Part 1

Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall, Emmanuel Ackerman and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

Reprinted from the =_Hindustan Review_=, September and October 1909.

THE ISLAM OF MOHAMED.

BY MR. SALAHUDDIN KHUDA BUKHSH, M.A., B.C.L., BAR-AT-LAW.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents. 1 I. 1 II. 5 III. 8 IV. 13 The Hindustan Review. 18 Transcriber’s Note.

I.

I do not desire to explain the importance and significance of Islam among the religious systems of the world; nor am I to fix and ascertain the exact position of Mohamed as a religious teacher among the world’s great teachers of religions. My effort in this paper is simpler and yet not altogether free from bewildering perplexities. I desire to explain what Islam is and what its teachings are: Islam as preached and delivered by the prophet of Arabia; Islam stripped of the accretions of ages of theological disputes and controversies; in other words to sketch out, to the best of my light and leading, Islam of the prophet Mohamed. Difficult though this task is, it is not indeed a hopeless venture for one who has kept himself clear and free from narrow sectarianism.

To fully appreciate the message of Mohamed, it is essential that I should say something about the condition of Arabia before Islam. I must readily admit that so far as the Pagan Arabia is concerned, we are in great dearth of authorities. Our information is shadowy, fitful, and fragmentary and the industry of European scholars (such as Caussin De Perceval, Krehl, Wellhausen, Robertson Smith and Sir Charles Lyall) has succeeded but in lifting the veil merely at its fringe. But however partial and unsatisfactory as the account is, of the Pagan days; we can yet form an idea of the life that the Pagan Arabs led and the thoughts that swayed and animated their conduct and their deeds. I will, therefore, describe “The Pre-Islamic Arabia” as briefly as I can.

The Pre-Islamic Arabs were not a nation. Of the sense of nationality, indeed, they had not the vaguest conception, though they were linked by community of speech. Arabia was a sum-total of loose and disconnected congeries of tribes and the tribe was the source and the limit of social and political obligation. Beyond the tribe there lay no duty and no obligation either. Political relations were moral; for morality was confined within the limits of the tribe. Political organisation was represented by the corporate feeling which found expression in the exercise of the duties of brotherhood. Within the pale of the tribe obtained the prohibition to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, &c., &c. Beyond it there was no such prohibition. Fidelity to one’s kinsman was an imperative duty, apart from any question of the justness of the cause.[1] Outside the tribe there was nothing but constant plunder and unceasing warfare. “Certain large groups were, indeed, almost continually at war with one another. Ma`add, the people of the Hijaz and Al-yamamah generally looked upon Al-yaman as their natural prey and were constantly raiding on the herds of their southern neighbours. Between Tamim and Bakr, son of Wail, there was permanent bad blood, Ghatafan and Hawazin had a standing feud. In the north the kingdom of Al-Hirah, the representative of Persian predominance was the hereditary enemy of Ghassan, the representative of the might of Rome.” (Lyall, _Ancient Arabian Poetry_, p. xxiii.) Arabia, before Islam, was thus a theatre of internecine warfare, restrained, but partially, by the introduction of blood money. There was compensation for everything for which vengeance could be exacted. All crimes were assessed as economic damage. Every loss of honor, property, or life could be appraised by agreement; all having their price in camels. We thus see that the Arabs before Islam had scarcely emerged from barbaric conditions.[2] There was no social order, no organised government. The law of sheer brute force prevailed, untempered and unrestrained, by any civilizing or controlling influence. Nor did they attain any refined idea of religion. Their religion was nothing more or less than gross fetichism; the worship of tree and stone, the veneration of certain personified divine attributes, meaningless ritual and ceremonials. The true religious spirit they never succeeded in grasping and the fear of God never exercised any real, practical influence over their conduct and actions. It was reserved for Islam to instil into them the sense of responsibility to God and to make this idea of human responsibility the guiding and controlling principle of life. To all appearance the Arabs honoured the gods, went on pilgrimage to their sanctuaries, made sacrifices in the temples, anointed with the blood of the victims gods carved out of stone or made of wood, consulted the oracles, when in difficulty, and questioned them about the future. But all this was sham and counterfeit. Of real, genuine, religious feeling there was none. This empty show, however, was kept up for purposes of gain; the manifold sanctuaries yielding large incomes to certain noble families and clans.[3]

