of the moon is simply one of many signs of the Last Hour mentionedin the Qur'an.

But the most natural explanation of the passage is, that the expression refers to one of the

signs of the Resurrection. (Hughes, ADictionary of Islam, p.356).

In another passage in the Qur'an it is said that the moon will be "buried in darkness" (Surah75.8 - reminiscent of Matthew 24.29 - "the moon will not give its light") and that the sun andmoon will be joined together (Surah 75.9 - so also Luke 21.25: "there will be signs in the sun

and moon and stars"). As the Qur'an disclaims Muhammad's power to work miracles and as avery logical explanation of Surah 54.1-2 can thus be given, there does not seem to be anyvalidity in the Muslim claim that Muhammad himself split the moon in half (and presumably

put it together again!).

It is refreshing to find that a number of modern Muslim writers deny that Muhammad had the power to work miracles:



There is no mention in the whole Qur'an of any miracle intended to support the

prophethood of Muhammad except the Qur'an, notwithstanding its acknowledgment of

many of the miracles performed with God's permission by the prophets preceding

Muhammad and the description of the many other favours which God has bestowed upon

him. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. lxxxvii).

Disclaiming every power of wonder-working, the Prophet of Islam ever rests the truthof his divine commission entirely upon his Teachings. He never resorts to themiraculous to assert his influence or to enforce his warnings. (Ali, The S pirit of Islam,

p. 32).

Both these writers suggest that it was not necessary for Muhammad to produce miracles tosubstantiate his claims. The Qur'an itself was a sufficient proof of his sincerity. It isinteresting to find in these works the suggestion that Muhammad's inability to perform signsand wonders was not a defect in his prophetic character but a testimony to his greatnesswhich did not need evidences of this kind.

It is interesting to observe that while in the past Muhammad's inability to perform miracleswas felt as a lack and caused later tradition to ascribe miracles him; in the present it is exactlythis fact that he did no miracles which is viewed positively. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic


One wonders, however, about the appropriateness of Ali's suggestion that Muhammad did nothave to "resort to" miracles, a theme maintained by Haykal: "he never resorted to miracles as

previous prophets had done, in order to prove the veracity of his revelation" (The Life of

Muhammad , p. lxxvii). These words seem to imply that the former prophets exhibited aweakness in character not shown by Muhammad in that they "resorted" to external proofs of their mission. It appears that the truth is that they possessed a power which he did not enjoyand that even if he had wished to "resort to" working miracles, he would have been unable to

do so.

If Muhammad is to be commended in any way for not venturing to perform miracles, perhapshis sincerity in disclaiming the power to do so is the best commendation that can be given tohim: "to my mind the most miraculous thing about Mohammed is, that he never claimed the

power of working miracles" (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p.344).

6. The Doctrine of Sin and Forgiveness in Islam.

There are many similarities between the Qur'anic and Biblical concepts of sin and divineforgiveness. Islam recognises that evil deeds are an affront to the Creator of all men and merithis punishment, and yet teaches that God will exercise forgiveness and remit the sins of thefaithful. Wallaahu Ghafuurur-Rahiim (Surah 5.77) expresses a common Qur'anic dictum -"Allah is the Forgiving, the Merciful". Nevertheless there are major differences between therelative concepts of sin and forgiveness in the two books. Islam knows nothing of original sin- the basic disposition and tendency in all men to sin arising from the sin of the one manAdam in which the whole human race was implicated. It also knows nothing of an atonementfor sin and therefore has no instrument by which a Muslim can be totally assured of theforgiveness of all his sins this side of the grave. Every Muslim hopes dearly in theforgiveness of God but most of them acknowledge that they will have to make some payment



for their sins, whether through torments in the grave before the Day of Judgment, or for some period thereafter. Their hope is that God will ultimately forgive them.

In considering the forgiveness of sins according to Islam, four points at least call for study:

the kinds of sins, the intention of the sinner, his repentance for sins, and the intercession of

someone on his behalf. (Elder, "The Development of the Muslim Doctrine of Sins and Their

Forgiveness", The Muslim W orld , V.1.29, p.179).

Regarding the "kinds of sins" in Islam it has become the norm to distinguish between greatsins which merit certain punishment (and possible exclusion from Paradise) and lesser sinswhich can easily be forgiven to believers if they repent of them immediately.

The Muhammadan doctors divide sins into two classes very much as the Roman Catholic

divines do. The usual Roman designation being that of mortal and venial sin, whiIst

Muhammadans use the expressionsK abira and Saghira, "Great" and "Little". (Hughes, Notes

on Muhammadanism, p.95).

The greatest of all sins is shirk, "associating" partners with Allah. All idolaters are guilty of this sin and the charge is regularly laid at the feet of Christians as well. This sin isunforgivable and, if not repented of, will assuredly lead the sinner to hell. Other major sinsare usury adultery, cowardice before infidels in battle, disobedience to parents and falsenotions about God's forgiveness (either a casual presumption of it or a despairing of hismercy).

The intercession of Muhammad for his community on the Last Day is one of the greatest of all the hopes of the individual Muslim. He is alleged to have said that he will intercede for allMuslims and that even though some may be severely punished for their sins, no Muslim willremain in hell forever. Others believe that his intercession will avail to keep all Muslims outof hell and that no Muslim will be touched by the fire. The Qur'an tends to indicate thatMuhammad had other ideas about the possibility of intercession on the Day of Judgment:

Then guard yourselves against a day when one soul shall not avail another, nor shall

intercession be accepted for her, nor shall compensation be taken from her, nor shall

anyone be helped (from outside). Surah 2.48

Another verse in the same Surah states that no bargaining, friendship or intercession willavail on that Day (Surah 2.254). Intercession is the heart of the Christian hope yet it is anintercession of a different kind. It is not that of the advocate who pleads for mercy for hisclient, it is that of one who has already paid the penalty. Islam sees no need of an atonement

because it does not recognise the Christian teaching that sin is a state of mind and heart, a

disposition of rebellion against God which estranges the creature from the Creator and setshim at enmity with his Lord. Islam allows that the wicked are possessed of a proud insolenceand opposition to God but it does not perceive that the sins of all men, whether great or small,stem from a universal rebellion against God's holy law. Furthermore it stops short of declaring, as Christianity does, that God has a naturally holy and righteous character and thatmen who sin against him are shown to be expressly devoid of this holiness and areaccordingly thoroughly unholy and unrighteous.



It is a familiar notion that Islam is optimistic and sanguine in its estimate of human nature -

that it is far less radical and incisive than Christianity. Man's sin is weakness and

forgetfulness, rather than defiance and rebellion. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p.21).

Sins, according to Islam, are evil deeds committed in defiance of what God prohibits whichcan be cancelled out by good deeds done in submission to his requirements. Evil deeds areonly such because God declares them to be so, not because they are naturally evil in the faceof his holy character as Christianity teaches. As a result there is no true conviction of sin inIslam.

In any case, with regard to the Qur'an and its teaching, all we can say is that we see nothing

in the book to justify us in believing that Muhammad himself had any deep conviction of sin

or demanded that believers should experience it. His teaching is rather that sin, though a

great offence against God, is not something which puts - man where he needs redemption.

God does not redeem man, he simply forgives him when he repents, for God is easy and

merciful to men whenever they turn towards Him. (Gardner, The Qur'anic Doctrine of Sin,

p.41).

There is no cry from the depth of the heart in a Muslim motivated by the influence of Islam,that compares with Paul's "Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7.24). Until the Muslim recognises that all sin affects the human personalityand separates man from his all-Holy Creator, he will see no need of redemption through thesaving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

7. The Last Day and the Life Hereafter.

The Qur' an follows the Bible in teaching that a Day of Judgment is coming and that thedestiny of all men is to heaven or hell. There are numerous titles in the book for this great

Day, the most common being Yawmal-Qiyamah, the "Day of Resurrection", as-S a'ah, "theHour", Yawmal-Akbir , the "Last Day", and Yawmid-Din, the "Day of Reckoning". Theearliest surahs are full of warnings about the awesome fate awaiting those who go astraywhich will be determined on that Day. A common expression in Surah 77 is Wayluy-

yawma'ithil-lilmu-kath-thibiin - "Ah woe, that Day, to the Rejecters of the Truth".

It has become common in "enlightened" Christian and Muslim circles to regard the doctrineof everlasting bliss for the righteous and everlasting torment for the wicked as a legacy of those years when the minds of men were not as refined as they are supposed to be today.There can be little doubt however, that both the Bible and the Qur'an teach that the humanrace will be divided on that Day and that each man's destiny will be determined forever. Inhis parable about the separation of the nations to the left and the right, the former to eternal

punishment and the latter to eternal life (Matthew 25. 31-46), Jesus left no room for a purgatory, no possibility of a fire escape in hell. The Qur'an likewise makes the same point insaying:

Nay, those who seek gain in Evil, and are girt around by their sins, - They are the

Companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (for ever). But those who have faith and

work righteousness, they are the Companions of the Garden: therein shall they abide (for

ever). Surah 2.81-82.



In the historical creed known as Wasiyat Abi Hanifa, in one of the articles, which has a parallel in another similar creed entitled Fiqh Akbar II , we find the eternal character of heaven and hell unambiguously taught:

We confess that the inhabitants of Paradise will dwell therein forever, and that the

inhabitants of hell will dwell therein forever. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed , p.l30).

The Qur'an constantly proclaims that the righteous and the wicked will remain in their placesof destiny. There is no strand of teaching in the book that allows for the possibility that thosesent to hell will eventually be allowed into Paradise and be declared worthy of its blessings.

In all Mohammed's warnings and descriptions about the doom of the unbelievers, there is

anything but a note of respite or compromise ... Therefore, we are quite ready to conclude

that the idea of an intermediate state, or a judgment and punishment, other than at the last

great day - which was to be final and complete - never entered Mohammed's mind.

(Galloway, "The Resurrection and Judgment in the Koran", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 12,

p.354).

Another writer draws the same conclusion about the systematic teaching of the Qur'an on this point: "The result of the Judgment is either everlasting bliss or everlasting torment. There isno intermediate condition" (Watt, Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, p. 160). Some Muslimwriters today, on he other hand, seem to regard the Qur'anic hell as some kind of spiritualhospital, a reformatory for sinners prior to their admission to Paradise. One says that "Hell isintended to raise up man by purifying him from the dross of evil, just as fire purifies gold of dross" (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.256) and yet another that "Hell means a state of soulwhose faculties are defective or diseased and whose reactions, consequently, are painful incontrast with the pleasant and agreeable reactions of a healthy soul" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam:

Its Meaning for Modern Man, p.193). There is no suggestion here that hell is, in fact, a placeof punishment, an awful place of eternal damnation. It is not surprising to find that the latter writer also denies the possibility of a literal, physical resurrection of the body at the LastHour: "Life after death cannot and does not mean that the dead will be re-assembled andreconstituted upon the earth" (Zafrulla Khan, op. cit., p.185). This appears to be in directcontrast to the Qur'anic teaching which says: "Does man think that We cannot assemble his

bones? Nay, we are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers" (Surah75.3-4).

A contrast has often been drawn between the Christian and Qur'anic concepts of Paradise andHell. The Qur'anic title for heaven is jannat (usually followed by a descriptive epithet - for example, Jannatul-Firdaus , "Garden of Paradise") and for hell jahannam (apparently derivedfrom the Greek form of Gehenna), The descriptions of Paradise are often somewhat sensuous

in the Qur'an and tend to create the image that heaven is a realm of bliss where the believer'scomfort is derived from his circumstances rather than the peace and joy of his soul. He is promised gardens under which rivers flow, the attendance of young servants who never growold and who constantly serve unintoxicating wine, a selection of beautiful, dark-eyed virginconsorts (huris), and an abundance of carpets, cushions and other forms of wealth andcomfort. Muslim rulers like Shah Jehan and others came close to creating such harems onearth and yet were frowned upon for their gross self-indulgence!



The doctrines in the Koran respecting the resurrection and final judgment were in some

respects similar to those of the Christian religion, but were mixed up with wild notions

derived from other sources; while the joys of the Moslem heaven, though partly spiritual,

were clogged and debased by the sensualities of earth, and infinitely below the ineffable

purity and spiritual blessedness of the heaven promised by our Saviour. (Irving, The Life of

Mahomet , p.49).

The Christian paradise, although at times described in the Bible in allegorical language, is principally spiritual. There is no distinction between male and female there for the just will betransformed into the image of the angels (Luke 20. 35-36) and their joy and peace will be

based fundamentally on their communion with their Lord and enjoyment of his favour andrighteousness. Jesus withheld speaking of "my joy" (John 15.11) and "my peace" (John14.27) until the last night when he was with his disc iples and was all-too-conscious of thehorrors that awaited him in the next twenty-four hours. He did so in order that his disciplesmight know that such joy and peace were not dependent on favourable circumstances butcould be sustained through any form of adversity On the other hand the Qur'anic peace and

joy appear to be dependent more on what a man will have around him to comfort him rather

than on what he will be within himself.

Muhammad perhaps understood that happiness is possible only when one's circumstances

and surroundings are consonant with one's disposition. And because he believed that Man's

disposition, his nature as a man created by the hand of God, required sensual gratifications,

the "Prophet" depicted the happiness of the Just as consisting, in the next life, of the

enjoyment of savoury viands, delicious liquids, the company of celestial damsels, and other

sensual pleasures. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent , p.84).

The Qur'an does not teach that man has a fallen nature and needs to be redeemed. It regardshis present nature as the original one. Hence the lower lusts and passions of the flesh are

regarded as natural desires hardly in need of renunciation. It is not surprising, therefore, tofind that, while the Qur'an does speak of the approval of Allah as the supreme triumph (Surah9.72) and of the faces of believers beaming brightly as they behold the glory of their Lord(Surah 75.22-23), its paradise in no small measure accommodates the lower desires of man'snature which it teaches will remain part of his constitution in the age to come. The Christian,however, is exhorted:

Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through

deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature,

created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4.22-23

While the Qur'anic paradise is principally a realm of comfort, the Biblical paradise is chieflyone of righteousness. It is indeed untrue to say that the former is purely sensual but, on theother hand, it is equally untrue to declare that the Qur'anic Jannat makes no allowances for the sensuous tendencies at work in human flesh. It teaches that there will still be male andfemale in heaven and in so doing it keeps the level of its paradise relative to the present order of things and hardly rises to the level of the Biblical kingdom of heaven which flesh and

blood cannot inherit.

8. Qadar - The Doctrine of Predestination in Islam.



The Qur'an openly declares that God has control over all things and that nothing can happenoutside of his will or that can frustrate his purpose. There is a "measure - a qadar - for everything predetermined according to the foreknowledge and express will of God. (Theword most commonly used by Muslims for this control over all things is taqdir though theword qadar , from the same roots, is that used in the Qur'an and Hadith). Innaa kullli shay'in

khalaqnaahu biqadar - "Verily we have created all things according to a fixed measure"

(Surah 54.49) - is the Qur'anic dictum. Other verses expressing this theme are:

God leads astray whomsoever He will, and he guides whomsoever he will. Surah 14.4

(Arberry)

No soul can believe, except by the Will of God, and He will place Doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand. S urah 10.100

The Qur'anic doctrine of God's sovereign control over all things has been extended in theHadith to cover everything that a man does, whether good or bad. A famous hadith to thiseffect reads:

Umar b. al-Khattab reported: I heard that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) was

questioned and he replied: The Lord created Adam, then moved His right hand on his back

and brought out issues and said: We have created them for Heaven: these will do actions

befitting heavenly persons. Then He moved His left hand on his back and brought out issues

and said: We have created them for Hell and these will do actions befitting Hell. (Muwatta

Imam Malik , p.37 4).

Another similar hadith which declares that every action of man is foreordained so that he willdo neither good nor evil except as God especially decrees, is this one:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There was an

argument between Adam and Moses. Moses said: Are you that Adam whose lapse caused

you to get out of Paradise? Adam said to him: Are you that Moses whom Allah selected for

His Messengership, for His conversation, and you blame me for an affair which had been

ordained for me before I was created? This is how Adam came the better of Moses. (Sahih

Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1396).

During the early centuries of Islam this subject was much discussed and developed to the point where a degree of fatalism began to take over the simple theology of the masses.

Of this doctrine Muhammad makes great use in his Quran and all those who have had any

practical acquaintance with the lives of Muhammadans, know well to what extent it

influences the daily life of every Muslim. It is not only urged as a source of consolation in

every trial, but as a palliation of every crime. "It was written in my taqdir ," (fate) is an excuse

familiar to every European who has had much intercourse with Muslim servants or soldiers.

(Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p.59).

Ahmad ibn Hazm, a member of the Zahiri sect in Islam (an orthodox group of fundamentalliteralists) perhaps expressed the most extreme view of those who held dearly to the doctrineof God's absolute control over everything. He held that Nothing is good, but Allah has made



it so, and nothing is evil but by His doing. Nothing in the world, indeed, is good or bad in itsown essence, but what God has called good is good, and the doer of it is virtuous; andsimilarly what God has called evil is evil and the doer of it is a sinner. All depends uponGod's decree, for an act that may at one time be good may be bad at another time" (Levy, The

S ocial S tructure of Islam, p.206).

Christian writers have regularly taught that the Islamic doctrine of predestination is purelyabsolutist and fatalistic and have accordingly compared it unfavourably with thecorresponding Biblical doctrine which upholds God s control over all things but balances thiswith a freedom on the part of man to do good or evil as he chooses, holding him responsiblefor his actions.

Although the terms used in describing predestination by Moslems and Christians (especially

Calvinists) have much similarity the result of their reasoning is far apart as the East from the

West. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God , p. 93).

This may to some extent be true of the developed form of the doctrine as it appears in the

Hadith and Islamic theology but it is this writer's opinion that the charge cannot fairly be brought against the Qur'an. There is no verse in the book dealing with God's qadar andcontrol that is not matched by similar verses in the Bible. Surah 14.4 quoted above has anexact parallel in Romans 9.18 and Surah 10.100 is matched by John 7. 44. The Bible alsoteaches that God has predestined some for eternal life (Romans 8. 28-30) and that only thosewho are ordained to eternal life will believe (Acts 13. 48).

The Qur'an follows the Bible in also allowing that man has a degree of freedom to choose hisown path and will accordingly be held responsible for his actions. There is a fine balance in

both books between God's authority and Man's responsibility. The Bible teaches that Godhardened Pharaoh s heart but also states that he hardened his own heart (Exodus 8.15). Solikewise the Qur'an says:

He causes many to stray and many he leads into the right path, but he causes not to stray,

except those who forsake (the path). Surah 2.26

The Qur'an constantly teaches that those who seek God's favour will be guided aright and thatthose who expressly choose to reject his way will be duly led astray.

The Qur'an does speak of God setting seals on some hearts, but it says expressly that seals

are set on the hearts of the reprobate, the hardened sinners who pay no heed to the call of

the Prophet. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.276).

Indeed one cannot help being impressed with the depth of Muhammad's conviction that Godrules over everything and yet that his control is expressed primarily in setting a proportionand measure for everything while leaving men free to choose or reject faith. One of the greatworks of God that i~ beyond human comprehension is his absolute control over everything,his predestination of some to eternal life, and the fixed order he has set forth which no onecan frustrate or hinder; and yet at the same time the freedom he allows to men to believe inhim or not to do so and the responsibility he lays on them to account for their actions. Thereis not much distinction between the Biblical and Qur'anic teaching on this subject and, while



the Qur'an may at times not even remotely approach the Bible in the depth of its teaching andwisdom, it draws very near to it in this respect.

Significantly the Qur'an does not add belief in qadar to its articles of faith in Surah 2.177.This was only done by later theologians who developed the Islamic doctrine of

predestination. It does appear, however, that this was not a development in the true sense of

the word but rather a retrogression, for the fatalistic spirit of much of the teaching of theHadith on this point contrasts unfavourably with the more balanced Qur'anic assessment of God's control and measure for all things which nonetheless allows for man's own freedom tochoose the path of faith or unbelief.


B. SINLESSNESS OF THE PR OPHETS: THE ISMA DOCTRINE.

1. The Development of the Isma Doctrine.

Throughout the Muslim world today it is generally believed that all of the prophets enjoyedan isma, a protection against sin, and that they were accordingly sinless. It is one of theanomalies of Islam that this Doctrine has been established and maintained against the plainteaching of the Qur'an and Hadith to the contrary.

The orthodox belief is that the prophets do not commit sin, and are sinless (ma'sum), but

this dogma contradicts various statements of the Qur'an and of Muhammad as recorded in

the Traditions. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 109)

We shall shortly see that both the major sources of Islam teach that all the prophets,

excepting Jesus, had sins of which they needed to repent and seek forgiveness. In the earlycenturies of Islam, however, a doctrine founded on popular sentiment and theological presuppositions arose and developed away from the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith. It wasfirst formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II and it is there stated:

All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds.

Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed , p.

192).

It was not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely, however, and so the recordsof the sins of the prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes".Similar euphemisms, such as "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writerstoday to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record.

As a rule, blameworthy behaviour of prophets is smoothed over by means of all possible

acumen. (Baljon, Modern Muslim K oran Interpretation, p. 71).

There are basically two reasons for the rise of this doctrine in Islam. Firstly, the earlyMuslims soon discovered that the Bible taught plainly that Jesus was the only sinless manthat ever lived and, confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary to invent the fiction



that all the prophets - especially Muhammad - were sinless as well. A superiority of Jesusover Muhammad could not be tolerated and, just as miracles were attributed to the figureheadof Islam to give him a status at least equal to that of Jesus, so he was also held to be sinlessfor the same purpose. Secondly, the doctrine of revelation in Islam holds that the scriptureswere dictated directly to the prophets by the intermediary angel (Gabriel) and it was therefore

believed that the prophets must have possessed an impeccable character for, if they could not

keep themselves from error in their personal lives, how could they be trusted to communicateGod's revelations without error? This latter presupposition led perforce to the conclusion thatthe prophets must have been sinless.

The purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they

are sent thought it permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because

then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and

interdictions (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p. 135).

Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophetsmust be regarded as immune from serious errors (the doctrine of isma). (Rahman,

Islam, p. 32).

It was a conclusion, nevertheless, which was drawn from the preconceived notion that Godcould not ensure the perfect transmission of his revelations unless he simultaneously

preserved his messengers from all possible errors of conduct and character. It was not onewhich arose from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur'an and Hadith. (Accordingto the Bible all the prophets were sinners but the scriptures inerrantly inspired by the HolySpirit, were written and preserved without corruption. The isma doctrine in Islam isweakened by the claim that the Qur'an has been preserved over the centuries without error. If God could entrust the perfect preservation of his revelations to sinful men, why could he notentrust the transmission of the same revelations to them as well. The doctrine is not onlyunsound in the light of qur'anic teaching but can also hardly be regarded as a "logically

correct conclusion"). Either way it cannot be traced back to the teaching of Muhammadhimself.

But in the Qur'an Muhammad remains a fallible and sinful creature. The conception of him

as the ideal man and prototype of humanity belongs to a later development. (Stanton, The

Teaching of the Qur'an, p. 51).

The acceptance of this doctrine, contradictory to the original spirit of the Qoran, had

moreover a dogmatic motive. it was considered indispensable to raise the text of the Qoran

above all suspicion of corruption, which suspicion would not be excluded if the organ of the

Revelation were fallible. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 68).

It is important to note, before proceeding, that the "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islamimplies only a protection from errors of judgment in action and character. It is to bedistinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means afreedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all thegoodness of God's holiness, love and righteousness. Those who have "sinned" are also thosewho have "fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23) an not attained to hisrighteousness.



The impeccability of Muhammad has a different basis than the sinlessness of Jesus.

Muhammad's impeccability is asserted for the purpose of establishing the validity of his

revelation. Jesus' sinlessness is the corollary of the affirmation of his divinity and also of the

Christian conception of the true nature of man. Prophetic protection, or, "impeccability

('ismah), is a postulate of the reason in respect of revelation rather than a definition of the

quality of Muhammad's person. (T

homson,"

Muhammad: HisL

ife and Person"

,The MuslimW orld , Vol. 34, p. 115).

The only sinlessness known to Christianity is sinless perfection and it decrees that all who donot possess the righteousness of God are automatically counted as sinners.On the contraryIslam knows only a human nature which by instinct is prone to error. It knows nothing of the

fallen nature which needs to be redeemed and made regenerate. Its concept of sinlessness istherefore confined purely to a preservation from deliberate error and wrongdoing - it does notrequire a corresponding positive possession of the image of the holy character of God in thesoul. Thus it allows for so the so-called "mistakes" and "acts of forgetfulness". Thisdistinction should be borne in mind as we proceed to analyse Islamic doctrine.

2. Sins of the Prophets in the Qur'an and Hadith.

Not only does the Bible teach that all men, excepting Jesus Christ, have sinned, but it alsounreservedly sets forth the grave misdeeds of many of the prophets and records theconfessions they have made of their sinfulness. After his adultery with Bathsheba and themurder of her husband Uriah, David cried out to God, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinnedand done that which is evil in thy sight" (Psalm 51.4). Another prophet, beholding God'sglory, declared "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42.6). Yet another confessed: "I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him" (Micah7.9).

It is very significant to find that the Qur'an also makes many of the prophets cry out for theforgiveness of their sins. After killing the Egyptian Moses is said to have prayed: "O myLord! I have indeed wronged my soul! Do Thou then forgive me!" (Surah 28.16). So likewiseAbraham said of the Lord of the Worlds that he was the One "who, I hope, will forgive memy faults on the Day of Judgment" (Surah 26.82). Despite these seemingly plain confessionsof sin, one Muslim writer says:

It is one thing to commit a mistake and quite a different thing to go against the Divine

commandments, and no sensible critic could twist such words into a confession of sin. (Ali,

The Religion of Islam, p. 199)

The word used for "faults" in Surah 26.82, translated by Ali as "mistake", is khati'ati , one of the

Qur'anic words for sin (khat'a). Ali, in typical Muslim style, softens its meaning by saying "This wordtoo has a wide significance and covers all unintended actions and mistakes and errors of judgment.

Its mention, therefore, in connection with a prophet, does not imply sinfulness" (The Religion of

Islam, p. 198). This interpretation is hardly consistent with the usage of the word in the Qur'an for it

appears in another passage which reads:

Because of their sins they were drowned (in the flood), and were made to enter the Fire (of

Punishment). Surah 71.25



The word for "sins" in this verse is khati'atihin, from the same word used in Surah 26.82. Inthis case it is said that the people of Noah's time were drowned in the flood and cast into thefire for such sins. The word is therefore here used for sins which were so grave and so seriousthat they were led to the destruction of those who committed them and their immediateconsignment to hell. Ali's suggestion that the word is only used for "mistakes and errors of

judgment" is hardly borne out by its use in a context in the Qur'an where a grossly defiant

rebellion against God's laws is under review. One has here a typical proof of the tendency of some Muslim writers to water down the plain meaning of Qur'anic words to absolve the

prophets or moral blameworthiness. It is surely significant that when the Qur'an speaks of Abraham's prayer for forgiveness of his sins it chooses the same word that it elsewhere usesto describe some of the worst sins ever committed against God. A sincere comparison of these contexts must lead to the conclusion that the Qur'an acknowledges that the prophets attimes sinned directly against God's laws and commandments. (It is interesting to note thatwhile Ali speaks of Abraham's "mistakes" in Surah 26.82, he translates the same word as"wrongs" in the case of Noah's people in Surah 71.25 - a clear evidence of an inconsistentQur'anic exegesis arising from cherished presuppositions contrary to its teachings).

The Qur'an follows the Bible in relating the occasion of Adam's disobedience in approaching

the forbidden tree (Surah 2.35) and declares that the result of his action was that he wasdriven from the Garden (Surah 2.36). Significantly the command in this verse is in the pluraland both Pickthall and Yusuf Ali, in footnotes, take this to mean that the whole of mankindwas dismissed with Adam and Eve. This supports the Biblical teaching that sin came into theworld through one man Adam and that all men were implicated in his transgression (Romans5.12). Nonetheless, not only is the doctrine of Original Sin denied in Islam but, becauseAdam is considered to be a prophet, many Muslim writers even go so far as to boldly claimthat he committed no sin at all and merely slipped through a forgetfulness of God'scommand!

There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was

simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 201).

On the other hand the Qur'an teaches quite plainly that it was not a mere forgetfulness that ledto Adam's disobedience but that he fell to the temptings of Satan (Surah 20.120) and that after God had warned him that Satan was an adversary who would seek to get him out of theGarden. (Surah 20.117) Satan allegedly said to him:

"O Adam! Shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?"

Surah 20.120

Even though this was the very tree forbidden to him Adam chose to believe Satan and disobey God.

If this is not sin, what is?. In another passage we find even further evidence that Adam's

transgression can hardly be excused as an act of forgetfulness. We read that Satan said to Adam and

Eve:

"Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live

forever". Surah 7.20

Not only did God warn them against eating of the tree but we discover that Satan evenreminded them of his warning while tempting them to sin. How can one possibly sustain the



argument that Adam merely forgot his Lord's command? Satan's reminder aside, it is surelytoo hard to believe that Adam could have forgotten the one and only thing prohibited to himespecially when the order came directly from God himself. Furthermore, if this was only aminor "mistake", why was the penalty so severe - the permanent banishment of the coupleand the whole human race with them from the Garden? Again, if Adam did not really commita sin and was a sinless prophet, then who introduced sin into the world and what was its

consequence? It is refreshing to find that not all Muslim writers endeavour to whitewashAdam's transgression and sweep it under the carpet of their presuppositions. One says of Adam and his wife:

When they were asked about their present shameless condition they confessed that they

were beguiled and outwitted; turned rebellious for a moment; forgot His kind grace and

commandment and broke the covenant. In other words, they had sinned. There was no sin

in the state of nature. Sin came from the knowledge of it, from the fateful fruit of the tree of

knowledge. When Adam hid behind the tree and hesitated to come before God in the nude,

sin had been born. (Raze, Introducing the Prophets, p.5).

The Qur'an also teaches that Noah and Jonah were transgressors and that they too prayed for the forgiveness of all their sins (Surah 11.47, 21.87). These words, said in another context,appear to be a fitting conclusion to our study of the Qur'anic teaching regarding the sins of the prophets:

This much is true at least: The Qur'an is nearer to Christianity than the system of Islam as it

has developed through the centuries. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 160).

In the Sunan works of Tirmithi, Ibn Maja and ad-Darimi it is recorded that Muhammad oncesaid: "Every son of Adam is a sinner, and the best of sinners are those who repent constantly"(quoted in K arim's Mishkatul-Masabih, Vol. 3, p. 360). This statement clearly shows thatMuhammad himself did not believe in the sinlessness of the prophets.

