Part 14

Beside these there were numerous other gods whose names have been utterly lost and yet who each had a place in the Pantheon at Mecca. Above all these was the supreme deity whom they called ὁ θεὸς, the God, or _Allah_. This name occurs several times in the ancient pre-islamic poems and proves that the Arabs knew the one true God by name even in the “time of ignorance.” To Him they also made offerings though not of the first and best; in His name covenants were sealed and the holiest oaths were sworn. Enemy of _Allah_ was the strongest term of opprobrium among the Arabs then as it is to-day. Wellhausen says, “In worship _Allah_ had the last place, those gods being preferred who represented the interests of a particular circle and fulfilled the private desires of their worshippers. Neither the fear of _Allah_ nor their reverence for the gods had much influence. The chief practical consequence of the great feasts was the observance of a truce in the holy months; and this in time had become mainly an affair of pure practical convenience. In general the disposition of the heathen Arabs, if it is at all truly reflected in their poetry, was profane in an unusual degree. The ancient inhabitants of Mecca practiced piety essentially as a trade, just as they do now; their trade depended on the feast and its fair on the inviolability of the Haram and on the truce of the holy months.”

There is no doubt that at the time of Mohammed’s appearance the old national idolatry had degenerated. Many of the idols had no believers or worshippers. Sabeanism had also disappeared except in the north of Arabia; although it always left its influence which is evident not only in the Koran but in the superstitious practices of the modern Bedouins. Gross fetishism was the creed of many. One of Mohammed’s contemporaries said, “When they found a fine stone they adored it, or, failing that, milked a camel over a heap of sand and worshipped that.” The better classes at Mecca and Medina had ceased to believe anything at all. The forms of religion “were kept up rather for political and commercial reasons than as a matter of faith or conviction.”[54]

Add to all this the silent but strong influence of the Jews and Christians who were in constant contact with these idolaters and we have the explanation of the _Hanifs_. These Hanifs were a small number of Arabs who worshipped only _Allah_, rejected polytheism, sought freedom from sin and resignation to God’s will. There were Hanifs at Taif, Mecca and Medina. They were in fact seekers of truth, weary of the old idolatry and the prevalent hollow hypocrisy of the Arabs. The earliest Hanifs of whom we hear, were Waraka, the cousin of the prophet Mohammed, and Zeid bin Amr, surnamed the Inquirer. Mohammed at first also adopted this title of Hanif to express the faith of Abraham but soon after changed it to Moslem.

It is only a step from Hanifism to Islam. Primary monotheism, Sabeanism, idolatry, fetishism, Hanifism, and then the prophet with the sword to bring everything back to monotheism—monotheism, as modified by his own needs and character and compromises. The time of ignorance was a time of chaos. Everything was ready for one who could take in the whole situation, social, political and religious and form a cosmos. That man was Mohammed.

XVII

ISLAM IN ITS CRADLE—THE MOSLEM’S GOD[55]

“Islam was born in the desert, with Arab Sabeanism for its mother and Judaism for its father; its foster-nurse was Eastern Christianity.”—_Edwin Arnold._

“A Prophet without miracles; a faith without mysteries; and a morality without love; which has encouraged a thirst for blood, and which began and ended in the most unbounded sensuality.”—_Schlegel’s Philosophy of History._

“As we conceive God, we conceive the universe; a being incapable of loving is incapable of being loved.”—_Principal Fairbairn._

Libraries have been written, not only in Arabic and Persian, but in all the languages of Europe, on the origin, character and history of Islam, the Koran and Mohammed. Views differ “as far as the east is from the west” and as far as Bosworth Smith is from Prideaux. The earlier European writers did not hesitate to call Mohammed a false prophet and his system a clever imposture; some went further and attributed even satanic agency to the success of Islam and to the words of the prophet. Carlyle, in his “Heroes and Hero-worship,” set the pendulum swinging to the other side so far that his chapter on the Hero-prophet is published as a leaflet by the Mohammedan Missionary Society of Lahore. So little did Carlyle understand the true nature of Islam that he calls it “a kind of Christianity.” What Carlyle said was only the beginning of a series of apologies and panegyrics which appeared soon after and placed Mohammed not only on the pedestal of a great reformer but “a very prophet of God,” making Islam almost the ideal religion. Syeed Ameer Ali succeeds in his biography in eliminating every sensual, harsh and ignorant trait from the character of the noted Meccan; and the recent valuable book of T. W. Arnold, professor in Aligarh College, India, attempts to prove most elaborately that Mohammedanism was propagated without the sword.

