‘Canon Edward Sell’ (24 January 1839 – 15 February 1932) was an Anglican orientalist, writer and missionary in India. He was educated at the Church Missionary College in Islington, London, completing his studies in 1862. After finishing his studies, he was ordained deacon and in 1867, priest. He served as the examining chaplain for the Bishop of Madras and in 1889 he was appointed canon at St George's Cathedral, Madras. He is commemorated by a plaque in the Cathedral. In 1874, he was appointed as a fellow of Madras University and he received a Bachelor of Divinity from Lambeth in 1881. Sell received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from the University of Edinburgh in 1907. He was a member of the Royal Asiatic Society and was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal in 1906. He was also appointed Chairman of the Arabic, Persian and Hindustani Studies. In 1865, he became the principal of the Harris High School for Muslims in Madras in which capacity he continued until 1881. It was also during this time that he was secretary of the Church Missionary Society for the dioceses of Madras and Travancore. He officially retired from the CMS in 1923, but continued to live in India, involving himself in scholarship and ministry. When he died in Bangalore on 15 February 1932, he was working on his fiftieth book.

Chapter 1 : The Foundations of Islám

The creed of Islám, “Lá-iláha-il-lal-láhu Muhammad-ur-Rasúl-Ulláh,” (There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God) is very short, but the system itself is a very dogmatic one. Such statements as: “The Qurán is an all-embracing and sufficient code, regulating everything,” “The Qurán contains the entire code of Islám—that is, it is not a book of religious precepts merely, but it governs all that a Muslim does,” “The Qurán contains the whole religion of Muhammad,” “The Qurán which contains the whole Gospel of Islám” are not simply misleading, they are erroneous. So far from the Qurán alone being the sole rule of faith and practice to Muslims, there is not one single sect amongst them whose faith and practice is based on it alone. No one among them disputes its authority or casts any doubt upon its genuineness. Its voice is supreme in all that it concerns, but its exegesis, the whole system of legal jurisprudence and of theological science, is largely founded on the Traditions. Amongst the orthodox Musalmáns, the foundations of the Faith are four in number, the Qurán, Sunnat, Ijmá’ and Qíás. The fact that all the sects do not agree with the orthodox—the Sunnís—in this matter illustrates another important fact in Islám—the want of unity amongst its followers.

1. The Qurán

The question of the inspiration will be fully discussed, and an account of the laws of the exegesis of the Qurán will be given in the next chapter. It is sufficient now to state that this book is held in the highest veneration by Muslims of every sect. When being read it is kept on a stand elevated above the floor, and no one must read or touch it without first making a legal ablution. It is not translated unless there is the most urgent necessity, and even then the Arabic text is printed with the translation. It is said that God chose the sacred month of Ramazán in which to give all the revelations which in the form of books have been vouchsafed to mankind. Thus on the first night of that month the books of Abraham came down from heaven; on the sixth the books of Moses; on the thirteenth the Injíl, or Gospel, and on the twenty-seventh the Qurán. On that night, the Laylut-ul-Qadr, or “night of power,” the whole Qurán is said to have descended to the lowest of the seven heavens, from whence it was brought piecemeal to Muhammad as occasion required. “Verily we have caused it (the Qurán) to descend on the night of power.” (Súra xcvii. 1.) That night is called the blessed night, the night better than a thousand months, the night when angels came down by the permission of their Lord, the night which bringeth peace and blessings till the rosy dawn. Twice on that night in the solitude of the cave of Hira the voice called, twice though pressed sore “as if a fearful weight had been laid upon him,” the prophet struggled against its influence. The third time he heard the words:—

“Recite thou, in the name of thy Lord who created—
Created man from clots of blood.” (Súra xcvi. 5.)

“When the voice had ceased to speak, telling how from minutest beginnings man had been called into existence, and lifted up by understanding and knowledge of the Lord, who is most beneficent, and who by the pen had revealed that which man did not know, Muhammad woke up from his trance and felt as if “a book had been written in his heart.” He was much alarmed. Tradition records that he went hastily to his wife and said—“O Khadíja! what has happened to me!” He lay down and she watched by him. When he recovered from his paroxysm, he said “O Khadíja! he of whom one would not have believed (i.e., himself) has become either a soothsayer (káhin) or mad.” She replied, “God is my protection, O Ab-ul-kásim. He will surely not let such a thing happen unto thee, for thou speakest the truth, dost not return evil for evil, keepest faith, art of a good life and art kind to thy relatives and friends, and neither art thou a talker abroad in the bazaars. What has befallen thee? Hast thou seen aught terrible?” Muhammad replied “Yes.” And he told her what he had seen. Whereupon she answered and said:—“Rejoice, O dear husband and be of good cheer. He in whose hands stands Khadíja’s life, is my witness that thou wilt be the Prophet of this people.” The next Súra, the 74th, was revealed at Mecca, after which there seems to have been an intermission, called the Fatrah. It was during this time that the Prophet gained some knowledge of the contents of the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures.