3. The Command to Muhammad to Ask for Forgiveness.

Not only does the Qur'an teach that many of the former prophets prayed for the forgivenessof their sins but it expressly states that Muhammad himself needed forgiveness for histransgressions:

Know, therefore, that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and for the

men and women who believe. Surah 47.19

Verily We have granted thee a manifest victory: that God may forgive thee thy faults

of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the StraightWay. S urah 48.1-2.

Once again Muslim commentators find it hard to reconcile such teachings with the doctrineof the isma of the prophets and their attempts to explain away these verses are hardlysuccessful. The words in Surah 47.19 which Yusuf Ali translates as "and ask forgiveness for thy fault" wastaghfir li-thanbik . In Surah 12.29 the same words are Zulaykah (the Muslimname for Potiphar's wife) is commanded by her husband to repent of her desire to seduceJoseph. In this case Yusuf Ali translates the expression as "ask forgiveness for thy sin". There



can be no doubt that this is the obvious meaning of the text, but the translator substitutes faultfor "sin" in Surah 47.19 purely because it is Muhammad's own misdemeanours that arespoken of in this verse. The object is to water down the meaning of the word thanb in thiscase to natural human weaknesses not considered to be actual sins or transgressions. Whatwas a "sin" in Zulaykah's case conveniently becomes a "fault" in Muhammad's case eventhough the same word is used in both cases - another example of an inconsistent Qur'anic

exegesis caused by the isma doctrine.

Muhammad Ali says of the word thanb as used in Surah 48.2 that "there is no imputation of sin but only of human short-comings" (The Religion of Islam, p. 199), yet another typicalattempt to dilute the meaning of the word so as to sustain the doctrine of Muhammad'ssinlessness. Even this same writer, however, is obliged to concede that the general meaningof the word is "sin" (op. cit., p. 197). The great commentator Baidawi, however, openlyexplained the words "thy faults of the past and those to follow" to mean "everything

blameworthy that has proceeded from you" (Gatje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis, p. 81). AWestern writer is also more to the point when he says:

The doctrine is in flat contradiction of sura 48:2 where it is said 'that God may forgive thee

thy early and later sins'. And, we may add, to the whole spirit and tenor of Muhammad's

words. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 119).

Not only have Muslim writers had to resort to unfortunate twists of exegesis to explain awaythe word for "sin" in the verses quoted but they have also had to do the same with the wordistaghfir which, throughout the Qur'an, means simply to "ask forgiveness". Once againMuhammad Ali concedes that the word "is generally taken as meaning asking for forgivenessof sins" (op. cit., p.196) but, in Muhammad's case, he claims that it means to ask "protection"from sin and says:

Prophet Muhammad is said by these critics of Islam to be a sinner because he is commanded

to seek Divine protection (istaghfir) for his dhanb (40.55). Now to seek protection against sindoes not mean that sin has been committed - he who seeks Divine protection rather guards

himself against the commission of sin; and, moreover, the word used here is dhanb which

means any human shortcoming. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 199).

Throughout the Qur'an Allah is called al-Ghafur which is always interpreted to mean "theForgiving". A different word is used to describe him as "the Protector", however, namely al-

Muhaymin (Surah 59.23). Likewise in one passage in the Qur'an the angels pray to God for the forgiveness of the faithful and their protection from the Fire, using two different wordsfor forgiveness and protection respectively:

Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and followT

hy Path; and preserve them fromthe Penalty of the Blazing Fire! Surah 40.7

The word for "forgive" here is faghfir , the usual word from the same roots as istaghfir,whereas the word translated as "preserve" (that is, protect) is waqihim. The Qur'an clearlydraws a distinction between forgiveness and protection and uses two different wordsaccordingly. No objective interpretation of the use of the word istaghfir in the Qur'an in itsvarious forms can yield the meaning "protection". This meaning has been casually read intothe word by those who cannot accept that the Qur'an commands Muhammad to ask for the



forgiveness of his sins. In Surah 5.77 it is said that Christians should turn to God and yastaghfir'unah - "seek his forgiveness" - for their grievous blasphemy (kufr ) in saying thatthere are three gods of whom Allah is one. Once again what is taken in one case to mean anasking for forgiveness for one of the worst of sins ( shirk - associating partners with God) has

been watered down in Muhammad's case to seeking "protection" from innocentshortcomings, even though the same word again is used.

Some Muslim writers have another way of getting around the problem. They say Muhammadwas only commanded to ask for forgiveness in a representative capacity, that is, not for anysins of his own but only for his people's errors. This too is contradicted by Surah 47.19 whereMuhammad himself is distinguished from the mu'miniina wal mu'minaat , "men and womenwho believe", and is commanded firstly to ask for forgiveness of his own sins and then for those of his followers.

Even Muslim writers who seek to interpret the words wastaghfir lithanbik to mean asking protection from mistakes and "shortcomings" must surely admit that this is not the naturaland most obvious explanation of the words, viz. "ask forgiveness of your sin", and also thattheir interpretation is not really an alternative one but rather an expedient calculated to

dampen and soften the real meaning of the expression so as to maintain their doctrine of theisma of the prophets. One thing, however, is quite clear - this doctrine is not derived from theteaching of the Qur'an but rather from popular sentiment.

It need scarcely be stated that theology had long since articulated popular feeling in

recognizing the Prophet's immunity from error and sin. (Grunebaum, Muhammadan

Festivals, p. 70) .

The Hadith, however, openly support the teaching of the Qur'an that Muhammad needed toask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads asfollows:

So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also

those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None

has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 9, p. 403).

It seems fair to conclude that the earliest sources of Islam do not teach that the prophets weresinless and, on the contrary, record that many of them, including Muhammad himself, soughtfor the forgiveness of their sins.

4. The Sinlessness of Jesus Christ in Christianity and Islam.

The Bible teaches quite plainly that one man, Jesus Christ, was without sin (Hebrews 4.15, 2Corinthians 5.21, 1 Peter 2.25, 1 John 3.5). It is most significant to find that the Qur'an givesmuch support to this doctrine, for, while it records the prayers of other prophets for forgiveness and even commands Muhammad himself to pray for forgiveness of his sins, itexpressly declares that Jesus Christ was sinless. We read that, when the angel appeared toMary at the time of the Annunciation, he said:

"I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son". Surah

19.19



The word for "holy" in this verse is zakiyya, a word with the root meaning "purity". This formof the word principally means "blamelessness" and it is used in this context in the only other verse in the Qur'an where it appears. The Qur'an has a story about Moses in which heundertook a journey with an unnamed companion whose purpose was to guide him intodeeper knowledge and understanding. (In the traditions he is named al- K hidhr - "the GreenOne" - a figure who is said by the Sufis to have appeared at various times to their masters).

At length they met a young man and the companion slew him. Moses retorted:

"Hast thou slain an innocent person who had slain none?" Surah 18.74

The companion simply told him to be patient to which Moses replied that he did not deservehis company if he ever questioned him in such a way again. The word for "innocent" is once

bargain zakiyyah. In this verse it plainly implies one who was blameless of any crimedeserving death. In the case of Jesus, however, the word is used by the angel to describe hiswhole character and it therefore clearly means one altogether blameless, that is , sinless. Thusthe Qur'an does have an isma doctrine, but it is applied to no other prophet in the book thanJesus Christ.

It is a remarkable fact that Jesus alone is proclaimed in the Qur'an as the sinless prophet of

Islam There is no passage in the Qur'an which attributes sin to Jesus, and no shadow of a

suggestion that He had, like Muhammad, to ask forgiveness for himself. (Blair, The Sources

of Islam, p. 58).

The Koran, while mentioning the sins of Adam, David, Solomon and other prophets,leaves no doubt as regards the purity of the character of Jesus. (Zwemer, The Moslem

Christ , p. 124).

This teaching is backed up by a remarkable tradition in one of the major works of Hadithliterature:

The Prophet said, 'No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born whereupon it

starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her son'. (Sahih al-

Bukhari , Vol. 6, p. 54).

Later Islamic theology, however, could not tolerate the suggestion that Jesus alone wassinless, even though both the Qur'an and Hadith clearly teach this, and so formulated the ismadoctrine in defiance of their teaching. Just as the Church of Rome has sought to make Marythe equal of her Son by claiming that she too was sinless and eventually raised to heaven, soIslam has sought to raise Muhammad to the same status by teaching that he was also sinlessand was at one time taken to heaven in the mi'raj. Neither of these teachings, however, has a

Quranic foundation and both were apparently invented to prevent the Saviour of the Christianfaith from standing head and shoulders above the Prophet of Islam in his very own religion.

An unconscious tendency prevailed to draw a picture of Muhammed that should not be

inferior to the Christian picture of Jesus. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 346)

The isma doctrine clearly arose on the one hand from theological suppositions and on theother from a determination to raise Muhammad to the level of Jesus Christ. Our study,



however, shows that, apart from having no Qur'anic basis, it is actually contrary to itsteaching.


C. THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM.

1. The Kalimah - The Confession of Faith.

As we have seen, Islam is divided into iman, the belief of a Muslim, and din, the practice of his religion. Just as there are six articles of faith, so there are five compulsory works,generally known as the "Five Pillars of Islam". Muhammad is alleged to have defined these

pillars according to the following tradition:

Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):

1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is

Allah's apostle.

2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.

3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity).

4. To perform Hajj (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca).

5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.


It is somewhat surprising to find the first pillar among the works of Islam as it is really atestimony of faith, but the recital of this creed has become one of the deliberate acts of piety

in Islam, indeed its foremost duty, and anyone wishing to become a Muslim need only recitethe creed, known as the K alimah (the "Word"), or the S hahadah (the "Testimony" of Faith),with an express intention to personally profess what he is reciting (this intention is known asthe Muslim's niyyah) to be admitted to the faith.

The whole of the religion of Islam is briefly summed up in the two short sentences, La ilaha

ill- Allah, i.e. there is no god but Allah, or, nothing deserves to be made an object of love and

worship except Allah, and Muhammad-un Rasulullah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

It is simply by bearing witness to the truth of these two simple propositions that a man

enters the fold of Islam. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 110).

The actual testimony is a single creed - La ilaha illullah Muhammadur-Rasulullah - andwhereas the whole confession does not appear in this exact form in the Qur'an, its twoconstituent parts appear in Surahs 9.31 and 33.40 respectively. It can truly be said that this

brief declaration is the equivalent of the Apostle's Creed in Islam. It is written above themihrab in many mosques or above their entrances, on letterheads, pendants and posters, andindeed can be found inscribed almost everywhere in the Muslim world. As one writer hasaptly said, "On these two phrases hang all the laws and morals of Islam" (Zwemer,The

Moslem Doctrine of God , p.15).



As soon as a child is born into a Muslim family these words are whispered into his ears andevery effort is made to get a dying Muslim to repeat the testimony. This is hardly surprisingas Muhammad is said to have claimed that whoever actually professed this testimony wouldnever be touched by the Fire of Hell, though he was apparently unwilling to publish thisabroad lest his followers relied on it alone for their salvation. On a journey Muhammadconversed with his companion Mu'adh as follows:

He (the Holy Prophet) observed: If anyone testifies (sincerely from his heart) that there is no

god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His bondsman and His messenger, Allah immured him

from Hell. He (Mu'adh) said: Messenger of Allah, should I not then inform people of it, so

that they may be of good cheer? He replied: Then they would trust in it alone. (Sahih


Another tradition states that on the Judgment Day, even though ninety-nine scrolls listing aMuslim's sins should be produced, each scroll stretching as far as the eye can see, yet even afragment the size of an ant bearing the Kalimah, recited during his lifetime, would outweighthe scrolls and guarantee his admission to Paradise (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his

Religion, p. 157) - justification by faith of a very different kind to that which Christians profess! Nevertheless all these traditions and practices show how prominent the Kalimah is inthe exercise of the Muslim's faith.

2. Salaah - The Prescribed Ritual of Prayer.

Five times a day a Muslim is bound to perform the S alaah, the fixed ritual of the Islamic prayer-worship. He should properly go to the nearest mosque to offer his prayers together with the whole congregation. Each of the five periods is preceded by the adhaan (or azaan asit is more commonly called). The muezzin (more correctly mu'adh-dhin) calls out on eachoccasion:

Allaabu Akbar (four times - "Allah is Most Great").

Ash'hadu an laa ilaaha illallaah (twice - "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah").

Ash'hadu anna Muhammadar-rasulullaah (twice - "I bear witness that Muhammad is the

Messenger of Allah").

Haya 'alas-salaah (twice - "Come to prayer").

Ilaya 'alal falaah (twice - "Come to the good;').

Allaaku Akbar (twice - "Allah is Most Great").

Laa ilaaha illallaah (once - "There is no god but Allah").

After the call to the good during the Fajr prayer (just before dawn), the crier calls out twice:"Prayer is better than sleep". Then follows the actual performance of prayer itself in whichanything between two or four rituals (each one known as a rak'ah - a "bowing") are

performed. The worshipper begins with the qiyam, the standing posture. He raises his handsto his ears and then folds them, right over left, upon his breast. Following this is the ruku inwhich he bows down and places his hands on his knees, thereafter returning to the standing

position. Then comes the sajdah, the prostration of the whole body on the ground. This is performed twice with a brief sitting in between. He then comes back to the sitting position,the qa'dah and passes the greeting as-salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah - "peace on you andthe mercy of Allah". It is known as the taslim and it is said that the worshipper is greeting his



fellow Muslims (though some say he is greeting two angels who sit on his shouldersrecording his good and bad deeds).

In between these postures various expressions and passages of the Qur'an (especially theS uratul-Fatihah) are recited. These include the takbir ("Allah is Most Great"), the tahmid from the Fatihah ("Praise be to Allah"), the tahlil ( There is no god but Allah") and the tasbih

("May Allah be Glorified ). There are variations of these, for example subhaana rabbiyyal Adhiim - "Glorified be the Lord, the Most High . This fixed ritual of prayer is so rigid inIslam that there may be no departure from it and the pious Muslim will slavishly follow it dayafter day. It is far removed from the spirit of true Christian worship.

Prayer is reduced to a gymnastic exercise and a mechanical act; any one who has lived with

Moslems needs no proof for this statement. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God , p. 100).

Muslims say that the whole process is a necessary discipline to bring the remembrance of God constantly before the minds of those who otherwise would soon forget him. One suchMuslim writer thus comments:

The truth is that the grand idea of holding communion with God or realizing the Divine

within man, which is so essential to the moral elevation of man, could not have been kept

alive unless there was an outward form to which all people should try to conform. In the first

place, no idea can live unless there is an institution to keep it alive. Secondly, the masses in

any community, even though it may be educated, can be awakened to the recognition of a

truth only through some outward form, which reminds them of the underlying idea. (Ali, The

Religion of Islam, p.299).

How different this is to Christian worship which stipulates no fixed form, purely because the believer, born of the Holy Spirit, has the constant witness of the Spirit of God within him to

call to mind the presence of God. Many writers have seen fit to draw this distinction betweenthe slavish ritual of the Islamic S alaah, where many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims performtheir prayers not even understanding the meaning of what they are saying in Arabic, and thefreedom of worship in Christianity which is in spirit and in truth. One writer says of theSalaah:

It will be seen that this ritual is, in reality, almost solely a service of praise. Indeed, to use the

word prayer to describe it gives most English-speaking people a wrong impression. The

whole service does not contain a single petition, unless the phrase, "Guide us in the straight

path", from the Fatiha be considered as such. (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad , p.

134).

Another writer comments: "The dominant feeling connected with the five daily prayers is probably that of a prescr ibed religious duty being duly performed" (MacDonald, Aspects of

Islam, p.345), and yet another says:

In the whole Qur'an and in all the Traditions I do not know of a single passage which teaches

that prayer to be efficacious must be in spirit and in truth. (Tisdall, The Religion of the

Crescent , p.80).



Before going into the mosque the worshipper must perform an ablution, known as wudhu (or,in certain circumstances, a washing of the whole body known as ghusl ), the ritual of which isset out in the Qur'an:

When ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows) rub

your heads (with water), and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial

impurity, bathe your whole body. Surah 5.7

Later in the same verse it is said that the worshipper may use sand or earth, a ritual known astayammum, where water is not available. Once again the performance is purely an externalact of ritual purity, an ablution which is solely a regulation for the body "which cannot

perfect the conscience of the worshipper" (Hebrews 9.9). Christian writers have beenconstrained to comment negatively on this aspect of Islamic worship as well:

If, however, we carefully compare all the passages of the Qur'an which speak of purification

and purity, it becomes evident to every unprejudiced reader that in none of them is there

any reference to inward moral or spiritual purity of the heart, but that what is required in

them is the outward, bodily cleansing by means of ablutions and washings. (Klein,TheReligion of Islam, p. 132).

For by washing the body the impurity of the heart cannot be cleansed, and so it isevident that this corporeal purification was a type of the spiritual cleansing wrought

by the Gospel ... Thus it will be evident to every man of spiritual discernment, thatalthough one whose spirit is untainted by the impurities of the flesh may pay everyattention to personal cleanliness, yet such cleanliness of the body has nothing to dowith his salvation. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 6).

On the other hand, in all fairness it must be pointed out that the Qur'an itself warns againstthe dangers of ritual exercises becoming an end in themselves. It says:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness

to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers.Surah

2.177

The great emphasis placed on the outward form in Islam however, not only tends to lull dullworshippers into a sense of complacency and reliance on the rituals themselves, but alsoimplies that the true knowledge of God and witness of the Holy Spirit is absent in Islam for,when these are present, there is no need for a strict outward form, a regulation to compel thedevotion of men who otherwise would probably go astray.

In addition to the five daily prayers there are the tahajjud prayers, a late-night ritual practiced by Muhammad but not commanded by him, as well as tarawih prayers after the last prayer, salautal-isha, during the month of Ramadan. Furthermore on Fridays the greatcongregational prayer dust after midday, the Juma prayer, replaces the midday prayer. In allof these the ritualistic performance of raka'at continues but, apart from these prescribed

prayers, Muslims also have a more extemporaneous form of prayer, the dua. This takes theform either of set Arabic phrases or of personal devotions which may also be in Arabic or inthe worshipper's language.



3. The Origins of the Five Daily Prayers.

The growth of Islam as a religion of established rituals and practices did not stop at the deathof Muhammad. On the contrary much development was still required before the rough edgescould be smoothed out into the fixed, carefully defined system that we find today. Nowhere isthis process more obvious than in the defining of the forms of prayer and their times of

observance.

The five-times-a-day Salaah is perhaps the fulcrum around which all else rotates in ritualisticIslam. The times are fajr , the morning prayer just before dawn; zuhr , the prayer just after midday; 'asr , the afternoon prayer; maghrib, the prayer just after sunset; and 'isha, theevening prayer. All Muslim jurists hold that the observance of these prayers is fardh, that is,compulsory. Nevertheless, while the forms of ablution are defined in the Qur'an, neither thefive times of prayer nor the procedure of each rak'ah is prescribed in the book. The Qur'andoes mention both the salaatal-fajr and salaatal-ishaa in Surah 24.58 by name but in thiscase it is improbable that these were actual titles of prescribed prayer - times. It is far morelikely that the expressions simply mean the "morning prayer" and the "evening prayer"respectively. This interpretation is supported by the form of the only other prayer mentioned

as such in the Qur'an, namely salaatal-wusta in Surah 2.238, which means simply the"middle prayer". Even though the Qur'an only mentions three times of prayer, Muslim writersendeavour to make the Qur'an prescribe the five fixed periods of prayer and resort toingenious and none-too-successful methods to achieve their objective. The Qur'an doesindeed urge believers to set up regular prayers at stated times (Surah 4.103), but it is quiteloose in its treatment of the daily prayers. Apart from the three times it actually specifies ithas a variety of exhortations regarding prayers, for example:

Celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun, and before its

setting; Yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day:

that thou mayest have (spiritual) joy. Surah 20.130

And establish regular prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of thenight. S urah 11.114

It is hard to define the exhortations in these two passages, let alone make them fit the five-times-a-day ritual outlined above. Muslim commentators who seek to realise this end comeup with a variety of interpretations. It is agreed that "before the rising of the sun" in Surah20.130 refers to the morning prayer, but the exhortation to pray "before its setting" isinterpreted by Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Ali as the asr prayer, to which Daryabadi adds thezuhr prayer. "Part of the hours of the night" is extended by these commentators to specificallymean the maghrib and isha prayers, though Muhammad Ali adds the late-night tahajjud

prayer as well. "At the sides of the day", a vague expression, is nevertheless specifically

taken to mean the fajr and isha prayers by Daryabadi, zuhr by Yusuf Ali, while MuhammadAli adds a voluntary dua to the zuhr prayer. These inconsistencies show how hard it is to readthe five daily prayers into the somewhat loose Qur'anic terms found in these verses. Surah11.114 is also interpreted in various ways by Muslim commentators. In his major work onIslam, however, Muhammad Ali openly states:

The Qur'an does not explicitly state that prayer should be said at such and such times, but it

does give indications of the times of prayer. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.334).



Another writer is even more to the point and seems to have a far more balanced and objectiveapproach to the Qur'an than those who would make it yield later developments:

The fact, however, that the prayers were fundamentally three is evidenced by the fact that

the Prophet is reported to have combined these four prayers into two, even without there

being any reason. It was in the post Prophetic period that the number of prayers was

inexorably fixed without any alternative at five, and the fact of the fundamental three

prayers was submerged under the rising tide of the Hadith which was put into circulation to

support the idea that prayers were five. (Rahman, Islam, p. 36).

It is indeed only in the Hadith that we find the five times specifically fixed. It is said thatwhen Muhammad came into the presence of Allah during the Mi'raj, he was commanded to

pray fifty times a day. On relating this to Moses, the latter urged him to get it reduced by ten,which Allah duly allowed. The narrative continues (Muhammad speaking):

Again I passed by Moses and he said the same again; and so it went on until only five prayers

for the whole day and night were left. Moses again gave me the same advice. I replied that I

had been back to my Lord and asked him to reduce the number until I was ashamed, and

would not do it again. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 186).

God is then said to have stated that those who observed the five prayers would have the valueof fifty counted to them. In another work of Hadith it is said that Gabriel specifically came toMuhammad one day and performed the fajr, zuhr, asr, maghrib and isha prayers withMuhammad and told him he was ordered to demonstrate them to him so that he would knowwhen and how to perform the prescribed prayers (S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p.297).

We have already seen, however, that the whole story of the Mi'raj is a myth founded primarily on Zoroastrian sources and the possible genuineness of the five fixed times of

prayer is hardly enhanced by the claim in the Hadith that their authority derives from thisspeculative tale. More than one author has suggested that the five periods themselves are of Zoroastrian origin:

In the Koran itself only three daily prayers are known, and it is no doubt due to influence

from the Persian side that their number in the oldest Islam is increased to five. (Buhl, "The

Character of Mohammed as a Prophet", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 1, p.356).

A reference to the Avesta will show that the Zoroastrians are instructed to observe prayer five times a day . . . . the day is divided into five periods, during which thegains, or prayers, which belong to each period should be recited. (Blair, The S ources

of Islam, p. 127).

We may conclude that the definition of five daily prayers in Islam is a typical example of the way in

which the religion of Muhammad, still growing towards maturity at the time of his death, was

rounded off in later years.

4. Zakaah and Saum - Alms and Fasting.



The Qur'an constantly enjoins on believers the duty of paying Zakaah, a prescribedalmsgiving. The book often links the duty of charity with the observance of Salaah (e.g.Surah 9.5) and refers to it as an act of piety to purify the believer (the word comes from thesame roots as zakiyya considered in the previous section) and as an act of gratitude to God.

There is no duty to which more frequent reference is made in the Qoran than that of

almsgiving. In almost every Sura is this duty urged upon the believers; and in some Suras,

indeed, the prophet returns again and again to this subject. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the

Qoran, p.70).

The fixed tithe in Islam has been established as two-and-a-half per cent but, whereas the OldTestament tithe of ten per cent was calculated simply in terms of a man's income, zakaah isdetermined chiefly as a surcharge or a man's wealth and possessions. The other form of charity in Islam, of a less obligatory nature, is known as sadaqah, a voluntary offeringindicating the sincerity of a man's disposition towards generosity (Surah 2.264). The wordhas the same roots as the title given to Abu Bakr, namely as-S iddiq - "the Trustworthy".

There are two important words in Arabic that have to do with almsgiving.

The more

common of these is zakat , from a root that means "to grow" or "to be pure"; it seems to

imply that the giving of alms is a means of purifying one's soul - perhaps from the guilt that

inevitably accompanies the accumulation of property. the other term is sadaqat , from a root

that means "true" or "sincere"; the reference is to whatever is sanctified to God's service.

(Fry and King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p.78).

Apart from the regular prescribed alms, there is also a special charity known as zakatal-fitr , being a donation made at the end of the fast month of Ramadan on the occasion of the festival E id-ul-Fitr . This tithe is also known as sadaqatal-fitr as it is not necessarily an obligatorycharity.

With regard to 'zakat al-fitr' , alms to be distributed at the end of Ramadan, the Shafi'ites

consider it as 'fard' , a rigorous duty, the Hanifites as 'wajib' , less strictly obligatory, and the

Malikites as 'sunna' , custom. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.89).

Zakaah can be used for distribution to the poor, assistance towards those who have recentlyembraced Islam, the freeing of slaves, and fii sabiiIillaah - "in the Way of A1lah" (a commonQur'anic phrase).

Fasting is also prescribed as an obligatory duty of Islam and the Muslim is obliged to fastfrom sunrise to sunset during the thirty days of the month of Ramadan. The command to fastis found in the Qur'an:

Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also

clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (between right and wrong). So every one of you who

is present (at his home) during that month should spend it in fasting. But if any one is ill, or

on a journey, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later.Surah 2.185

The believer must declare his niyyah before dawn each day and must abstain from all foods,liquids and other pleasures during the day. He should partake of a proper breakfast, a sehri,



before the morning prayer. At sunset he should also break his fast as soon as he can. The fast-month ends with the sighting of the new moon heralding the month of Shawwal and the Eidfestival.

Abd Allah b. Abbas reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), referring to

Ramadan, declared: Do not begin to fast until you have seen the crescent and do not leave

the fast until you see it, and if there are clouds, complete thirty days. (Muwatta Imam Malik ,

p. 116).

Throughout the Muslim world this fast, although commanded only once in the Qur'an, isrigidly observed, even by those who are otherwise lax in religious observances. In someMuslim lands it is a criminal offence to fail to keep it. In conclusion it may be said thatSalaah and the Ramadan fast have a greater effect on the Muslim's religious consciousnessthan all the other prescribed duties of Islam.

T

he Prin

cipal Duties of Islam

D. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TOMECCA.

1. The Ceremonies of the Muslim Pilgrimage.

The fifth pillar of Islam is the obligatory pilgrimage which every Muslim, who is able toafford it, must make at least once in his lifetime. In the Qur'an much is said about the Hajj (literally a "setting out towards" a place, in this case Mecca) and it is made obligatory in theseverses:

Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to God, - those who can afford the journey. Surah 3.97

And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and(mounted) on every kind of camel lean on account of journeys through deep anddistant mountain highways. S urah 22.27

In the Hadith the pilgrimage is also made incumbent on every Muslim "Ibn 'Abbas reportedthe Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Islam does not allow for failure to

perform the Hajj" (S unan Abu Dawud , Vol. 2, p.454). The Hajj can only properly be performed on the eighth, ninth and tenth days of Thul-Hijjah, the last month of the Muslimyear.

The actual pilgrimage begins just outside Mecca where there are various mawaqit ("stations"- singular, miqat ) where the pilgrims must change into two strips of white cloth known as theihram (the word means "prohibiting", indicating that the pilgrim is now on sacred service andis prohibited from various activities). This obligation applies to men only - women needmerely be modestly and appropriately attired: At this point the pilgrim must recite adeclaration that he about to embark on the Hajj, known as the talbiyah ("standing for orders"). He follows the words attributed to Muhammad:



I respond to Your call, O Allah, I respond to Your call, and I am obedient to Your orders. You

have no partner, I respond to Your call. All the praises and blessings are for You, All the

sovereignty is for You, and You have no partners with You. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 2, p.361).

The first part reads in Arabic Labbaika Allahumma, Labbaik - Here I come, O Allah, here Icome". He then enters Mecca and performs the tawaf , a sevenfold "circling" of the Ka'aba,always going anticlockwise around it This ritual is known as tawaful-qudum (the tawaf of "arrival") and begins at the famous black stone built into the east corner of the Ka'aba, of which more will be said shortly. After this comes the sa'y, a "running" between Safa andMarwa, two small hills now enclosed within the Great Mosque precincts. This ritualcommemorates Hagar's search for water for Ishmael which supposedly took place betweenthese hills. The well she is supposed to have found is the Zam Zam Well just to the east of theKa'aba within the mosque precincts as well This running must also take place between thehills seven times The Qur'an has an interesting verse relating to this rite:

Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the Symbols of God. So if those who visit the House in

the Season or at other times should compass them round, it is no sin in them. Surah 2.158

The last sentence implies that there were Muslims who had believed that this practice waswrong. In the Hadith we are told that some of the Ansar, prior to their conversion to Islam,worshipped the idol Manat and, unlike the other pagans prior to Islam, would not run

between Safa and Marwa. These men long after accepting Islam, were apparently stillunwilliing to perform the ceremony until this verse recommended it ( Muwatta Imam Malik ,

p. 171). It is hard to believe that there is any truth in this story. If the scruple was purely asectarian bias in favour of the idol Manat, why would they maintain it long after their conversion to Islam, especially when the ceremony was practiced by the other Muslims?There is a more probable reason for the unwillingness of some of the Muslims to perform thesa'y until it was sanctioned in the Qur'an:

Jalaluddin says this passage was revealed because the followers of Muhammad made ascruple of going round these mountains as the idolaters did. But the true reason of his

allowing this relic of ancient superstition seems to be the difficulty he found in preventing it .

. . The Tafsir-i-Raufi and Tafsir Fatah al aziz relate that in former times two pillars were

erected on these two hills to commemorate the judgment of God upon two notable sinners,

Asaf, a man, and Naila, a woman, who had committed adultery in the holy Kasbah. When the

people fell into idolatry they worshipped these as images of God. (Wherry, A Comprehensive

Commentary on the Qur'an, Vol. 1, p.347).

Another writer tells it slightly differently: "Asaf and Nayelah, the former the image of a man,the latter of a woman, were also two idols brought with Hobal from Syria, and placed the oneon Mount Safa, and the other on Mount Merwa" (Sale, Preliminary Discourse to the K oran,

p. 22). It is far more likely that Muhammad simply retained the custom of running betweenthe two hills as part of his overall adoption of the pagan Arab pilgrimage into the rituals of Islam. As said earlier in this book, he destroyed the idols in Mecca but retained theceremonies of the pilgrimage. While it may have been a magnanimous gesture to theinhabitants of the city, it seems to have disturbed his older and more steadfast companionsfrom Medina until the Qur'an assured them there was no sin in the practice.



