(1) In the name of God, the compassionate compassioner. (2) Praise be [literally “is”] to God, the Lord of the worlds, (3) the compassionate compassioner, (4) the Sovereign of the day of judgment. (5) Thee do we worship and of Thee do we beg assistance. (6) Direct us in the right way; (7) in the way of those to whom Thou hast been gracious, on whom there is no wrath, and who go not astray.
(1) In the name of God, the compassionate compassioner. (2) Praise be [literally “is”] to God, the Lord of the worlds, (3) the compassionate compassioner, (4) the Sovereign of the day of judgment. (5) Thee do we worship and of Thee do we beg assistance. (6) Direct us in the right way; (7) in the way of those to whom Thou hast been gracious, on whom there is no wrath, and who go not astray.
The thoughts are so simple as to need no explanation; and yet the prayer is full of meaning. It is true that there is not a single original idea of Mahomet’s in it. Of the seven verses of the sūra no less than five (verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) have an extremely suspicious relationship with the stereotyped formulae of Jewish and Christian liturgies. Verse 6 agrees, word for word, with Ps. xxvii. 11. On the other hand, the question must remain open whether Mahomet only gave free renderings of the several borrowed formulae, or whether in actually composing them he kept existing models. The designation of God as the “Compassioner,”Raḥmān, is simply the JewishRaḥmānā, which was a favourite name for God in the Talmudic period. The word had long before Mahomet’s time been used for God in southern Arabia (cf.e.g.the Sabaean Inscriptions, Glaser, 554, line 32; 618, line 2).
Mahomet seems for a while to have entertained the thought of adoptingal-Raḥmānas a proper name of God, in place ofAllāh, which was already used by the heathens.4This purpose he ultimately relinquished, but it is just in the sūras of the second period that the use ofRaḥmānis specially frequent. If, for this reason, it is to a certain extent certain that Sūra i. belongs to this period, yet we can neither prove that it belongs to the beginning of the Mecca period nor that the present introductory formula “In the name of God,” &c., belonged to it from the first. It may therefore even be doubted whether Mahomet at the outset looked upon the latter as revealed. Tradition, of course, knows in this connexion no doubt, and looks upon the Fātiḥa precisely as the most exalted portion of the Koran. Every Moslem who says his five prayers regularly—as the most of them do—repeats it not less than twenty times a day.
The sūras of the third Meccan period, which form a fairly large part of our present Koran, are almost entirely prosaic. Some of the revelations are of considerable extent, and the single verses also are much longer than in the olderLatest Meccan Sūras.sūras. Only now and then a gleam of poetic power flashes out. A sermonizing tone predominates. The sūras are very edifying for one who is already reconciled to their import, but to us at least they do not seem very well fitted to carry conviction to the minds of unbelievers. That impression, however, is not correct, for in reality the demonstrations of these longer Meccan sūras appear to have been peculiarly influential for the propagation of Islam. Mahomet’s mission was not to Europeans, but to a people who, though quick-witted and receptive, were not accustomed to logical thinking, while they had outgrown their ancient religion.
When we reach the Medina period it becomes, as has been indicated, much easier to understand the revelations in their historical relations, since our knowledge of the history ofMahomet in Medina is tolerably complete. In many cases theMedinan Sūras.historical occasion is perfectly clear, in others we can at least recognize the general situation from which they arose, and thus approximately fix their time. There still remains, however, a remnant, of which we can only say that it belongs to Medina.