In a soil, apparently so uncongenial, how did Islam strike its root? This is an interesting and fascinating question and we must try to solve it here. The solution of this question is to be found in the existence of Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and in the commercial activity of the Arabs, on the other. By commerce the Arabs acquired an extended knowledge of foreign nations and their civilisation. Frequent contact with the outer world widened their intellectual horizon and awakened in them higher and more spiritual thoughts. They learnt new ideas, acquired new habits and, what was most valuable of all, they learnt to think for themselves. But not merely did travel in foreign countries and intercourse with foreign people exercise a disruptive influence, but there were forces, alike subversive and destructive, nearer home. In Arabia itself the two streams of Christianity and Judaism flowed, side by side, with the Arab Heathenism.

That Christianity had made a considerable advance among the Arabs is clear from the fact, that, at the time of Mohamed, it was considerably diffused not merely among the Rabia tribes but even among the Tamim. Nor did the Taiyy altogether escape its influence. Its growth, however, was not so favourable in Hijaz and central Arabia, but even here Christian ideas undoubtedly made their way through commerce and social intercourse. Similarly the Jewish influence was equally powerful. When the Jews came to Arabia we do not definitely know, but Dr. Nöldeke points out that a great Jewish immigration into Arabia cannot be fixed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Hadrian. At all events, it is clear that at the time of Mohamed there was a large colony of Jews at Taima, Khaibar, Yathrib, Fedak and Yaman. They did not live scattered amidst Arab population but kept together and, though despised by the Ara`sq they were yet indispensible to them as merchants, jewellers, and goldsmiths. It would, therefore, be not an error to suppose that they exerted no small spiritual influence over the Arabs.[4] That this is no unfounded theory or improbable supposition is evidenced by the fact that in the works of four of the most prominent Arabian poets of the Pre-Islamic time--An-Nabigah, Zuhair, Al-Asha and Labid--we find expressions which show that they, at least, if not the wild wanderers of the desert, knew very well what a spiritual religion meant.[5] Ibn Qutaibah enumerates drinking, joy, wrath and love among the “motive causes” which speed the poet but we cannot fail to detect in their poems an undercurrent of deep religious feelings. Individual minds felt a sense of uneasiness and sought to find some plausible solution of the mysteries of life and death and traces of such a frame of mind we notice frequently in ancient Arab poetry. On no other basis, indeed, can we explain away the lamentations of the royal poet Imra-ul-Qais over the worthlessness of the life of pleasure that he had led and the conversion to Christianity of Qais B. Zuhair, the leader of the Abs in the long fratricidal war against the Dhubian.[6] In considering the rise of Islam we cannot be unwatchful of the course of contemporary thought or unmindful of the religious forces which contributed to its success. Such, indeed, were the forces at work in Arabia before Mohamed; forces which could not have failed to stir higher thoughts in enlightened minds and to create a reaction against the Arab Heathenism. And a reaction, indeed, did set in. A band of distinguished men, whom we must recognise as the heralds and standard-bearers of Islam, no longer willing to tolerate idolatrous practices, definitely cut themselves adrift from the Arabian Paganism. They called themselves Hanifs; a word of doubtful meaning and the cause of much controversy. “The most acceptable conjecture seems to me”, says Sir Charles Lyall, “to be that of Sprenger that it is connected with the Hebrew HANEF heretic.” Hanifism had certain specific features: rejection of idolatory, abstention from certain kinds of food, and the worship of “the God of Abraham.” Ascetic practices, such as the wearing of sackcloth, are also ascribed to some of the Hanifs.[7] Islamic tradition has handed down to us the names of a number of religious thinkers before Mohamed, who are described as Hanifs and of whom the following is a list:--

1. Warakah b. Naufal of Kuraish. 2. Ubaidulla b. Jahsh. 3. Uthman b. Al Huwarith. 4. Zaid b. ´Amr b. Naufal.

Ibn Kutaibah adds to the above:--

5. Urbab b. al Bara´ of Abdul Qais 6. Umayyah b. Abi-s-Salt. 7. Kuss b. Saidah of Iyad (Aghani XIV, 41-44) Mohamed heard him at Ukaidh but he died before the mission. 8. Abu Kais Simrah b. Abi Anas. 9. Khalid b. Sinan b. Ghaith of Abs.