The story in the Hadith appears to be purely an attempt to explain away an awkwardexpression in the Qur'an ("The implication in the last part of the verse is that a pagan practiceis being retained, but that its retention is approved" Levy, The S ocial S tructure of Islam, p.161). Nonetheless it does openly admit that the practice of running between Safa and Marwawas one of the ceremonies of the idol- worshipping Arabs prior to Islam.

After this the pilgrims return to the Ka'aba to perform tawaf again and on the following daygo to perform the wuquf (the standing ) at Mount Arafat, a plain ten miles east of Mecca.Here the pilgrims stand in prayer during the day and listen to the pilgrimage sermon read on asmall mound on the plain known as Jabalir-Rahmah (the "Mountain of Mercy") whereMuhammad himself preached to his companions during his farewell pilgrimage.

At the end of the day the Muslims hasten back on the road to Mecca to "celebrate the praisesof God at the mash'aril-haraam" (Surah 2.198), the "Sacred Monument" of Muzdalifah,where they spend the night. The next day, the Yawman-Nahr (the "Day of Sacrifices"), theycontinue back towards Mecca and at Mina perform ramial-jimar , the stoning ceremony, of which more will be said shortly. The pilgrimage officially closes at this point and is followed

by the E idul-Adha festival at Mina where animals are sacrificed (a pre-Islamic pagan custom

at the end of the pilgrimage now said to be commemorative of Abraham's willingness tosacrifice his son, believed by the Muslims to be Ishmael), and a final circumambulation of theKa'aba known as tawaful-wada (the tawaf of "departure").

A faithful Muslim will then make a respectful visit (a ziyarah) to Medina where Muhammadis buried in the Prophet's Mosque alongside his successors Abu Bakr and Umar.

2. Al-Hajarul-Aswad - The Black Stone.

In our study of the early period of Muhammad's life we noted an incident which occurredsome five years prior to the beginning of his mission, namely the occasion when he wasrequested to place the Black Stone (al-hajarul-aswad ) in the Ka'aba. When all the idols of the

building were destroyed at the conquest of Mecca, this stone was preserved and every pilgrimto Mecca endeavours to kiss it in emulation of his prophet's practice. Why do they do this?One Muslim writer says of this rite:

Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration

for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their

Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience. (Tabbarah, The Spirit of

Islam, p. 173).

It is believed that the stone was sent down from heaven and that it was originally crystal-clear. "Moslems agree that it was originally white, and became black by reason of men's sins.

It appeared to me a common aerolite covered with a thick slaggy coating, glossy and pitch-like, worn and polished" (Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to AI-Madinah and

Meccah, Vol. 2, p.300). The Qur'an teaches that the Ka'aba was originally built by Abrahamand Ishmael (Surah 2.125) and it is said that the stone, once embedded in the shrine, became

black as it took the sins of those who kissed it. One writer says:

There is not the least indication to show where this stone came from and when it was placed

there, but as it was there before the advent of Islam and was even kissed, it must have been



there at least from the time of Abraham, as the main features of the hajj are traceable to

that patriarch. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.440).

There is no evidence of an historical nature in pre-Islamic records to back up the suggestionin the Qur'an that the Ka'aba was built by Abraham or that he practiced its pilgrimage rites.Historically the shrine and its ceremonies can only be traced to the pagan worship of the pre-

Islamic Arabs. One can only express extreme scepticism at the hypothesis that the stone"must have been there" in Abraham's time.

As the Arab idols were generally made of stone - some fashioned into various forms, othersunshapen - is it not probable that the Black Stone itself was an idol worshipped by the paganArabs? As the custom of kissing it has been retained in Islam the suggestion naturally appallsMuslims.

The Black Stone was never regarded as an idol by the pre-Islamic Arabs, nor was it ever

worshipped by them like the idols of the Ka'bah . . . It, no doubt, contained idols, yet it was

the idols that were worshipped, not the Ka'bah; and the same is true of the Black Stone. It

was kissed but never taken for a god, though the Arabs worshipped even unhewn stones,trees and heaps of sand. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.440, 441).

Why, then, did the pagan Arabs make a special point of kissing it as Ali himself admits?What significance did it have for them if it was not an idol? It is, perhaps, too remarkable to

believe that it was not worshipped as an idol. After all, stone gods were the very thing theArabs reverenced, whether shapen into some form or not. Another Muslim writer says:

Is it not unfortunate that so many Orientalists have misinterpreted the Muslim's veneration

of the Ka'bah, the Black Stone and the pilgrimage rites as a whole, imagining them as some

kind of idol worship, or dismissing the rites as silly, ridiculous or merely the relics of

idolatrous superstition? Another faulty assumption is that the rites of pilgrimage wereremnants of a pre-Islamic cult included by the Prophet in an attempt to reconcile the

idolatrous Meccans with the faith. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 140).

One understands the Muslim determination to absolve Islam of a relic of idol-worship in its pilgrimage rites but it does seem most improbable that this stone, one of the sacred stones built into the Ka'aba by the pre-Islamic Arabs, just somehow happened to be exempted fromthe adoration and worship afforded to the others. This seems even more improbable when weremember that it was over this stone that they argued even before Muhammad's mission whenrebuilding the Ka'aba, finally requesting Muhammad himself to replace it. This clearly showsthat they regarded it more highly than all the other idols in the shrine and it is most unlikelythat it escaped the worship paid to them. It seems far more probable that it was a "fetish pureand simple" (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p.156) and that it was, if anything, the chief idol in the shrine, a stone worshipped like all the others. At least one Muslim writer hasadmitted as much:

In fact, the Arabs venerated these stones so much that not only did they worship the black

stone in the Ka'bah, but they would take one of the stones of the Ka'bah as a holy object in

their travels, praying to it and asking it to bless every move they made. (Haykal, The Life of

Muhammad , p. 30)



As the Arabs worshipped all the stone idols of the Ka'aba it seems historically more probablythat this worship has a legacy in the reverence paid today to the Black Stone rather than theArab worship of stones arose out of the sanctity of the Black Stone which somehow escapedthis worship and adoration.

The most singular feature in this worship was the adoration paid to unshapen stones.

Mussulmans hold that this practice arose out of the Kaaba rites . . . The tendency to stone-

worship was undoubtedly prevalent throughout Arabia; but it is more probable that it gave

rise to the superstition of the Kaaba with its Black stone, than took its rise therefrom. (Muir,

The Life of Mahomet , p. xci)

Another writer is probably close to the mark when he says that the Black Stone was "the greatfetish, the principal though not the only divinity of the Quraish clan" (Lammens, Islam:

Beliefs and Institutions, p. 17). In any event, there appears to be no point in kissing the stoneand Muslims will be hard-pressed to find a really sound reason for the perpetuation of a

practice more suited to primitive pagan idolatry than the true spirit of monotheistic worship.

The kiss which the pious Muhammadan pilgrim bestows on it is a survival of the old practice,which was a form of worship in Arabia as in many other lands. (Tisdall, The Original Sources


Even one of Muhammad's closest companions, the second caliph Umar, had his own doubtsabout the wisdom of this ceremony and had some interesting things to say to the Stone. It isrecorded in many works of Hadith literature and reads:

Urwah b. Zubair reported that Umar b. al-Khattab, when he was doing the tawaf of the

House, said: Thou art but a stone. Thou canst do neither good nor harm and if I had not seen

the Apostle of Allah (may peace be on him) kissing thee, I would never have kissed thee.

Then he kissed it. (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 168)

Umar's description of the stone as that which can "neither do good nor harm" is very similar to the description of pagan idols in the Qur'an ("unable to help you, and indeed to helpthemselves" - Surah 7.197). We have already given the most likely reason for Muhammad'sretention of this rite in Islam - the occasion when he was honoured with the task of placing itin the Ka'aba, an event which almost certainly influenced his later convictions that he had

been singled out to lead his people. This incident probably led him to believe that, as he had been chosen to replace the stone, it was to be identified with his prophetic call and had aspecial significance apart from the place it had in the regular pagan idolatry.

The tradition that the stone originally came down from heaven seems to account for its origin

and eminence. Burton believed it to be an aerolite and it is highly probable that it was quitesimply a meteorite which, because it had fallen out of the sky, was treated with awe by the

primitive Arabs. One is reminded of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus which was highlyesteemed because it contained, "the sacred stone that fell from the sky" (Acts 19.35). TheBlack Stone, in all probability, was simply a meteorite reverenced as a god in the same way

by the Arabs. Its retention in Islam, especially the primitive custom of kissing it, speaksvolumes for the pagan character of the Hajj Pilgrimage as a whole.

3. The Stoning of the Demons at Mina.



The ramial-jimar ceremony at Mina, like many other ceremonies in the Hajj, places a greatemphasis on stones - further evidence of pagan Arab practices survivng to this day for the

pre-Islamic idol-worshippers worshipped not only stones but had a stone-throwing ceremonyin their rites.

The custom of stone throwing has of old maintained itself outside the Muna Valley, where

Islam has legalised the throwing on to three stone heaps. (Hurgronje, Mekka in the Latter

Part of the 19th Century , p.96).

At the small village of Mina each pilgrim must, on the third day of the Hajj, cast seven small pebbles at a stone pillar known as Jamratul-Aqabah as a sign of his rejection of the ways andinfluence of the devil. For this reason the pillar has become known as ash-S haytanul- K abir ("the Great Satan"). It used to be a simple pillar at ground level but, the crowds to Mecca

being what they are these days, it is now a huge pillar with platforms at different levels toaccommodate the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who endeavour to pelt it. Each pilgrimmust collect sixty-three small stones while at Muzdalifah for, when the final tawaf iscompleted, he must return to Mina to once again stone the pillar as well as two others nearby,

known as Jamratul-Awla and Jamratul-Wusta respectively (though some gather only forty-nine stones and others seventy. The number must be a multiple of seven as seven pebbles areto be cast at each pillar in turn). Like many other rites in the Hajj, this one too has beendislocated from its pre-Islamic pagan status and is now said to be an act of piety whichfollows the example of Abraham who supposedly thrice stoned Satan as he tried to stop himsacrificing his son (believed by the Muslims to have taken place in the valley where Mina issituated)

It is said that, when Abraham or Ibrahim returned from the pilgrimage to Arafat, and arrived

at Wady Muna, the devil Eblys presented himself before him at the entrance of the valley, to

obstruct his passage; when the angel Gabriel, who accompanied the Patriarch, advised him

to throw stones at him, which he did, and after pelting him seven times, Eblys retired. When

Abraham reached the middle of the valley, he again appeared before him, and, for the last

time, at its western extremity, and was both times repulsed by the same number of stones.

(Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, p. 275).

It is no mean feat to succeed in striking the pillars with the pebbles as each pilgrim has only arandom chance of even getting near them. Over a million pilgrims today all seek to stone thegreat pillar, have their hair cut (a sign that the rites are officially completed), perform the Eidsacrifice, and visit Mecca once more all in a single day. Even in days when the pilgrims toMecca were only a fraction of what they are today European travellers who succeeded in

performing the Hajj had some awesome tales to tell about this rite. One relates his experienceas follows:

As the ceremony of "Ramy", of Lapidation, must be performed on the first day by all pilgrims

between sunrise and sunset, and as the fiend was malicious enough to appear in a rugged

Pass, the crowd makes the place dangerous . . . The narrow space was crowded with

pilgrims, all struggling like drowning men to approach as near as possible to the Devil; it

would have been easy to run over the heads of the mass . . . Scarcely had my donkey

entered the crowd than he was overthrown by a dromedary, and I found myself under the

stamping and roaring beast's stomach. Avoiding being trampled on by a judicious use of the



knife, I lost no time in escaping from a place so ignobly dangerous. Some Moslem travellers

assert, in proof of the sanctity of the spot, that no Moslem is ever killed here: Meccans

assured me that accidents are by no means rare. (Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage

to Al-Madinah and Meccah, Vol. 2, p.204).

Another traveller to Mecca in later years just before the Great War (Burton went to Mecca in1853) also tells of the hazards and mixed fortunes of those who were able to get close enoughto the pillar to hit it:

The first two "devils" are in the main street of Mina, the third a little way down on the right

of the road going to Mecca. They consist of stone pillars, and stand in a sort of basin like the

basin of a fountain. All of them, by the time we got there, were surrounded by a surging

crowd topped by waving arms and obscured in a perfect haze of stones. It was long before

we could get within shot at all, and in the end we had to discharge our missiles at long range

with the result that most of mine, I am afraid, fell short. There is no necessity to hit the

target, but if you go short or over it you are bound to hit somebody in the crowd.

Enthusiasts who get too close frequently have a very bad time; a man standing close to me

had his cheek laid open, and Masaudi got a cut on the ear. (Wavell, AModern Pilgrim in

Mecca, p.161).

Muslim guidebooks state that it does not really matter whether the stones strike the pillars or not. As long as they fall somewhere nearby, the rite is properly executed. One can wellimagine what a heap of pebbles lies about the pillars at the end of the ceremony. Traditionhas it that the angels descend and remove the stones, casting them about Muzdalifah in

preparation for the same rites a year later!

4. The Pagan Origins of the Hajj Rites.

Throughout this section we have had occasion to point to the pagan origin of the Hajjceremonies. It is surely significant that, as they are practiced to this day, these ceremonies are

precisely the same as those practiced by the pagan Arabs. Are we to seriously entertain thesuggestion that although they worshipped idols and stone images, the Arabs had somehowmaintained the pilgrimage rites precisely as Abraham himself had practiced them somemillennia earlier? Or is it not far more likely that Muhammad expediently retained the pagancustoms, subtly giving them an Abrahamic emphasis? It seems hard to resist the conclusionthat this "curious set of ceremonies of pagan Arab origin which Mohammed has incorporatedinto his religion" (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 160) is nothing more in Islam than "anextraneous chunk of heathenism" (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian E nvironment ,

p.74).

The rites of the Kaaba were retained, but stripped of all idolatrous tendency, they still hang,

a strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of Islam. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet ,

p. xciii).

Muslim scholars have also been constrained to admit that Muhammad adopted the paganArab pilgrimage en bloc into Islam, seeking to justify it on the historical fiction that Abrahamwas its originator and that later generations perverted its monotheistic origin and emphasis.



make a journey to one of the moat desolate places on earth to supposedly draw near to theliving God.

The Social Laws and Customs of Islam

A. MUSLIM FESTIVALS AND CELEBRATIO NS.

1. The Festivals of Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha.

There are two great festivals in Islam, 'Idul-Fitr , which falls on the first day of Shawwal, thetenth month of the Islamic year, and 'Idul-Adha, which falls on the tenth day of Thul-Hijjahand coincides with the Yauman-Nahr , "Day of the Sacrifices" in the Hajj Pilgrimage as wehave seen.

The first festival, Eid-ul-Fitr (the "Festival of the Breaking of the Fast"), occurs as soon as thenew moon is sighted at the end of the month of fasting, namely Ramadan.

On this festival the people, having previously distributed the alms which are called the

Sadaqatu'l-Fitr , assemble in the vast assembly outside the city in the Igdah, and, being led by

the Imam, recite two rak'ahs of prayer. After prayers the Imam ascends the mimbar , or

pulpit, and delivers the khutbah, or oration. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 194).

The igdah is a large place especially set aside for the large congregations who will attend thespecial Eid prayer early in the morning and can be an open field or flat piece of ground. It isonly used as such on festival days for congregational prayers, the proper place always beingthe mosque on other occasions. We have already mentioned the Sadaqatul-Fitr charity inanother chapter but some idea of its importance and practice is found in this quote:

On the first day of Shawwal, the tenth month, comes the Ramazan ki'Id, or Ramazan

celebration, when every one who fasts before going to the place of prayer (igdah) should

make the customary fast offering (roza ki fitrat ), which consists in distributing among a few

Faqirs some 5 lb. of wheat or other grain, dates and fruit. For until a man has distributed

these gifts or the equivalent in money, the Almighty will keep his fasting suspended between

Heaven and Earth. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 113).

The Eid prayer is not only said at an unusual place but is also conducted without the usualazaan, the call to prayer.

This practice of omitting the azaan was allegedly practised by Muhammad himself and isfounded on this hadith:

Jabir bin Abdullah said, "The Prophet went out on the Day of 'Id-ul-Fitr and offered the

prayer before delivering the Khutba". Ata told me that during the early days of Ibn-Az-

Zubair, Ibn Abbas had sent a message to him telling him that the Adhan for the 'Id Prayer

was never pronounced (in the lifetime of Allah's Apostle) and the Khutba used to be

delivered after the prayer. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 2, p. 41).



The festival is intended to be a festive and joyous occasion. Special foods and delicacies are prepared for the day and are distributed to neighbours and friends. Despite its importance it isconsidered inferior to the Eid-ul-Adha and is known as the "little feast".

Eid-ul-Adha (the "Feast of Sacrifice") is the great festival of Islam. It is also known as Baqri-

E id (the "Cow Festival") because its most important feature is the sacrifice of an animal

(cow, goat, sheep, or other appropriate beast) in commemoration of the ram sacrificed byAbraham in place of his son. In Muhammad's time a camel was usually the animal sacrificed.The command to perform sacrifices is given in Surah 22.36 and although no specific day isfixed in the Qur'an the sacrificing of animals was already practiced on the last day of the

pilgrimage by the pre-Islamic Arabs and the institution was duly retained. A special prayer,similar to the Eid-ul-Fitr prayer, is also offered on this day before the animals are sacrificed.

Narrated Al-Bara: I heard the Prophet delivering a Khutba saying, "The first thing to be done

on this day (the first day of 'Id-ul-Adha) is to pray; and after returning from the prayer we

slaughter our sacrifices (in the name of Allah), and whoever does so, he acted according to

our Sunna (traditions) " (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 2, p. 37).

Every Muslim home is obliged to offer a sacrifice on this day. The meat may be eaten by thefamily but a distribution of a generous share to the poor should also be made. As the two Eidsare festive occasions, it is unlawful to fast on these days. Fasting on Eid-ul-Adha would, infact, defeat the whole object of the festival for food is to be eaten on this day with a cheerfulheart in remembrance of God's bounty and provision for mankind. Umar once said:

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited fasting on these two days. As

regards Id al-Adha, you eat the meat of your sacrificial animals. As for Id al-Fitr, you break

(i.e. end) your fast. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Vol. 2, p. 663).

The name commonly given to the Eid sacrifice, qurbani, seems to have similar origins to theJewish "Corban", meaning something set apart for God (Mark 7.11), and is probably derivedfrom the Jewish word. Both Eids can last for two or three days but the prescribed rituals and

prayers must be performed on the first day of each festival.

2. The Three Special Nights in the Islamic Year.

Islam has three holy nights each year, the most important being Laylatul-Qadr (the "Night of Power") which is traditionally believed to be the 27th night of Ramadan. It is the night onwhich the Qur'an was allegedly brought down to the first heaven before being revealed toMuhammad and it iS also the night on which special blessings are believed to be sent downon true worshippers from heaven:

We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power: And what will explain to thee

what the Night of Power is? TheNight of Power is better than a thousand Months. Therein

come down the angels and the Spirit by God's permission on every errand: Peace! ... This

until the rise of Morn! Surah 97.1-5.

There was much uncertainty about the actual night in the early days of Islam, however, and itwas only known to be one of the last ten nights of Ramadan. Muhammad reportedly said:



I had discovered the night of Qadr , but I have been made to forget. I think that I saw that I

was performing sajdah on the morning of the Night of Qadr in mud and water. Seek it,

therefore, in the last ten days at odd nights. (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 128).

Other traditions say it falls on one of the last seven nights of the month. The night is alsocalled laylatim-mubaarakah in Surah 44.3 - "a blessed night". This is one night of the year when every Muslim will seek to attend the evening prayer and the usual tarawih prayers of Ramadan.

The second great holy night of Islam is Laylatul-Bara'ah, the "Night of Record", which fallson the fifteenth night of Shabaan, the month before Ramadan. Once again every effort will bemade to attend the mosque.

On this night, Muhammad said, God registers annually all the actions of mankind which they

are to perform during the year, and that all the children of men, who are to be born and to

die in the year, are recorded. Muhammad enjoined his followers to keep awake the whole

night, to repeat one hundred rikat prayers, and to fast the next day, but there are generally

great rejoicings instead of a fast, and large sums of money are spent in fireworks. (Hughes,Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 116).

The night is also commonly known as S habi-Baraat and it is said that there is a tree in heavenwhich sheds a number of leaves on this night, each one containing the name of someonedestined to die in the coming year. The mercy of Allah, nevertheless, also descends on thisnight and sinners who repent are likely to obtain forgiveness in it. There appears to be a

possibility that the night's significance may have Jewish origins.

In Jewish legend the world was created on New Year's day. No cosmological significance

attaches to the First of Muharram, the official opening of the Muslim year. But the night of

the Fifteenth of Sha'ban, lailat al-bara'a (behind which hitherto unexplained term theHebrew beria, "creation", may be concealed) has preserved associations characteristic of a

New Year's festival. (Von Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals, p. 53).

The third holy night is Laylatul-Mi'raj, the "Night of Ascension", commemoratingMuhammad's ascent to heaven.

It is traditionally celebrated on the night preceding the 27th of Rajab, when the mosques

and the minarets are lighted and there is much devotional reading of popular accounts of

the Mi'raj. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 226).

This night, like the others, is also one in which much reading of the Qur' an and reciting of prayers takes place, but little need be said of it as we have already discussed the supposedascension in an earlier chapter and have there made reference to this night of observance.

These three nights are the most important nights in the Islamic faith and are universallyobserved by the Muslims.

3. The Other Minor Holy Days in the Islamic Year.



There are really only two other days in the Muslim year that are regarded as especiallyimportant. One is the tenth of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic year. DuringMuhammad's life this day became a day of fasting in imitation of the Jewish fast of Ashura(cf. Exodus 12. 1-7). This practice was soon abandoned, however, and Muhammad isreported as saying that fasting on this day is not obligatory ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p.123).After the massacre of Muhammad's grandson Husain and his band of followers at Karbala on

this same day many years later, the whole of the first ten days of Muharram became a time of mourning for Shi'ite Muslims and today the day itself is observed in both Sunni and Shi'iteIslam as a remembrance of the tragedy at Karbala. More will be said of this event in thesection on Shi'ite Islam.

The other holy day is Maulidun-Nabi, the birthday of Muhammad, which falls on the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal. This festival of great feasting and many peculiar practices of un-Islamicorigin is often frowned upon by the more orthodox Muslims and took some time to becomewidely observed.

The feast of the birth of the Prophet (milad, maulud in the Maghrib) is celebrated

throughout the whole Muslim world on the 10th of rabi I; it seems to date only from the

10th century and to have become official only in the 12th. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes,

Muslim Institutions, p. 168).

One of the intellectual ancestors of Wahhabism, Ibn Taimiyya (d.1328), in a fatwa (legal opinion) tersely condemns the introduction of new festivals such as thatcelebrated "during one of the nights of the First Rabi, alleged to be the night of the

birth of the Prophet". The participation of women was criticized with especial vigour by his contemporary, Ibn al-Hajj (d.1336), and it still gives occasional offence to themore strict-minded and orthodox. (Von Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals , p. 76).

Many Muslims openly concede that the practice of observing Muhammad's birthday is an

innovation in Islam, something invariably disapproved of by conservative elements, but theyexcuse it as a "praiseworthy" innovation, a bid'atun-hasanah. It has also become customaryto hold celebrations honouring various "saints" in Islam on this day as well, a customconsidered even more reprehensible by orthodox Muslims. It seems likely that the Christianfestival of Christmas gave rise to this equivalent in Islam. Ironically neither the actual date onwhich Jesus was born nor the birthday of Muhammad is known and the dates recorded are

purely speculative. Even the Muslim world is not entirely unanimous in its determination of the date of the Maulidun-Nabi but it is now generally held to be the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal,coinciding conveniently with the date of Muhammad's death. An Egyptian newspaper nonetheless honours Muhammad's birthday in these words:

And if the times teach us to look about us, verily we look back to this ancient day, the

twelfth Rabia'a al Awwal, in a spirit of reverence and humble submission, and if there is

anything in the world that should cause the throne of God to tremble, certainly it would

tremble at the remembrance of this great day, the day on which the prophet was born. (Es-

Siyasa, "Mohammed's Birthday", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 14, p. 155).

There are many other days in popular Islam that have become widely observed in the Muslimworld, especially the U rs of any particular saint (usually his birthday when variousunorthodox celebrations take place), but the two Eids and the three holy nights are the great



festivals of Islam and are the only ones universally observed by all Muslims without disputeas to the worthiness of the occasion.


B. SOCIAL AND FAMILY LAWS IN ISLAM.

1. Laws Pertaining to Marriage in Islam.

Marriage in Islam is not considered as a sacrament but rather as a civil contract between aman and his wife. The Qur'an describes it as a mithaq, a "covenant" (Surah 4.21). TheMuslim marriage (nikah) is performed through a ceremony at which a local judge, a qadi,officiates. In many cases only the husband is present at the ceremony with a representative of the bride's family and, in the presence of two relevant witnesses, the parties express their consent to the marriage. The qadi then makes a formal announcement that the marriagecontract is concluded.

After this the husband is joined to his bride at the wedding reception (walimah) where a feasttakes place. In modern times, especially in Muslim communities that are Westernised, the

prospective husband may personally choose a bride of his own choice and negotiations between the two families will be conducted to arrange the marriage. The woman has the rightto refuse. In other Muslim lands, however, even to this day, marriages are arranged withoutthe husband and wife even meeting before the ceremony is concluded.

A marriage broker, usually an old woman who has access to the women's quarters, is often

employed to find out what marriageable girls are available. The first steps are taken by the

man's family; it is the custom to get a friend to approach the father of the girl; if it is felt that

the families are well matched socially, negotiations can begin in earnest. (Tritton, Islam, p.131).

Once again customs differ in the various parts of the Muslim world. The husband is alsoobliged to give his wife a dowry, a mahr , at the time of the marriage (Surah 4.4). No amountis fixed - the parties agree independently on its extent. If there should later be a divorce

between the parties the man may not reclaim this dowry.

But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole

treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and a

manifest wrong? Surah 4.20

According to the Qur'an Muslims are free to marry fellow -Muslims but they are forbidden tomarry women from idolatrous communities unless they embrace Islam (Surah 2.221).

They are, however, expressly allowed to marry upright women from the uwtul- K itab, the"people of the Book", meaning Jews and Christians and followers of any other religionrecognised as adherents of a faith with a revealed scripture (Surah 5.6).



Thus it will be seen that while there is a clear prohibition to marry idolaters or idolatresses,

there is express permission to marry women who profess a revealed religion ( Ahl al-K itab).

And, as the Qur'an states that revelation was granted to all nations of the world and that it

was only the Arab idolaters who had not been warned, the conclusion is evident that it was

only with the Arab idolaters that marriage relations were prohibited, and that it was lawful

for a Muslim to marry a woman belonging to any other nation of the world that follows arevealed religion. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 506).

There is a hadith, however, which scorns the idea that a Muslim should take a Christianwoman to wife where she doe not abandon her Christian faith:

NarratedNafi: Whenever Ibn Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess,

he would say. "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe

partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing

partners in worship, etc., to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although

he is just one of Allah's slaves". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 7, p. 155).

In any event Muslim women are not allowed to marry adherents of another religion Thisconcession is allowed to Muslim men only. If a Christian woman becomes a Muslim whileher husband retains his Christian faith, she is entitled to divorce him. This is one of the fewcases where a woman in Islam has the right to initiate a divorce.

The Qur'an follows the Bible in also forbidding marriages between persons within very closedegrees of family relationships (Surah 4.23). It also makes the husband the head of the familyand requires the wife to submit to him and care for the common household:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more

(strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. Surah 4.34

2. Mut'ah - the Law of Temporary Marriage.

One of the things first allowed in Islam that causes embarrassment to Muslim apologiststoday is temporary marriage known as mut'ah. Indeed in Shi'ite Islam this institution hasremained through the centuries though it has long been forbidden in Sunni Islam.

Marriages for a limited period were sanctioned by "the Prophet", but this law is said to have

been abrogated, although it is allowed by the Shiahs even in the present day. These

temporary marriages are called Muta'h, and are undoubtedly the greatest blot in

Muhammad s moral legislation. (Hughes,Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 119).

An ancient custom allowed the man, when resident away from home, to contract atemporary marriage called enjoyment" (muta' ); the Qur'an seems to authorise such anarrangement, and Muhammad makes it legal for his warriors. But it would appear thatUmar called it debauchery. The Shi'ites maintained its legality (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 133).

The traditions relating to this subject generally state that the Qur'anic sanction for temporarymarriage is found in this exhortation: "O ye who believel Make not unlawful the good things



which God hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for God loveth not those givento excess (Sura 5.90). This verse has no direct reference to mut'ah and its liberties could refer to anything permitted by God. The Hadith, however, quite clearly teach that Muhammadinitially allowed temporary marriages:

Salama b. al-Akwa and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon

him) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriages. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.

706).

Another tradition, apparently contradicting this one, states equally plainly that Muhammaddisallowed such temporary unions: "Rabi b. Sabra reported on the authority of his father thatAllah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) prohibited the contracting of temporary marriage(S ahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 707). These traditions can be reconciled quite easily through the

presumption that such marriages were allowed at one time during Muhammad's life but werelater abolished by him. This seems the most likely explanation and we find that other traditions in fact teach this very thing:

Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah'sMessenger (may peace be upon him) he said: O people, I had permitted you to contract

temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of

Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let

her off, and do not take back anything you have given to them (as dower). (Sahih Muslim,

Vol. 2, p. 707).

Ali b. Ali Talib reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbademut'ah (temporary marriage) on the day of the Battle of Khaibar and also prohibitedthe eating of flesh of asses. ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 240).

It seems, therefore, that mut'ah was indeed allowed during the early days of Islam. Themention of Umar's declaration on mut'ah in the quote from Gaudefroy-Demombynes' book should also be considered. There is a tradition to the effect that a woman came to Umar during his caliphate and stated that a certain Rabiah had contracted a mut'ah with a foreignwoman born in Arabia and that this woman was now pregnant Umar exclaimed: "This istemporary marriage. If I had forbidden it previously, I would have ordered stoning" ( Muwatta

Imam Malik , p. 240). This tradition has led some writers to believe that such marriages werefreely allowed until Umar forbade them but this seems unlikely. In any event the other hadithteach that Muhammad did allow such marriages until he prohibited them at the time of theBattle of Khaybar near the end of his life.

3. The Law and Practice of Divorce in Islam.

We have already seen, in an earlier chapter in this book that Abu Dawud recorded a traditionto the effect that of all the things made lawful to men by Allah, divorce displeased him most.

Divorce, though allowed, is considered blamable (mubah) and, if possible, to be avoided.

(Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 191).



