The Faith of Islam Part 12

Thirdly.--The Ash'arians, of whom I have already given some account, maintain that G.o.d has one eternal will which is applied to whatsoever He willeth, both of His own actions and those of men; that He willeth that which He knoweth and what is written on the _preserved table_; that He willeth both good and evil. So far they agree with the Jabrians; but then they seem to allow some power to man, a tenet I have already explained when describing their idea of "Kasb" (Ante. p. 130). The orthodox, or Sunni belief is theoretically Ash'arian, but practically the Sunnis are confirmed Jabrians. The Mutazilite doctrines are looked upon as quite heretical.

No subject has been more warmly discussed in Islam than that of predestination. The following abstract of some lengthy discussions will present the points of difference.

The Ash'arians, who in this matter represent in the main orthodox views, formulate their objections to the Mutazilite system thus:--

(i). If man is the causer of an action by the force of his own will, then he should also have the power of controlling the result of that action.

(ii). If it be granted that man has the power to _originate_ {175} an act it is necessary that he should know all acts, because a creator should be independent in act and choice. Intention must be conditioned by knowledge.

To this the Mutazilites well reply that a man need not know the length of a road before he walks, or the structure of the throat before he talks.

(iii). Suppose a man wills to move his body and G.o.d at the same time wills it to be steady, then if both intentions come to pa.s.s there will be a collection of opposites; if neither, a removal of opposites; if the exaltation of the first, an unreasonable preference.

(iv). If man can create an act, some of his works will be better than some of the works of G.o.d, _e.g._ a man determines to have faith: now faith is a better thing than reptiles, which are created by G.o.d.

(v). If man is free to act, why can he not make at once a human body; why does he need to thank G.o.d for grace and faith?

(vi). But better far than all argument, the orthodox say, is the testimony of the Book. "All things have we created under a fixed decree." (Sura liv.

49). "When G.o.d created you and _that ye make_." (Sura x.x.xvii. 94). "Some of them there were whom G.o.d guided and there were others decreed to err."

(Sura xvi. 38). As G.o.d decrees faith and obedience He must be the causer of it, for "on the hearts of these hath G.o.d graven the Faith." (Sura lviii.

22). "It is he who causeth you to laugh and weep, to die and make alive."

(Sura liii. 44). "If G.o.d pleased He would surely bring them, one and all, to the guidance." (Sura vi. 36). "Had G.o.d pleased, He had guided you all aright." (Sura vi. 150). "Had the Lord pleased, He would have made mankind of one religion." (Sura xi. 120). "G.o.d will mislead whom he pleaseth, and whom He pleaseth He will place upon the straight path." (Sura vi. 39.) Tradition records that the Prophet said: "G.o.d is the maker of all makers and of their actions."[169]

{176}

The Mutazilites took up the opposite side of this great question and said:--

(i). If man has no power to will or to do, then what is the difference between praising G.o.d and sinning against Him; between faith and infidelity; good and evil; what is the use of commands and prohibitions; rewards and punishments; promises and threats; what is the use of prophets, books, &c.

(ii). Some acts of men are bad, such as tyranny and polytheism. If these are created by G.o.d, it follows that to tyrannise and to ascribe plurality to the Deity is to render obedience. To this the Ash'arians reply that orders are of two kinds, immediate and mediate. The former which they call "Amr-i-takwiti," is the order, "Be and it was." This comprehends all existences, and according to it whatever is ordered must come to pa.s.s. The latter they call "Amr-i-tashri'i," an order given in the Law. This comes to men through prophets and thus is to be obeyed. True obedience is to act according to that which is revealed, not according to the secret intentions of G.o.d, for that we know not.

(iii). If G.o.d decrees the acts of men, He should bear the name of that which he decrees. Thus the causer of infidelity is an infidel; of tyranny a tyrant, and so on; but to speak thus of G.o.d is blasphemy.

(iv). If infidelity is decreed by G.o.d He must wish it; but a prophet desires faith and obedience and so is opposed to G.o.d. To this the orthodox reply, that G.o.d knows by His eternal knowledge that such a man will die an infidel. {177} If a prophet intends by bringing the message of salvation to such an one to make G.o.d's knowledge become ignorance, he would be doing wrong; but as he does not know the secret decrees of G.o.d, his duty is to deliver his message according to the Hadis: "A prophet has only to deliver the clear message."