Gabriel is believed to have been the medium of communication. This fact, however, is only once stated in the Qurán:—“Say, whoso is the enemy of Gabriel—For the it is who by God’s leave hath caused the Qurán to descend on thy heart” (Súra ii. 91.) This Súra was revealed some years after the Prophet’s flight to Madína. The other references to the revelation of the Qurán are:—“Verily from the Lord of the worlds hath this book come down; the Faithful Spirit (Rúh-ul-Ámín) hath come down with it” (Súra xxvi. 192.) “The Qurán is no other than a revelation revealed to him, one terrible in power (Shadíd-ul-Quá) taught it him.” (Súra liii. 5.) These latter passages do not state clearly that Gabriel was the medium of communication, but the belief that he was is almost, if not entirely, universal, and the Commentators say that the terms “Rúh-ul-Ámín” and “Shadíd-ul-Quá” refer to no other angel or spirit. The use of the word “taught” in the last Súra quoted, and the following expression in Súra lxxv. 18. “When we have recited it, then follow thou the recital,” show that the Qurán is entirely an objective revelation and that Muhammad was only a passive medium of communication. The Muhammadan historian, Ibn Khaldoun, says on this point:—“Of all the divine books the Qurán is the only one of which the text, words and phrases have been communicated to a prophet by an audible voice. It is otherwise with the Pentateuch, the Gospel and the other divine books: the prophets received them under the form of ideas.” This expresses the universal belief on this point—a belief which reveals the essentially mechanical nature of Islám.

The Qurán thus revealed is now looked upon as the standing miracle of Islám. Other divine books, it is admitted, were revelations received under the form of ideas, but the Qurán is far superior to them all for the actual text was revealed to the ear of the prophet. Thus we read in Súra lxxv. 16-19:—

“Move not thy tongue in haste to follow and master this revelation;
For we will see to the collecting and recital of it;
But when we have recited it, then follow thou the recital;
And verily it shall be ours to make it clear to thee.”

The Qurán is, then, believed to be a miraculous revelation of divine eloquence, as regards both form and substance, arrangement of words, and its revelation of sacred things. It is asserted that each well-accredited prophet performed miracles in that particular department of human skill or science most flourishing in his age. Thus in the days of Moses magic exercised a wide influence, but all the magicians of Pharaoh’s court had to submit to the superior skill of the Hebrew prophet. In the days of Jesus the science of medicine flourished. Men possessed great skill in the art of healing; but no physician could equal the skill of Jesus, who not only healed the sick, but raised the dead. In the days of Muhammad the special and most striking feature of the age was the wonderful power of the Arabs in the art of poetry. Muhammad-ud-Damiri says:—”Wisdom hath alighted on three things—the brain of the Franks, the hands of the Chinese and the tongue of the Arabs.” They were unrivalled for their eloquence, for the skill with which they arranged their material and gave expression to their thoughts. It is in this very particular that superior excellence is claimed for the Qurán. It is to the Muhammadan mind a sure evidence of its miraculous origin that it should excel in this respect. Muslims say that miracles have followed the revelations given to other prophets in order to confirm the divine message. In this case the Qurán is both a revelation and a miracle. Muhammad himself said:—“Each prophet has received manifest signs which carried conviction to men: but that which I have received is the revelation. So I hope to have a larger following on the day of resurrection than any other prophet has.” Ibn Khaldoun says that “by this the Prophet means that such a wonderful miracle as the Qurán, which is also a revelation, should carry conviction to a very large number.” To a Muslim the fact is quite clear, and so to him the Qurán is far superior to all the preceding books. Muhammad is said to have convinced a rival, Lebid, a poet-laureate, of the truth of his mission by reciting to him a portion of the now second Súra. “Unquestionably it is one of the very grandest specimens of Koranic or Arabic diction… But even descriptions of this kind, grand as they be, are not sufficient to kindle and preserve the enthusiasm and the faith and the hope of a nation like the Arabs… The poets before him had sung of valour and generosity, of love and strife and revenge… of early graves, upon which weeps the morning cloud, and of the fleeting nature of life which comes and goes as the waves of the desert sands, as the tents of a caravan, as a flower that shoots up and dies away. Or they shoot their bitter arrows of satire right into the enemy’s own soul. Muhammad sang of none of these. No love-minstrelsy his, not the joys of the world, nor sword, nor camel, nor jealousy, nor human vengeance, not the glories of tribe or ancestor. He preached Islám.” The very fierceness with which this is done, the swearing such as Arab orator, proficient though he may have been in the art, had never made, the dogmatic certainty with which the Prophet proclaimed his message have tended, equally with the passionate grandeur of his utterances, to hold the Muslim world spell-bound to the letter and imbued with all the narrowness of the book.