The Qur'an has two sections which deal exclusively with the subject of divorce. Although the book does make divorce openly permissible, it hedges in its sanction of the practice withmany safeguards. In the S uratul-Talaq (the Arabic word for divorce being talaq), it is said:

O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count

(accurately) their prescribed periods: and fear God your Lord: and turn them not out of their

houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open

lewdness, those are limits set by God: and any who transgresses the limits of God, does

verily wrong his (own) soul: Thou knowest not if perchance God will bring about thereafter

some new situation. Surah 65.1

Divorce is thus not primarily sinful in Islam as it is in Christianity (Matthew 19. 8-9), yet ithas considerable restrictions. There has to be an 'iddah, a "prescribed period" of threemonthly courses (Surah 2.228), before the divorce becomes final. The husband, after declaring to his wife on three occasions that he intends to divorce her (anti talaq - "you aredismissed"), must wait three months thereafter before he can finally separate from her, andthe wife likewise must remain in the home during this period to see whether she is pregnant

and to see whether a reconciliation can be made.

Divorce is a process beginning with the cessation of marital relations and ending with the

actual divorce when the 'idda has run its course. This is to be carefully reckoned and divorce

is not actually to take place until it has expired. Meanwhile no overt steps are to be taken.

The woman is not to leave her husband's house, nor is he to send her away unless in the

interval she has been guilty of some public scandal. Thus outwardly the spouses are to

continue living together as before, in the hope that before the end of the waiting period

some reconciliation may take place, or as the Qur'an expresses it, Allah may cause

something to happen. (Bell, "Muhammad and Divorce in the Qur'an , The Muslim W orld , Vol.

29, p. 62).

The Qur'an also urges husbands to be very considerate when divorcing their wives. They areto set them free on equitable terms (Surah 2.231), are not to take them back purely to spite or injure them, and are not to prevent them from being married to a former husband (Surah2.232). Despite these detailed exhortations, the Qur'an does not stipulate that there need beany specific grounds for a divorce. There is no suggestion that desertion or adultery must firsttake place, or that the husband must have some valid cause before divorcing his wife. TheQur'an's silence on this point has led some scholars to conclude that the husband may divorcehis wife at will.

Since no justification for divorcing his wife is demanded from the husband by the Koran, he

is permitted to divorce her at his own will or caprice. But no such privilege is accorded to thewife, an inequality which has had the consequence of gravely lowering the status of women

in Islam. (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 121).

Muslim scholars are quick to rise to such challenges and one well-known writer states:

The impression that a Muslim husband may put away his wife at a mere caprice, is a grave

distortion of the Islamic institution of divorce. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 551).



The writer goes on to give a list of occasions where the wife has the right to divorce her husband, namely, where her husband is completely missing and cannot be found, by returningher dowry, and where she is a convert to Islam with a non-Muslim husband. An objectivestudy of the Qur'anic teaching on divorce yields the impression that, while no particular ground for divorce is necessary, it is not to be taken lightly and to be avoided wherever

possible. Nevertheless the general rule in Islam is that divorce is the husband's right. Hanafi

law is particularly dogmatic at this point:

And in this matter of dissolution of marriage the accepted Hanafi rules are more rigid and

retrogressive than those of any other school, for they virtually deny the wife any right of

divorce whatever, judicial or otherwise, while they not only leave the power of the husband

unilaterally to repudiate his wife completely unfettered, as do all the Sunni schools, but go

further than any other in regarding as valid, binding and even final various expressions of

divorce never really intended to have that effect. Thus the wife can never divorce her

husband or divorce herself from him unless he has expressly given her this right (tafwid al-

talaq), while even the offer to redeem herself for a financial consideration is absolutely

dependent on his consent: nor has she any right to the judicial dissolution of her marriage,

however long she has been deserted or severely she has been maltreated, or even if she

finds herself unwittingly married to one afflicted with some loathsome and infectious

disease. (Anderson, "Recent Developments in Shari 'a Law V", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 41, p.

271).

Certainly the one section in the Qur'an giving the standard teaching on divorce (Surah 2. 228-232) speaks only of husbands divorcing their wives and addresses its exhortations to menonly.

The Qur'an has one law regarding divorce that is truly hard to commend or understand. It isfound in these words:

So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after

she has married another husband and he has divorced her.Surah 2.230

In the previous verse it is said that "divorce is only permissible twice" (Surah 2.229) andIslamic jurists have concluded that a man is entitled to divorce his wife twice and dulyremarry her but, after divorcing her a third time, may not remarry her until she has marriedanother man and has become divorced from him. The object of this teaching is clearly toinhibit men from divorcing their wives frivolously or abusing divorce as a means of causingtheir wives constant insecurity. In the end, however, it seems to fail in its purpose by obligingthe wife to enter into a second union before the first may be resumed. The Hadith, true to the

letter of the law, make this teaching more absurd than ever:Narrated Aisha: A man divorced his wife thrice (by expressing his decision to divorce her

thrice), then she married another man who also divorced her. The Prophet was asked if she

could legally marry the first husband (or not). The Prophet replied, "No, she cannot marry

the first husband unless the second husband consummates his marriage with her, just as the

first husband had done". (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol. 7, p. 136).



In passing it is interesting to note that this tradition is interpreted to mean, not that threeseparate divorces must first take place, but that on the required threefold declaration of divorce the first time, the husband may not take his wife back before she marries again. AWestern scholar interprets this subject in the same way: "An absolute divorce, or Talaq i

Mutlaq, consists of the mere repetition of the words 'Thou art divorced' three times. A womanso divorced cannot be restored to her husband until she has been married to another and again

divorced" (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 122). Either way one cannot help beingtaken aback by the rigid stipulation that the second marriage must first be consummated.Here indeed the letter of the law has made no allowances for the reflections, misgivings or regrets of the parties ant appears to force on the woman what Jesus regarded adultery(Matthew 5.32), even though she is willing to return to her true husband without violating theintimate relationship she has enjoyed with him. The same tradition in the Sahih al-Bukhari isalso found in the other great work of Hadith and here it is said that Muhammad's answer was"No, until the second one has tasted her sweetness as the first one had tastes" (S ahih Muslim,Vol. 2, p. 730), even though the second husband had already divorced her. This seems to be agross injustice calculated to punish the first husband for being double-minded once too oftenabout his relationship

In some Muslim communities, especially in North Africa divorce is quite common and anormal event in society. Elsewhere, particularly where monogamy has become the norm, it isa rare occurrence.

4. Hudud - the Penal Laws of Islam.

In recent years there have been many reports of Muslim countries applying the shari'ah intheir legal systems. This means in principle that the law of the Qur'an has become the law of the la d. In practice this means that prescribed Qur'anic punishments, such as flogging for adultery and amputation for theft, have again become enforceable. One reads often of such

punishments being meted out in countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the like. InMauritania a thief is entitled to have his arm anaethetised before the amputation but incountries like Saudi Arabia no such mercy is shown to him. While such practices seem truly

barbaric to the rest of the world, conservative Muslims, in their fanatical zeal to upholdoriginal Islam, do all they can to enforce them. In the process Islam is discredited. One writer speaks of recent developments in Pakistan:

Theft (sarqa) is now punishable by the amputation of the hand, adultery (zina), committed

by Muslims, by stoning consumption of liquor by Muslims with eighty lashes and so on. The

hudud punishments have been enforced in their primitive form under pressure from the

ulama who refused to accept any changes whatever to bring them into line with modern

conditions. (Nazir Ali, Islam: A Christian Perspective, p. 126).

The Qur'an teaches quite plainly that adulterers are to be lashed a hundred times (Surah 24.2)and in pursuance of the sunnah (as we have seen) the provision is made to apply tounmarrieds committing adultery with married men or women while the later are stoned todeath. In Saudi Arabia the penalty for adultery is usually beheading. Regarding the penaltyfor theft, the Qur'an openly sanctions amputation:



As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her of example, from God, or ends: a

punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: And God is Exalted in Power.

Surah 5.41

In the Hadith this penalty is restricted and is only applicable where something of value has been

stolen:

Aisha reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The hand of a thief

should not be cut off but for a quarter of a dinar and upwards. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 907).

Other traditions say that a hand is not to be cut off where plants or fruit are stolen, whereslaves steal their master's property (because the slave and all that he has remains the master's

property), or where the value of the property stolen is less than a quarter of a dinar. In anyevent the punishment seems to be unduly harsh and more suited to primitive customs andtimes. At least one tradition in the Hadith aggravates the barbaric nature of this penalty in thatit humiliates the victim even further: "A thief was brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace

be upon him) and his hand was cut off. Thereafter he commanded for it, and it was hung on

his neck" (S

unan Abu Dawud , Vol. 3, p. 1230). For sometime he had to walk around with it -a truly revolting penalty. Over two hundred years ago a Western scholar observed:

Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the hand, which, at first

sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian, forbidding a thief to be maimed, is more

reasonable; because, stealing being generally the effect of indigence, to cut off a limb would

be to deprive him of livelihood in an honest manner. (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the

K oran, p. 150).

It is therefore alarming to see these hudud ("limits") once again becoming effective inMuslim. One can only hope that the saner sentiments of twentieth-century civilization will

prevail in years to come over the retrogressive mentality of those quarters in Islam that wouldturn back the clock to unhealthier times.

5. Foods and Drinks Forbidden in Islam.

Most people will know that Muslims, like Jews, make distinctions between foods that arelawful and those that are prohibited. In Islam they are called respectively halaal (that whichis "loosed", that is, free from restrictions) and haraam (that is, "set apart". The word can beused in a positive or negative sense, denoting that which is holy and consecrated, or thatwhich is forbidden). There are many similarities between the Jewish and Muslim faiths in thematter of foods forbidden. The Qur'an sets these out in the following verse from which it will

be seen that the prohibitions are not absolute and can be relaxed in extreme cases:

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which

any other name hath been invoked besides that of God. But if one is forced by necessity,

without wilful disobedience, not transgressing due limits, - then he is guiltless. For God is

Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 2.173

All breeds of fish and other aquatic game are lawful to Muslims (Surah 5.99). The foodsforbidden to Muslims in the verse quoted were not only forbidden to Jews but it appears that



even the early Christians, notwithstanding eeter's liberating vision (Acts 10. 9-16), hadsimilar scruples.

It is curious that this list, apart from the mention of pork, should be so like that in Acts xv.18;

and one wonders whether this represents a common level of observance among

monotheists in the Arabian peninsula, both Jews of Arab descent and Christians. (Watt,

Muhammad at Medina, p. 200).

Even meats which are lawful to Muslims only become so if they have been slaughtered withthe name of God pronounced over them (Surah 5.5). The tasmiyah must be invoked over theanimal (that is, the bismillah, "in the name of Allah", must be recited). Nonetheless theQur'an declares that the foods of the uwtul- K itab, the "people of the Book" (that is, Jews andChristians), are lawful to the Muslims and it is permissible for Muslims to sit at table inJewish and Christian homes and vice versa. It is unlikely that there would be much division

between Jews and Muslims in matters relating to lawful and prohibited foods.

The above quotations show us that the prophet was well acquainted with the Jewish dietary

laws. And according to Muhammed these laws were imposed upon the Jews on account of their iniquity. Still he did not find it possible, even if he desired, to abolish all distinctions,

and to declare that every kind of food was equally clean and lawful to eat ... For, in most

cases, he declares to be unlawful those things which are also prohibited by the Jewish code,

as, for instance, that which had died of itself, blood, swine's flesh, etc. (Roberts, The Social

Laws of the Qoran, p. 113).

The tasmiyah is also used as a form of grace before a meal. A pious Muslim should also give praise to God after he has taken his fill of food.

It is recommended that hands should be washed before the taking of food and after

finishing it, and that when one begins a meal, he should do so with the pronouncement of bismillah, and that when he finishes it, he should give thanks to God or say al-hamdu li-llah.

(Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 601).

The scruple about washing hands as a form of ablution before a meal would not be sanctioned by Christians, however, as it is one of those typical rituals in Islam that is but a "shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10.1) and one that invariably lends itself to petty self-righteousness and a judgmental spirit (Matthew 15.2).

All intoxicating drinks are forbidden to Muslims The Qur'an at first allowed that there wassome good in wine, stating simply that it lent itself more to sin than to benefit (Surah 2.219).

In another verse believers were bidden not to come to prayer in an intoxicated state (Surah4.43) but later on wine was disapproved of altogether (Surah 5.93-94).

The social laws of Islam have a universal, binding effect on the Muslim world and conditionthe way of life of every individual Muslim. While many of them are commendable, manyothers appear to be worthy of considerable censure.




C. CULTIC TRENDS IN POPULAR ISLAM.

1. The Veneration of Saints and Pirs in Islam.

One of the great phenomena in Islam is the widespread veneration of saints and tomb-worship that for many Muslims is their religion, orthodox Islam having very much asecondary place. Conservative Muslims frown upon the plethora of rites, superstitions and

practices that are found in popular Islam but for centuries it has held its own alongsideorthodox Islam and is likely to sustain its influence in future.

Saints' tombs are a characteristic feature of the landscape in most Muslim countries, where,

whether associated with mosques or isolated, they are popular centres of visitation. The

orthodox divines have spoken frequently and vigorously against this practice of visitation,

but the consensus of the community has almost everywhere proved stronger than the

condemnation of the theologians and the common folk still visit the tombs of saints to pray,

to leave ex-votos, to seek blessing (baraka) and the intercession of the holy persons buriedthere. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 226).

Within a few centuries of Muhammad's death a deeply mystical worship-form took rootwithin Islam. Persia and India's two great religions, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, weremystical in essence and converts to Islam found it impossible to conform solely to the ritesand outward forms of their new religion. The dry legalism of Arabian Islam soon found itself challenged by a very different form of religious expression andS ufism, Islam's mystical arm,quickly rooted itself within the Islamic realm. In its early days it was strongly ascetic and itsadherents were a selection mainly of individual purists seeking to unite themselves spirituallyto the Divine Being. In later centuries, however, as Sufism became more attractive to themasses, so it degenerated into a public mass-movement where "saints" (generally called pirs in Indian Islam), both dead and living, were sought out for miracles, powers and various

blessings. To this day the Muslims in much of the Islamic world follow not so muchMuhammad, the Qur'an and Islam, but the cult-worship of the local saint, being moreconcerned about obtaining his barakah ("blessing" in the form of power and miracles) thanthe favour of Allah.

Whatever his origin, the saint has, for an essential attribute, the baraka, the sacred

emanation. Through it he brings to those who worship him, prosperity, happiness, all the

good things of this world; he can bestow his gifts, passing beyond the individual, upon a

whole district, and even beyond the confines of this world, through his powers of

intercession with Allah. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 56).

The power of a saint is called baraka, blessing, and this is imagined as almostintangible. By kissing the saint's hand or tomb, this power passes to the worshipper who will be helped by it. (Tritton, Islam, p. 143).

The cult-worship has many forms indicating Sufi origins and inclinations. Each pir has hisown order and way of life (tariqah) and his followers, once inducted, must follow this way



implicitly. It is only through total obedience to the pir that the murid , the disciple, will be ableto obtain the power of the pir and come to the knowledge of God.

Accordingly a person seeks to attach himself or herself to a spiritual guide of one of the

darwesh orders called a pir , or murshid , who initiates him as a murid , or disciple, into the

secrets of divine worship, to the intent that by following the special tariqa laid down for the

order he may proceed by definite stages until he is blessed with divine knowledgeand final

absorption in the Divine Love itself. (Titus, "Mysticism and Saint Worship in India", The

Muslim W orld , Vol. 12, p. 130).

Although there are many to this day who endeavour to become genuine Sufis, the masseshave simply attached themselves to pir and tomb-worship, seeking not to be admitted to aspiritual way of life, but rather to obtain whatever blessings and assistance they can throughsuperstitions, cultic influences and animistic practices. This has led to faith in amulets andtalismans, occultic experiences and other forms contrary to the spirit, not only of legalisticIslam, but also of Sufism itself. It seems appropriate, therefore, to distinguish between Sufismand popular, cultic Islam, and in this section we will consider the latter as a separate

movement of the masses.

All over the Muslim world one finds domed shrines and other elaborate structures coveringthe tomb of a departed saint. In India such a shrine is known as a mazaar . Believing that thesaint's powers can still be acquired after his death and that his spirit frequents his tomb,Muslim devotees, both men and women, flock to these shrines and express their petitions invarious ways. A Christian missionary speaks of his experiences at one of these tombs:

Inside I found many men praying towards the saint's mazar . The room was filled with the

heavy smoke of incense. Pilgrims were taking slips of paper, writing out their petitions on

them, and then leaving the rolled-up paper either on the tomb or along the side on a railing.

Well-dressed men were lost in mystical contemplation as they stood near the remains of a

saint who they are convinced lives on today in spirit and in power. (Parshall,Bridges to

Islam, p. 93).

Some of these shrines are of great antiquity and it is not even known who is buried there. Inother cases mazaars rise over the supposed tombs of departed saints and as long as reports of signs and wonders flow in, no one bothers to question further whether the saints are actually

buried there or not. A well-known European scholar has given an interesting insight into thecreation of the shrine of a supposed saint known as Abu Turab in Egypt:

This place used to be covered by sandy hills. Once, when it was intended to build a house

there, the ruins of a mosque were found. In Arab manner the people called the ruin 'Father

of the sand' (abu turab). In due course this was taken a personal name and thus sheikh Abu

Turab and his grave came into being. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 320).

There can be little doubt that Muhammad would be displeased if he could see what passes for Islam in much of the Muslim world today. In the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal there is atradition to the effect that he warned against the veneration of his tomb (Wensinck, A

Handbook of E arly Muhammadan Tradition, p. 168) and in the Qur'an he expresses hisdistaste for those who take their ahbarahum (religious leaders) and ruhbanahum (monks and



ascetics) as their lords apart from Allah (Surah 9.31). The veneration of saints and universaltomb-worship have become a subtle substitute for idolatry in Islam and have accordingly

been severely condemned by scholarly Muslims. One says:

The miraculous powers of the living and dead saints - of course the dead more than the

living - have ruled the masses and even a large number of the 'Ulama. Tomb-worship and

the ills accruing from this have rendered the Muslim masses almost incapable of

understanding the Islamic teaching . . . Instead of this moral-social order it taught people

certain techniques of auto-suggestion and hypnotism and an excessive indulgence in an

altogether emotionalized religion which can only be described as a mass spiritual hysteria. It

is this phenomenon - the total effect of superstitionism, miracle-mongering, tomb-worship,

mass-hysteria and, of course, charlatanism - that we have described above as the moral and

spiritual debris from which Muslim society has to be reclaimed for Islam. (Rahman, Islam, p.

246).

Each saint has a festival, known as an U rs, which occurs on his birthday or, if he is deceased,on the anniversary of his death. On this occasion celebrations of various kinds take place andofferings are brought to his tomb. Naturally it is expected that greater blessings will flow tothe masses of his devotees at this time:

At all the important tombs there is held an annual 'Urs, which is the celebration of the

anniversary of the saint's death. 'Urs, which literally means wedding, is the term used,

because the occasion is the anniversary of the wisal or union of the spirit of the saint with

Allah, which occurs at death. This takes the form of a holiday celebration, and is a great

event, lasting from one to several days. (Titus, "Mysticism and Saint Worship in India", The

Muslim W orld , Vol. 12, p. 136).

Usually the saint has an annual festival. In Egypt this is called mawlid , birthday, andis very popular; there may be a procession, prayers in the mosque, and a fair; all tastesare catered for and all enjoy themselves. (Tritton, Islam, p. 144).

In India and Pakistan the Urs of a departed saint is widely advertised and devotees will travelgreat distances to participate in the festivities.

2. The Supposed MiracuIous Powers of the Saints.

To the ordinary tomb-worshipper, the chief object of his devotion is the miracle-working power of the saint (generally known as a wali, meaning a kinsman or one closely-related, inthis case to Allah). Throughout the animistic world there is a fear of the unknown ant a

feeling that the departed, who now know it all, can give succour and strength. In Africa thistakes the form of the worship of ancestral spirits, in Islam of departed saints.

Popular belief has kept, through the centuries, the certainty that illness is a result of the

wiles of Satan, of the jinns, of wizards and witches, and that one must cure oneself by the

use of magical counter-measures. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 170).



Accordingly even those who live this side of the grave, if they can show that they have power over the occult, will soon be regarded as saints and their help will be sought in cases wheremen or women are troubled by evil spirits.

In short, to command the attention of the demons and the Jinn is no easy matter. At the

present day if any one is able to secure their obedience he is regarded as a Wali or Saint, and

a worker of miracles. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 230).

Muslims nevertheless are very careful to distinguish between the miracles of the prophets andthose of the saints as pointed out in an earlier chapter. Each prophet performs a mu'jizah andhis miracles are known as his ayat , his "signs", whereas the miracles of the saints are knownas karamat and the word hujjah is usually used to describe the saint's "proof" of his powers.Indeed in South Africa, whereas the shrines of Indian Muslim saints are known as mazaars(there are three in Durban and one in Cape Town), the shrines of Malay saints, all of whichare found in the Cape Peninsula (one is on Robben Island), are known as kramats, signifyingthe supposed miracle-working power of the man who is buried within the shrine.

There are many other superstitions in the Muslim world relating to miraculous powers andeffects. It is believed that the Qur'an itself has talismanic powers and more will be said of thisshortly. At present, however, it will be useful to mention one or two ways in which it is

believed that its text can be made to work miracles.

A verse from the Qur'an will be written in ink or sandalwood paste on a plate or on the

inside of a basin. The container will then be filled with water, which dissolves the writing.

The water is poured into a glass and given to the patient to drink. Another method is to

write the words of the Qur'an on a piece of paper and wash them off into a glass of water.

This is then given to the sick person to drink. (Parshall, Bridges to Islam, p. 75).

The shrine of the saint has arisen in Islam alongside the mosque as a symbol of popular worship. While many of the practices found at these shrines are an abomination to orthodoxIslam, one cannot help feeling that the shrines themselves testify to the inability of thelegalistic religion of the mosque to satisfy the inner longings and yearnings of the heart.

3. Major Superstitions in the World of Islam.

Talismans, amulets and charms of every description are used throughout the Muslim worldand we will only be able to speak of some of the more prominent symbols.

A very common amulet in Islam is the ta'wiz, a black cord or other substance worn on the body which has a Qur'an text usually inscribed on a piece of metal sown completely into it at

one point.

Ta'wiz. Lit. "To flee for refuge". An amulet or charm. A gold or silver case, inclosing

quotations from the Qur'an or Hadis, and worn upon the neck, arm, breast or waist.


It is not unlike the Jewish phylactery worn around the forehead but has a somewhat differentsignificance. The Muslim wears it to ward off evil spirits and as a healing charm against



illnesses and diseases. In India a ta'wiz is often given to someone just after a spirit has beenexorcised:

Then they take the patient home, wash his face, hands, and feet, and either on this or on the

following day an amulet (ta'wiz), of a special kind used for this purpose, is tied on his neck or

arm in order that the demon may not seize him again. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 239).

A similar talisman, also sometimes sown into a ta'wiz, is the magic square. These squareshave a selection of numbers placed within them which generally add up to a figureconsidered to be of special importance and one possessing occultic powers.

Perhaps the most celebrated amulet in the world of Islam is that called Al Buduh, a magic

square supposed to have been revealed to Al Ghazali and now known by his name. It has

become the starting-point for a whole science of talismanic symbols. Some of the Moslem

authorities say that Adam invented the square. It is so called from the four Arabic letters

that are the key to the combination. To the popular mind this word buduh has become a sort

of guardian angel, invoking both good and bad fortune. The square is used against stomach

pains, to render one's self invisible, to protect from the evil eye, and to open locks; but the

most common use is to insure the safe arrival of letters and packages. (Zwemer, The

Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 196).

These squares have been widely used in India for centuries and, as usual, are believed to havewonder-working powers and effects.

Magic squares of these varieties are used as love charms, to create enmity, to cause men to

be silent regarding another, to prevent dreaming, and to cast out devils In northern India

they are used to cure various diseases; to cause butter to increase in the churn, or milk in a

woman or a cow, to remove cattle disease, to make fruit-trees give their fruit, to make a

husband obey his wife. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 254).

It is believed that such charms give a person power over others and the ability to ensure thatthey react in ways planned by the possessor of the square. Many a young man has sought towin the affection of a woman he is infatuated with through this means!

The K houmsa, the five-fingered hand, is also a common amulet in the Muslim world and iswidely known as "Fatima's Hand". It is often hung around the necks of animals to keep themfrom disease. Chiefly, however, it is used as a form of magical power and, like the square, is

believed to possess sinister powers to influence for good or evil. Usually the hand is made of silver though other substances may be used.

In Egypt the hand is generally used as an amulet against the evil eye. It is made of silver or

gold in jewelry, or made of tin in natural size, and is then suspended over the door of a

house. The top of a Moslem banner is often of this shape. It is used on the harness of horses,

mules, etc., and on every cart used in Alexandria we see either a brass hand or one painted

in various colors. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 85).



Some say that the five fingers represent Muhammad, his daughter Fatima, her husband Ali,and their sons Hassan and Husain. In South Africa this amulet appears during the annualTa'ziah procession commemorating the martyrdom of Husain and his followers at Karbala.Some of the ta'ziahs, floats of the tombs of the martyrs, have stars and crescents above thedomes but others have cardboard symbols of the outstretched hand covered in silver foil. Inother parts of the Islamic world this symbol is regularly painted on houses. It serves a

multitude of purposes.

The hand is often painted upon the drum used in the bori (devil) dances in Tunis. It is also

held up, fingers outstretched and pointing towards the evil-wisher, and this in Egypt, North

Africa andNigeria has now become a gesture of abuse. In Egypt the outstretched hand

pointed at some one is used to invoke a curse. They sayyukhammisuna, or "He throws his

five at us", i.e., he curses. (Zwemer, "Animism in Islam", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 7, p. 253).

Human hair is also believed to possess strange powers in cultic Islam. Many Muslims, after having their hair cut, will be careful to remove all the hairs on the floor, take them home in a

packet, and carefully conceal them. They fear that an enemy, if in possession of his hairs, will

be able to use them against him in the same way that voodoo dolls are used to injure thosethey represent.

It is remarkable that in Arabia, Egypt and North Africa everywhere this custom of stowing

away clippings of hair and nails is still common among Moslems and is sanctioned by the

practice of the Prophet ... In North Africa a man will not have his hair shaved in the presence

of any one who owes him a grudge. After his hair has been cut, he will look around, and if

there is no enemy about he will mix his cuttings with those of other men, and leave them,

but if he fears some one there he will collect the cuttings, and take them secretly to some

place and bury them. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 70, 71).

The reason for these scruples about hairs, which also apply to nail-clippings and the like, isthat it is believed that the soul occupies every part of the body and anyone in the possessionof such hairs or clippings can therefore influence the soul of the man he despises. These

beliefs have, on the other hand, led to a wide pursuit after the hairs of Muhammad himself, a practice said to go back to his own lifetime. Because it is believed that his hairs actuallycontain part of his soul and therefore guarantee his presence and blessing, they are moresought after than any other relics from his life. I have seen one such hair said to be fromMuhammad's own beard on public display in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul.

The relic most eagerly sought after is hair from the head or beard of Muhammed. Imitating

the examples handed down from early times pious men have always been fond of wearing

such relics as amulets or have asked for them to be put into their graves. (Goldziher, Muslim

Studies, Vol. 2, p. 329).

But the relic which is the object of the most energetic search is the hair of theProphet's head or beard. The hair was worn as an amulet, and men on their deathbeddirected by will that the precious possession should go down with them and minglewith the earth. (Goldziher, "The Cult of Saints in Islam", The Muslim World , Vol. 1,

p. 306).



Lastly mention should be made of a common sacrifice known as the Aqiqah which Muslims perform at the birth of a child. This sacrifice is not mentioned in the Qur'an but the Hadithteach that it was practiced during the time of Muhammad and that he allowed the practicewithout sanctioning it ( Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 225). The ceremony is set out as follows inthis account:

On the seventh day after the birth it is commendable to name the child, cut its hair, andoffer a sacrifice, two sheep or goats for a boy, one for a girl. If not made at this time, the

sacrifice can be made later, even by the child itself when grown-up. The flesh should be

given to the poor. The weight of the hair in silver or gold should be distributed in alms.

(Tritton, Islam, p. 135).

None of the hairs of the child are cut until the seventh day when the ceremony duly takes place. It appears to have no obvious Islamic significance and is probably derived from theJewish practice of redeeming the first-born in any Israelite family with a sacrifice (Exodus13.11-22). One writer has pointed out that in Tirmithi's collection of traditions there is indeeda hadith which specifically links the Muslim Aqiqah to the Jewish ceremony:

If in addition to all the resemblances to the Jewish practice already noted further testimony

were necessary, it would be sufficient to refer to the statement made in the commentary of

Al Buchari as the key to this true Sunna of the Prophet: "For the female child one ewe - and

this abrogates the saying of those who disapprove a sacrifice for a girl - as did the Jews, who

only made 'aqiqa for boys." (On the authority of 'Araki in Tirmidhi - Fath-ul-Bari V. 390).

(Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 102).

It will be useful at this stage to see what cultic influences there were during Muhammad'sown life so as to determine whether all these strange practices found their way into Islamfrom animistic sources or whether some are not in fact actually Islamic in origin.

4. Cultic Influences in the Life of Muhammad.

There is a strange story found in the commentary of Al-Baidawi which tells of an occasionwhen Muhammad fell under a Jewish spell and the way in which he was delivered from it.The story, very briefly, is as follows:

The Jews bribed the sorcerer Labid and his daughters to bewitch Muhammad. They got

some hairs from his beard, tied eleven knots with them on a palm branch, and threw it into a

well which they covered with a large atone. This caused the Prophet to lose his appetite, to

pine away, and to neglect his wives. Gabriel told him the secret, the well was emptied and

the knots untied, whereupon the spell was broken and the Prophet was relieved. (Herklots,

Islam in India, p. 273).

It is said that on this occasion the angel Gabriel revealed the last two surahs of the Qur'an toMuhammad and told him to recite these short chapters to ward off such evil designs. TheSurahs read:



Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of the Dawn, from the mischief of created things; from the

mischief of Darkness as it overspreads; from the mischief of those who practice Secret Arts:

and from the mischief of the envious one as he practices envy. Surah 113.1-5.

Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind, the Ring (or Ruler) of Mankind, the Got (or Judge) of Mankind, from the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper), (The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind, among Jinns and among Men. S urah 114.1-5.

In these two surahs we find a connection between the cultic practices in the Muslim worldand the practice of Muhammad himself. There is no other passage in the Qur'an quite likethese two and they stand alone at the end of the book as a strange appendix. Their verynature, however, has made them very popular among the masses and they are constantly usedagainst magical practices, spells and other evil influences.

These surahs are placed last of all in the Koran. They are called "the two takings of refuge"",

and are recited continually for protection against all manner of evil. (Lings, Muhammad , p.