(v). The Mutazilites claimed as on their side all verses of the Quran, in which the words to do, to construct, to renew, to create, &c., are applied to men. Such are the verses: "Whatever is in the heavens and in the earth is G.o.d's that He may reward those who _do_ evil according to their deeds: and those who _do_ good will He reward with good things." (Sura liii. 32).

"Whoso shall have _wrought_ evil shall not be recompensed but with its like: but whoso shall have _done_ the things that are right, whether male or female and is a believer, these shall enter Paradise." (Sura xl. 43).

Say: "the truth is from the Lord; let him then who will believe; and let him who will, be an infidel." (Sura xviii. 28).[170] "Those who add G.o.ds to G.o.d will say: 'If G.o.d had pleased neither we nor our fathers had given Him companions.' Say: 'Verily ye follow only a conceit, ye utter lies.'" (Sura vi. 149). The Hadis is also very plain. "All good is in Thy hands and evil is not to Thee." (Al-khair kuluhu fi yadaika wash-sharru laisa 'alaika.)

The Ash'arians have one famous text which they bring to bear against all this reasoning and evidence. It is: "This truly is a warning; and whoso willeth, taketh the way of his Lord; but _will it ye shall not_, unless G.o.d will it, for G.o.d is knowing, wise." (Sura lxxvi. 29, 30). To the Hadis they reply (1) that there is a difference between acquiescence in evil and decreeing it. Thus the expression "G.o.d willeth not tyranny for His servants," does not mean {178} that G.o.d hath not decreed it, but that tyranny is not one of His attributes: so "evil is not to Thee" means it is not an attribute of G.o.d; and (2) the Hadis must be explained in accordance with the teaching of the Quran.

The Muslim philosophers tried to find a way out of the difficulty. Averhoes says: "We are free to act in this way or that, but our will is always determined by some exterior cause. For example, we see something which pleases us, we are drawn to it in spite of ourselves. Our will is thus bound by exterior causes. These causes exist according to a certain order of things which is founded on the general laws of nature. G.o.d alone knows before hand the necessary connection which to us is a mystery. The connection of our will with exterior causes is determined by the laws of nature. It is this which in theology we call, 'decrees and predestination.'"[171]

I have already shown how, as Islam grew into a system, the Muslims fell into a Cabbalism, and a superst.i.tious reverence for the mere letters and words of the Quran. With this declension came a still more distorted view of the character of G.o.d. The quotations made from the Quran in the last few pages will have shown that whilst some pa.s.sages seem to attribute freedom to man and speak of his consequent responsibility, others teach a clear and distinct fatalism. The great strength of Islam lay in the energy with which Muhammad preached the doctrine that G.o.d was a divine Ruler, one who would deal righteous judgment, who "taught man that which he knew not." As the system became more complex and dogmatic--a very necessary result of its first principles--men lost the sense of the nearness of G.o.d. He became an unapproachable being. A harsh unfeeling Fate took the place of the Omnipotent Ruler. It is this dark fatalism which, whatever the Quran may teach on the subject, is the ruling principle in all Muslim {179} communities. It is this which makes all Muhammadan nations decay. Careless of self-improvement,[172] heedless of the need of progress, the Muslim nations, still independent, are in all that relates to the higher aspects of intellectual and civilized life far behind the nations of the west.

The subject of _'Ilm-i-Aqaid_, or the science of dogma properly ends here, but most Muslim treatises include in this branch of the subject a few practical remarks. I therefore add a summary of them here. The believer who commits murder, fornication, &c., does not cease to be a Muslim provided that he does not say that these are allowed: should he die unrepentant, G.o.d can punish him for a while in h.e.l.l, or forgive him without punishment. The Hadd, a punishment based on a Zahir, or obvious sentence of the Quran requires that a Muslim who apostatizes shall be put to death.[173] In the case of an apostate woman, Imam Abu Hanifa ruled that she should be imprisoned and beaten every day. The other three Imams, Malik, Shafa'i and Hanbal said that she should be put to death in accordance with the Tradition which says: "He who changes his religion, kill." The Arabic word "man," usually translated "He who" is of common gender, and so these Imams include women in the list of those who, after apostasy, are to be killed.[174] G.o.d does not pardon polytheism and infidelity; but He can, if He willeth, pardon all other crimes. If any one is asked, "dost thou believe?" he should reply, "I am truly a believer," and not say: "If G.o.d {180} willeth."[175] If any one says to him: "Wilt thou die in the faith?"

he should reply: "I do not know, G.o.d knows." Except when speaking of prophets, or of those of whom the Prophets have spoken, such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman and 'Ali, it must not be said of any one, "he is gone to Paradise," for G.o.d only knows his state. Prayer should be made for a deceased Muslim whether he was a good or bad man. To give alms, to read the Quran, to perform other good works, and to apply the merit thus gained to the souls of the dead is a pious and beneficial act.