So sacred is the text supposed to be that only the Companions of the Prophet are deemed worthy of being commentators on it. The work of learned divines since then has been to learn the Qurán by heart and to master the traditions, with the writings of the earliest commentators thereon. The revelation itself is never made a subject of investigation or tried by the ordinary rules of criticism. If only the Isnád, or chain of authorities for any interpretation, is good, that interpretation is unhesitatingly accepted as the correct one. It is a fundamental article of belief that no other book in the world can possibly approach near to it in thought or expression. It deals with positive precepts rather than with principles. Its decrees are held to be binding not in the spirit merely but in the very letter on all men, at all times and under every circumstance of life. This follows as a natural consequence from the belief in its eternal nature.

The various portions recited by the Prophet during the twenty-three years of his prophetical career were committed to writing by some of his followers, or treasured up in their memories. As the recital of the Qurán formed a part of every act of public worship, and as such recital was an act of great religious merit, every Muslim tried to remember as much as he could. He who could do so best was entitled to the highest honour, and was often the recipient of a substantial reward. The Arab love for poetry facilitated the exercise of this faculty. When the Prophet died the revelation ceased. There was no distinct copy of the whole, nothing to show what was of transitory importance, what of permanent value. There is nothing which proves that the Prophet took any special care of any portions. There seems to have been no definite order in which, when the book was compiled, the various Súras were arranged, for the Qurán, as it now exists, is utterly devoid of all historical or logical sequence. For a year after the Prophet’s death nothing seems to have been done; but then the battle of Yemana took place in which a very large number of the best Qurán reciters were slain. Omar took fright at this, and addressing the Khalíf Abu Bakr, said, “The slaughter may again wax hot amongst the repeaters of the Qurán in other fields of battle, and much may be lost there from. Now, therefore, my advice is that thou shouldest give speedy orders for the collection of the Qurán.” Abu Bakr agreed, and said to Zeid who had been an amanuensis of the Prophet:—“Thou art a young man, and wise, against whom no one amongst us can cast an imputation; and thou wert wont to write down the inspired revelations of the Prophet of the Lord, wherefore now search out the Qurán and bring it all together.” Zeid being at length pressed to undertake the task proceeded to gather the Qurán together from “date leaves, and tablets of white stone, and from the hearts of men.” In course of time it was all compiled in the order in which the book is now arranged. This was the authorized text for some twenty-three years after the death of Muhammad. Owing, however, either to different modes of recitation, or to differences of expression in the sources from which Zeid’s first recension was made, a variety of different readings crept into the copies in use. The Faithful became alarmed and the Khalíf Osmán was persuaded to put a stop to such a danger. He appointed Zeid with three of the leading men of the Quraish as assistants to go over the whole work again. A careful recension was made of the whole book which was then assimilated to the Meccan dialect, the purest in Arabia. After this all other copies of the Qurán were burnt by order of the Khalíf, and new transcripts were made of the revised edition which was now the only authorised copy. As it is a fundamental tenet of Islám that the Qurán is incorruptible and absolutely free from error, no little difficulty has been felt in explaining the need of Osmán’s new and revised edition and of the circumstances under which it took place; but as usual a Tradition has been handed down which makes it lawful to read the Qurán in seven dialects. The book in its present form may be accepted as a genuine reproduction of Abu Bakr’s edition with authoritative corrections. We may rest assured that we have in the Qurán now in use the record of what Muhammad said. It thus becomes a fundamental basis of Islám. It was a common practice of the early Muslims when speaking of the Prophet to say:—“His character is the Qurán.” When people curious to know details of the life of their beloved master asked ‘Áyesha, one of his widows, about him, she used to reply:—“Thou hast the Qurán, art thou not an Arab and readest the Arab tongue? Why dost thou ask me, for the Prophet’s disposition is no other than the Qurán?”

Whether Muhammad would have arranged the Qurán as we now have it is a subject on which it is impossible to form an opinion. There are Traditions which seem to show that he had some doubts as to its completeness. I give the following account on the authority of M. Caussin de Percival. When Muhammad felt his end draw near he said:—“Bring ink and paper: I wish to write to you a book to preserve you always from error.” But it was too late. He could not write or dictate and so he said:—“May the Qurán always be your guide. Perform what it commands you: avoid what it prohibits.” The genuineness of the first part of this Tradition is, I think, very doubtful, the latter is quite in accordance with the Prophet’s claim for his teaching. The letter of the book became, as Muhammad intended it should become, a despotic influence in the Muslim world, a barrier to freethinking on the part of all the orthodox, an obstacle to innovation in all spheres—political, social, intellectual and moral. There are many topics connected with it which can be better explained in the next chapter. All that has now to be here stated is that the Qurán is the first foundation of Islám. It is an error to suppose it is the only one: an error which more than anything else has led persons away from the only position in which they could obtain a true idea of the great system of Islám.