To these Sir Charles Lyall adds:--

10. Abu Kais Saifi, Ibn Al-Aslat of the Aus-allah of Yathrib.

It is impossible to misconceive the importance and significance of Hanifism in the origin of Islam. The path was already prepared for it and Islam offered to the Arabs what they were long in search for: a moral, ethical, and spiritual teaching; a higher form of worship and last but not least fraternity and union. The tribal cults were henceforward merged in a higher worship and the nobler energies of the Arab race obtained a religious consecration.

Islam became the starting point for the Arabs for conquests, alike spiritual and temporal. With Islam became the prerogative of the Arab race to be “an ensign to the nations;” to bear and to carry the banner of the true God to the remotest corner of the earth. Hence the unceasing campaigns and hence the far-extending conquests.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Wellhausen, _Reste Arabischen Heidentums_, p. 226.

[2] I have avoided further details here, as I have dealt with this subject, at length, in my _Contributions to the History of Islamic Civilisation_, pp. 146-169.

[3] Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 87. For further information see Von Kremer, _Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge_ (my translation, p. 49.)

[4] Wellhausen, _Reste_, pp. 230-231.

[5] Lyall, _Ancient Arabian Poetry_, p. 93.

[6] In Wellhausen’s _Reste_, p. 229 will be found the passage in question from Imra-ul-Qais.

[7] Journal of the Asiatic Society October, 1903 p. 773. Khuda Bukhsh, _Islamic Civilisation_ p. 147 and the authorities therein cited.

II.

It is clear beyond doubt that Christian and Jewish influences, to a large extent, unsettled and disturbed the beliefs of the Pagan Arabs and paved the way for the prophet. Resistance to his faith there was, but it was resistance on the part of those, who sought to maintain the old faith and superstition; not on account of any warmth of conviction or sincerity of zeal, but on account of the fear and apprehension that the success of Islam would mean loss of large incomes derived from the temples and old heathen practices.[8] But resistance, founded upon such a selfish basis, could not prevent, and indeed did not prevent, the onward progress of Islam. In the deadly conflict between Islam and the Arab Heathenism Islam triumphed.