{181}

NOTE TO CHAPTER IV.

MUSLIM PHILOSOPHY.

I have shown in the preceding chapter how the earlier scholastics, or the Mutazilites, as they are called, were finally crushed by the orthodox party. The later scholastics, or the philosophers, form the subject of this note. The Khalif Mamun (813-833 A.D.), a notorious free-thinker, was the first to give an impulse to philosophic researches. It was then that Greek philosophical works were translated into Arabic. The Greek author most patronized was Aristotle, partly, because his empirical method accorded with the positive tendencies of the Arab mind better than the pure idealism of Plato; and, partly, because his system of logic was considered an useful auxiliary in the daily quarrels between the rival theological schools. It was quite natural that Aristotle should be thus followed. "The Musalman mind was trained in habits of absolute obedience to the authority of fixed dogmas. The Muslims did not so much wish to discover truth as to cultivate their own intellect. For that purpose, a sharp and subtle systematist like Aristotle was the very man they required."[176] Some idea of the range of subjects then discussed may be gained from an account given by the Arab historian, Masoudi, of a meeting held under the Presidents.h.i.+p of Yahya, one of the famous Barmecide family.[177]

Yahya thus addressed the meeting: "You have discussed at length the theory of concealment (Al-k.u.mun) and manifestation (Al-Zahur), of pre-existence and creation, of duration and stability, of movement and quiescence, of the union and separation (of the Divine substance), of existence and non-existence, of bodies and accidents, of the approval and the refutation (of the Isnads of the Traditions), of the absence or the existence of attributes in G.o.d, of potential and active force, of substance, quant.i.ty, modality and relation, of life and annihilation.

You have examined the question as to whether the Imam rules by divine right, or by popular election; you have had an exhaustive discussion on metaphysical subjects, in their principles and corollaries. Occupy yourselves to-day with the subject of love," &c.

The translation of the works of Aristotle, as indeed of all the Greek authors, was made by Syrian and Chaldean Christians, and {182} especially by the Nestorians who, as physicians, were in high favour with the liberal Khalifs of the 'Abba.s.side dynasty. In some cases the translation into Arabic was made from Syriac versions, for in the time of the Emperor Justinian many Greek works had been translated into the latter language. The most celebrated translator was the historian physician Honein-Ibn-Ishak (died 876 A.D.), a man profoundly acquainted with the Syriac, Greek and Arabic languages. He was at the head of a school of interpreters in Baghdad, to which his son Ishak-ben-Honein and his nephew Hobeisch-Al-Asam also belonged. In the tenth century (A.D.) Yahya-ben-Adi and Isa-ben-Zara'a translated some works and corrected earlier translations of others. It is to these men that the Arabs owe their chief acquaintance with Plato.

The study of Aristotle spread rapidly amongst the Muslim people, especially amongst the heretical sects. The orthodox looked with grave suspicion on the movement, but could not for a while stay the impulse.

The historian Makrizi says: "The doctrine of the Philosophers has worked amongst the Muslims evils most fatal. It serves only to augment the errors of the heretics and to increase their impiety."[178] It came into contact with Muslim dogmas in such subjects as the creation of the world, the special providence of G.o.d and the nature of the divine attributes. To a certain extent the Mutazilites were supported by the philosophical theories they embraced, but this did not diminish the disfavour with which the orthodox looked upon the study of philosophy.

Still it grew, and men in self defence had to adopt philosophic methods. Thus arose a later system of scholasticism. The earlier system was confined mainly to matters of religion; the later school occupied itself with the whole range of philosophic investigation, and thus went farther and farther away from orthodox Islam.