262).

Another writer refers to the incident in Muhammad's life in which the Jew Lubaid had cast aspell on him and makes reference to these two surahs which were supposedly revealed at thistime:

Commentators on the Koran relate that the reason for the revelation of the chapterquoted

above was that a Jew named Lobeid, had, with the assistance of his daughters, bewitched

Mohammed by tying eleven knots in a cord which they hid in a well. The Prophet falling ill in

consequence, this chapter and that following it were revealed; and the angel Gabriel

acquainted him with the use he was to make of them, and told him where the cord was

hidden. The Khalif Ali fetched the cord, and the Prophet repeated over it these two chapters;at every verse a knot was loosed till on finishing the last words, he was entirely freed from

the charm. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 171)

We find therefore that even during Muhammad's own lifetime there were practices in Islamof cultic origin and it is most significant to find the remedy written into the Qur'an text. The

practice of chanting selected passages as a form of refuge from the forces of evil wasallegedly resorted to even by Gabriel himself on one occasion when Muhammad fell ill. Oneof the early Sirat works contains this tradition which was allegedly handed down byMuhammad's wife Ayishah:

When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, felt unwell, Gabriel enchanted on him

saying: In the name of Allah, Who will cure you from every illness and will ward off the evil

of every envier who envies and blemish of every evil eye. (Ibn Sa'd, K itab al-Tabaqat aI-K abir

Vol. 2, p. 266).

Muhammad is said to have recommended another prayer of refuge in cases where people fellseriously ill. It is recorded in this tradition:



'Uthman b. Abi al-As said that he went to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and

reported that he was suffering from such acute pain as brought him near death The Apostle

of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Pass your right hand seven times upon the seat of

pain and say: A'uwthu bi'izzatillaahi wa qudratihii min sharri maa ajid (I seek refuge in the

honour and power of Allah from the evil that has come upon me). 'Uthman said: I recited

accordingly and my pain vanished and that I asked my household and others alwaysto do so.(Muwatta lmam Malik , p. 397).

Another hadith on the same page states that whenever Muhammad fell ill he would recite thelast three surahs of the Qur'an and blow his breath upon himself. These cultic practices

perhaps became the precedents for the widespread trust in chantings, amulets and talismans inIslam as forms of protection against the powers of darkness. Certainly they are anencouragement to the Muslim masses to persist with their superstitious heritage, for if Muhammad himself did not disdain to use such means to ward off evil, why should they notdo likewise? A Western writer comments on the character of the first of the two final surahsof the Qur'an:

We may gather from this prayer some knowledge of the superstitious fears, and that dreadof the Unseen, which formed so curious a feature in the complex character of Mahomet.

(Stobart, Islam and its Founder , p. 166).

On the contrary another writer says: "There is no convincing evidence that any belief inmagical practices was retained in the Qur'an or by Muhammad himself. Islam certainlyretained rites that had been magical in origin, but the Qur'an does not show signs of belief intheir magical efficacy" (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 312). The last two surahs of theQur'an do, however, suggest that Muhammad believed strongly in the power of chantingappropriate passages to ward off the effects of magical rites and these surahs have becomewidely used throughout the Muslim world to this day for this very purpose.

Muhammad was obviously not enslaved to such cultic forms in his own life and he seems tohave had little to do with them. He would probably be dismayed to see the extent to whichsuch cultic influences and practices have taken root in the lives of the masses in manyMuslim lands today. On the other hand he did not entirely reject such practices as a means of resisting evil forces and in both the Qur'an and the Hadith we find some evidence of occasions when he resorted to them himself.

5. The Qur'an as a Talismanic Source.

Not only are the last two surahs of the Qur'an recited by Muslims as a protection against evil but other passages have become means of keeping the feared, unknown powers of the occult

at bay. The thirty-sixth surah, known simply as Ya S in (to which we have referred earlier inthis book) is believed to possess magical powers.

The directions for using the verses of this sura alone cover all the experiences of life, from an

easy birth to a painless and peaceful death, and the journey on to bliss in heaven. They

provide cures for all of Man's illnesses, such as fevers, swellings, aches, blindness and

insanity. If one is suffering from toothache, verse 78 to the end of the sura is written on

paper and hung over the ear on the side of the aching tooth and it will cure the pain. There



are verses which protect one's property, his household and his person, from jinn, div , and

the evil-eye. (Donaldson, "The Koran as Magic" The Muslim W orld , Vol. 27, p. 258).

Every missionary knows that the Koran itself has the power of a fetish in popular Islam ... At funerals they always read the chapter "Y.S."; and then, in fear of jinn andspirits, the chapter of the Jinn. One has only to read this last chapter with the

commentaries on it to see how large a place the doctrine occupies in popular Islam.(Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 22).

We have already seen that appropriate Qur'anic verses sealed in a ta'wiz are believed to helpthe bearer and to protect him from illness and evil influences. Trust in talismans and amuletswith verses of the Qur'an inscribed on them is widespread in the Muslim world. The book itself is now a charm allegedly possessing wide cultic powers and for many this serves as itschief purpose in life.

To the endless subject of talismans I can make no more than an allusion. All in the East carry

them, from donkey- boys - and their donkeys - to theologians, and they vary in complexity

from a dirty, rolled up scrap of paper with some sacred names or Qur'an verses scrawled onit, to elaborately engraved gems. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 342).

A common cultic practice relating to the Qur'an in the Muslim world is known as istikharah (meaning "asking favours of someone). It is said that Muhammad taught that anyone desiringto know in any particular matter whether it is good or bad before God, or whether what he isabout to undertake is good for his faith and life or injurious to it, he should perform tworaka'at and recite a prayer for guidance, asking Allah to make the way easy if it is accordingto his will, or to put it away from the supplicant if it is not. This very simple andcommendable injunction has, however, been perverted to superstitious uses" (Hughes, A

Dictionary of Islam, p. 221). Today it has become customary to seek such guidance by simplycounting through the beads of a rosary or by randomly opening the Qur'an and blindly

placing a finger on any given text or passage.

To use the rosary in this way the following things must be observed. The rosary must be

grasped within the palms of both hands, which are then rubbed together; then the Fatiha is

solemnly repeated, after which the user breathes upon the rosary with his breath in order to

put the magic- power of the chapter into the beads. Then he seizes a particular bead and

counts toward the 'pointer bead using the words, God, Mohammed, Abu Jahal; when the

count terminates with the name of God it means that his request is favorably received, if it

terminates with Abu Jahal it is bad, and if with Mohammed the reply is doubtful. (Zwemer,

The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 32).

This practice of istikharah, when applied directly to the Qur'an, is known as "cutting theQur'an" and the enquirer will seek out a-suitable mullah to perform the practice for him. After a few ritual prayers and the repetition of these words from the Qur'an: "With Him are thekeys of the Unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but He. He knoweth whatever there is onthe earth and in the sea" (Surah 6.59), the mullah will then give a salutation to Muhammadand his household ("Prayer and peace be unto him and his people and his family ) and willthereafter proceed as follows:



He will close his eyes, turn his face upwards, and utter the name Allah, while he draws his

fingers from the back of the book up among its pages. He then opens where the fingers

enter and reads the first sentence or part of a sentence on the page. From the character of

the words, he gives his inquirer an answer as to the outcome of the matter he is

contemplating. (Donaldson, "The Koran as Magic", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 27, p. 256).

Not only are the verses of the Qur'an believed to possess certain powers but the book itself isregarded with awe It is believed to be very dangerous to put it on the ground and it is usuallyread on small stands and when not in use is placed on the highest shelf in the home properlywrapped up Muslims even believe that it is very unwise to leave a Qur'an lying open by itself without reading it as the devil is then supposed to come along and read it. Far from deliveringthe masses from superstitious and animistic thinking, the Qur'an itself has in many ways

become a victim of their cultic tendencies .

6. The Fear of Demons and the Evil-Eye.

Throughout the Muslim world there is a pervading fear of the occult world and of the power

of sorcerers. The existence of demons is universally admitted by Muslims and they arealways referred to as the jinn, the Qur'anic name for those strange beings made of fire.According to the Qur'an jinn are very similar to men and can believe or disbelieve God'srevelations. A company of jinn is said to have been converted after listening to the Qur'an

being recited by Muhammad during his journey to at-Ta'if (Surah 72.1-5). The experience of demon-possession and the widespread influence of the powers of darkness has led the massestoday to generally identify the jinn as evil spirits and a fear of demons and their power existsall over the world of Islam.

In Egypt as in Morocco the belief in jinn includes such things as setting aside dishes of food

at dusk to propitiate them. Others keep loaves of bread under their mattresses with a similar

idea; while meal and oil are thrown into the corner of new houses for the jinn. (Zwemer, The

Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 136).

It is lamentable to witness how powerful an ascendancy superstition sways over theminds of Asiatics generally The very wisest, most learned, most religious, even, aremore or less tinctured with this weakness) and, I may add, that I have hardly met withone person entirely free from the opinion that witchcraft and evil agency are in thehands of some, and often permitted to be exercised on their neighbours. (Meer HassanAli, Observations on the Mussulmauns of India, Vol. 2, p. 357).

Demon-possession is a common experience where superstitions and cultic practices abound.The Islamic world also has its exorcists and selective rites are conducted by them in each

individual case to secure a deliverance.

When persons suffer from demon possession the symptoms are: some are struck dumb,

others shake their heads, some go mad and walk about naked, they feel no inclination to do

their usual business, but lie down and become inactive. In such cases, if it be required to

make the demoniacs speak, or to cast the devil out, various devices are employed which will

now be described. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 235).



These devices include the use of magic circles, specific incantations, breathing on flowerswhich are then thrown at the victim, and in some cases the demoniac himself is severely

beaten to drive out the demon. It is common to endeavour to get the demon to reveal andname himself as it is believed that it then becomes easier to communicate with him and sodislodge him. The following experiences make interesting reading:

When the demon departs he runs with such speed and makes such a noise that people fleefrom him in terror. The demoniac frequently runs away with stones so large that two or

three men could hardly lift them (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 238).

One cannot help noticing how similar these manifestations are to those found in the Gospelrecords of exorcisms performed by Jesus Christ. Although Muslims are inclined to identifythese spirits with the jinn of the Qur'an, it appears that they are more easily recognisable asdemons pure and simple such as we find mentioned in the Bible.

A famous exorcism ceremony in Islam is the zar . The exorcist must be of the same sex as thevictim and begins the ceremony with music as it is believed that music has the power to expel

demons. A group gathers around the victim and a sacrifice of a fowl or sheep follows whilethe singing and music continues together with recitations of the Fatihah. The ceremony endswhen the victim, seated in the middle of the group, falls to the ground in a trance. Incense isalso believed to possess exorcist powers and is burnt in the room where the ceremony takes

place.

In every land therefore, with variations due to local circumstances, the Z ar must always be

propitiated by three - incense, the Z ar -dance with music and last, but not least, the sacrifice

- all three of these are Pagan and repulsive to orthodox Islam and yet continue under its

shadow. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism in Islam, p. 240).

There is also a general belief in the power of magic-workers and others to cause demon- possession. Particularly feared is Isabatul-'Ain, the "Evil-Bye", a searching, penetratingglance either from one of the jinn or from another human being which is capable of captivating its victim and enslaving him to the power of demons. There is a particular fear of the power of the evil-eye over children.

The mother's chief anxiety is to protect it from the evil eye: it is with a view to protecting it

from the glance of an evil jinn that many well-to-do families keep the child dirty and ill clad.

(Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 160).

Muhammad himself is said to have feared a Jewish woman who had the power of the evil-eyeand in a few traditions we find him openly acknowledging its influence. One reads:

Hunaid b. Qais Makki reported that two sons of Ja'far b. Abu Talib came to the Apostle of

Allah (may peace be upon him), who, looking at them, asked their nurse as to why they were

so thin. She replied: Apostle of Allah, they are easily affected by the evil eye and we did not

exorcise for we did not know whether you would allow it. The Apostle of Allah (may peace

be upon him) said: Do chant prayer for them. If anything advances in front of fate, it is the

eye. (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 395).



In another tradition we find Muhammad recommending chanting of appropriate verses as aremedy for the evil-eye. It is one among many in the collection in which it appears dealingwith ways of curing this problem and again confirms Muhammad's convictions about theevil-eye:

Aisha reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded me that I should

make use of incantation for curing the influence of an evil eye. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p.

1196).

Another tradition on the same page says that Muhammad saw a small girl in the house of Umm Salama with black stains on her face and told her that it was due to the influence of theevil-eye and that it could only be cured with the help of incantations.

The widespread superstitions in popular Islam, the universal reliance on charms, talismansand amulets, the regular exorcism ceremonies and the like, all testify to the universalinfluence and power of the forces of the occult over the Muslim masses. The need not onlyfor the preaching of the Gospel among Muslims but also for a ministry of deliverance and

healing through the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is altogether obvious.


D. THE CO NSEQUENCES OF APOSTASY FR OM ISLAM.

1. The Penalty for Apostasy in Islamic Law and History.

Any Muslim contemplating conversion from Islam to Christianity will know that the step willnot be without reaction from his own community. At best he can expect to be ostracised by

his people and disowned by his family. At worst he could become a martyr for the faith in avery short time.

The catalogue of tortures endured because of faith in God, given in the eleventh chapter of

the epistle to the Hebrews, could be paralleled in the lives of those who have suffered for

Christ because they were apostates from Islam. Every one who makes the choice faces the

possibilities of loneliness, disinheritance, persecution and even death. (Zwemer,The Law of

A postasy in Islam, p. 73).

From early times it has been taught that the penalty for the apostasy of any individual fromIslam is death. There does not seem to be any Qur'anic authority for this extreme form of

punishment, one which allows a Muslim no degree of freedom to discover the true revelationof God independently for himself. The Hadith, however, openly state that Muhammaddemanded the death sentence for those who turn their backs on Islam, whether for another faith or not.

Zaid b. Aslam reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) declared that the

man who leaves the fold of Islam should be executed (Muwatta Imam Malik , p. 317).



Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali and he burnt them.The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, Iwould not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punishanyone with Allah's punishment (fire)'. I would have killed them according to thestatement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him'".(S ahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45).

Abu Musa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was a Jewembraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will notcome down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. (S unan Abu Dawud ,Vol. 3, p. 1213).

There are evidences in Islamic history showing that this penalty has often been enforced,occasionally by public authority but usually by relatives and others taking the law of Islaminto their own hands. Many of the jurists of Islam have held that the murtadd (apostate)should be given three days or three public opportunities to return to Islam and is only to be

put to death if he refuses to do so.

It is in agreement with the character of the Islamic state that apostasy by one who has been

a believer should be regarded amongst the most heinous of crimes. The legists demand that

the apostate be given three chances to repent, and he is not to be killed unless he has

definitely refused. (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 351).

The Qur'an, on the other hand, not only does not seem to authorise the death penalty for apostasy but also makes statements that appear to have the contrary effect. One verse has thefollowing to say about those who forsake Islam:

And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit

in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Surah 2.217

A Muslim writer comments: "The verse clearly envisages the natural death of the renegadeafter apostasy . . . the implication of the verse is unmistakable that the Qur'anic Schemevisualises an apostate dying a natural death and there is no hint here that he can be killed for his defection (Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 32) Another verse in the Qur'andealing with apostasy is this one:

Any one who, after accepting Faith in God, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his

heart remaining firm in faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath

from God, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty. Surah 16.106

That the penalty spoken of here is not one to be put into effect this side of the grave is clear from verse 109 where it is simply said that such men will perish in the Hereafter. No other consequence is mentioned. Yet another verse in the Qur'an implying that there is to be nodeath penalty for apostasy is Surah 4.137 which speaks of those who believe, then rejectfaith, then return to the faith, only to once again commit apostasy. It concludes that God willneither forgive them nor guide them aright. The very possibility of a sustained double-mindedness and a repeated turning from Islam implies that the ultimate penalty is notapplicable to one who commits an initial act of apostasy.



The verse visualises repeated apostasies and reversions to the faith, without mention of any

punishment for any of these defections on this earth. The act of apostasy must, therefore,

be a sin and not a crime. If he had to be killed for his very first defection, he could not

possibly have a history of conversions (Rahman, Punishment of A postasy in Islam, p. 39).

If Muhammad did command the death penalty for renegades from Islam it could only have been towards the end of his life when it became expedient for many Arabian communities to profess Islam. It took very little for these groups to revert to paganism at the first opportunityand the early Muslims suffered casualties at the hands of at least one tribe near Medina whoinitially professed Islam and thereafter forsook it and attacked the Muslims. Shortly after Muhammad's death a widespread defection from Islam took place and his successor AbuBakr, faced with an imminent crisis threatening the very survival of Islam, had to resort to anumber of campaigns to re-enforce Muslim rule in Arabia. It is possible that the traditions wehave quoted are based on commands of Muhammad, not to put to death every individual whoforsakes Islam, but rather to destroy those who, once having professed Islam turn away fromit and in doing so gather together with the purpose of annihilating the Muslims. The only

passage in the Qur'an which speaks of killing those who turn their backs after believing in

Islam occurs in this very context:

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any

case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks; except those who join a group between

whom and you there is a treaty (of peace) or those who approach you with hearts

restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Surah 4.89-90.

It is significant that this passage is found in one of the last surahs to be revealed and itsupports the suggestion t at the death penalty for apostasy applies only to those who becomeactive rebels against Islam, taking up arms against it.

The position that emerges, after a survey of the relevant verses of the Qur'an, may be

summed up by saying that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the

Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will

be punished only in the Hereafter. (Rahman, Punishment of A postasy in Islam, p. 54).

2. Implications and Effects of the Law of Apostasy.

There are some Muslim writers who say that the death penalty is an appropriate consequencefor apostasy as the public image of Islam is allegedly shamed and weakened by suchdefections. "An act like this is a kind of mockery and a practice which misleads the pious"(Tabbarah, The S pirit of Islam, p. 390). As a Christian missionary once put it to SamuelZwemer, "Yet there is always the deep-rooted idea in every one brought up in Islam that to

leave Islam for another religion is an awful and unpardonable sin" (Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, p. 26). It is, in any event, hard to see how the execution of converts fromIslam restores its image. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, however, has a far more

balanced attitude in this case:

Islam must stand on the excellence of its own teachings and needs no protective shield

against exchange of views at the intellectual level ... The argument based on supposed

indignity offered to Islam by a renegade should be set against the consideration that it



would be much more undignified for the true Faith to retain adherents by coercion.

(Rahman, Punishment of A postasy in Islam, p. 126, 135).

A Christian writer has also expressed similar misgivings about a religion that has to confirmand retain the allegiance of its adherents through forceful means and the threat of dire,immediate consequences for those who dare to express their disillusionment with it:

The Muslim concept of toleration has been, from the beginning, that of freedom to remain

what you were born or freedom to become a Muslim. It has never yet meant freedom of

movement of conscience, or freedom to become . . . Islam ought to concede such freedom

irrespective of any possible consequences as to its members. If it is to be a self-respecting

faith it must possess its adherents in the sole strength of their freely willed conviction.

(Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p. 336, 337).

Freedom of religion is Islam has, all too often, only meant the freedom to become a Muslim. No one is free to leave Islam of his own free will and choice. Even though a swift martyrdommay be less likely today than it was in earlier times, the convert, especially in solidly Muslim

lands, still faces a harrowing future. Zwemer quotes from a letter written by an Egyptianconvert from Islam to Christianity, one which reflects the experiences of many Christians inMuslim lands:

"I am again a prisoner, unable to go out at all or even to step on the balcony, because they

are so excited and watching me night and day, desiring to quench their thirst with my blood,

the blood of the helpless young Christian. My brothers, according to their law, often assured

me that if they murdered me they would be martyrs for doing so". (Zwemer, The Law of

A postasy in Islam, p. 22).

3. The Ahmadiyya Attitude to the Law of Apostasy.

In the next chapter we will briefly outline the development and tenets of the AhmadiyyaMovement, a sect which has arisen within Islam which is denounced by the orthodox and onewhich, for reasons which will be given, hardly endears itself to Christianity. One must givecredit where it is due, however, and the one redeeming feature of those who follow this sectis their attitude to this subject. They teach quite openly that there are to be no earthly reprisalsagainst those who forsake Islam and base their attitude on the Qur'anic dictum Laa ikraaha

fiid-diin. Qattabayyanar-rushdu minal ghayy - "There is no compulsion in religion. The rightway stands out clearly from the way of error" (Surah 2.256). They claim accordingly thatIslam adopts a very tolerant attitude in matters relating to the subjective faith of eachindividual, not seeking to compel the allegiance of those who, as we would say, have not"seen the light". One says:

Islam stands emphatically for freedom of conscience. Everyone must make his choice, and

accept or reject in absolute freedom whatever he chooses to believe in or to deny. (Zafrulla

Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 166).

This refreshing attitude, while running contrary to the Hadith and the laws of orthodox Islamas taught and practiced by the fuqaha of Islam over the centuries, is nevertheless sound from



a rational point of view and one not opposed to the teaching of the Qur'an. This approach isfound in all the Ahmadiyya works and another writer from this sect says:

Therefore so far as the Qur'an is concerned, there is not only no mention of a death-

sentence for apostates but such a sentence is negatived by the verses speaking of apostasy

as well as by that magna charta of religious freedom, the 256th verse of the second chapter,

la ikraha fi-l-din, "There is no compulsion in religion". (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 489).

The Movement's lead has been followed by some of the more enlightened modern Muslimwriters. Rahman's book quoted in this section is a typical example of this spirit nowdeveloping even within orthodox Islam itself, but there is a long way to go. Hopefully therewill be more such writers who will have the sense to distinguish between individuals who,out of freedom of conscience and personal conviction, choose to leave Islam for another religion (invariably Christianity) and whole communities who desert Islam with thetreasonable intention of taking up arms against it. There surely must be a distinction betweengenuine religious conviction and widespread political revolution. Even though many of theteachings of the Ahmadiyya Movement are obnoxious and distasteful to Christians, its lead in

this matter should be appreciated. Another Ahmadiyya writer has this to say (in a paragraphfrom an article written on apostasy in Islam):

We Muslims do believe in freedom of conscience, and we do denounce the action of a

Muslim Government even under which capital punishment is meted against apostasy. The

book which says, "All Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians who believe in God and the last

day, and do good works, shall have their reward with their Lord" (Qur'an 11.59) - such

cannot allow its followers to look with hatred towards Christians and Jews, no matter if they

be so by birth or are renegades from Islam. (Kamal-ud-Din, quoted in "Modern Islam and the

Penalty of Apostasy", The Muslim W orld , Vol. 12, p. 409).

In the meantime, however, every convert from Islam will continue to be faced with ostracism,rejection, various forms of persecution, and possible martyrdom. As this section has shown,such a reactionary approach toward those who leave its fold hardly commends or creditsIslam.

Muslim Movements and Schisms

A. SUFISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.

1. Sufism - Islam's Great Mystical Movement.

Islam at the beginning was primarily a legalistic religion and placed before its adherents littlemore than a code of ethics combined with a set of rituals. The faithful observance of thesewas deemed sufficient to satisfy every man's religious quest and ensure him a place inheaven. There was no demand for spiritual regeneration through a rebirth experience and theindwelling of the Holy Spirit as in the Christian faith, nor for a highly spiritual form of devotion through which the worshipper could draw near to God in a personal way anddiscover the knowledge of his grace and favour.



During the Ummayad period, after Islam had made direct contact with Eastern Christianityand other oriental religions, a deeply mystical movement arose within its realm, in manyways, perhaps, indebted to the influence of these faiths for its motivation and principles, butnonetheless an independent theosophy developing purely within the framework of the Islamicsociety and heritage. The movement is known as Sufism (tasawwuf ) and its followers areknown as Sufis (pronounced "Soofies"). The word sufi almost certainly comes from the

Arabic suf , meaning "wool", and implies that the Sufi is a wearer of a woollen garment. In pre-Islamic times ascetics often dressed in wool as a symbol of their particular course of lifeand the early Muslims who practiced austerity were duly nicknamed "Sufis". Later on thename was adopted by those who sought to obtain knowledge of God through various stagesof spiritual self-denial as asceticism in Islam gave way to mysticism.

Sufism is principally a quest for a living knowledge of the Supreme Being. To the orthodoxMuslim Allah ia the Lord of the Worlds, unique in his essence and attributes, ruling over allthe universe and quite unlike anything in his creation. To the Sufi, on the other hand, "God isthe One Real Being which underlies all phenomena" (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.80).He is everything and there is nothing but Him. Man's purpose is to lose his natural sense of aseparate identity from his Creator and to be absorbed instead into his knowledge until there

remains no distinction of consciousness between him and God. Through a series of stages(maqamat ) and subjective experiences (ahwal ) this process of absorption develops untilcomplete annihilation ( fana) takes place and the worshipper becomes al-insanul-kamil , the"perfect man".

The Sufi concept of a God who is "all in all" differs radically from the orthodox convictionthat the further he is placed from his creation, the more he is glorified. Historically it is amarvel that Sufism grew out of the bedrock of Islam but its development will not surpriseChristians who believe that man was made in the image of God and that his highest glory isto be conformed to the divine image and be partaker of the divine nature through theindwelling Holy Spirit. The mystical quest in Islam was perhaps to be expected for, as it has

been put, there is a "God-shaped vacuum" in every human heart that no religion based purelyon ethics and formal rites can ultimately fill.

To become a Sufi a Muslim must attach himself to a tariqah, one of the Sufi orders, andsubmit himself to a pir or master as we have seen. Only when this master adorns the disciplewith a khirqah, a robe inducting him into the order, does he become a recognised Sufi, andonly then can he embark on a valid pilgrimage through the various stages towards his goal of union with God.

Accordingly, whenever an unknown dervish comes into a convent or wishes to join a

company of Sufis, they ask him "Who was the Pir that taught thee?" and "From whose hand

didst thou receive the khirqa?" Sufis recognise no relationship but these two, which they

regard as all-important. They do not allow anyone to associate with them, unless he canshow to their satisfaction that he is lineally connected in both these ways with a fully

accredited Pir. (Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, p.23).

The covenant by which the disciple is initiated into the particular order he enters is known asa bay'ah and it attaches him to his master and the silsilah (chain) from which the master himself derives his power (barakah) and authority (similar to the "apostolic authority"



conferred on Roman Catholic priests through a progressive laying on of hands said to go back to Simon Peter himself).

The initial Sufi experience is not, as it is for true Christians, a rebirth experience in which theman, once born of the flesh, is now born of the Spirit, has a totally new relationship to Godand knowledge of him, and can through his unity with God in the Spirit develop the

relationship. Rather the Sufi really seeks only "to become aware of what one has always beenfrom eternity (azal ) without one's having realised it until the necessary transformation hascome about" (Nasr, Living S ufism, p.7).

The major Sufi orders are the S uhrawardiyya (founded by one as-Suhrawardi), the Qadiriyya (attributed to Sufism's most famous personality, Abdul Qadir al-Jilani), the Chishtiyya (itsmaster Mu'iniddin Chishti who is buried at Ajmer in India), the S hadhiliyya, the Mawlawiyya (a Turkish order founded by Jalaluddin Rumi who is buried in Konya in Turkey), and the

Naqshabandiyya (which is prominent in Iran and other parts of Asia).

2. A Brief Analysis of Sufi Stages and Experiences.

The goal of the Sufi is to reach a personal knowledge of his Creator until knower and knownare one and there is no awareness of any distinction of personality between them. Like allorthodox Muslims Sufis reject the concept of incarnation (hulul ) and do not believe that Godcan become man. They also resist pantheistic tendencies, carefully distinguishing betweenGod and his servants, while nevertheless teaching that man's aim must be to attain to such ahigh state of consciousness of God that his personality may no longer be distinguished fromGod's essence and character. Man does not have this knowledge by nature, however, and each

prospective Sufi must prepare for a course which will take him through many stages andexperiences before he completes his journey.

Of course the Sufis never tire of emphasizing that the end of Sufism is not to possess such

and such a virtue or state as such but to reach God beyond all states and virtues. But toreach the Transcendent beyond the virtues, man must first possess the virtues; to reach the

station of annihilation and subsistence in God, man must have already passed through the

other stages and stations.

(Nasr, Living Sufism, p.58).

The Sufi who sets out to seek God calls himself a 'traveller' ( salik ), he advances byslow 'stages' (maqamat ) along a path (tariqat ) to the goal of union with Reality ( fana

fi'l-Haqq). ... The Sufi's 'path' is not finished until he has traversed all the 'stages',making himself perfect in every one of them before advancing to the next, and hasalso experienced whatever 'states' it pleases God to bestow upon him. (Nicholson, The

Mystics of Islam, p.28, 29).

The early mysticism of Islam sought only a path of self-purification, a character renewal,until the personality was conformed to the divine image. Later it was believe that such growthmust be accompanied by deliberate ecstatic experiences, confirming the progress of the soul.The decline Sufism in later centuries can perhaps be attributed to the interest of the masses

purely in the experimental side of Islamic mysticism and the desire for emotional excesses.



The early mystics of Islam, however, devoted themselves primarily to the first of the three

stages, that is, Purgation. To the mystics, at-tariq (the Pathway) was a method of self-

purification acquired through the cleansing of the senses and through bodily discipline.

Gradually the Sufis began to develop the second stage, the is, Illumination. Al-Muhasibi (A.D.

781-857), who pioneered with his disciples in the pathways of Purgation, was one of the first

to declare that as purification brings freedom from the attachments of this world the Sufimight expect to arrive at the stage of Illumination and thence proceed to the unitive life in

God. (Jurji, "Illumination - A Sufi Doctrine", The MuslimW orld , Vol.27, p.129).

Pure Sufism, however, sincerely seeks the fulness of the knowledge of God. Nevertheless ithas been universally believed for centuries that such a search must accompanied by externalmanifestations. The goal will be obtained when the worshipper sees God alone in all that hecontemplates and at the same time feels a total and ecstatic sense of his presence.

The whole of Sufism rests on the belief that when the individual self is lost, the Universal Self

is found, or, in religious language, that ecstasy affords the only means by which the soul can

directly communicate and become united with God. (Nicholson,The Mystics of Islam, p.59).

He then can be the Perfect Man, one "who has fully realizsed his essential oneness with theDivine Being in whose likeness he is made" (Nicholson, S tudies in Islamic Mysticism, p.78).On the path towarts this goal, therefore, he must no only go through the progressive stages of self-annihilation but must also have trance-like experiences in which his normalconsciousness is to be lost in ecstatic contemplation of the Divine Being alone. Theseexperiences are the ahwal (singular hal ) mentioned earlier and authenticate the developingdiscovery of the ultimate light and truth.

In the Sufism of the orders this ecstasy or trance-like 'state' is called a hal , though in Sufism

proper a hal more strictly refers to the succession of illuminations, through experiencing

which the Sufi progresses a further 'stage' (maqtam) towards the goal of spiritual perfection.(Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, p.200).