We, now, proceed to enquire as to what was the basis or, in other words, what were the sources from which Islam was derived. Islam freely borrowed from Judaism and Christianity and even did not hesitate to adopt practices prevalent in Pre-Islamic Arabia. In fashioning his religion the prophet adopted an eclectic method, retaining or rejecting from the older systems whatever seemed to him necessary and proper. It is not exactly within the scope of my paper to precisely specify or to accurately define the exact obligation of Islam to Christianity or Judaism. Such a discussion would take me far afield. Professor Wellhausen is inclined to belittle the influence of Judaism in the birth and infancy of Islam and points to the Islamic conception of Jesus, as the greatest of the prophets before Mohamed, as a conclusive proof of his contention. But the present writer is not prepared to attach much weight to this argument. If the Islamic conception of Jesus, indeed, is to be put forward as indicating the absence of Judaic influence on early Islam; with equal force might the Islamic conception of Jesus be urged as subversive of the theory of Christian influence, so stoutly advocated by Professor Wellhausen.[9] The basis of dogmatic Christianity, namely, the sonship of Christ, Mohamed inveighed against early and late. It would be idle to deny the indebtedness of Islam to Judaism. Mohamed has not merely accepted dogmas and doctrines of Judaism, minute Talmudical ordinances, but has even adopted, in its entirety, some of the Jewish practices and, far above all these, that which indeed constitutes the very foundation of Islam, namely, the conception of a severe and uncompromising monotheism.[10] The fact is that both Judaism and Christianity were used and used freely by the prophet in building up his religion. Nor is this a new theory. The prophet never put himself forward as introducing something new but he invariably claimed for himself the honour of reviving the old and the true beliefs which had fallen into neglect and oblivion. But besides the Jewish and Christian sources, not a small portion of Islamic ritual and ceremonials were mere reproductions of Pre-Islamic practices. The entire ceremonies relating to the pilgrimage (Hajj) and the sacred service, at the temple of Mecca, have survived in Islam with little or no variation from the days of Arab Heathenism;[11] the only change that Mohamed effected in them was to allow the pilgrims to put on a particular pilgrim dress consisting of two pieces of cloth of which one covers the hip and the other breast and shoulders; while the head has to be kept uncovered, as in ancient days, when they used to make up their hair into a sort of wig by means of some glutinous substance. And so indeed it has remained, to this day, the prescribed pilgrim costume. After visiting the Kabah they used, in heathen days, to visit the two rocky hills of Safa and Merwah on which were placed two bronze idols. Mohamed went so far in his toleration of the heathen pilgrimage customs that he suffered the visit to Safa and Marwah to continue as before, but had the two idols removed. Of the history of the origin of the forms of the prayer, prostration, ablution, and fasts our knowledge is vague, uncertain and shadowy.

Islam has, says Von Kremer,

largely drawn upon Judaism, Christianity, the religion of Zoroaster and possibly even from Manichenism. From Parsiism it has taken both directly and indirectly. A number of obviously Parsi ideas have penetrated into Islam through the channel of Jewish books; notably the Talmud. The doctrine of the resurrection, most of the legends relating to heaven and hell, and the entire system of demonology have found their way into the Qur´an through Judaism. So indeed did the description of the trial and the tortures of the dead in the grave by two angels _Munkar_ and _Nakir_. The idea of the bridge _sirat_ as thin as a hair, which leads to paradise across the abyss of hell is certainly derived from the Parsis; having passed over into the Qur´an through the Midrash. But Islam has not hesitated to borrow directly from Parsiism. It is a significant fact that the word _din_, which so repeatedly occurs in the Qur´an, has been borrowed from the Parsi books. In the Huzveresh it appears in exactly the same form (old Backtrian dæna).[12]

It is not suggested that the prophet had access to the written books of either the Jews or the Christians; though in some passages of the Qur´an we can trace direct resemblances to the text of the Old Testament and the Mishna.[13] His knowledge of the Jewish and Christian books, at times faulty and imperfect to a degree, was derived almost exclusively by oral communications.

I trust I have said enough to illustrate the condition of Arabia before Islam and the sources from which the prophet of Arabia received his religious inspiration. I, now, go on to explain Islam and its tenets.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Von Kremer, _Culturgeschichte des orients_, p. 24, vol. I.

[9] Wellhausen pp. 236 ct. Seq. Prof. Wellhausen admits Jewish influence in the Islamic theocracy and in the belief that the prophet, as representative of God, is alone entitled to rule and govern, to the exclusion of all other powers. See, also Deutsch p. 171.

[10] See the learned monograph of Geiger, _Was hat Mohammed ans Judenthume aufgenommen_.

[11] Lyall, p. 93; Von Kremer’s _Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge_ (my translation p. 47). The author of Ras´ Mal-in-Nadim, (Bankipore, M.S.) gives an account of Heathen practices (Fol. 17 et Seq.); specially drawing attention to those retained by Islam.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Von Kremer, _Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge_ (my translation p. 47) Comp. Qur´an XXI, 105 with Ps. XXX VII 29; 1-5 with Ps. XXVII. The New Testament. Comp. VII, 48 with Luke XVI. 24; XLVI, 19 with Luke XVI. 25. Then again verse 35 corresponds almost word for word with Mishna Sanh IV. 5; also II. 183 with Mishna Ber. 1.2. Nöldeke, _Sketches from Eastern History_, p. 31.