The Muslims themselves did not write books on philosophy in the earlier period. Men of liberal tendencies imbibed its teaching, but orthodoxy finally gained the day over the earlier scholastics, and in the form known as that of the Ash'arian School became again supreme.[179] The great intellectual movement of the Philosophers proper, the later scholastics (Mutakalliman), lasted longer, but by the end of the twelfth century (A.D.) the whole Muhammadan world had again become orthodox. Salah-ud-din (Saladin) and his successors in Egypt were strong supporters of the Ash'arians.

{183}

The period now under review was one prolific of authors on grammar, rhetoric, logic, exegesis, traditions and the various branches of philosophy; but the men who stand out most prominently as philosophers were then, and are now, considered heretics.[180]

Al-Kendi, was born at Basra, on the Persian Gulf. He died about 870 A.D. He was a very scientific man, but a thorough rationalist in theology. He composed commentaries on the logic of Aristotle. In his great work on the unity of G.o.d he has strayed far away from Muslim dogmas.

Al Farabi, another philosopher patronized by the 'Abba.s.sides, seems to have denied not only the rigid and formal Islamic view of inspiration, but any objective revelation at all. He held that intuition was a true inspiration, and that all who had acquired intuitive knowledge were real prophets. This is the only revelation he admits. He received his philosophical training at Baghdad, where for a while he taught; but finally he went to Damascus, where he died 950 A.D.

Ibn Sina, better known as Avicenna, a man of Persian origin, was a Philosopher of great note, but of him it is said that in spite of the concessions he made to the religious ideas of his age, he could not find favour for his opinions, which ill accord with the principles of Islam. He was born near Bukhara, in the year 980 A.D. For a while he taught medicine and philosophy in Ispahan.

Ibn Badja, (Avempace) was one of the most celebrated Muslim Philosophers of Spain. He was born at Saragossa towards the end of the eleventh century. He is distinguished for having opposed the mystical tendencies of the teaching of Al-Ghazzali, and for maintaining that speculative science alone was capable of leading man to a true conception of his own proper nature. He was violently attacked by the orthodox divines who declared that all philosophical teaching was "a calamity for religion and an affliction to those who were in the good way."

Al-Ghazzali was born A.D. 1059 in Khorasan. He was a famous Muslim divine. He adopted scholastic methods. For a while he was President of the Nizamiah College at Baghdad. He travelled much, and wrote many books to prove the superiority of Islam over all other religions and over philosophy. The first result of his wide and extensive study of the writings of the philosophers, and of the heretics was that he fell into a state of scepticism with regard to religion and philosophy. From this he emerged into Sufiism, in {184} which his restless spirit found satisfaction. On Sufiism, however, he exercised no very notable influence; but the scepticism which he still retained as regards philosophy rendered him a very formidable opponent to those who were trying to bring Islam into accord with philosophic theories. His works, "Tendency of Philosophers," and "Destruction of the Philosophers" had an immense influence. In the preface to the latter book, he speaks of "those who arrogate to themselves a superior intelligence, and who, in their pride, mistaking the precepts of religion, take as a guide the authority of certain great men, instead of revealed religion." It is, however, and with some show of reason supposed that Al-Ghazzali did not really object to all that he condemned, but that to gain the orthodox he wrote what he did. Indeed, Moses of Narbonne states that Ghazzali later on in life wrote a book, circulated only amongst a few select friends, in which he withdrew many of the objections he had raised in the "Destruction of Philosophers." Be that as it may, it is acknowledged that he dealt a blow to philosophy from which in the East it has never recovered; that is, as far as the Muslim world is concerned. His course marks a reaction of the exclusively religious principle of Islam against philosophical speculation, which in spite of all accommodation never made itself orthodox.