In contrast to this read what Hugh Broughton quaintly wrote in 1662: “Now consider this Moamed or Machumed, whom God gave up to a blind mind, an Ishmaelite, being a poor man till he married a widow; wealthy then and of high countenance, having the falling sickness and being tormented by the devil, whereby the widow was sorry that she matched with him. He persuaded her by himself and others that his fits were but a trance wherein he talked with the angel Gabriel. So in time the impostor was reputed a prophet of God and from Judaism, Arius, Nestorius and his own brain he frameth a doctrine.” In our day, the critical labors of scholars like Sprenger, Weil, Muir, Koelle and others have given us a more correct idea of Mohammed’s life and character. The pendulum is still swinging but will come to rest between the two extremes.

We have not space to give the story of Mohammed’s life or of the religion which he founded. An analysis of the religion has been attempted by means of two tables, one showing its development from its creed and the other the philosophy of its origin from outside sources.[56] The result of a century of critical study by European and American scholars of every school of thought has certainly established the fact that Islam is a composite religion. It is not an invention but a concoction; there is nothing novel about it except the genius of Mohammed in mixing old ingredients into a new panacea for human ills and forcing it down by means of the sword. These heterogeneous elements of Islam were gathered in Arabia at a time when many religions had penetrated the peninsula, and the Kaaba was a Pantheon. Unless one has a knowledge of these elements of “the time of ignorance,” Islam is a problem. Knowing, however, these heathen, Christian and Jewish factors, Islam is seen to be a perfectly natural and understandable development. Its heathen elements remain, to this day, perfectly recognizable in spite of thirteen centuries of explanation by the Moslem authorities. It is to the Jewish Rabbi Geiger that we owe our first knowledge of the extent to which Islam is indebted to the Jews and the Talmud. Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall has recently shown how Mohammed borrowed even from the Zoroastrians and Sabeans, while as to the amount of Christian teaching in Islam, the Koran and its commentators are evidence.

There is a remarkable verse in the twenty-second chapter of the Koran, in which Mohammed seems to enumerate all the sources that were accessible to him in forming his new religion; and at that time he seems to have been in doubt as to which was the most trustworthy source. The verse reads as follows: “_They who believe and the Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians_ (Zoroastrians) _and those who join other gods to God, verily God shall decide between them on the day of Resurrection._”

The God of Islam. GIBBON CHARACTERIZES THE FIRST PART OF the Moslem’s creed as “an eternal truth “—(“there is no god but God”); but very much depends on the character of the God, who is affirmed to displace all other gods. If _Allah’s_ attributes are unworthy of deity then even the first clause of the briefest of all creeds, is false. There has been a strange neglect to study the Moslem idea of God and nearly all writers take for granted that the God of the Koran is the same being and has like attributes as Jehovah or the Godhead of the New Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all the Mohammedan conception of Allah is purely negative. God is unique and has no relations to any creature that partake of resemblance. He cannot be defined in terms other than negative. As the popular song has it,

“Kullu ma yukhtaru fi balik Fa rabbuna mukhalifun ’an thalik—”[57]

Absolute sovereignty and ruthless omnipotence are his chief attributes while his character is impersonal—that of a monad. Among the ninety-nine beautiful names of God, which Edwin Arnold has used in his poem “Pearls of the Faith,” the ideas of fatherhood, love, impartial justice and unselfishness are absent. The Christian truth “God is love” is to the learned, blasphemy and to the ignorant an enigma. Palgrave, who certainly was not biased against the religion of Arabia and who lived with the Arabs for long months, calls the theology of Islam “the pantheism of force.” No one has ever given a better account of _Allah_, a more faithful portrait of Mohammed’s conception of deity than Palgrave. Every word of his description tallies with statements which one can hear daily from pious Moslems. Yet no one who reads what we quote in all its fullness will recognize here the God whom David addresses in the Psalms or who became incarnate at Bethlehem and suffered on Calvary. This is Palgrave’s statement:

“There is no god but God—are words simply tantamount in English to the negation of any deity save one alone; and thus much they certainly mean in Arabic, but they imply much more also. Their full sense is, not only to deny absolutely and unreservedly all plurality, whether of nature or of person, in the Supreme Being, not only to establish the unity of the Unbegetting and Unbegot, in all its simple and uncommunicable Oneness, but besides this the words, in Arabic and among Arabs, imply that this one Supreme Being is also the only Agent, the only Force, the only Act existing throughout the universe, and leave to all beings else, matter or spirit, instinct or intelligence, physical or moral, nothing but pure, unconditional passiveness, alike in movement or in quiescence, in action or in capacity. The sole power, the sole motor, movement, energy, and deed is God; the rest is downright inertia and mere instrumentality, from the highest archangel down to the simplest atom of creation. Hence, in this one sentence, ‘La Ilāh illa Allāh,’ is summed up a system which, for want of a better name, I may be permitted to call the Pantheism of Force, or of Act, thus exclusively assigned to God, who absorbs it all, exercises it all, and to whom alone it can be ascribed, whether for preserving or for destroying, for relative evil or for equally relative good. I say ‘relative,’ because it is clear that in such a theology no place is left for absolute good or evil, reason or extravagance; all is abridged in the autocratic will of the one great Agent: ‘sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas’; or, more significantly still, in Arabic, ‘Kemā yesha’o,’ ‘as he wills it,’ to quote the constantly recurring expression of the Koran.

“Thus immeasurably and eternally exalted above, and dissimilar from, all creatures, which lie levelled before him on one common plane of instrumentality and inertness, God is one in the totality of omnipotent and omnipresent action, which acknowledges no rule, standard, or limit save his own sole and absolute will. He communicates nothing to his creatures, for their seeming power and act ever remain his alone, and in return he receives nothing from them; for whatever they may be, that they are in him, by him, and from him only. And secondly, no superiority, no distinction, no preëminence, can be lawfully claimed by one creature over its fellow, in the utter equalization of their unexceptional servitude and abasement; all are alike tools of the one solitary Force which employs them to crush or to benefit, to truth or to error, to honor or shame, to happiness, or misery, quite independently of their individual fitness, deserts, or advantage, and simply because he wills it, and as he wills it.

“One might at first think that this tremendous autocrat, this uncontrolled and unsympathizing power, would be far above anything like passions, desires or inclinations. Yet such is not the case, for he has with respect to his creatures one main feeling and source of action, namely, jealousy of them lest they should perchance attribute to themselves something of what is his alone, and thus encroach on his all-engrossing kingdom. Hence he is ever more prone to punish than to reward, to inflict than to bestow pleasure, to ruin than to build.

“It is his singular satisfaction to let created beings continually feel that they are nothing else than his slaves, his tools, and contemptible tools also, that thus they may the better acknowledge his superiority, and know his power to be above their power, his cunning above their cunning, his will above their will, his pride above their pride; or rather, that there is no power, cunning, will, or pride save his own.

“But he himself, sterile in his inaccessible height, neither loving nor enjoying aught save his own and self-measured decree, without son, companion, or counsellor, is no less barren for himself than for his creatures, and his own barrenness and lone egoism in himself as the cause and rule of his indifferent and unregarding despotism around. The first note is the key of the whole tune, and the primal idea of God runs through and modifies the whole system and creed that centres in him.

“That the notion here given of the Deity, monstrous and blasphemous as it may appear, is exactly and literally that which the Koran conveys, or intends to convey, I at present take for granted. But that it indeed is so, no one who has attentively perused and thought over the Arabic text (for mere cursory reading, especially in a translation, will not suffice) can hesitate to allow. In fact, every phrase of the preceding sentences, every touch in this odious portrait has been taken, to the best of my ability, word for word, or at least meaning for meaning from the “Book” the truest mirror of the mind and scope of its writer. And that such was in reality Mahomet’s mind and idea is fully confirmed by the witness-tongue of contemporary tradition.”

The Koran shows that Mohammed had in a measure a correct knowledge of the _physical_ attributes of God but an absolutely false conception of his _moral_ attributes. This was perfectly natural because Mohammed had no idea of the nature of sin—moral evil—or of holiness—moral perfection.

The Imam El Ghazzali a famous scholastic divine of the Moslems says of God: “He is not a body endued with form nor a substance circumscribed with limits or determined by measure. Neither does He resemble bodies, as they are capable of being measured or divided. Neither is He a substance nor do substances exist in Him; neither is He an accident nor do accidents exist in Him. Neither is He like to anything that exists; neither is anything like to Him; nor is He determinate in quantity nor comprehended by bounds nor circumscribed by the differences of situation nor contained in the heavens.... His nearness is not like the nearness of bodies nor is His essence like the essence of bodies. Neither doth He exist in anything; neither does anything exist in Him.” God’s will is absolute and alone; the predestination of everything and everybody to good or ill according to the caprice of sovereignty. For there is no Fatherhood and no purpose of redemption to soften the doctrine of the decrees. Hell must be filled and so Allah creates infidels. The statements of the Koran on this doctrine are coarse and of tradition, blasphemous. Islam reduces God to the category of the will; He is a despot, an Oriental despot, and as the _moral_-law is not emphasized He is not bound by any standard of justice. Worship of the creature is heinous to the Moslem mind, and yet Allah punished Satan for not being willing to worship Adam. (Koran ii. 28-31.) Allah is merciful in winking at the sins of the prophet but is the avenger of all unbelievers in him.