The Shía’hs maintain, without good reason, that the following verses favourable to the claims of ‘Alí and of the Shía’h faction were omitted in Osmán’s recension.

“O Believers! believe in the two lights.” (Muhammad and ‘Alí).
‘Alí is of the number of the pious, we shall give him his right in the day of judgment; we shall not pass over those who wish to deceive him. We have honoured him above all this family. He and his family are very patient. Their enemy is the chief of sinners.
We have announced to thee a race of just men, men who will not oppose our orders. My mercy and peace are on them living or dead.
As to those who walk in their way, my mercy is on them; they will certainly gain the mansions of Paradise.”

2. The Sunnat

The second foundation of Islám is based on the Hadís (plural Ahádís) or Tradition. Commands from God given in the Qurán are called ‘farz’ and ‘wájib.’ A command given by the Prophet or an example set by him is called ‘sunnat,’ a word meaning a rule. It is then technically applied to the basis of religious faith and practice, which is founded on traditional accounts of the sayings and acts of Muhammad. It is the belief common to all Musalmáns, that the Prophet in all that he did, and in all that he said, was supernaturally guided, and that his words and acts are to all time and to all his followers a divine rule of faith and practice. “We should know that God Almighty has given commands and prohibitions to his servants, either by means of the Qurán, or by the mouth of His Prophet.” Al-Ghazáli, a most distinguished theologian, writes:—“Neither is the faith according to His will, complete by the testimony to the Unity alone, that is, by simply saying, ‘There is but one God,’ without the addition of the further testimony to the Apostle, that is, the statement, ‘Muhammad is the apostle of God.’ This belief in the Prophet must extend to all that he has said concerning the present and the future life, for, says the same author, “A man’s faith is not accepted till he is fully persuaded of those things which the Prophet hath affirmed shall be after death.”

It is often said that the Wahhábís reject Tradition. In the ordinary sense of the word Tradition they may; but in Muslim Theology the term Hadís, which we translate Tradition, has a special meaning. It is applied only to the sayings of the Prophet, not to those of some uninspired divine or teacher. The Wahhábís reject the Traditions handed down by men who lived after the time of the Companions, but the Hadís, embodying the sayings of the Prophet, they, in common with all Muslim sects, hold to be an inspired revelation of God’s will to men. It would be as reasonable to say that Protestants reject the four Gospels as to say that the Wahhábís reject Tradition. An orthodox Muslim places the Gospels in the same rank as the Hadís, that is, he looks upon them as a record of what Jesus said and did handed down to us by His Companions. “In the same way as other Prophets received their books under the form of ideas, so our Prophet has in the same way received a great number of communications which are found in the collections of the Traditions (Ahádís). This shows that the Sunnat must be placed on a level with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; whilst the Qurán is a revelation superior to them all. To no sect of Musalmáns is the Qurán alone the rule of faith. The Shía’hs, it is true, reject the Sunnat, but they have in their own collection of Traditions an exact equivalent.

The nature of the inspiration of the Sunnat and its authoritative value are questions of the first importance, whether Islám is viewed from a theological or a political stand-point.

“Muhammad said that seventy-three sects would arise, of whom only one would be worthy of Paradise. The Companions inquired which sect would be so highly favoured. The Prophet replied:—‘The one which remains firm in my way and in that of my friends.’ It is certain that this must refer to the Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jamá’at.” (Sunnís.)

It is laid down as a preliminary religious duty that obedience should be rendered to the Sunnat of the Prophet. Thus in the fourth Súra of the Qurán it is written: “O true believers! obey God and obey the apostle.” “We have not sent any apostle but that he might be obeyed by the permission of God.” From these and similar passages the following doctrine is deduced: “It is plain that the Prophet (on whom and on whose descendants be the mercy and peace of God!) is free from sin in what he ordered to be done, and in what he prohibited, in all his words and acts; for where it otherwise how could obedience rendered to him be accounted as obedience paid to God?” Believers are exhorted to render obedience to God by witnessing to His divinity, and to the Prophet by bearing witness to his prophetship; this is a sign of love, and love is the cause of nearness to God. The Prophet himself is reported to have said, “Obey me that God may regard you as friends.” From this statement the conclusion is drawn that “the love of God (to man) is conditional on obedience to the Prophet.” Belief in and obedience to the Prophet are essential elements of the true faith, and he who possesses not both of these is in error.

In order to show the necessity of this obedience, God is said to have appointed Muhammad as the Mediator between Himself and man. In a lower sense, believers are to follow the “Sunnat” of the four Khalífs, Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán, and ‘Alí, who are true guides to men.