In Spain philosophy still found an ardent defender in Ibn Ras.h.i.+d, better known as Averhoes. This celebrated man was born at Cordova in the year 1126 A.D., or about 520 of the Muhammadan era. He came of a n.o.ble and learned family, whilst he himself must ever occupy a distinguished place amongst the Muslim Philosophers. "Without dispute he was one of the most learned men of the Muslim world, and one of the profoundest commentators of Aristotle. He knew all the sciences then accessible to the Muslims and was a most prolific writer."[181] One of his most famous works was the "Refutation of the destruction of Philosophers." Notwithstanding his philosophical opinions Averhoes claimed to pa.s.s for a good Muslim. He held that the philosophic truths are the highest object of research; but that only a few men could by speculation arrive at them, and that, therefore, a divine revelation through the medium of prophets was necessary for spreading amongst men the eternal verities which are proclaimed alike by philosophy and religion. He held, it is true, that the orthodox had paid too much attention to the letter, and too little to the spirit, and that false interpretations had educed principles not really to be found in religion. This {185} profession and a rigid adherence to outward forms of wors.h.i.+p, however, did not save him from suspicion. He was accused of preaching philosophy and the ancient sciences to the detriment of religion. He was deprived of his honours and banished by the Khalif Al-Mansur to Lucena, near Cordova. In his disgrace he had to suffer many insults from the orthodox. One day on entering the mosque with his son he was forcibly expelled by the people. He died at Morocco in 1198 A.D. Thus pa.s.sed away in disgrace the last of the Muslim Philosophers worthy of the name.[182] In Spain a strict prohibition was issued against the study of Greek philosophy, and many valuable works were committed to the flames. Soon after the rule of the Moors in Spain began to decline. The study of philosophy came to an end, and liberal culture sank under the pressure of the hard and fast dogmatic system of Islam. In Spain,[183] as in Baghdad, orthodoxy gained the day. There was much of doubtful value in the speculations of the Muslim Philosophers, but they were Muslims, and if they went too far in their efforts to rationalize Islam, they also tried to cast off what to them seemed accretions, added on by the Traditionalists and the Canonical Legists. They failed because like the earlier scholastics they had no gospel to proclaim to men, no tidings to give of a new life which could enable wearied humanity to bear the ills to which it was subject.

Another strong reason was that the orthodoxy against which they strove was a logical development of the foundations of Islam, and these foundations are too strongly laid for any power other than a spiritual one to uproot. They were men of good position in life, voluminous writers, profound admirers of Aristotle, and "more or less devoted to science, especially to medicine." Yet they did not advance philosophy, and science they left much as they found it. They preserved something of what Grecian thought had achieved, and so far their labour is not lost.

Thus Islam has, as a religion, no right to claim any of the glory which Muslim philosophers are supposed to have shed around it. {186} The founders of Islam, the Arabs, produced but one philosopher of note.[184] The first impetus to the study was given by heretical Khalifs employing Christians at Baghdad to translate Greek books; whilst in Spain, where philosophy most flourished, it was due largely to the contact of intelligent Muslims with learned Jews. Even there, the philosophers were, as a rule, the objects of bitter persecution.

Now and again, a liberal minded Khalif arose, but a system such as Islam survives the liberal tendencies of a generation. From the close of the twelfth century (A.D.) downwards it would be difficult to point to any Muslim Philosopher, much more to an Arab one, whose work is of any real value to the human race. For four hundred years the contest raged, a contest such as Islam has never since seen. This great effort to bring it into accordance with the main stream of human thought, to introduce into it some element of progress utterly failed. The lesson is plain. Any project of reform in Islam which admits in any degree its fundamental principles must fail. Revolution, not reform, is the only hope for the permanence of an independent Muslim state when it enters into the circle of civilized nations.

{187}

CHAPTER V.

THE PRACTICAL DUTIES OF ISLaM.

The portion of the creed considered in the last chapter was connected with Iman (faith); the remaining portion is connected with Din (practical religion). The five princ.i.p.al acts are called Irkan-i-Din, pillars of religion. They are: (1) The recital of the Kalima, or short confession of faith; (2) Sulat, the five stated periods of prayer; (3) Roza, the thirty days' fast of Ramazan; (4) Zakat, legal alms; (5) Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. These are all _farz_ duties, being based on a Na.s.s-i-Zahir, or "obvious," sentence of the Quran, a proof derived from which is called dalil-i-qata'i. This is the strongest of all kinds of proofs.

The authorities, however, specify other religious duties which good Muslims should perform. Such are the seven duties which are _wajib_, or duties based on the more obscure texts of the Quran, called Khafi, or "hidden"

sentences, a proof derived from which is called dalil-i-zani. These duties are: (1) To make the 'Umra, or Pilgrimage to Mecca in addition to the Hajj; (2) obedience to parents; (3) the obedience of a wife to her husband; (4) the giving of alms after a fast; (5) the offering of sacrifice; (6) the saying of Namaz-i-witr, a term which will be explained later on; (7) the support of relatives. The duties numbered as (4) and (5) are _wajib_ orders to the rich; but only _mustahab_ to the poor: that is, it is meritorious if they perform them, but not sinful if they leave them undone.