Such experiences are, to the Sufis, not to be regarded as hypnotic phenomena to which thehuman spirit is susceptible in appropriate circumstances but rather gifts from God confirmingthe Sufi's striving for his presence. Each stage reached by the disciple is the result of his owneffort, each experience is a token of the divine favour upon the endeavour - "the hal is aspiritual mood depending not upon the mystic but upon God" (Arberry, S ufism: An Account

of the Mystics of Islam, p.75).

A Christian must surely be affected by the whole nature of Sufism. True Christianity is by

nature mystical and anyone born of the Holy Spirit will not only seek to become conformedto the image of his Lord but will also surely experience many proofs of the Spirit's presencein his soul. Indeed it is a New Testament principle that where such a relationship betweenman and God truly exists, the formal restraints of legal ethics and rituals have no bindingeffect as the believer has the motivation towards truth and right-living within him. It is hardlysurprising that Sufis have often sought to break away from the dull strictures of formalIslamic law and have, in orthodox eyes, often shown scant respect for it.



Fana, absorption into Deity, the State of Reality ( Haqiqa), often called in the order literature `Alam al-Ghaib, 'the (uncreated) world of the mystery'. (Trimingham, The

S ufi Orders in Islam, p.160).

Famous Sufis have individually been responsible for identifying and emphasising differentstages making up this threefold gradient and we shall mention some of them and their

respective contributions later in this section. In time these became integrated into thecatalogue of stages in the Sufi quest and we shall speak briefly of some of them.

One of the initial stages is said to be an attitude of indifference towards good or bad fortune.The Sufi believes that adversity, causing discomfort, depression or discourage is broughtabout through God's deliberate "contraction" (qabdh) and that prosperity, joyfulcircumstances and the like, come from his "expansion" (bast ). He humbly resigns himself to

both, seeking not to be affected by his circumstances but to fix his devotion purely on hisLord and Master. Qur'anic sanction is found for these contrasting acts of God and the Sufi'swillingness to abide in them.

The Sufi has submitted himself to God, who says "God contracts and expands" (K oran II:245).

Thus, whether he gives contraction or expansion, the Sufi only desires what is desired by his

Beloved. (Nurbakhsh, Sufism, p.27).

One is reminded of Paul's words in Philippians 4.11-13. Another typical stage is that of "gathering" ( jam) in which the Sufi begins to turn away from the state of separation from God(tafriqah - "dispersion"), the distinction being between God himself and the world of everything but God.

There are many different stages, too many to cover in detail here, but perhaps some attentionshould be given to the ultimate stage - fana - for all the intermediate stages are differentforms of disassociation from all that is "under the sun", to use a Biblical expression (from

Ecclesiastes), in the cause of being absorbed into the consciousness of the Supreme Being.(Alternatively, the Sufi seeks to shake off the identity of his nafs, his individual soul with allits ungodly tendencies, similar to the concept of "the flesh" as it is set forth in opposition tothe way of the Spirit in the New Testament, especially the eighth chapter of Paul's Epistle tothe Romans).

Fana is the ultimate goal - a dissolution of the Sufi's consciousness of his own identitythrough a total absorption in the knowledge of God. "As a technical term in Sufism, the wordannihilation signifies the annihilation of the attributes of human nature and their transformation into Divine Attributes. In the state of annihilation, the Sufi is completelyimmersed in the contemplation of the Attributes of God and oblivious to his own self"(Nurbakhsh, S ufism, p.86). It should again be emphasised that this does not lead to a

pantheistic theosophy, for Sufis, true to the Muslim faith, are always careful to distinguish between God and his servants. The union comes in the realm of consciousness and spiritual perspective. The distinction is well set forth in this comment: "The mystic does not becomeone with God, he becomes conscious of his oneness with Him" (Tritton, Islam, p.101).

It is true to say that the Sufi should never be able to proclaim that he has reached this stagefor his complete absorption in God and self-annihilation, his fana fit-tawhid, fil Haqq ("Unionwith the Unity, the Reality"), will surely make him lose all consciousness of his own identityand personal state.



The highest stage of fana is reached when even the consciousness of having attained fana

disappears. This is what the Sufis call 'the passing-away of passing-away ( fana al-fana). The

mystic is now wrapped in contemplation of the divine essence. (Nicholson, The Mystics of

Islam, p.60).

Let us briefly look at one of the ways in which Sufis seek to induce a state of ecstasy. Thougha means is employed to create this state, they insist that the experience itself is from God.

4. Dhikr - The Remembrance of Allah.

The commonest means of inducing a state of ecstasy is the dhikr ceremony. A group of Sufiswill gather together and begin a series of chantings, either of the ninety-nine names of Allah,or just simply of the name of Allah himself, until the devotees collapse in a state of trance.The famous "whirling dervishes" obtain their name and fame from this very ceremony. Todayit has become customary for numerous adherents of Sufism, who know nothing of trueSufism or a deep spiritual quest coupled with acts of self-discipline to attain to a higher stateof spirituality, to seek purely the supposed state of "ecstasy" that can be obtained through

regular concentration on and recitation of the name and attributes of Allah.

After an experience of nearly thirteen years of close contact with Egyptian Moslems, I have

no hesitation in saying that, as to the bulk of the population of Egypt, their real religion is

Sufism, as represented by the dhikr . They know practically nothing of the philosophic

Mysticism of their books, but through tradition they know something of the spiritual

achievement of their saints; and in the dhikr they attempt to realize the ultimate experience

of the Sufi saint by a physically induced ecstasy, ignoring the fact that these saints only

reached their experiences by a long and painful road. (Swan, "The Dhikr", The Muslim W orld ,

Vol. 2, p.381).

The Qur'an commends the remembrance of Allah in these words: Wa aqimis-salaah ... walathikrullaahi akbar - "and establish prayer ... and the remembrance of Allah, which isgreater" (Surah 29.45).Orthodox Muslims take this verse simply to mean that prayyer without a consciousness of Allah has a very limited value. Sufis interpret it to mean that the

practice of dhikr through repetitions of Allah's name and attributes is greater than the formalacts of the prescribed salaah, the basic Islamic form of worship.

According to some this means the mentioning, or the remembering of God constitutes the

quintessence of prayer; according to others it indicates the excellence of invocation as

compared with prayer. (Burckhardt, An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, p.101).

A dhikr ceremony is something to behold, though Christian observers can be excused if they become bored after a while with a monotonous repetition of religious cliches, e.g. la ilaha

illullah - "there is no God but Allah", which supposedly bring the devotee into the realm of God and a conscious awareness of his presence simply because they result in a trance-likestate. In all religions there are those who seek, through various means, to enter into suchtrances and these means are all very similar to one another. The end result seems to be a self-induced, hypnotic state rather thhan a God-ordained experience.

5. How Sufism Relates to the Quran and Hadith.



If Sufism is a later development within Islam, how does it reconcile itself with original Islam,the religion of Muhammad as set forth in the Qur'an and Hadith? The Sufi answer is that thisoriginal Islam has the germs of Sufism and that both the Qur'an and Hadith contain numerous

passages indicating the deeper nature of true Islam, that which later blossomed out into itsgreat mystical movement.

Expressions such as these in the Qur'an are produced by Sufis as proof that Islam is, at heart,a spiritual religion: "To God belong the East and th e West: whithersoever ye turn, there is thePresence of God. For God is All-Pervading, All-Knowing" (Surah 2.115); and "We are nearer to him (man) than his jugular vein" (Surah 50.16). Although Muhammad himself couldhardly be described as a mystic, let alone a Sufi, there are verses in the Qur'an which do atleast support the Sufi contention, prompting one scholar to say: "however un-favorable tomysticism the Koran as a whole may be, I cannot assent to the view that it supplies no basisfor a mystical interpretation of Islam" (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.22). As the Qur'anis believed to be the uncreated Word of God it is little wonder Sufis seek to authenticate their movement with reference to its teaching and it is not surprising that they make much of theseverses. "For these mystical texts are the chief encouragement and justification of the Sufi inhis belief that he also may commune with God" (Arberry, S ufism: An Account of the Mystics

of Islam, p.17).

Another verse cherished by the Sufis is this one: "To God we belong, and to Him is our return" (Surah 2.156) as it seems to synchronise with their whole philosophy that man'sobjective and duty on earth is to strive spiritually until he comes back to the knowledge of hisCreator. The "return" must therefore be one in which the soul can be re-united with its Maker through a thorough spiritual devotion.

The Sufis claim that the whole of Sufism is summed up in this verse, and it is often chanted

at their gatherings and sometimes repeated a certain number of times on a rosary; and in

fact, although every believer is necessarily 'for God' in some degree or other, the mystic may

be said to be 'for God' in a way which the rest of the community is not. (Lings, W hat isSufism? , p.28).

The Hadith contain certain "hadith qudsi" (divine sayings of Allah), allegedly reported fromMuhammad himself which contain mystical elements even closer to the heart of Sufism thanthe verses quoted from the Qur'an. A famous saying of this kind is:

My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra

deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which

he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his

leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks my protection

(Refuge), I will protect him. (Sahih al-Bukhari , Vol.8, p.336).

One writer comments that "the whole of Sufism - its aspirations, its practice, and in a sensealso even its doctrine - is summed up in this Holy Tradition, which is quoted by the Sufis

perhaps more often than any other text apart from the Qur'an" (Lings, What is S ufism?, p.74).Another similar saying is: I was a hidden treasure and I desired to be known; therefore Icreated the creation in order that I might be known (quoted in Nicholson, The Mystics of

Islam, p.80; but: fabricated?). These traditions are, for the Sufis, their motivation for earnestly



his Lord would be manifested through a state of spiritual intoxication. From Bayazid'sexample grew the interest in Sufism in outward manifestations of the inward experience.

Some Muslims say that a true Muslim on pilgrimage will see the Ka'aba the first time, theKa'aba and the Lord of the House the second, and only his Lord on the third. Bayazid wentfurther:

"The first time I entered the Holy House," stated Abu Yazid, "I saw the Holy House. The

second time I entered it, I saw the Lord of the House. The third time I saw neither the House

nor the Lord of the House" (Arberry, Muslim Saints and Mystics, p.121).

This experience illustrates the whole meaning of the fana state - a lost consciousness even of God himself as the Sufi pilgrim becomes one with him. Another symbolising this sameconcept is:

One day someone came to Bayazid's door and knocked. The shaykh said, "Who are you

seeking?" The man replied "Bayazid". Bayazid then answered, "Poor Bayazid! I have been

seeking him for thirty years but have found no sign or trace of him". (Nurbakhsh,Sufism,p.97).

Another famous mystic from the golden age of Sufism was Abu Sa'id ibn Abul-Khayr, a prominent member of the group of early masters who emphasised the doctrine of losing one'shuman consciousness and subsisting in the knowledge of God alone. These men all believedthat by renouncing earthly pleasures, by mystical hours of devotion, and by seeking out thehigher virtues of the soul, one could walk the road towards this goal. Self-love had to bereplaced by a disinterested love for God alone.

Abu Sa'id followed in the footsteps of Bayazid, making many bold statements calculated toantagonise the orthodox. On one occasion he told one of the fuqaha, the Muslim jurists, thathe could read his thoughts (many anecdotes have been recorded of his alleged power todiscern the thoughts of men). The jurist had thought to himself that he could not find AbuSa'id's teaching in the seven-sevenths of the Qur'an (that is, the whole Qur an). Abu Sa'idreplied that his doctrine was contained in the "eighth-seventh" of the book, meaning a specialrevelation given by God to his favourite servants. This concept of an independent revelationgiven to a Muslim after the revelation of the Qur' an is diametrically opposed to the Muslimdoctrine of the finality of prophethood.

Here Abu Sa'id sets aside the partial, finite, and temporal revelation on which Islam is built,

and appeals to the universal infinite, and everlasting revelation which the Sufis find in their

hearts. As a rule, even the boldest Mohammedan mystics shrink from uttering such a

challenge. (Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, p.60).

Among the great mystics of Islam was a woman, Rabi'a al-Adawiyya, who lived in Basra (inIraq) in the very early days of Sufism. Her chief contribution to the growing mysticism of Islam was her insistence that God should be loved, not out of fear of wrath or for the prospectof reward, but purely for himself. One of her sayings was: "O God! If I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me fromParadise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine Everlasting Beauty!"(Arberry, S ufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, p.42). She was once seen carrying a



burning torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. When asked why, she replied: "Iam going to set fire to Paradise and quench the fires of Hell so that men may worship God for his own glory alone".

Of Rabi'a her biographer wrote that she was "on fire with love to God", and she was one of

the first among the Sufis to teach the doctrine of disinterested love to God. She was asked if

she hated Satan, and answered "No", and when asked if she loved the Prophet, she said,

"My love to God has so possessed me that no place remains for hating aught, or loving any

save Him". (Smith, "Rabi'a, The Woman Saint', The MuslimW orld , Vol.20, p.341).

The most tragic figure in Sufi history is al-Hallaj, one of the "intoxicated" mystics who wasalso inclined to complete indiscretion in making bold statements which outraged theorthodox. He openly claimed ana'l Haqq - "I am the Truth", and for refusing to recant was

brutally dismembered and crucified. (It is striking to find that he suffered the same fate asJesus Christ who made exactly the same claim, albeit more worthily).

Later Sufi mystics considered him a true martyr even though many at the time disowned him.

They charged him with teaching hulul , i.e. incarnation, in that he suggeated that God himself joined in union with man in all his essence rather than that man attained to a state of identifying with God in his attributes and personality. The later Sufis, however, endeavouredto interpret al-Hallaj's doctrine as distinct from the concept of hulul and "they have also donetheir best to clear Hallaj from the suspicion of having taught it (Nicholson, The Mystics of

Islam, p.151).

The general line taken was that he was right in his teaching, but that he ought not to have

published abroad the secrets of Sufism, a proceeding for which he deserve to be put to

death. It must be remembered that later Sufis left out many of the distinctive features of

Hallaj's doctrine. They discarded the termHulul , and they replaced his view of the union of

the human soul with God by a doctrine of monism, in which all created things including the

souls of men, are merely mirrors reflecting one or other of the attributes of God.

(Thompson. "Al-Hallaj, Saint and Martyr", The MuslimW orld , Vol.19, p.401).

Although Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is held to be the founder of the Qadariyya, the greatest schoolin Sufism, and is so venerated that he "has very nearly displaced Muhammad himself in theeyes of the Sufi-worshipping public" (Rahman, Islam, p.153), the extent of his devotion toSufism cannot be ascertained fully. He was a dedicated follower of the legalistic school of Ibn Hanbal and many myths surround his life. Nevertheless he is universally regarded to thisday as the greatest of the early Sufi masters.

After the heyday of Sufism in the early centuries of Islam the movement began to lose

credibility and it took the great Islamic scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali to give it a moresober image and respectability among the general public. Al-Ghazzali was a renownedorthodox theologian and, after a period of cynical agnosticism and depression, he declaredhimself a champion of Sufism, claiming to have found peace and purpose at last through a

personal experience of refuge in God alone. His mysticism was chiefly of a less emotionalkind than his predecessors, concentrating on intellectual insight and understanding, and it istherefore not surprising that "he is not regarded as being a practising Sufi by the ecstatics andgnostics" (Trimingham, The S ufi Orders in Islam, p.52). Yet it was he who reconciled Sufism



with orthodox Islam and a fine example of the way he did this is found in his definition of thefour stages of the knowledge of tawhid , the "unity" of God, in his greatest work:

The first stage is like the outer cover of a cocoanut, the second stage is the inner cover of a

cocoanut, the third is the kernel of a cocoanut, and the fourth stage the oil of the kernel. The

first stage of Tauhid is to utter by tongue "There is no deity but God". The second stage is to

confirm it by heart. The third stage is like kernel which can be seen by inner light or by way

of Kashf. The fourth stage is like oil in kernel. He sees nothing but God. (Imam Gazzali's Ihya

Ulum-id-Din, Vol.4, p.238).

Here the orthodox dogma is almost imperceptibly fused with the whole foundation of Sufism.Al-Ghazzali's chief contribution to Sufism was to remove its stigma in the eyes of theorthodox by tempering its character and bringing it more into line with fundamental Islam.

The influence of al-Ghazali in Islam is incalculable. He not only reconstituted orthodox Islam,

making Sufism an integral part of it, but also was a great reformer of Sufism, purifying it of

un-Islamic elements and putting it at the service of orthodox religion. (Rahman, Islam,

p.140).

Not only did he save Sufism from extinction by softening its dramatic character but at leastone writer considers that he also delivered orthodox Islam from the dead-weight of formalism: "Had not mysticism in the course of time acquired a place in official Islam,chiefly through the influence of al-Ghazali, the Muslim religion would have become a lifelessform" (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed , p.58).

Sufism is a remarkable phenomenon in Islam and Christian readers must, after reading thissection, have recognised how similar it is to Christianity in so many of its facets andobjectives. In many ways its spiritual character is far more consistent with Christianity than

orthodox Islam. The Christian witness to Islam has here its greatest potential for making itsmessage heard and understood.


B. THE SOURCES AND TENETS OF SHI'ITE ISLAM.

1. Shi'ism - Its Character and History.

Islam is divided into two great sects - the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. The former follow the

sunnah, the "example" of Muhammad, and constitute the vast majority of the Muslims in theworld. The S hi'ah (the "Party") are found mainly in Iran and its surrounding regions as wellas in parts of Africa. The Sunnis believe that Muhammad's companions Abu Bakr, Umar,Uthman and Ali (in that order) were, by democratic election, the four "rightly-guided"caliphs, that is, immediate successors of Muhammad. The Shi'ah believe that Muhammad'snephew, Ali was specifically designated as his successor and that divine guidance descendedon them to guide the growing Muslim community and lead it in the path of Allah.



The real disagreement is the meaning of the word mawla used by the Prophet. The Shi'a

unequivocally take the word in the meaning of leader, master, and patron, and therefore the

explicitly nominated successor of the Prophet. The Sunnis, on the other hand, interpret the

word mawla in the meaning of a friend, or the nearest kin and confidant. (Jafri, The Origins

and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, p.21).

From this division regarding the lawful succession of the prophet of Islam come all the other points of separation between the Sunnis and the Shi'ah. Wherever Islam has been spoken of in this book it is always Sunni Islam that has been under consideration as the overwhelmingmajority of the Muslims are Sunnis. In this section we shall consider Shi'ite Islam as aseparate movement within the Muslim world. A typical definition of this movement follows:

Shi'ah, which means literally partisan or follower, refers to those who consider the

succession to the Prophet - may God s peace and benediction be upon him - to be the

special right of the family of the Prophet and who in the field of the Islamic sciences and

culture follow the school of the Household of the Prophet. (Nasr, Shi'ite Islam, p.33).

It is hard to tell exactly when Shi'ism began or when it can positively be distinguished as aseparate sect; One has to go right back to the death of Muhammad, perhaps, to find the eventsthat eventually gave rise to this movement which ultimately established itself as a distinct

branch of Islam. Although Muhammad's nephew Ali had been one of the first to believe inhis message and was a great champion of Muhammad's cause during his lifetime, he becamea recluse after his death when Abu Bakr was nominated as Muhammad's successor by Umar and was duly accepted by the community of Muslims at Medina. There is evidence that Aliwas unwilling to accept Abu Bakr's nomination ("he did not recognize Abu Bakr and refusedto pay him homage for six months - Jafri, The Origins and E arly Development of S hi'ite

Islam, p.59), but on the whole it does appear that he tacitly approved of the caliphates of AbuBakr and Umar. It was only after he was rejected in favour of the unloved Uthman that Ali

became active again.When Uthman was assassinated Ali was finally appointed Caliph, but his predecessor hadalready placed many of his clan, the Ummayads, in leading positions in the growing Muslimempire and at least one of them, Mu'awiyah, the governor of Syria at Damascus and son of Muhammad's long-standing enemy Abu Sufyan, considered himself powerful enough tochallenge Ali for the control of the whole Muslim world. Ali found himself faced early in hiscaliphate with an insurrection led by a number of Muhammad's companions including hiswife Ayishah (who had proved to be Ali's inveterate foe even during Muhammad's lifetime)which was ostensibly started to avenge the blood of Uthman. Ali had failed to bring theformer caliph's murderers to justice and both Ayishah and Mu'awiyah used this as a causeagainst him and sought to displace him. Ayishah joined a force against him led by

Muhammad's companions Talha and Zubayr which was defeated by the caliph at the "Battleof the Camel (al-Jamal )", but a further battle fought at a place called Siffin in Syria, althoughit was a huge confrontation, ended inconclusively without victory for either Ali or Mu'awiyah. The former agreed to submit his cause to arbitration, however, and when thiswent against him many of his followers deserted him. The remainder, however, formed thenucleus from which the Shi'ah were to rise.

The conflict at the battle of Al-Jamal brought about a serious split in the Muslim Community.

... Those who supported `Ali at the battle of Al-Jamal and later at Siffin were first called the



"people of Iraq" (ahl al-Ìraq) as well as the "party of Àli" (shi'at ` Ali or al-` Alawiya). Their

opponents were called shi'at Ùthman or more commonly al-Ùthmaniyya. (Jafri, The Origins

and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, p.95).

Ali himself was later assassinated and although Mu'awiyah was almost certainly not involvedin the deed, he took the opportunity to establish himself as Caliph, a position that was to beheld by his clan, the Ummayads, for nearly a hundred years. Those who were isolated in the

process formed the kernel of the group of Muslims that was eventually to create theestablishment of a distinctly separate movement in Islam, namely the Shi'ah.

2. Ali and the Doctrine of the Twelve Imams.

The Shi'ah believe that Muhammad's nephew Ali (really his cousin, but much younger thanhim), who married his daughter Fatima, was his appointed successor and the first of theimams. They cite at least four occasions where Ali was especially singled out by Muhammadto act as his viceroy, namely as the standard-bearer at the battles of Badr, Khaybar and Taluk,and as his representative at his last pilgrimage. On this latter occasion Muhammad appointed

Ali to declare the provisions of Surah 9 t the multitude, in particular the command that the pagan Arabs would be barred from performing the Hajj until they embraced Islam (Surah9.28). Ali has become, for the Shi'ah, the great pontiff of Islam, the first of their twelve greatdivinely-inspired leaders.

The entire spiritual edifice of the Shi'a was built on the walaya (love and devotion) of Àli,

who became the first Shià imam. As a matter of fact, the walaya of Àli became the sole

criterion for judging true faith. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.6).

Although the title Amirul-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Faithful") has been applied by theSunnis to all the caliphs of Islam who have represented the Muslim world down the centuries,the Shi'ah apply this title to Ali alone. Although they regard the three campaigns mentioned

earlier and the appointment of Ali as Muhammad's envoy at the last pilgrimage before hisdeath as important evidences in favour of their assertion that Ali was the real successor of theProphet of Islam, they rely ultimately on another incident, which is said to have also occurredduring the last pilgrimage, to justify their assertions with conviction. It centres on an actionMuhammad allegedly took at a place called Ghadir Khumm on their way back to Medina:

According to Shi'ite beliefs, on returning home from the last pilgrimage to Mecca on the way

to Medina at a site called Ghadir Khumm the Prophet chose Ali as his successor before the

vast crowd that was accompanying him. The Shi'ites celebrate this event to this day as a

major religious feast marking the day when the right of Ali to succession was universally

acclaimed. (Nasr, Shi'ite Islam, p.68).

Muhammad is said to have appointed Ali to the walayati-ummah , the "general governorship"of the Muslim community, and to have designated him their new wali, that is, their guardian.Sunni Muslims naturally deny that this story has historical validity and do not believe thatMuhammad ever actually appointed a successor. They do, however, point to a last illness of their prophet at Medina, when he designated Abu Bakr to lead the prayers in his place, as asign that this man was the one really intended to be the first caliph of Islam. (Abu Bakr wasduly appointed as such on the death of Muhammad a few days later and was acknowledged



by the Muslims as their rightful leader). A typical perspective of the Shi'ah view of the eventssaid to have taken place at Ghadir, however, is found in this quote from a Shi'ite author:

On the historical occasion of the halt at Ghadir when the Prophet was returning from his last

pilgrimage to Mecca the Master in view of his approaching end took advantage of the large

following to announce formally that Ali was the leader of those whose leader was the

Prophet and delivered the well-known passage in the Quran to the effect that that day the

religion had been completed, clearly indicating that the Prophet had by the will of God

apointed Ali to be after him the leader of the world. (Hussain, "Shiah Islam", The Muslim

W orld , Vol.31, p.185).

Unlike the Sunnis who believed that the caliph should be elected by the democratic choice of the Muslim community (Ali was duly so-elected on the death of Uthman), the Shi'ah held thatthe election of the leader of the Muslims (an imam rather than a khalifah) belongs to Allahalone, vests in Ali and his offspoing, and that these imams are infallible men endowed with

perfect divine illumination and guidance to lead the Muslim community. The great Muslimscholar Ibn Khaldun defined the appointment and character of the imam as follows:

The expression, "the Shi'ahs", signifies companions or followers and its reference in legal

and theological terminology, ancient and modern, is to the partisans of `Ali and his sons.

They are agreed in the assertion that the Imamate is not an ordinary matter, to be left to be

determined by an assembly of the people, but the Imamate is a pillar of the faith, in fact the

very foundation of Islam. It is not regarded as permissible to think that the prophet could

have been unmindful of it, or that he would have left it to the people to determine. It was

necessary rather for him to appoint the Imam for the people, that the Imam himself should

be without sin great or small, and that `Ali was indeed the one whom Mohammed

designated. (Donaldson, "The Shiah Doctrine of the Imamate",The Muslim W orld , Vol.21,

p.14).

The Imam does not receive prophetic revelations, that is, he does not enjoy wahy (revelation), but is endowed with lutf (illumination) so that he can correctly interpret the revelationsalready given and guide the community.

The Imam, like the Prophet, is blessed with special grace (lutf ) from God, which renders him

immune to sin (ma'sum) before God makes him His witness (shahid ) to the people and His

proof (hujja) for them. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.20).

The Shi'ite concept of the divinely-inspired Imam deveoped to the point where it was believed that each Imam, in turn, was God's vicegerent on earth, one endowed with a full

knowledge not only of true religion but also of the true interpretation of the Qur'an.

The second fundamental principle embodied in the doctrine of the Imamate as elaborated

and emphasized by Ja'far was that of 'Ilm. This means that an Imam is a divinely inspired

possessor of a special sum of knowedge of religion, which can only be passed on before his

death to the following Imam. In this way the Imam of the time becomes the exclusively

authoritative source of nowledge in religious matters, and thus without his guidance no one

can keep to the right path. This special knowledge includes both the external (zahir ) and the



esoteric (batin) meanings of the Qur'an. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a

Islam, p.291).

After Ali the immediate Imams, in order were his sons (and thus Muhammad's grandsons)Hassan and Husain, and thereafter, in order of descent from Husain, Ali (generally knownZaynal-Abidin), Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja'far as-Sadiq. The last of these six leaders

became the real generator of Shi'ism in the form in which it has developed during thecenturies. Before him it was believed that the Imam should be both the spiritual and secular leader of the Muslim community and that he should rise in rebellion and endeavour to

become the ruler of the Muslim world. The Ummayad and Abbasid caliphs naturally sawthese men as serious pretenders to their thrones and sought to put them to death. Husain waskilled during an insurrection against the rule of Yazid, Mu'awiyah's son (we shall say more of his death shortly), and his immediate successors were both assassinated. It was Ja'far as-Sadiqwho finally taught that church and state in Islam could be separated and that the Shi'ites couldsubmit to their Imam as spiritual leader alone, thus solving the constant problem for theShi'ites of submitting to an Imam who did not enjoy control over the Muslim community.

All these questions were solved in accordance with Ja'far's explanation that it is not

necessary for a rightful Imam to combine the temporal power in his person or even claim

the political authority - the caliphate - if the circumstances did not allow him to do so. (Jafri,

The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, p.282).

Nonetheless the Abbasid caliphs remained very suspicious of the Shi'ah Imams and Ja'far himself, as well as the following five Imams (Musa Kazim, ar-Rida, Muhammad Taki, Ali

Naki and Hassan al-Askari), are all said to have been poisoned and thus assassinated as well.Only the twelfth Imam, Muhammad, is said to have escaped and gone into a prolongedoccultation. The Shi'ah believe that he guides the world to this day and will again manifesthimself in good time when circumstances will enable him to gain control of the Muslimworld. With him the twelve Imams, the Ithna Ashariyya, cease. Although there have been

many divisions within Shi'ite Islam (the most famous being the Zaydites, who gave their allegiance to Zayd instead of his half-brother Muhammad al-Baqir, and the Ismailis, who

believe that there were only seven Imams up to Musa Kazim's older son Ismail), theaforegoing account of the Imamate, its development as well as its doctrines, represents themainspring of Shi'ite thought and belief.

3. The Martyrdom of Husain and the Ta'ziah.

It has often been said that the ultimate figurehead of Shi'ism is not Muhammad but hisgrandson Husain. This is especially true in respect of the effect of Husain's death on thegrowing Shi'ite branch of Islam. It was also this event that gave Shi'ism its impetus.

After the death of Ali his son Hassan proclaimed himself Caliph but later agreed to abdicatein favour of the Ummayad ruler Mu'awiyah on the condition that the caliphate returned tohim on Mu'awiyah's death. Hassan predeceased Mu'awiyah, however, and the latter namedhis son Yazid, an irreligious young man, as his successor. Husain, the younger of the twins,was thereafter persuaded by the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq to stage an insurrection and he leftMedina with a band of followers to join the nucleus of what was later to become the Shi'itecommunity at Kufa. The small band of just over seventy men, however, was intercepted at



Karbala and mercilessly put to the sword on the 10th of Muharram, the first month of theIslamic year.

The battle of Karbala is considered by Shi'i piety to be as important in the religious history of

Muslims as the battle of Badr; its martyrs are as well favored by God as those of Badr.

(Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam, p.124).

Although the death of Husain appears to have been the natural result of an ill-advised political rebellion, Shi'ite Muslims have transformed it into an agonising martyrdom,claiming that Husain knew only too well what was to befall him but sought, through hissufferings, to set an example for his followers so that they too might become purified byenduring all manner of persecution for their faith. "The fall of Husain, a quite mediocre

person, excites the Shi'as to the point of delirium". (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.144). One of the Shi'ah says:

In the case of Husayn, a careful study and analysis of the events of Karbala as a whole

reveals the fact that from the very beginning Husayn was planning for a complete revolution

in the religious consciousness of the Muslims. All of his actions show that he was aware of the fact that a victory achieved through military strength and might is always temporal,

because another stronger power can in course of time bring it down in ruins. But a victory

achieved through suffering and sacrifice is everlasting and leaves permanent imprints on

man's consciousness. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, p.202).