To the Muslim all that the Prophet did was perfectly in accord with the will of God. Moral laws have a different application when applied to him. His jealousy, his cruelty to the Jewish tribes, his indulgence in licentiousness, his bold assertion of equality with God as regards his commands, his every act and word, are sinless, and a guide to men as long as the world shall last. It is easy for an apologist for Muhammad to say that this is an accretion, something which engrafted itself on to a simpler system. It is no such thing. It is rather one of the essential parts of the system. Let Muhammad be his own witness:—“He who loves not my Sunnat is not my follower.” “He who revives my Sunnat revives me, and will be with me in Paradise.” “He who in distress holds fast to the Sunnat will receive the reward of a hundred martyrs.” As might be expected, the setting up of his own acts and words as an infallible and unvarying rule of faith accounts more than anything else for the immobility of the Muhammadan world, for it must be always remembered that in Islám Church and State are one. The Arab proverb, “Al mulk wa dín tawáminí”—country and religion are twins—is the popular form of expressing the unity of Church and State. To the mind of the Musalmán the rule of the one is the rule of the other,—a truth sometimes forgotten by politicians who look hopefully on the reform of Turkey or the regeneration of the House of Osmán. The Sunnat as much as the Qurán covers all law, whether political, social, moral, or religious. A modern writer who has an intimate acquaintance with Islám says:—“If Islám is to be a power for good in the future, it is imperatively necessary to cut off the social system from the religion. The difficulty lies in the close connection between the religious and social ordinances in the Kurán, the two are so intermingled that it is hard to see how they can be disentangled without destroying both.” I believe this to be impossible, and the case becomes still more hopeless when we remember that the same remark would apply to the Sunnat. To forget this is to go astray, for Ibn Khaldoun distinctly speaks of “the Law derived from the Qurán and the Sunnat,” of the “maxims of Musalmán Law based on the text of the Qurán and the teaching of the Traditions.”

The Prophet had a great dread of all innovation. The technical term for anything new is “bida’t,” and of it, it is said: “Bida’t is the changer of Sunnat.” In other words, if men seek after things new, if fresh forms of thought arise, and the changing condition of society demands new modes of expression for the Faith, or new laws to regulate the community, if in internals or externals, any new thing (bida’t) is introduced, it is to be shunned. The law as revealed in the Qurán and the Sunnat is perfect. Everything not in accordance with the precepts therein contained is innovation, and all innovation is heresy. Meanwhile some “bida’t” is allowable, such as the teaching of etymology and syntax, the establishment of schools, guest-houses, &c., which things did not exist in the time of the Prophet; but it is distinctly and clearly laid down that compliance with the least Sunnat (i.e. the obeying the least of the orders of the Prophet, however trivial) is far better than doing some new thing, however advantageous and desirable it may be.

There are many stories which illustrate the importance the Companions of the Prophet attached to Sunnat. “The Khalíf Omar looked towards the black stone at Mecca, and said, ‘By God, I know that thou art only a stone, and canst grant no benefit, canst do no harm. If I had not known that the Prophet kissed thee, I would not have done so, but on account of that I do it.’” Abdullah-Ibn-‘Umr was seen riding his camel round and round a certain place. In answer to an inquiry as to his reason for so doing he said: “I know not, only I have seen the Prophet do so here.” Ahmad-Ibn-Hanbal, one of the four great Imáms, and the founder of the Hanbalí school of interpretation, is said to have been appointed on account of the care with which he observed the Sunnat. One day when sitting in an assembly he alone of all present observed some formal custom authorised by the practice of the Prophet. Gabriel at once appeared and informed him that now, and on account of his act, he was appointed an Imám. In short, it is distinctly laid down that the best of all works is the following of the practice of Muhammad. The essence of religion has been stated by a learned theologian to consist of three things: first, to follow the Prophet in morals and in acts; secondly, to eat only lawful food; thirdly, to be sincere in all actions.

The Sunnat is now known to Musalmáns through the collections of Traditions gathered together by the men whose names they now bear. The whole are called Sihah-Sittah, or “six correct books.” Not one of these collectors flourished until the third century of the Hijra, and so, as may be easily supposed, their work has not passed unchallenged. There is by no means an absolute consensus of opinion among the Sunnís as to the exact value of each Tradition, yet all admit that a ‘genuine Tradition’ must be obeyed. Whether the Prophet spoke what in the Traditions is recorded as spoken by him under the influence of the highest kind of inspiration is, as will be shown in the next chapter, a disputed point; but it matters little. Whatever may have been the degree, it was according to Muslim belief a real inspiration, and thus his every act and word became a law as binding upon his followers as the example of Christ is upon Christians.