A God-machine, a unit-cause Vast, inaccessible Who doles out mercy, breaks His laws And compromises ill.

A God whose law is changeless fate,— Who grants each prophet-wish— For prayer and fasting opes heaven’s gate, And pardons for backsheesh.

This is _not_ “the only True God” whom we know through Jesus Christ and so knowing have life-eternal. “No man knoweth the Father but the _Son_ and he to whom the Son revealeth Him. He who denies the incarnation remains ignorant of God’s true character. As Fairbairn says, “the love which the _Godhead_ makes immanent and essential to God, gives God an altogether new meaning and actuality for religion; while thought is not forced to conceive Monotheism as the apotheosis of an Almighty will or an impersonal ideal of the pure reason.” Islam knows no Godhead, and Allah is not love.

Transcribers Note: To fit within page and layout constraints this Chart the linked tabular format. The section beginning with A; Faith and B:Practice Appears to derrive equally from "The Doctrine of God" and "The Doctrine of Revelation" so has been abstracted and linked from the position the author seems to have intended. General notes have been abstracted and displayed as footnotes.

ANALYSIS OF ISLAM AS A SYSTEM, DEVELOPED FROM IT’S CREED. “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle.”

The Doctrine of God (Negative.) “There is no god but God.” [Pantheism of Force] 1. His names of the _essence_, _Allah_ (_the absolute unit_) of the attributes,—_Ninety-nine names_ 2. His attributes The physical emphasized above the _moral_. Deification of _absolute force_. 3. His nature Expressed by a series of _negations_ “He is _not_.” To second section The Doctrine of Revelation: (Positive.) “Mohammed is the apostle of God.” [The sole channel of revelation and abrogates former revelations.] I. By the KORAN (Wahi El Matlu) Revelation, verbal, and which teaches the twofold demands of Islam:— [The Book] II. By TRADITION (Wahi gheir Matlu) Revelation by example of the perfect prophet [The Man] 1. Records of what Mohammed _did_ (Sunnat-el-fa’il) (example) 2. Records of what Mohammed _enjoined_ (Sunnat-el-kaul) (precept) 3. Records of what Mohammed _allowed_ (Sunnat-el-takrir) (license)[A]] A. The Sunnite Traditions: (collected and recorded by the following six authorities) 1. Buchari A. H. 256[B]] 2. Muslim ” 261[B] 3. Tirmizi ” 279[B] 4. Abu Daood ” 275[B] 5. An-Nasaee ” 303[B] 6. Ibn Majah ” 273[B] B. The Shiah Traditions: (five authorities) 1. Kafi A. H. 329 2. Sheikh Ali ” 381 3. “Tahzib” ” 466[C] 4. “Istibsar” ” 466[C] 5. Ar-Razi ” 406 III. Other Authority a. Among the _Sunnites_: IJMA’A or unanimous consent of the leading companions of Mohammed concerning I. KIYAS or the deductions of orthodox teachers from sources I. and II. b. Among the _Shiahs_: The doctrine of the twelve IMAMS—beginning with _Ali_ who interpret I. and II.