III.

Mr. Ameer Ali explains Islam as “striving after righteousness,” but Prof. Hirschfeld, in his luminous _Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qur´an_, very correctly points out that Mr. Ameer Ali’s definition only reflects the theoretical and moral side of the question--limited to the initial stage of Islam.[14]

The term Islam, as time went by, included the whole of the theoretical and practical constitution of the faith and as such it is interpreted by Al-Ghazzali in his Ihya-ul-ulum (p. 104, vol. I.) Islam, says he, is an expression for submission and unquestioning obedience, abandonment of insubordination, defiance and opposition. And it is in this light, indeed, that the prophet himself regarded Islam. “The Bedwins say: ‘we believe,’ Speak! you shall not ‘believe’ (only) but say we practice Islam (Aslamna).” (XLIX. 14) In Surah III. 17 (Cf. V. 79) Islam is identified with _din_ (Cf. LXI. 7-9) and the relation between the two synonyms, says Prof. Hirschfeld, is broadly discussed by Al-Shahrastani (Milal, pp. 25 to 27) and is stated to embrace the five duties, _viz._:--Of testifying to the unity of God and the Divine inspiration of Mohamed, the duties of reciting prayers, giving alms, fasting in the _Ramadhan_, and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca. The fundamental basis of Islam is the unity of God; stern, unbending monotheism and this doctrine of the unity of God is proclaimed in the Qur´an, in season and out of season and ever and anon with augmented emphasis. To associate gods with God is the most unpardonable sin and the prophet’s extensive vocabulary of vituperation is never exhausted in attacking those who associate gods with God. In Surah VI (verses 74-79) we have one of the most charming passages testifying to the unity of God:--

And remember when Abraham said to his father, Azar, thou takest those images as God? verily I see that thou and thy people are in manifest error.

And so did we show Abraham the domain of the heavens and of the earth that he might be one of those who are established in knowledge. And when the night overshadowed him he beheld a star “This, said he, is My Lord” but when it set, he cried, “I love not gods which set.” And when he beheld the moon uprising “This,” said he, “is my Lord” but when it set, he said, “surely, if My Lord guide me not I shall be of those who go astray.”

And when he beheld the Sun uprise, he said, “This is my Lord,” “this is the greatest” but when it set, he said “O my people I share not with you the guilt of joining gods with God.”

_I verily turn my face to him who hath created the Heavens and the earth following the right religion and I am not one of those who add gods to God._

Not a whit has Gibbon[15] exaggerated the truth when he wrote “the creed of Mohamed is free from suspicion or ambiguity and the Qur´an is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.” And, again, says the historian of the Roman Empire, “these sublime truths, thus announced in the language of the prophet, are firmly held by his disciples and defined with metaphysical precision by the interpreters of the Qur´an. A philosophic atheist might subscribe the popular creed of Mohamedans: a creed too sublime perhaps for our present faculties.”

The unity of God, therefore, is the central faith of Islam and connected with it, by natural process as it were, is the belief that man is responsible to the creator for his actions and deeds. This belief, the Pre-Islamic Arab never knew or conceived, and the prophet Mohamed, by inculcating this belief, not only laid the foundation of a spiritual life among his countrymen, but laid the foundation of a well-organized society; soon destined to grow into a magnificent empire. The sphere of duty and obligation, charity and sympathy, confined hitherto merely to tribesmen, was widened and extended and the narrow tribal tie was lost in the larger brotherhood of faith. At this distance of time, it is perhaps difficult for us to fully realize the influence of this teaching, but to it alone must we ascribe the dethronement of those ideals of Arabian Paganism which the author of the _Muhammedanische Studien_ has so graphically described, comparing and contrasting them with the higher ideals substituted by Islam.[16] The religion of the prophet, like the wand of a magician, completely and utterly changed the life of the Arabs. It hushed their tribal disputes into silence, it destroyed their insularity, it set up a purer and a more refined standard of domestic life, it opened before them fresh vistas of spiritual happiness and temporal success.