Redemption through suffering has thus become one of the major tenets of Shi'ite Islam,although it is not redemption through the vicarious atonement wrought through the sufferingsof another, as in Christianity. Each of the Shi'ah must redeem himself through his willingnessto undergo various deprivations and sufferings in emulation of Husain who made the supremesacrifice. The sufferings of the other Imams, whether before or after Husain, are only seen as

typical of the sufferings of this one man who is at the heart of the Shi'ite worship and piety.Even the sufferings of Muhammad himself are said to be only symbolic of the sufferings of Husain.

Their suffering and sorrows are in turn intensely concentrated in the sufferings of one man,

'the wronged martyr', Imam Husayn, son of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Indeed, all sufferings before are

but a prelude to his, the final act in a long drama of tribulation. He is the seal of the martyrs

and their chief. All suffering and martyrdom after him are only modes of participation in his

martyrdom. (Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam, p.27).

Although the Shi'ite concept of redemption through pious suffering differs in many ways

from the Christian doctrine of salvation through the sufferings of Jesus Christ (the Shi'iteMuslims must imitate Husain to be redeemed, the Christian is redeemed by union with Christin his sufferings and death), the very concept draws Shi'ite Islam towards the Gospel. Thisapplies in particular to the Ta'ziah ("consolation") celebrations on the 10th of Muharram.

The celebration culminates in the Muharram rites when the tragedy of Husain is re-enacted

with intense emotion. Here, more than anywhere in Sunni Islam, the Shi'ah Muslim comes to

grips with the mystery of suffering and grapples with areas of meaning the average Sunni

ignores. (Cragg", The Call of the Minaret , p.132).



The Ta'ziah celebrations are mainly twofold in expression; the one being the ta'ziah majlis, a"passion-play" reenacting the tragedy at Karbala, and the other being a procession of floatscommemorating the tombs of the "martyrs" who died with Husain. The latter ceremony has

been widely adopted by Sunni Muslims in the countries of central Asia as well. (It is also practiced by Sunni Muslims in Durban, South Africa, and remains a popular ceremony,though it is frowned upon by orthodox Muslims). For the Shi'ah, however, the Muharram

celebrations are perhaps the most important in their annual religious observances.

Furthermore a visit to the tomb of Husain at Karbala (such a visit is known as a ziyarah) is asimportant to the Shi'ah - if not superior to - a pilgrimage to Mecca. If Abdul Qadir al-Jilanihas displaced Muhammad in the eyes of the "Sufi-worshipping public" as Rahman has put it,Husain has likewise become the most prominent figure in the worship and convictions of theShi'ite Muslims.

4. Some of the Tenets of Shi'ite Islam.

Apart from the major difference regarding the authority of the Caliphate/Imamate, the Shi'ahalso have a number of tenets distinguishing them from the Sunnis. Like the Mu'tazilah of old

(of whom we will hear more in the last section), the Shi'ah believe in a created Qur'an "andnot uncreated and eternal as taught by the Asha'ira and officially accepted by Sunni Islam"(Jafri, The Origins and E arly Development of S hi'a Islam, p.312).

So far as human liberty is concerned, the Shi'ites, in general, came near to Mu'tazilism, and

declared their belief in a created Qur'an. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions,

p.40).

The Shi'ah appear to be closer to the Qur'an in teaching, however, that only three periods of prayer should be observed each day. They do not deny the need for seventeen raka'at everyday but, whereas the Sunnis spread these over five periods in pursuance of the hadith we have

already mentioned, the Shi'ah perform them during their morning, afternoon and evening prayers.

The only singular quality of Shi'ite practice in this respect is that instead of performing the

five prayers completely separately, usually Shi'ites say the noon and afternoon prayers

together, as well as the evening and the night prayers. (Nasr, Shi'ite Islam, p.231).

The Shi'ah also believe that many passages of the Qur'an have a hidden meaning not readilyapparent to the reader. Only the twelve Imams, they say, had a perfect knowledge of the book and its esoteric (ta'wil ) interpretation.

Shi'ite exegesis also differs from traditional Sunnite exegesis in that it favours allegorical

interpretation and finds in certain circumstances a many-faceted meaning for Qur'anic

passages, with deeper and deeper significance. (Gätje, The Qur 'an and its Exegesis, p.39).

A modern Shi'ah writer puts this in his own words: "The whole of the Quran possesses thesense of ta'wil, of esoteric meaning, which cannot be comprehended directly through humanthought alone. Only the prophets and the pure among the saints of God who are free from thedross of human imperfection can contemplate these meanings while living on the present

plane of existence" (Nasr, S hi'ite Islam, p.99). One cannot help feeling that this doctrine is an



expedient developed to accomodate the Shi'ite tendency to read its tenets and beliefs in theQur'an and to justify the many occasions where texts with a plain meaning are forced to yieldobscure meanings not at all suggested by the original sense, and that purely to suit Shi'itefancies. One writer in consequence defines the Shi'ah as "unsurpassed in Islam as falsifiers of history" (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism , p.17).

Another peculiar Shi'ite concept is that of "dissimulation" (taqiyah), that is, the hiding of one's faith in times of risk and danger. This practice was apparently first advocated by someof the Imams who had "declared it to be an incumbent act on their followers, so as not to

press for the establishment of the 'Alid rule and the overthrow of the illegitimate caliphate"(Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.29). To the Shi'ah this was regarded as nothing more thanan inoffensive and prudent concealment of one's allegiance, but Sunni writers haveunderstandably attacked it as hypocritical and cowardly. One finds that Shi'ah writers todaystrive to exonerate their religion from such charges. Two examples of such efforts follow:

Some have criticized Shi'ism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is

opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this

accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for taqiyah must be practiced in a situation where

man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. (Nasr,Shi'ite

Islam, p.224).

We may conclude from all these traditions that the real meaning of tagiya is nottelling a lie or falsehood, as it is often understood, but the protection of the truereligion and its followers from enemies through concealment in circumstances wherethere is fear of being killed or captured or insulted. (Jafri, The Origins and E arly

Development of S hi'a Islam, p.300).

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these are weak arguments employed purely as a tokendefence of an obviously vulnerable doctrine. Indeed the distinctive tenets of Shi'ism very

often compare most unfavourably with Sunni Islam and there can be little doubt that Shi'ismis ultimately a defection from the original Islam of Muhammad, his companions, and thedoctors of Sunni law.

5. The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam.

The great hope of the Shi'ah is the return of Muhammad ibn al-Askari, the celebrated twelfthImam who allegedly went into hiding and will remain concealed until the world is ripe for arevolution to instal Shi'ite Islam as the major world religion and power. It is said thatMuhammad, the twelfth Imam, was sent into hiding for no less than sixty-eight years (from874 to 941 AD) in what was known as the ghaybatul-sughra (the "Lesser Occultation") andthat he was finally translated out of his natural physical existence into a completeconcealment in which he will remain until he returns, known as the ghaybatul-kubra (the"Greater Occultation"). A typical way in which the Shi'ah read "esoteric" (ta'wil ) meaningsinto the Qur'an is their interpretation of the words "that which is left you by God is best for you" (Surah 11.86), which ostensibly apply to God's laws, to mean the hidden Imam whoremains until the end of the world! This meaning seems to be wishful in the extreme as thereis no evidence elsewhere in the Qur'an or in the Hadith to back up the return of the twelfthImam.



There is no reference to any such person in the Qur'an, nor is there in the earliest strata of

Tradition, nor in the earliest creeds. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p.145).

Nonetheless the Shi'ah universally declare their belief in the reappearance ( zuhur ) and returnof al-Qa'imul-Mahdi ("the one who will rise, the guided one") who, they believe will bringabout peace, justice and security.

Under such a rule the loyal shi'a of the twelve Imams will find their exalted position, and

under the just government of al-Qa'im they will be able to share the blessings of a world free

from "oppression and tyranny". The main purpose of thezuhur is to humble or destroy the

evil forces of this world and establish fully just Islamic rule. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism,

p.173).

During his lesser occultation the twelfth Imam is said to have communicated with the Shi'ahthrough four representatives, each one known as a safir . Today he guides the leaders of theShi'ah through indirect inspiration, the now famous ayatollahs (ayat-Allah - "sign of Allah")

being regarded as the chief sources of his guidance.

It is true that many Sunni Muslims also believe that a mahdi will arise towards the end of time, but many discount this as there is no mention of such a person in either the Qur'an or the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Shi'ah, however, all believe that the hiddenMuhammad ibn al-Askari will be the Imam Mahdi. What is most significant, on the other hand, is the possibility that the eleventh Imam, al-Hassan al-Askari, actually had no son atall!

According to the early Imamite sources al-Askari did not leave a publicly acknowledged son,

nor did he determine upon or install his successor openly. (Hussain, The Occultation of the

Twelfth Imam, p.57).

There was much dispute as to whether a son had been born to al-Askari and as he could not be found it became expedient to claim that he had gone into concealment. The usualexplanation of the mysterious disappearance of this unknown leader is given in this account:

The circumstances which accompanied the birth of al-Askari's son suggest that al-Askari

wanted to save his successor from the restrictive policy of the Abbasids, which had been

established by al-Ma'mun. Hence he did not circulate in public the news concerning the birth

ot his son, but only disclosed it to a few reliable followers, such as Abu Hashim al-Ja'fari,

Ahmad b. Ishaq, and Hakima and Khadija, the aunts of al-Askari. (Hussain, The Occultation of

the Twelfth Imam, p.75).

An investigation satisfied the Abbasid caliph at the time (al-Mutamid), however, that al-Askari had left no offspring. The doctrine of a lesser and greater ghaybah appears to have

been a pious figment invented to explain the sudden and unexpected cessation of theImamate.

There does not appear to be much in Shi'ism to commend it over and against Sunni Islam. Itis, nonetheless, a major branch of Islam and one which is increasingly making its presencefelt.




C. A STUDY OF THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT.

1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian.

During the latter part of the last century the Muslims of the Punjab area in north-west India began to take notice of a Muslim writer from the village of Qadian named Mirza GhulamAhmad. This man wrote a number of treatises attacking Christianity and Hinduism and in1880 began an extensive work entitled Barahin-i-Ahmadiyah which defended Islam from theonslaughts of Christian missionaries and the Arya Samaj, a militant Hindu organisation. Atfirst this work, published in four volumes, was favourably received by the Muslims and itappeared that a mujaddid , a worthy defender of Islam, had risen. These sentiments, however,soon gave way to almost universal opposition as the Mirza began to make one extravagantclaim after another for himself. He arrogated to himself the title of "promised Messiah", thatis, one raised in the Spirit of Jesus whom the Muslims believed would return to earth but

whom the Mirza said was buried at Srinagar, a town in the Punjab. He also claimed to be theMahdi as well as a prophet of Allah and even a re-incarnation of Krishna, one of the leadingHindu idols!

With the declaration that he was masih maw'ud (the Promised Messiah), mahdi of the

Muslims and that he appeared in the likeness of Jesus who had died in Kashmir and was no

longer in heaven, Ghulam Ahmad committed himself to a renewal of Islam by a process

which most Muslims concidered heresy. (Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement , p.38).

He said he was receiving divine revelations and by the end of his life had proclaimed that noone was a true Muslim unless he acknowledged him as the Mahdi whom Allah was to send

into the world. Signs of the man's remarkable opinion of himself appeared even in the Barahin when his mission was still in its early stages. Although the work showed no realfamiliarity with Christianity and very little evidence of true research he nonetheless hadconvinced himself that he was Islam's answer to the missionary problem as he saw it.

The reader also frequently encounters in the Mirza's book references to his Divinely inspired

revelations, in miracles and to Divine communication and prophecies, and last but not the

least, his boastfulness. All this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth and transforms the

book, which claims to embody a sober academic discussion and a dignified religious debate,

into a work of personal bragging - a work in which, again and again, the author stoops to

self-advertisement and self-glorification. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study , p.29).

Although he boldly claimed to be God's man for the hour there are innumerable evidences toconvict him of fraudulence both from a Christian and a Muslim perspective. We shall quote afew of his false prophecies shortly but it can be mentioned here that he at one time stated thathis four-volume Barahin would in time be expanded into fifty volumes. Later, by a stroke of the devious kind of reasoning one finds in so many of his writings, he reduced this to five andclaimed he would be fulfilling his promise as the only difference between five and fifty (inArabic and Urdu) is a dot. Even then the fifth volume only appeared in 1905, no less thantwentyfive years later. He had called for pre-publication subscriptions many years earlier for



the volume and a number of people duly ordered it. "During this period, a large number of people who had paid in advance for all the five volumes but had received only four volumeshad passed away" (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical S tudy, p. 28). Furthermore the last volumewas a far cry from the earlier works. Those had been basically Islamic in teaching but the lastcontained a dogmatic presentation of Ghulam Ahmad's arrogant claims for himself and muchof its teaching contradicted his earlier works and, with them, orthodox Islam. In the

intervening years his initial polemics, directed against Christians and Hindus, had given wayto a wholesome onslaught on much of Islam itself.

Henceforth, instead of debating with Christians and Arya Samajis he turned towards Muslims

and began to challenge them to debate with him. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study , p. 35).

It was his claim to be a prophet, a veritable nabi, that antagonised most of his Muslimopponents.On one occasion he wrote "God had revealed to me that every one who hasreceived my call and has not accepted it is not a Muslim" (quoted in Nadwi, op.cit., p.57) andin his work entitled Tatimmah Haqiqat ul-Wahi he made similar grandiose claims for himself.His unashamed personal bragging and boastfulness are revealed very clearly in this quote inthe book mentioned:

"No Prophet came into this world whose name was not given to me. In Burahin-i- Ahmadiya

God has affirmed me as Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Ishaque, Yaqub, Ismail, Moses, Dawud, Isa,

son of Mary, and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I am the

incarnation of all these Prophets". (Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p. 119).

In another work quoted on the same page he said of his generation: "In this U mmat , thedistinction of being called a Prophet was bestowed upon me alone and all others areundeserving of this appellation". As all Muslims believe that Muhammad was the seal of the

prophets and that there will be no prophet after him, it is hardly surprising that GhulamAhmad was bitterly opposed by orthodox Muslims. His son and second "Khalifah", Mirza

Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, sought to justify his father's claim in these words:

But it is equally valid to say that the expression 'the last prophet' does not prohibit the

coming of prophets who imitate the life and example of the Holy Prophet, teach nothing

new, and only follow him and his teaching; who are charged with the duty of spreading the

Holy Prophet's teaching, who attribute their spiritual acquisitions including prophethood to

the spiritual example and influence of their preceptor and master, the Holy Prophet.

(Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadigyat , p.46).

In yet another publication issued in 1901 by the Mirza to defend his position he said "... mycontention is that there is nothing objectionable in my being called nabi and rasul after the

Holy Prophet ..." (quoted in Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement , p.47). It hardly matterswhether there is, as his followers claim, a distinction between his prophethood and that of Muhammad. No claimant to any kind of prophethood after Muhammad is likely to befavourably received by the Muslim world as a whole.

That Mirza Ghulam Ahmad walked a fine line on the question of prophecy is clear. He

claimed everything except that he was another prophet in succession of Muhammad

himself. ... But, by prophesying against Muslims, and not only against Hindus and Christians,



and by using the term nabi to describe himself, he did grave offence to Muslim sensibilities.

(Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement , p.58).

2. The Ahmadiyya Movement - Its Tenets and Branches.

Although the Mirza began as a polemicist within the Islamic fold his extreme claims soonensured that his followers were alienated from the mainstream of Muslim life and it wasinevitable that they should form a separate group. They are known by the title they gavethemselves - Ahmadiyya - which they say refers to Muhammad's other name and not to their founder. (Muslims generally refer to them as "Qadianis" after the small, insignificant villagewhere he was born). Their own general antagonism towards traditional Islam finally led tothe point where leading Pakistani theologians sought to have them denounced as non-Muslims. The late Maulana Abul a'la Maududi said of them:

To these few examples has now been added the case of the Qadiani group concerning whom

all the Ulama of Islam and the general body of the Muslims have arrived at a consensus that

they should be proclaimed Heretics and that this finding of Heresy against them includes

also their expulsion from the pale of Islam. In the presence of the Qadiani religion, wecannot live with them as one nation and still be Muslims and Believers. (Maududi, The

Qadiani Problem, p.103).

In 1974 they were duly declared a non-Muslim minority by the Government of Pakistan, thecountry where they have their headquarters to this day. They have also been barred at timesfrom performing the pilgrimage to Mecca. Apart from Ghulam Ahmad's prophetic claimsthey have also been denounced by Muslim writers for denying the Muslim concept of jihad as meaning holy war, claiming this refers solely to striving in the way of Allah (acommendable approach but one inconsistent with the Qur'an which plainly teaches that jihadmeans fighting and warfare as we have seen). There are many other issues on which theydistance themselves from historical Islam. Ghulam Ahmad was also reviled for constantly

praising British rule in India and for seeking the protection of the colonial regime whenopposition became heated.

Six years after the death of the Mirza in 1908 the Ahmadiyya Movement began to split intotwo groups, known today as the Ahmadis and the Lahoris. The former are based in Rabwah,Pakistan, while the latter, as their name indicates, operate from Lahore. The chief cause of this split was the determination of a group of leading Ahmadiyya intellectuals to bring themovement back towards traditional Islam and make it more acceptable to Muslims generally.The two prominent leaders of this group were Khwaja Kamal ud-Din and Muhammad Ali.The former operated in England for many years while the latter became a prominent author and the translator of the first widely-accepted Muslim translation of the Qur'an. The Lahoris

have generally played down Ahmad's prophetic claims, referring to him usually as the"promised Messiah" alone.

The split between the Qadiyani Ahmadis and those from Lahore focussed primarily on

personality conflicts and also on a divergent interpretation of the role of the Promised

Messiah for Islam. ... The Lahore Ahmadiyas particularly were anxious to demonstrate their

unity with Sunni Islam and the forward thrust of those seeking political identity for the

Muslims. (Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement , p.122).



The Lahoris have moved towards the rational approach to Islam first adopted by Syed AhmedKhan, a nineteenth-century Muslim modernist, denying the miracles of the prophets and thelike. The Ahmadis, however, who have become active throughout the world, remain true toGhulam Ahmad's original stand. The split led to sharp recriminations between the Mirza'sson, Mahmud Ahmad, who maintained his father's claims to prophethood, and MuhammadAli, who led the Lahori branch away from the extravagance of these claims towards

mainstream Islam. It does appear, however, that the Ahmadis remain the true representativesof the self-styled prophet Ghulam Ahmad.

It is also beyond doubt that this group faithfully represents the teachings of the Mirza, in so

far as he had claimed prophethood for himself in clear and vigorous terms. But the

standpoint of the Lahori branch, whose leader until a few years ago was Maulvi Muhammad

Ali (d. 1952), is enigmatic to the core. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study , p.120).

The Lahore group operates today under the name of Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-i-Islam andwhile it is not engaged in much propaganda it does publish many works. One writer definesthe points of agreement and difference between this group and the Ahmadis as follows,

saying of the former:

The seceders admit that they regard other Mussalmans as Moslems and not "Kafirs"

(unbelievers), as do the followers of Bashir Ahmad; and they repudiate the alleged

superstition of the latter, but, on the other hand, they continue true to Ahmad's unique

teaching regarding the death and burial of Jesus in Kashmir, they regard Ahmad as the

reformer sent for this generation, and they hold that, in time, all Mohammedans will accept

those two facts and that so the breach will be healed. They do not regard as important

Ahmad's decrees, that no Ahmadi shall follow an orthodox imam in prayer or attend a non-

Ahmadi's funeral service, and that no Ahmadi shall give the hand of his daughter to a non-

Ahmadi husband although his son may marry non-Ahmadi girls. They regard these

prohibitions as having had only a temporary significance in the early days of the movement,and hence no longer important. (Walter, "The Ahmadiya Movement Today",The Muslim

W orld , Vol.6, p.69).

The great division between the Ahmadiyya Movement and historical Islam is, ironically, based on diverse views about the person of Jesus Christ. Ghulam Ahmad soon becameconvinced that traditional Muslim beliefs about Jesus leaned far too far over towardsChristianity and sought to "correct" them. A brief study of his attitudes and consequentialanti-Christian prejudices will help to show why this sect has been denounced by bothChristians and Muslims.

3. The Ahmadiyya Attitude Towards Jesus Christ.Ghulam Ahmad taught two things about Jesus that were to become fundamental toAhmadiyya doctrine and which stand out from traditional Muslim beliefs. On the one hand hetaught that the second coming of the Son of Mary was a spiritual descension and that it had

been fulfilled in him.On the other he taught that Jesus had not ascended to heaven but hadsurvived the cross in a swoon and that he went away to Kashmir in India where he died at theage of a hundred and twenty years and was buried in Srinagar. (An ancient tomb of one "Yus



It is noteworthy that the polemic centres on the death and resurrection of Christ, and on His

sinlessness. The method is to get behind the Gospel testimony with the help of destructive

criticism by Western scholars, and so to eliminate the living message of the evangel.

(Stanton, "The Ahmadiya Movement", The Muslim W orld , Vol.15, p.15).

He considered that the Islamic doctrine of the ascension and return of Jesus went a long waytowards supporting the Christian belief that Jesus was the eternal Son of God seated at theright hand of the Father and so sought relentlessly to prove that he had died and had been

buried in India. In one of his works he said to the ulama "Let the God of Christians die. Howlong will you go on calling him the living one, the undying. Is there any limit to it?" (quotedin Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical S tudy, p.47). In many other sayings and writings one findsevidence that he was grimly determined to refashion the image and life of Jesus until heappeared to be no more than a rather weak and unsuccessful prophet of Israel. OneAhmadiyya writer, following in the steps of his founder, once said "Jesus excelled in nothingexcept deception and fraud. It is a pity that the ignorant Christians believe such a person to bedivine" (quoted in Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p.51). Above all the Mirza sought todivide Islam as far as he could frnm Christianity.

To achieve this he was prepared to jettison certain Islamic beliefs which, in his view,

compromised the standing of Islam in relation to Christianity, and thus to make some

sacrifice of orthodoxy in the interests of a more vigorous anti-Christianity. ... In pursuit of his

resolve that Islam must be cleansed of a lingering excess of respect for Jesus, he sought to

eliminate those traditional beliefs, which had come into Islam after its expansion, relating to

Christ as returning from Heaven to the world in order to subdue anti-Christ and bring in a

Muslim millenial state of bliss and righteousness. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret , p.249,

250).

His prejudiced attitude towards Christianity is reflected in the writings of his son who on one

occasion had no qualms about declaring that Dajjal (the Muslim concept of the anti-Christ)and Christianity were "one and the same thing" and claimed that the appearance of Christianevangelists in India was proof that the ultimate moment of evil had arrived, saying "theappearance of the Dadjjal is the appearance of Christian propagandists" (Ahmad, Invitation to

Ahmadiyyat , p.117). It is hardly surprising that the Ahmadiyya Movement has antagonisedChristians and given them little sympathy for it. Traditional Islam appears mild and friendlytowards Christianity in comparison! Islam itself has revolted against this movement inconsequence of its abusive attitude towards orthodox Muslims (Ghulam Ahmad constantlyderided them as "Jews" and regularly reviled Muslim leaders as "offsprings of harlots",

prophesying all manner of vengeance and destruction against them).

Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Mirza's son, on many occasions bigotedly claimed that

whereas Islam, because of its nebulous beliefs about Jesus, would constantly recede beforeChristianity, Ahmadiyyat would on the contrary destroy it. In one book he wrote entitledWhat is Ahmadiyyat?, in a statement reflecting both his wishful extremism and correspondingarrogant bigotry, he said "Christian missionaries and workers now hesitate to confrontAhmadiyyat. Jamaat in Africa has put an end to Christian work in that continent" (!) (quotedin Brush, "Ahmadiyyat in Pakistan", The Muslim World , Vol.45, p. 167). In his other famouswork, with tongue-in-cheek, he cheerfully said of Christianity "The most powerful among theenemy religions, which was full of pride over its universal success and regarded Islam as its

prey, has suffered such a blow that its votaries take to their heels as soon as they hear of the



approach of an Ahmadi exponent. A Christian missionary cannot stand before an Ahmadi"(Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat , p.132). The Mirza himself once prophesied that he wouldfulfil the Muslim belief that Jesus would "break the cross" on his return and that Christianitywas destined to be destroyed during his lifetime - just one of those many hollow prophecieshe made that has hardly borne any evidence of fulfilment. It will be useful to conclude thisstudy of the Ahmadiyya Movement by examining a few other prophecies he made and their

respective outcomes.

4. The Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

No prophet should be without the ability to prophesy future events and Ghulam Ahmad, trueto his assumed vocation, produced a wealth of such prophecies. The mark of a true prophet,however, is the fulfilment of his prophecies (Deuteronomy 18.22) and it is here that the"promised Messiah" proved himself to be a pretender for so many of his bold predictionsfailed to come to pass. We shall consider just a small selection of the prophecies of thefounder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and the explanations given to explain away their non-fulfilment.

The first concerns an elderly Muslim convert to Christianity, one Abdullah Athim, who helda series of debates with the Mirza over a period of twelve days. As these became increasinglyacrimonious Ghulam Ahmad prophesied that whichever of the two of them was speaking lieswould die within fifteen months and be cast into hell. This was a very subtle prediction as theChristian leader was already sixty-five years old, of poor health, and two hot summers wereyet to pass before this period expired. (There appears to be little doubt that the period wasshrewdly calculated and there was a strong possibility that the prophecy would be naturallyfulfilled). Unfortunately for the Mirza, however, Athim proved to be in better health than hehad been for a long time when the prophesied period expired. A few days thereafter a Muslimwriter, whose letter is quoted in the source here referred to, said:

Was this prophecy fulfilled according to Mirza Sahib's description? No - never. Abdullah

Authom is still safe and sound and he has not been punished by death to be flung into hell. I

do not think it is possible to make a different interpretation of this prophecy than what it

clearly means to be. (Durrani, Fallacy of MirzaGhulam Ahmad Qadiani , p.36).

The Mirza's son, however, laboured to prove that this prophecy had indeed been fulfilled,even though Athim continued to live on for a long time after he was expected to die. Bashir ud-Din gave these explanations:

He suffered great mental anguish, a sort of hell. ... These hallucinations constituted the

mental hell into which Atham had fallen. It was the result of remorse, of feelings of guilt

over his support of Christianity and hostility to Islam. ... Atham began to have doubts about

Jesus' divinity. The truth of Islam began to dawn upon his mind. On his retreat God

completed the second step of this part of the prophecy. Atham was saved from death even

though fear and guilt had driven him very near it. He was saved because he had retreated.

(Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyah, p.250).

The author gives no evidence in favour of the claim that the Christian leader began to doubtthe divinity of Jesus - a claim typical of many made by the Mirza and his followers over theyears which were patently untrue and conjured up to suit the Ahmadiyya cause. In any event



one must surely be extremely gullible to entertain suggestions that the hell was "a sort of hell" or a "mental hell" and that God had spared the Christian leader because he allegedly nolonger wrote critically against Islam!

When Jesus said he would rise from the dead on the third day, it happened just as he had said.When he predicted that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and would be destroyed

with its Temple, it happened just as he said. His prophecies were fulfilled exactly as he madethem. Not so Ghulam Ahmad - when his bold claims proved to be entirely presumptuous,

both he and his followers had to resort to peculiar lines of reasoning to prove they had beenduly "fulfilled".

The second prophecy concerns a young Muslim woman named Muhammadi Begum. TheMirza was infatuated with her and even though she was refused to him by her father he

predicted again and again that he would marry her and claimed that God had wed her to himas Zaynab had been wed to Muhammad (Surah 33.37). Not long afterwards she was marriedto an orthodox Muslim named Sultan Muhammad. What followed has an element of tragedyabout it:

On the strength of prophecy Mirza Sahib wanted to marry Muhammadi Begum and to

achieve his object, he used threats. In spite of that the girl was married to another person.

Yet he did not lose hope because of his prophecy. In pursuance of this ambition, he

disrupted his family, divorced his wife in old age, disowned his young children causing

forfeiture of their rights of inheritance and estranged all the members of the family and

ultimately instead of the death of Sultan Muhammad, the girl's husband or Ahmad Baig, the

girl's father, as prophecied by him, he himself died in utter despair. (Durrani, Fallacy of Mirza

Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani , p.28).

The threats spoken of included yet another wild prophecy to the effect that SultanMuhammad would within two-and-a-half years duly pass away. When he also outlived themeasure of the days assigned to him by Ghulam Ahmad the latter, with his usual casuistry,claimed that God had "postponed" the demise of his foe. Instead the Mirza died in 1908 whilethe "usurper" of his God-ordained bride outlived him by many years. The Mirza, as quoted inthe work here mentioned, had prophesied almost fatefully against himself when he made thissignificant prediction:

I say again and again that the prophecy about the son-in-law of Ahmad Beg (that is, Sultan

Muhammad), is assuredly predestined. Wait for it. If I am a liar, this prophecy would not be

fulfilled and my death will come. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study , p.96).

He can be judged according to his own words and his own mouth condemns him. The

marriage that had been made in heaven failed to take place on earth.

The third and last prophecy we shall consider relates to the Mirza's claim to be the "promisedMessiah" in the light of the Muslim tradition which states that the Son of Mary will descendon a minaret known as the Isaya Minarah in Damascus when he returns to earth:

Then Jesus son of Mary will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. (Sunan

Abu Dawud , Vol.3, p.1202).



Naturally, as he claimed to be the fulfilment of all the prophecies relating to the secondcoming of Jesus, he had to somehow contrive a fulfilment of this one as well. In one work entitled Hashia Azala-i-Awham he stated that God had revealed to him that Damascus wasonly a synonym for his home town of Qadian and that its name appeared in the tradition

because the two towns were supposedly very similar! He added that the tradition had always puzzled scholars, a claim for which he adduces no evidence. On this occasion, however, he

departed from his usual practice of twisting and contriving his way through his own and other prophecies and personally had a minaret built in Qadian to complete the fulfilment of the prophetic tradition! In 1903 he laid its foundations and after his death the minaret wascompleted by his son Mahmud Ahmad. After all, a good prophet should always do his best tosee that his prophecies are fulfilled!

Our brief study of the Mirza and his prophecies shows that he very adequately fills the role of one of the false prophets and false Christs that Jesus said would appear during the newcovenant age (Matthew 24.24), and it does not surprise us therefore to find that he possesseda particularly vindictive attitude towards Christianity. Although the Ahmadiyya Movementhas made some progress over the years, it is still a relatively minor sect and one whichorthodox Islam remains determined to exclude from the Muslim fold.