The Shía’hs do not acknowledge the Sihah-Sittah, the six correct books of the Sunnís, but it by no means follows that they reject Tradition. They have five books of Traditions, the earliest of which was compiled by Abu Ja’far Muhammad A.H. 329, or a century later than the Sahíh-i-Bukhárí, the most trustworthy of the Sunní set. Thus all Musalmán sects accept the first and second ground of the faith—the Qurán and the Sunnat—as the inspired will of God; the Shía’hs substituting in the place of the Traditions on which the Sunnat is based, a collection of their own. What it is important to maintain is this, that the Qurán alone is to no Musalmán an all-sufficient guide.

3. Ijmá’

The third foundation of the Faith is called Ijmá’, a word signifying to be collected or assembled. Technically it means the unanimous consent of the leading theologians, or what in Christian theology would be called the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Practically it is a collection of the opinions of the Companions, the Tábi’ín and the Taba-i-Tábi’ín. “The Law,” says Ibn Khaldoun “is grounded on the general accord of the Companions and their followers.” The election of Abu Bakr to the Khalifate is called Ijmá’-i-Ummat, the unanimous consent of the whole sect. The Companions of the Prophet had special knowledge of the various circumstances under which special revelations had been made; they alone knew which verses of the Qurán abrogated others, and which verses were thus abrogated. The knowledge of these matters and many other details they handed on to their successors, the Tábi’ín, who passed the information on to their followers, the Taba-i-Tábi’ín. Some Muslims, the Wahhábís for example, accept only the Ijmá’ of the Companions; and by all sects that is placed in the first rank as regards authority; others accept that of the ‘Fugitives’ who dwelt at Madína; and there are some amongst the orthodox who allow, as a matter of theory, that Ijmá’ may be collected at any time, but that practically it is not done because there are now no Mujtahidín. The highest rank a Muslim Theologian could reach was that of a Mujtahid, or one who could make an Ijtihád, a word which, derived from the same root as Jihád (a Crescentade), means in its technical sense a logical deduction. It is defined as the “attaining to a certain degree of authority in searching into the principles of jurisprudence.” The origin of Ijtihád was as follows:—Muhammad wished to send a man named Mu’áz to Yaman to receive some money collected for alms, which he was then to distribute to the poor. On appointing him he said: “O Mu’áz, by what rule will you act?” He replied, “by the Law of the Qurán.” “But if you find no direction therein?” “Then I will act according to the Sunnat of the Prophet.” “But what if that fails?” “Then I will make an Ijtihád and act on that.” The Prophet raised his hands and said, “Praise be to God who guides the messenger of His Prophet in what He pleases.” This is considered a proof of the authority of Ijtihád for the Prophet clearly sanctioned it.

When the Prophet was alive men could go to him with their doubts and fears: an infallible authority was always present ready to give an inspired direction. The Khalífs who succeeded the Prophet had only to administer the Law according to the opinions which they knew Muhammad had held. They were busily engaged in carrying on the work of conquest; they neither attempted any new legislation, nor did they depart from the practice of him whom they revered. “In the first days of Islám, the knowledge of the Law was purely Traditional. In forming their judgments they had no recourse either to speculation, to private opinion, or to arguments founded upon analogy.” However, as the Empire grew, new conditions of life arose, giving rise to questions, concerning which Muhammad had given no explicit direction. This necessitated the use of Ijtihád. During the Khalifates of Abu Bakr, Omar, Osmán and ‘Alí—the Khulafa-i-Ráshidín, or the Khalífs who could guide men in the right way, the custom was for the Faithful to consult them as to the course of action to be pursued under some new development of circumstances; for they knew as none other did the Prophet’s sayings and deeds, they could recall to their memories a saying or an act from which a decision could be deduced. In this way all Muslims could feel that in following their judgments and guidance they were walking in the right path. But after the death of ‘Alí, the fourth Khalíf, civil war and hostile factions imperilled the continuance of the Faith in its purity. At Madína, where Muhammad’s career as a recognised Prophet was best known, devout men commenced to learn by heart the Qurán, the Sunnat, and the analogical judgments (Ijtihád) of the four Khalífs. These men were looked up to as authorities, and their decisions were afterwards known as the ‘Customs of Madína.’

It is not difficult to see that a system, which sought to regulate all departments of life, all developments of men’s ideas and energies by the Sunnat and analogical deductions there from, was one which not only gave every temptation a system could give to the manufacture of Tradition, but one which would soon become too cumbersome to be of practical use. Hence, it was absolutely necessary to systematize all this incoherent mass of Tradition, of judgments given by Khalífs and Mujtahidín. This gave rise to the systems of jurisprudence, founded by the four orthodox Imáms, to one or other of which all Muslims, except the Shía’hs, belong. These Imáms, Abu Hanífa, Ibn Málik, As-Sháfi’i and Ibn Hanbal were all Mujtahidín of the highest rank. After them it is the orthodox belief that there has been no Mujtahid. Thus in a standard theological book much used in India it is written: “Ijmá’ is this, that it is not lawful to follow any other than the four Imáms.” “In these days the Qází must make no order, the Muftí give no fatvá (i.e. a legal decision), contrary to the opinion of the four Imáms.” “To follow any other is not lawful.” So far then as orthodoxy is concerned, change and progress are impossible.