Second Section

A. Faith: (what to believe) “Iman” 1. In God 2. Angels (angels, jinn, devils) 3. Books Modern Moslems believe that 104 “books” were sent from heaven in the following order: To Adam—ten books ” Seth—fifty ” Enoch—thirty ” Abraham—ten These are utterly lost. ” Moses—the TORAH ” David—the ZABOOR ” Jesus—the INJIL These are highly spoken of in the Koran but are now in corrupted condition and have been abrogated by the final book. ” _Mohammed_—the KORAN (eternal in origin; complete and miraculous in character; supreme in beauty and authority.) 4. Last Day (Judgement) 5. Predestination 6. Prophets A. _The Greater_: Adam—“Chosen of God” Noah—“Preacher of God” Abraham—“Friend of God” Moses—“Spokesman of God” Jesus—called “Word of God and “Spirit of God.” MOHAMMED, (_who has 201 names and titles_) Enoch, Hud, Salih, Ishmael, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Lot, Aaron, Shuaib, Zakariah, John, David, Solomon, Elias, Job, Jonah, Ezra, Lukman, Zu-el-kifl and Alexander the Great, Elisha. B. _The Less_: Of these there have been thousands. Twenty-two are mentioned in the Koran: 7. Resurrection B. Practice (what to do) “Din” [_the five pillars_] 1. Repetition of Creed 2. _Prayer_ (five times daily) including: 1. Purification washing various parts of the body three times ac’d’g to fourteen rules 2. Posture (prostrations) facing the kiblah (Mecca) prostrations genuflections 3. Petition Declaration the Fatihah or first Surah. Praise and confession—the Salaam. 3. Fasting (month of Ramadhan) 4. Alms giving (about 1-40 of income.) 5. Pilgrimage _Mecca_ (incumbent) Medina (meritorious but voluntary) Kerbela, Meshed Ali, etc., (Shiahs)

[A] Verbally handed down from mouth to mouth and finally _sifted_ and recorded by both sects:

[B] Not one of them flourished until _three cenruries_ after Mohammed.

[C] By Abu Jaafar.

ANALYSIS OF THE BORROWED ELEMENTS OF ISLAM.

I. From HEATHENISM

(As existing in Mecca or prevalent in other parts of Arabia.)

a. Sabeanism:

Astrological superstitions, _e. g._, that meteorites are cast at the devil.

Oaths by the stars and planets. (Surahs 56, 53, etc.)

Circumambulation of Kaaba—and, perhaps, the _lunar_ calendar.

b. Arabian Idolatry:

Allah (as _name_ of supreme deity), used in old poets and worshipped by Hanifs.

Mecca—centre of religious pilgrimage—The black-stone, etc.

Pilgrimage—_in every detail_: dress, hair offerings, casting stones, sacrifice, running.

Polygamy, slavery, easy divorce, and social laws generally.

Ceremonial cleanliness, forbidden foods, _circumcision_.

c. Zoroastrianism:

Cosmogony—The different stories of the earth. Bridge over hell.

Paradise—Its character—the _houris_=pairikas of Avesta.

Doctrine of _Jinn_ and their various kinds. Exorcism of jinn (Surah 113, 114).

d. Buddhism:

The use of the rosary.

(See Hughes’ Dict. of Islam.)

II. From JUDAISM

(The Old Testament but more especially the _Talmud_ as the source of Jewish ideas prevalent in Arabia just before Mohammed.)

A. Ideas and Doctrines:

(According to the divisions of Rabbi Geiger.)

1. Words that represent Jewish ideas (and are _not_ Arabic but Hebrew.) _Taboot_ (ark); _Torah_ (law); _Eden_; _Gehinnom_; _Rabbi_, _Abbar_=teacher; _Sakinat_=Shekinah; _Taghoot_ (used hundreds of times in Koran)=error; _Furkan_, etc., etc., etc.

2. Doctrinal views.

_Unity of God._

Resurrection.

Seven hells and seven heavens.

Final judgment. Signs of last day.

Gog and Magog.

3. Moral and Ceremonial laws.

Prayer. Its time, posture, direction, etc.

Laws regarding impurity of body. Washing with water or with sand.

Laws regarding purification of women, etc.

4. Views of life

Use of “inshallah”; age of discretion corresponds to Talmud.

B. Stories and Legends:

(According to Rabbi Geiger.)

Adam, Cain, Enoch; the fabulous things in Koran are _identical_ with Talmud.

Noah—the flood—Eber (Hud)—Isaac,—Ishmael—_Joseph_. Cf. Koran with Talmud.

Abraham—His idolatry—Nimrod’s oven—Pharao—the calf—(taken from Talmud.)

Moses—The fables related of him and Aaron are old Jewish tales.

Jethro (Shuaib); Saul (Taloot); Goliath (Jiloot), and _Solomon_ especially. Cf. Talmud.

III. From CHRISTIANITY

(Corrupt form, as found in the apocryphal gospels.)

“_Gospel of Barnabas._”

1. Reverence for New Testament—Injil—(Zacharias, John, Gabriel).

2. Respect for religious teachers; the Koran references to priests and monks.

3. Jesus Christ—His names—Word of God, Spirit of God, etc.—Puerile miracles—_Denial of crucifixion_. (Basilidians, etc.)