D. OTHER IMPORTANT SECTS IN MUSLIM HISTORY.

1. The Kharijites - the Early Seceders of Islam.

The first major sect that appeared in the history of Islam was made up of the K hawarij or Kharijites as they are known to us. The word means "those who go out", that is, seceders.They appeared as a separate group after the Battle of Siffin when Ali submitted his conflictwith Mu'awiyah to arbitration. Although his followers had unanimously influenced him intothis course of action, a section broke away afterwards, claiming that no caliph of Allahshould submit the cause of God to the discretion of man. This group thus became the nucleusof the Kharijite movement in Islam, a dogmatic and fanatical sect which plagued Iraq for many years.

Those very men who had forced upon the Caliph the arbitration afterwards repudiated it,

and rose in rebellion against him for consenting to their demand for arbitration. They were

the original K hawarij (insurgents), who became afterwards an enormous source of evil to

Islam. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p.298).

They taught that the Qur'an was the sole authority over every Muslim and thus believed thatthey could revolt against any form of secular Muslim rule and indiscriminately kill allunbelievers - including Muslims generally who did not join them - and carry off their

property as booty. Ali spent much of his time fighting against the Kharijites who began toterrorise much of the Muslim world during his caliphate. They also claimed that anyoneguilty of a grave sin was an infidel and would automatically be excluded from Paradise for ever even though he was a professing Muslim, unless he fully repented of his sin.



The man who commits a mortal sin (kabira) is treated by them as an apostate (murtadd ),

and consequently as an unbeliever (kafir ); his person and goods are no longer protected,

and he is excluded from the community. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions,

p.37).

This group did not last long, however, (mercifully for the peace-loving Muslim communitiesin Iraq) but it did provide an example which was to be followed in later centuries by other sects, in particular the Wahbabis of whom we will hear more shortly. It also set the pace for anumber of sects and divisions that were to take place in the coming eras, of which Shi'iteIslam has proved to be the most enduring.

2. The Mu'tazilah - the so-called "Free-Thinkers".

Within a hundred years after the death of Muhammad a somewhat rationalistic approach toIslam, influenced by Greek Christian thinking, began to challenge the dogmatic, deterministicnature of orthodox faith. Those who taught that man had a free will as opposed to theorthodox who believed that Allah's will was the cause and effect of all that is, were

nicknamed the Qadariyah because they seemed to deny God's fore-ordination and controlover all things and taught that man possessed this qadar , this power to determine his owndestiny instead. These "free-thinkers" later became known as the Mu'tazilah, a name meaning"those who have withdrawn", allegedly derived from an incident where one al-Hasan was

being asked whether a grave sinner was a believer or not.

According to this account someone asked al-Hasan al-Basri whether they should regard the

grave sinner as a believer or an unbeliever. While al-Hasan hesitated, Wasil ibn-Ata, one of

those in the circle, burst into the discussion with the assertion that the grave sinner was

neither, but was in an intermediate position (manzila bayn al-manzilatayn) literally "a

position between the two positions". He then withdrew to another pillar of the mosque,

followed by a number of those in the circle, whereupon al-Hasan remarked "Wasil has

withdrawn (i'tazala) from us". From this remark came the name Mu'tazila. (Watt, The

Formative Period of Islamic Thought , p.209).

The doctrine of an intermediate state in time likewise became one of the basic tenets of Mu'tazilism. Another major difference between the Mu'tazilah and orthodox Islam relates tothe Qur'an, whether it is created or the uncreated Word of Allah. The Mu'tazilah taught thatas God had neither place, form, body, movement or features, his speech must be consideredas separate from his being and so the Qur'an must be created. During the climax of Mu'taziliteinfluence, when even one or two of the Abbasid caliphs supported their views, manyorthodox scholars (including Ahmad ibn Hanbal) were severely treated because of their opposition to such views.

The controversy about the Qur'an came to assume a central role as far as the Mu'tazila were

concerned, a controversy which was ultimately responsible for their downfall. At the peak of

their influence under the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun, the doctrine of the eternity of the

Qur'an was proscribed by decree and the holders of the conservative view were subject to

flogging, imprisonment and death. But this had the effect of causing Ibn Hanbal to assume

the role of martyr and of winning him and his like popular sympathy. (Scale, Muslim

Theology , p.67).



The Abbaside Caliph el-Mamun made an edict declaring the Qoran to be created. Thisedict was confirmed by his successors, Mu'tasim and Wathik, who whipped,imprisoned and put to death those who held otherwise. Mutawakhil (A.D. 847-861)revoked the edict, and put an end to the persecutions. (Roberts, The S ocial Laws of the

Qoran, p.118).

The major dispute between the two parties, however, was over the nature of God's being andhis control over every man's destiny. An example of how both used the Qur'an appears from adebate between the prominent Qadariyah, Ghailan ibn Marwan, and the pious UmmayadCaliph Umar the Second. The former quoted the words "We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)" (Surah 76.3) to show that man can respond toGod's guidance as he chooses, but in reply the Caliph asked him to read on to the words"Whosoever will, let him take a (straight) path to his Lord, but ye will not, except as Godwills" (Surah 76. 29-30) to prove the opposite.

In those early days the orthodox took expressions like the "face of Allah" (wajhullah) andother words implying that Allah creates with his hands, sees all things, and hears the prayersof the faithful, in a quite literal manner. Against such open anthropomorphism the Mu'tazilah

reacted.

Mu'tazilism believes in the absolute oneness of God, opposes all dualism, Manichaean or

otherwise, rejects anthropomorphism and denies in God any attribute apart from his

essence (dhat). (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p.34).

The well-known Muslim scholar Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, in his treatise on the various"philosophic" systems that developed in Islam entitled Al-Farq baynal-Firaq, defined their doctrine as "the common denial that Allah has eternal qualities; the affirmation that Allah hasneither knowledge, nor power, nor life, nor hearing, nor seeing, nor any eternal attribute;together with their view that Allah never had a name or an attribute. They claim, furthermore,

that it is impossible for Allah to see with his eyes. They say that he himself does not see, nor does anyone see him" (Seelye, Moslem S chisms and S ects, p.116). Of their belief that manhas the power to determine his own destiny he said:

They hold, on the other hand, however, that it is man who determines his own affairs,

without any interference on the part of Allah, either in these affairs of men or of any of the

deeds of animals. ... Furthermore, they agreed in the view that nothing in the acts of his

servants, which Allah did not command or forbid, was willed by him. (Seelye, Moslem

Schisms and Sects, p.117).

The demise of Mu'tazilism came chiefly through the influence of one Abu'l Hasan Ali al-

Ashari, for many years a zealous Mu'tazilite but later its strictest opponent. Having enjoyed athorough grounding in the doctrines of the movement from within, he was able to use thisknowledge very effectively against it in later years. Al-Ghazzali, the great Islamic theologianof the fifth century after Muhammad, also strongly opposed the "philosophic" movement inIslam and particularly attacked the Mu'tazilite belief that Allah's will could only bediscovered through reason and reflection.

'It is not so improbable', he argues in one place, 'O you who inhabit the world of reason, that

beyond reason there exists another plane in which appear things that do not appear in



reason, just as it is not improbable that reason should be a plane transcending

discrimination and sensation, in which strange and marvellous things are revealed that

sensation and discrimination fall short of attaining'. (Arberry, Revelation and Reason in

Islam, p.108).

Despite such profound reasoning this great scholar's efforts to quench "free-thinking" inIslam contributed in some measure to the formalistic stagnation in thinking that followed inthe immediate history of Islam and which has yet to shed completely the grip it has onMuslim mentality to this day. In recent times only a handful of scholars have had the courageto challenge the staid convictions of the orthodox and the dawn of progressive thinking inIslam is not yet on the horizon.

3. The Wahhabis - The Fanatical Reformists of Modern Islam.

During the middle of the eighteenth-century a resurgence of Kharijite thinking surfaced in theArabian Peninsula. Known as the Wahhabi movement after its founder Muhammad ibnAbdul Wahhab, it swept over the lands of Arabia, laying waste shrines, tombs, minarets and

other edifices considered incompatible with orthodox Islam as taught by Ibn Taymiya and, before him, the arch-conservative Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In 1806 the Wahhabis conqueredMecca and soon terrorised the Muslim peoples as the Kharijites had done more than athousand years earlier. There were few limits to their extremism.

Not content with demolishing the mausoleums and the cupolas erected on the tombs, they

replaced the silken veils covering the Ka'ba with common stuffs. At Medina they plundered

the accumulated treasures of the tomb of Muhammad; but the local ulema had to send

them fatwas justifying this audacity and alleging the use of the treasure in the interest of the

Medinese population. For several years they plundered the Mekkan pilgrims and finally

caused the cessation of the pilgrimage. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.184).

Although they were subdued in due course by the Turks the Wahhabis exercised a fearfulinfluence over the Muslim world around Arabia until the end of the nineteenth-century andthe effects of this influence are felt to this day in the ultra-strict formalism of Saudi-ArabianIslam. (The ruling house of Saud, descended from the great Arabian ruler Ibn Saud, isWahhabite in doctrine and origin).

During their heyday the Wahbabis emulated the Kharijites in declaring everythinginconsistent with their ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam as heretical. Even the sheikhsof Mecca were forced to sign fatwas (religious decrees) admitting that they had lived asinfidels prior to the Wahhabi "reforms".

The exaggerated, fanatical attitude to the sunna, even in quite trivial matters, is matched bya similar fanaticism towards bid'a. Modern Wabhabism follows the pattern of earlier times

in striving to brand as bid'a not only anything contrary to the spirit of the sunna but also

everything that cannot be proved to be in it. (Goldziber, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.34).

Their major tenets, as opposed to traditional Islam, are their rejection of ijma (consensus), believing that the Qur'an and Hadith are the sole sources of theology and doctrine (theKharijites held similar views about the Qur'an - the Hadith had not yet been formulated in



their time); that no prayer can be offered to any prophet or saint (thus the tomb of Muhammad in Medina is screened off to this day to prevent Muslims from praying to him - a

practice Muhammad would undoubtedly have endorsed); that Muhammad will only obtain permission to intercede for the Muslims on the Last Day (the Sunnis believe he has this power already); that the mawlud (birthday) celebrations of Muhammad, the lesser festivalsand all ceremonies around the tombs of the saints are abominable heresies (bid'ah - "heresy");

and that rosaries are also an innovation and should not be used to count the names of Allah.

The Wahhabis were hardly a sect in Islam but rather a puritanical reformist-movement,determined to rid the faith of quasi-Islamic practices and innovations introduced over thecenturies and not sanctioned by Muhammad. The excessive zeal of the movement, however,and its opposition to mainstream Islam eventually ensured that its wings would be clipped.

Nevertheless its influence is felt throughout the Muslim world in many forms so this day.

Bibliography

This bibliography contains details of books consulted in the preparation of the text of this book and catalogues them under appropriate headings. It does not include articles from The

Muslim World , published quarterly by the Hartford Seminary Foundation in the United Statesof America. Quotations from a number of these articles appear in the text of the book andreferences are there given to the volume from which each respective quotation is taken.

1. THE LIFEOF MUHAMMAD.

Ahmad, Barakat. Muhammad and the Jews. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi; India. 1979.

Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: The Man and his Faith. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, USA.1936.

Anonymous. The Life of Mahomet, or, the History of that Imposture. For the Booksellers,London, UK. 1799.

`Azzám, ̀ Abd-al-Rahmán. The E ternal Message of Muhammad . Quartet Books, London, UK.1979.

Balyuzi, H. M. Muhammad and the Course of Islam. George Ronald, Oxford, UK. 1976.

Bodley, R. V. C. The Messenger: The Life of Mohammed . Greenwood Press, Westport, USA.1969 (1946).

Bosworth-Smith, R. Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Smith, Elder & Co., London, UK.1876 (1873).

Boulainvilliers, Count of. The Life of Mahomet . Darf Publishers Ltd., London, UK. 1983(1731).



Cook, Michael. Muhammad . Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 1983.

Cragg, Kenneth. Muhammad and the Christian. Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., London, UK.1984.

Dermenghem, Émile. The Life of Mahomet . George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., London, UK.

1930.

Dibble, R. F. Mohammed . Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London, UK. n. d.

Edwardes, Michael (Ed. ). The Life of Muhammad . The Folio Society, London, UK. 1964.

Gabrieli, Francesco. Muhammad and the Conquests of Islam. World University Library,London, UK. 1968.

Glubb, John Bagot. The Life and Times of Muhammad . Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK.1979 (1970).

Guillaume, Alfred. New Light on the Life of Muhammad . Manchester University Press,Manchester, UK. 1960.

Haykal, Muhammad Husayn. The Life of Muhammad . North American Trust Publications,USA. 1976.

Irving, Washington. Lives of Mahomet and his S uccessors. Baudry's European Library, Paris,France. 1850.

do. The Life of Mahomet . Everyman's Library, London, UK. 1920 (1911).

Kamal-ud-Din, The Khwaja. The Ideal Prophet . The Basheer Muslim Library, Woking, UK.1925.

Khan, Syed Ahmad (Bahador). Life of Mohammed . Sh. Mubarak Ali, Lahore, Pakistan. 1979(1870).

Koelle, S. W. Mohammed and Mohammedanism Critically Considered . Rivingtons, London,UK. 1889.

Lings, Martin. Muhammad . George Allen & Unwin/The Islamic Texts Society, London, UK.1983.

al-Majlisi, Alama Muhammad Baqir. The Life and Religion of Muhammad . The Zahra Trust,San Antonio, United States of America. 1982 (1850).

Margoliouth, D. S. Mohammed . Blackie & Son Limited, London and Glasgow, UK. 1939.

do. Mohammed and the Rise of Islam. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1978 (1905).

Muir, Sir William. Mahomet and Islam. The Religious Tract Society, London, UK. 1895.



do. The Life of Mahomet . Smith, Elder & Co., London, UK. 1894 (1877).

do. The Life of Mohammad from Original S ources. John Grant, Edinburgh, UK. 1923(1912).

Nadwi, Abu'l Hasan Ali. Muhammad Rasulullah . Islamic Research and Publications,

Lucknow, India. 1979.

D'Leary, De Lacy. Arabia Before Muhammad . AMS Press, New York, USA. 1973 (1927).

Prideaux, Dr. Humphrey. The True Nature of Imposture Fully Display'd in the Life of

Mahomet . E. Curll Printers, London, UK. 1723 (1697).

Rahman, Afzalur. Muhammad: Blessing for Mankind . The Muslim Schools Trust, London,UK. 1979.

Rodinson, Maxime. Mohammed . Pelican Books, Harmondsworth, England. 1973 (1971).

Sarwar, Hafiz Ghulam. Muhammad: The Holy Prophet . Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore,Pakistan. 1969.

Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid. The Life of Muhammad . Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan.1975.

Stobart J. W. H. Islam and its Founder . Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London,UK. 1876.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1972(1953).

do. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1962 (1956).

do. Muhammad: Prophet and S tatesman. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1975(1961).

Wessels, Antonie. A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad . E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland.1972.

Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. Muhammad:S eal of the Prophets . Routledge and Kegan Paul,London, UK. 1980.

Zain, Syed Abu Zafar. The Prophet of Islam: The Ideal Husband . Kazi Publications, Chicago,USA. 1979.

2. THE QUR'AN: THE SCRIPTURE OF ISLAM.

Baljon, J. M. S. Modern Muslim K oran Interpretation. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland, 1968.



Burton, John. The Collection of the Qur'an. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.1977.

Cragg, Kenneth. The E vent of the Qur'an. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1971.

do. The Mind of the Qur'an. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1973.

Flugel, Gustav. Concordance of the K oran. Rahim Brothers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1979 (1898).

Gatje, Helmut. The Qur'an and its Exegesis. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1976.

Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Te xt of the Qur'an. AMS Press, New York,USA. 1975 (1937).

do. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an. Al-Biruni, Lahore, Pakistan. 1977 (1938).

do. The Qur'an as S cripture. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1952).

Kassis, Hanna E. A Concordance of the Qur'an. University of California Press, Los Angeles,USA. 1983.

McClain, Ernest G. Meditations Through the Quran. Nicolas Hays Inc., York Beach, USA.1981.

Muir, Sir William. The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching and the Testimony it bears to

the Holy S criptures. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, UK. 1903.

Penrice, John. A Dictionary and Glossary of the K oran. Curzon Press, London, UK. 1979(1873).

Sale, George. Preliminary Discourse to the K oran. Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd., London,UK. n. d.

do. with Wherry, E. M. A Comprehensive Commentary on the K oran. (4 Volumes). AMSPress, New York, United States of America. 1975 (1896).

Seale, M. S. Qur'an and Bible: S tudies in Interpretation and Dialogue. Croom Helm Ltd.,London, UK. 1978.

Sell, Canon. The Historical Development of the Qur'an. Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent& Co. Ltd., London, England. 1923.

Shah, Rev. Ahmad. Miftah-ul-Qur'an (2 volumes). The Book House, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d.

Stanton, H. U. Weitbrecht. The Teaching of the Qur'an. Biblo & Tannen, New York, USA.1969 (1919).

Von Denffer, Ahmad. ' U lum al-Qur'an: An Introduction to the S ciences of the Qur'an . TheIslamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1983.



Wansbrough, J. Quranic S tudies: S ources and Methods of S criptural Interpretation. O. U.Press, Oxford, UK. 1977.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Bell: An Introduction to the Qur'an. Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh, UK. 1970.

do. Companion to the Qur'an. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, UK. 1967.

Wollaston, Arthur N. The Religion of the K oran. John Murray, London, UK. 1917.

3. JEWISH ANDOTHER SOURCES OF THE QUR'AN.

Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in its Christian E nvironment . Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.,London, UK. 1968 (1926).

Blair, Rev. John C. The S ources of Islam. The Christian Literature Society for India, Madras,India. 1925.

Bravmann, M. M. The S piritual Background of E arly Islam. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland.1972.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford University Press, London, England. 1974 (1933).

Geiger, Abraham. Judaism and Islam . KTAV Publishing House Incorporated, New York,USA. 1970 (1898).

Guillaume, Alfred. "The Influence of Judaism on Islam", The Legacy of Israel , O. U. Press,

London, UK. 1953 (1927).

Katsh, Abraham I. Judaism in Islam. New York University Press New York, USA. 1954.

Margoliouth, D. S. The Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam.Kraus Reprint, Munich, West Germany. 1980 (1924).

Rosenthal, Erwin I. J. Judaism and Islam. Thomas Yoseloff, London, UK. 1961.

Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Original S ources of the Qur'an. Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge, London, UK. 1905.

do. The S ources of Islam. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scot Torrey, Charles Cutler. TheJewish Foundation of Islam. KTAV Publishing House Inc., New York. USA. 1967 (1933).

4. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN.

Ahmad, Mufassir Mohammmad. The K oran. Emere Limited, London England. 1979.



Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press,Oxford, UK. 1975 (1950).

Siddiqi, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadith Literature. The Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge,UK. 1961.

Wensinck, A. J. A Handbook of E arly Muhammadan Tradition. E. J. Brill. Leiden, Holland.1971.

6. MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE IN ENGLISH.

Guillaume, A. Ibn Ishaq's S irat Rasulullah. (The Life of Muhammad). Oxford UniversityPress, Pakistan. 1974 (1955).

Haq, S. Moinul. Ibn S a'd's K itab al-Tabaqat al- K abir . (2 volumes). Pakistan HistoricalSociety, Pakistan. 1967.

Hasan, Prof. Ahmad. S unan Abu Dawud (3 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore;Pakistan. 1984.

Karim, Maulana Fazlul. Mishkat-ul-Masabih ( Al-Hadis) (4 volumes). The Book House,Lahore, Pakistan n. d. (1938).

Khan, Dri Muhammad Mubsin. S ahih al-Bukhari (9 volumes). Kazi Publications, Chicago,USA. 1979 (1976).

Rahimuddin Prof. Muhammad. Muwatta Imam Malik . Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore,

Pakistan, 1980.

Robson, James. Mishkat al-Masabih (2 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan.1975.

Siddiqui, Abdul Hameed. Mishkat-ul-Masabih (2 volumes). Islamic Publications Limited,Lahore, Pakistan. 1980 (1976).

do. S ahih Muslim (4 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1972.

7. THE RELIGION OF ISLAM.

Ahmad, Kurshid (Ed. ) Islam: Its Meaning and Message. The Islamic Foundation; Leicester,UK. 1976.

Ali, Syed Ameer. The S pirit of Islam. Chatto and Windus. London, England. 1974 (1890).

Ali, Maulana Muhammad. The Religion of Islam. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-I-Islam,Lahore, Pakistan. 1973 (1936).



Arberry A. J. Revelation and Reason in Islam. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1971(1957).

Arnold, T W. The Preaching of Islam. Archibald Constable & Co., London, UK. 1896.

Brandel-Syrier, Mia (translator). The Religious Duties of Islam (as taught and e x plained by

Abu Bakr E ffendi) . E J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1971.

Cook, Michael; E arly Muslim Dogma. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1981.

do. & Crone, P. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World . Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK. 1977.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret . A Galaxy Book, New York, USA. 1967 (1956).

De Boer, T. J. The History of Philosophy in Islam. Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA.1967 (1903).

Frieling, Rudolf. Christianity and Islam. Floris Books, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 1978.

Fry, C. G. & King, J. R. Islam: A S urvey of the Muslim Faith. Baker Book House, GrandRapids, USA. 1980.

Gairdner, W. H. T. The Reproach of Islam. Young People's Missionary Movement, London,UK. 1911.

Gardner, W. R. W. The Qur'anic Doctrine of God . The Christian Literature Society for India,Madras, India. 1916.

do. The Qur'anic Doctrine of S in. The Christian Literature Society for India, Madras, India.1914.

Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice. Muslim Institutions . George Allen & Unwin, London,UK. 1968 (1950).

Gibb, H. A. R. Mohammedanism. Oxford University Press, London, UK. 19S3 (1949).

do. Modern Trends in Islam. Octagon Books, New York, United States of America. 1978(1947).

do. Whither Islam? AMS Press, New York, United States of America. 1973 (1932).

do & Kramers, J. H. S horter E ncyclopaedia of Islam. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1974(1953).

Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law . Princeton University Press,Princeton, United States of America. 1981.

do. Muslim S tudies (2 volumes). George Allen & Unwin, London, England. 1971.



Grunebaum, G. E. Von. Muhammadan Festivals . Curzon Press, London, England. 1976(1951).

Guillaume, Alfred. Islam. Pelican Books, Harmondsworth, England. 1971 (1954).

Herklots, G. A. (translator). Islam in India (Qanun-i-Islam) . Oriental Books Reprint Corp.,

New Delhi, India. 1972.

Hughes, T P A Dictionary of Islam. W. H. Allen & Co., London, England. 1935 (1885).

do. Notes on Muhammadanism. W. H. Allen & Co., London, England. 1875.

Hurgronje, C. Snouck. Mohammedanism. G. P. Putnam's Sons New York, USA. 1916.

Izatsu, Toshihiko. God and Man in the K oran. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980(1964).

Jeffery, Arthur; A Reader on Islam . Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1962).

do. Islam: Muhammad and his Religion. The Library of Liberal Arts, New York, USA.1958.

Karim, Al-Haj Maulana Fazul-ul, (translator). Imam Gazzali's Ihya U lum-id-Din (4 volumes).Sind Sagar Academy, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d.

Kandblawi, Maulana Mohammad Zakariyya. Teachings of Islam. Dini Book Depot, Delhi,India. 1982.

Klein, F A The Religion of Islam. Curzon Press, London, England 1979 (1906).

Lammens, H. Islam: Beliefs and Institutions . Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, NewDelhi, India. 1979 (1929).

Levy, Reuben. The S ocial S tructure of Islam. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.1979 (1957).

Lippman, Thomas W. U nderstanding Islam. New American Library, New York, USA. 1982.

MacDonald, Duncan Black. Aspects of Islam. Books for Libraries Press, New York, USA.1971 (1911).

do. The Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence & Constitutional Theory. Darf Publishers, UK. 1985 (1902).

do. The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1970 (1909).

Margoliouth, D. S. Mohammedanism . Thornton Butterworth Ltd., London, UK. 1928 (1911).

do. The E arly Development of Mohammedanism. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1979(1914).



Malik, Charles (Ed. ). God and Man in Contemporary Islamic Thought . American Universityof Beirut Centennial Publications, Beirut, Lebanon. 1972.

Meer Hassan Ali, Mrs. Observations on the Mussulmauns of India (2 volumes), Parbury,Allen & Co., London, UK. 1832.

Mills, Charles. An History of Muhammedanism. Black, Kingsbury, Parbury & Allen, London,UK. 1818.

Muir Sir William. The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall . John Grant, Edinburgh, UK.1924 (1883).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Ideals and Realities of Islam. Beacon Press, Boston, USA. 1972(1966).

Nazir Ali. Islam: A Christian Perspective. Paternoster Press, Exeter, England. 1983.

North, C. R. An Outline of Islam. The Epworth Press, London, England. 1934.

Padwick, Constance E. Muslim Devotions. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,London, UK. 1969 (1961).

Parshall, Phil. Bridges to Islam. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, USA. 1983.

Parwez, G. A. Islam: A Challenge to Religion. Idara-e-Tulu-e-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968.

Pfander, Rev. C. G. The Mizan ul Haqq; or, Balance of Truth . Church Missionary House,London, UK. 1867.

Pitts, Joseph. A Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahometans. GreggPublishers, UK. 1971 (1738).

Rahman, Afzalur. Islam: Ideology and the Way of Life. The Muslim Schools Trust, London,UK. 1980.

Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 1979 (1966).

Rahman, S. A. Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore,Pakistan. 1972.

Raza, M. Shamim. Introducing the Prophets. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1969.

Roberts, D. S. Islam. Hamlyn Paperbacks, Feltham, United Kingdom. 1981.

Roberts, Robert. The S ocial Laws of the Qoran. Williams and Norgate Ltd., London, UK.1925.

Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. UK. 1979(1964).



Seale, Morris S. Muslim Theology . Luzac and Company Limited, London, UK. 1964.

Seelye, Kate Chambers (translator). Moslem S chisms and S ects. AMS Press, New York,USA. 1966 (1920).

Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. On U nderstanding Islam. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Holland.

1981.

Tabbarah, Afif A. The S pirit of Islam. Librarie du Liban, Beirut, Lebanon. 1978.

Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Religion of the Crescent . Society for Promoting ChristianKnowledge, London, United Kingdom. 1906 (1895).

Tritton, A. S. Islam: Beliefs and Practices. Hutchinson University Library, London, UK.1966 (1951).

Waddy, Charis. The Muslim Mind . Longman Group Ltd., London, England. 1976.

Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Revelation in the Modern World . Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh, UK. 1969.

do. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought . Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh,UK. 1973.

do. What is Islam? Librairie du Liban, Longman Group Ltd., London, UK. 1979 (1968).

Wensinck, A. J. The Muslim Creed . Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, UK. 1965 (1932).

Westermarck, Edward. Pagan S urvivals in Mohammedan Civilisation. MacMillan & Co.

Ltd., London, UK. .Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Routledge and Kegan Paul,London, UK. 1980.

Zwemer S. M. The Cross Above the Crescent . Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids,USA. n. d.

do. The Influence of Animism on Islam. The MacMillan Company, New York, USA. 1920.

do. The Law of Apostasy in Islam. Amarko Book Agency, New Delhi, India. 1975 (1924).

do. The Moslem Christ . Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, London. UK. 1912.

do. The Moslem Doctrine of God . American Tract Society, New York, USA. 1905.

8. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA.

Burckhardt, J. L. Travels in Arabia. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, UK. 1968 (1829).



Burton, Sir Richard. Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to al-Madinah & Meccah (2volumes). George Bell & Sons, London, England. 1898.

Doughty, Charles M. Travels in Arabia Deserts. The Heritage Press, New York, USA. 1953.

Hurgronje, C. Snouck. Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century. E J. Brill, Leiden,

Holland. 1970 (1931).

Khalifa, Saida Miller. The Fifth Pillar: The S tory of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina.Exposition Press, New York, USA. 1977.

Niebuhr, M. Travels Through Arabia. Librarie du Liban, Beirut, Lebanon. n. d. (1792) (2volumes).

Rosenthal, Eric. From Drury Lane to Mecca. Sampson Co., Marston & Co. Ltd., London,UK. n. d.

Shariati, Dr. Ali. Hajj. Free Islamic Literatures Incorporated, Bedford, USA. 1977.

Long, David. The Hajj Today. State University of New York Press, New York, USA. 1979.

Wallin, Georg August. Travels in Arabia. The Oleander Press New York, USA. 1979 (1848).

Wavell, A. J. B. A Modern Pilgrim in Mecca. Constable & Company Ltd., London, UK.1912.

9. SUFISM - THE ISLAMIC MYSTICISM.

Arasteh, A. Reza. Rumi the Persian, the S ufi. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1974.

Arberry, A. J. Muslim S aints and Mystics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1976(1966).

do. Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK.1979 (1950).

do. The Doctrine of the S ufis. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1966.

Archer, John Clark. Mystical E lements in Mohammed . AMS Press, New York, USA. n. d.

(1924).

Burckhardt, Titus. An Introduction to S ufi Doctrine. Thorsons Publishers Limited,Wellingsborough, United Kingdom. 1976.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Wisdom of the S ufis. Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1976.

Iqbal, Afzal. The Life and Work of Jalaluddin Rumi. The Octagon Press, London, UK. 1983(1956).



Lings, Martin. What is S ufism? George Allen & Unwin, London, England. 1975.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Living S ufism. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1980 (1972).

Nicholson, Reynold A. S tudies in Islamic Mysticism. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England, United Kingdom. 1979 (1921).

do. The Idea of Personality in S ufism. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1970.

do. The Mystics of Islam. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1975 (1914).

Nurbakhsh, Dr. Javad. S ufism. K. N. Publishers , New York, Uni ted States of America. 1982.

Shah, Idries. The Way of the S ufi. Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, UK. 1974(1968).

Smith, Margaret. Al-Ghazali the Mystic. Hijra International Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan.1983.

do. Rabia the Mystic. Hijra International Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983.

do. The Way of the Mystics. Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1976 (1931).

Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. The University of North CarolinaPress, United States of America. 1983 (1975).

Stoddart, William. S ufism: The Mystical Doctrines and Methods of Islam. The AquarianPress, Wellingsborough, United Kingdom. 1976.

Trimingham, J. Spencer. TheS ufi Orders in Islam.

O

xford University Press, New York,USA. 1973 (1971).

10. SHI'ISM: ITS DOCTRINES AND TENETS.

Ayoub, Mahmoud. Redemptive S uffering in Islam. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Holland.1978.

Hussain, Jassim M. The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam. The Muhammadi Trust, London,UK. 1982.

Jafri, S. H. M. The Origins and E arly Development of S hi'a Islam. Longman Group Ltd.,London, UK. 1979.

Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to S hi'i Islam. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.1985.

al-Mufid, Shaykh. K itab al-Irshad: The Book of Guidance. Balaghi and Muhammadi Trust,London, UK. 1981.



Nasr, S. H. (translator). S hi'ite Islam. Shia Institute of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. 1979.

muhammad and the religion of islam

Documents