Imám Abu Hanífa was born at Basra (A.H. 80), but he spent the greater part of his life at Kúfa. He was the founder and teacher of the body of legists known as ‘the jurists of Irák.’ His system differs considerably from that of the Imám Málik who, living at Madína, confined himself chiefly to Tradition as the basis of his judgments. Madína was full of the memories of the sayings and acts of the Prophet; Kúfa, the home of Hanífa, on the contrary, was not founded till after the Prophet’s death and so possessed none of his memories. Islám there came into contact with other races of men, but from them it had nothing to learn. If these men became Muslims, well and good: if not, the one law for them as for the Faithful was the teaching of Muhammad. Various texts of the Qurán are adduced to prove the correctness of this position. “For to thee have we sent down the book which cleareth up everything.” (Súra xvi. 91) “Nothing have we passed over in the book.” (Súra vi. 38.) “Neither is there a grain in the darkness of the earth nor a thing green or sere, but it is noted in a distinct writing.” (Súra vi. 59). These texts were held to prove that all law was provided for by anticipation in the Qurán. If a verse could not be found bearing on any given question, analogical deduction was resorted to. Thus: “He it is who created for you all that is on earth.” (Súra ii. 27). According to the Hanifite jurists, this is a deed of gift which annuls all other rights of property. The ‘you’ refers to Muslims. The earth may be classified under three heads:—(1) land which never had an owner; (2) land which had an owner and has been abandoned; (3) the person and property of the Infidels. From the last division the same legists deduce the lawfulness of slavery, piracy and constant war against the unbelievers. To return to Abu Hanífa. He admitted very few Traditions as authoritative in his system, which claims to be a logical development from the Qurán. “The merit of logical fearlessness cannot be denied to it. The wants and wishes of men, the previous history of a country—all those considerations, in fact, which are held in the West to be the governing principles of legislation, are set aside by the legists of Irák as being of no account whatever. Legislation is not a science inductive and experimental, but logical and deductive.”

Imám Ibn Málik was born at Madína (A.H. 93) and his system of jurisprudence is founded, as might be expected from his connection with the sacred city, on the “Customs of Madína.” His business was to arrange and systematize the Traditions current in Madína, and to form out of them and the “Customs” a system of jurisprudence embracing the whole sphere of life. The treatise composed by him was called the “Muwatta” or “The Beaten Path.” The greater part of its contents are legal maxims and opinions delivered by the Companions. His system of jurisprudence, therefore, has been described as historical and traditional. In an elegy on his death by Abu Muhammad Ja’far it is said: “His Traditions were of the greatest authority; his gravity was impressive; and when he delivered them, all his auditors were plunged in admiration.” The Traditions were his great delight. “I delight,” said he, “in testifying my profound respect for the sayings of the Prophet of God, and I never repeat one unless I feel myself in a state of perfect purity,” (i.e., after performing a legal ablution.) As death approached, his one fear was lest he should have exercised his private judgment in delivering any legal opinion. In his last illness a friend went to visit him, and enquiring why he wept, received the following answer: “Why should I not weep, and who has more right to weep than I? By Allah! I wish I had been flogged and reflogged for every question of law on which I pronounced an opinion founded on my own private judgment.”

Imám As-Sháfa’í, a member of the Quraish tribe, was born A.H. 150. He passed his youth at Mecca but finally settled in Cairo where he died (A.H. 204). Ibn Khallikan relates of him that he was unrivalled for his knowledge of the Qurán, the Sunnat, and the sayings of the Companions. “Never,” said Imám Ibn Hanbal, “have I passed a night without praying for God’s mercy and blessing upon As-Sháfi’í.” “Whosoever pretends,” said Abu Thaur, “that he saw the like of As-Sháfi’í for learning is a liar.” Having carefully studied the systems of the two preceding Imáms he then proceeded on an eclectic system to form his own. It was a reaction against the system of Abu Hanífa. As-Sháfi’í follows rather the traditional plan of Ibn Málik. The Hanifite will be satisfied if, in the absence of a clear and a direct statement, he finds one passage in the Qurán, or one Tradition from which the required judgment may be deduced. The Sháfi’ite in the same circumstances, if Tradition is the source of his deduction, will require a considerable number of Traditions from which to make it.

Imám Ibn Hanbal was the last of the four Orthodox Imáms. He was born at Baghdád (A.H. 164). His system is a distinct return to Traditionalism. He lived at Baghdád during the reign of the Khalíf Mamun, when Orthodox Islám seemed in danger of being lost amid the rationalistic speculations, (that is, from an Orthodox Muslim stand-point), and licentious practices of the Court. The jurists most in favour at Court were followers of Abu Hanífa. They carried the principle of analogical deduction to dangerous lengths in order to satisfy the latitudinarianism of the Khalíf. Human speculation seemed to be weakening all the essentials of the Faith. Ibn Hanbal met the difficulty by discarding altogether the principle of analogical deduction. At the same time he saw that the Máliki system, founded as it was on the “Customs of Madína,” was ill-suited to meet the wants of a great and growing Empire. It needed to be supplemented. What better, what surer ground could he go upon than the Traditions. These at least were inspired, and thus formed a safer foundation on which to build a system of jurisprudence than the analogical deductions of Abu Hanífa did. The system of Ibn Hanbal has almost ceased to exist. There is now no Muftí of this sect at Mecca, though the other three are represented there. Still his influence is felt to this day in the importance he attached to Tradition.

The distinction between the four Imáms has been put in this way. Abu Hanífa exercised his own judgment. Málik and Hanbal preferred authority and precedent. As-Sháfi’í entirely repudiated reason. They differ, too, as regards the value of certain Traditions, but to each of them an authentic Tradition is an incontestable authority. Their opinion on points of doctrine and practice forms the third basis of the Faith.

The Ijmá’ of the four Imáms is a binding law upon all Sunnís. It might be supposed that as the growing needs of the Empire led to the formation of these schools of interpretation; so now the requirements of modern, social and political life might be met by fresh Imáms making new analogical deductions. This is not the case. The orthodox belief is, that since the time of the four Imáms there has been no Mujtahid who could do as they did. If circumstances should arise which absolutely require some decision to be arrived at, it must be given in full accordance with the ‘mazhab,’ or school of interpretation, to which the person framing the decision belongs. This effectually prevents all change, and by excluding innovation, whether good or bad, keeps Islám stationary. Legislation is now purely deductive. Nothing must be done contrary to the principles contained in the jurisprudence of the four Imáms. “Thus, in any Muhammadan State legislative reforms are simply impossible. There exists no initiative. The Sultán, or Khalíf can claim the allegiance of his people only so long as he remains the exact executor of the prescriptions of the Law.”

The question then as regards the politics of the “Eastern Question” is not whether Muhammad was a deceiver or self-deceived, an apostle or an impostor; whether the Qurán is on the whole good or bad; whether Arabia was the better or the worse for the change Muhammad wrought; but what Islám as a religious and political system has become and is, how it now works, what Orthodox Muslims believe and how they act in that belief. The essence of that belief is, that the system as taught by Prophet, Khalífs and Imáms is absolutely perfect. Innovation is worse than a mistake. It is a crime, a sin. This completeness, this finality of his system of religion and polity, is the very pride and glory of a true Muslim. To look for an increase of light in the knowledge of his relation to God and the unseen world, in the laws which regulate Islám on earth is to admit that Muhammad’s revelation was incomplete, and that admission no Muslim will make.

It has been stated on high authority that all that is required for the reform of Turkey is that the Qánúns or orders of the Sultán should take the place of the Sharí’at or law of Islám. Precisely so; if this could be done, Turkey might be reformed; but Islám would cease to be the religion of the State. That the law as formulated by the Imám Abu Hanífa ill suits the conditions of modern life is more than probable; but it is the very function of the Khalíf of Islám, which the Sultán claims to be, to maintain it. He is no Mujtahid, for such there are not now amongst the Sunnís, to which sect the Turks belong. If through stress of circumstances some new law must be made, orthodoxy demands that it should be strictly in accordance with the opinions of the Imáms. The Shía’hs, in opposition to the Sunnís, hold that there are still Mujtahidín, but this opinion arises from their peculiar doctrine of the Imámat, a subject we shall discuss a little later on. At first sight it would seem that if there can be Mujtahidín who are now able to give authoritative opinions, there may be some hope of enlightened progress amongst Shía’h people—the Persians for example. There is doubtless amongst them more religious unrest, more mysticism, more heresy, but they are no further on the road of progress than their neighbours; and the apparent advantage of the presence of a Mujtahid is quite nullified by the fact that all his decisions must be strictly in accordance with the Qurán and the Sunnat, or rather with what to the Shía’h stands in the place of the Sunnat. The Shía’h, as well as the Sunní, must base all legislation on the fossilized system of the past, not on the living needs of the present. Precedent rules both with an iron sway. The Wahhábís reject all Ijmá’ except that of the Companions, but that they accept; so when they are called the Puritans of Islám, it must be remembered that they accept as a rule of faith not only the Qurán, but the Sunnat, and some Ijmá’.