The style of this period bears a fairly close resemblance to that of the latest Meccan period. It is for the most part pure prose, enriched by occasional rhetorical embellishments. Yet even here there are many bright and impressive passages, especially in those sections which may be regarded as proclamations to the army of the faithful. For the Moslems Mahomet has many different messages. At one time it is a summons to do battle for the faith; at another, a series of reflections on recently experienced success or misfortune, or a rebuke for their weak faith; or an exhortation to virtue, and so on. He often addresses himself to the “doubters,” some of whom vacillate between faith and unbelief, others make a pretence of faith, while others scarcely take the trouble even to do that. They are no consolidated party, but to Mahomet they are all equally vexatious, because, as soon as danger has to be encountered, or a contribution is levied, they all alike fall away. There are frequent outbursts, ever increasing in bitterness, against the Jews, who were very numerous in Medina and its neighbourhood when Mahomet arrived. He has much less to say against the Christians, with whom he never came closely in contact; and as for the idolaters, there was little occasion in Medina to have many words with them. A part of the Medina pieces consists of formal laws belonging to the ceremonial, civil and criminal codes; or directions about certain temporary complications. The most objectionable parts of the whole Koran are those which treat of Mahomet’s relations with women. The laws and regulations were generally very concise revelations, but most of them have been amalgamated with other pieces of similar or dissimilar import, and are now found in very long sūras.
Such is an imperfect sketch of the composition and the internal history of the Koran, but it is probably sufficient to show that the book is a very heterogeneous collection. If only those passages had been preserved which had a permanent value for the theology, the ethics, or the jurisprudence of the Moslems, a few fragments would have been amply sufficient. Fortunately for knowledge, respect for the sacredness of the letter has led to the collection of all the revelations that could possibly be collected—the “abrogating” along with the “abrogated,” passages referring to passing circumstances as well as those of lasting importance. Every one who takes up the book in the proper religious frame of mind, like most of the Moslems, reads pieces directed against long-obsolete absurd customs of Mecca just as devoutly as the weightiest moral precepts—perhaps even more devoutly, because he does not understand them so well.
At the head of twenty-nine of the sūras stand certain initial letters, from which no clear sense can be obtained. Thus, before ii. iii. xxxi. xxxii. we find(Alif Lām Mīm), before xl.-xlvi.(Ḥā Mīm). Nöldeke at one time suggestedMysterious Letters.that these initials did not belong to Mahomet’s text, but might be the monograms of possessors of codices, which, through negligence on the part of the editors, were incorporated in the final form of the Koran; he now deems it more probable that they are to be traced to the Prophet himself, as Sprenger, Loth and others suppose. One cannot indeed admit the truth of Loth’s statement that in the proper opening words of these sūras we may generally find an allusion to the accompanying initials; but it can scarcely be accidental that the first verse of the great majority of them (in iii. it is the second verse) contains the word “book,” “revelation,” or some equivalent. They usually begin with: “This is the book,” or “Revelation (’down sending’) of the book,” or something similar. Of sūras which commence in this way only a few (xviii. xxiv. xxv. xxxix.) want the initials, while only xxix. and xxx. have the initials and begin differently. These few exceptions may easily have proceeded from ancient corruptions; at all events they cannot neutralize the evidence of the greater number. Mahomet seems to have meant these letters for a mystic reference to the archetypal text in heaven. To a man who regarded the art of writing, of which at the best he had but a slight knowledge, as something supernatural, and who lived amongst illiterate people, an A B C may well have seemed more significant than to us who have been initiated into the mysteries of this art from our childhood. The Prophet himself can hardly have attached any particular meaning to these symbols: they served their purpose if they conveyed an impression of solemnity and enigmatical obscurity. In fact, the Koran admits that it contains many things which neither can be, nor were intended to be, understood (iii. 5). To regard these letters as ciphers is a precarious hypothesis, for the simple reason that cryptography is not to be looked for in the very infancy of Arabic writing. If they are actually ciphers, the multiplicity of possible explanations at once precludes the hope of a plausible interpretation. None of the efforts in this direction, whether by Moslem scholars or by Europeans, has led to convincing results. This remark applies even to the ingenious conjecture of Sprenger, that the letters(Kāf Hē Yē Ain Sād) before xix. (which treats of John and Jesus, and, according to tradition, was sent to the Christian king of Abyssinia) stand forJesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum. Sprenger arrives at this explanation by a very artificial method; and besides, Mahomet was not so simple as the Moslem traditionalists, who imagined that the Abyssinians could read a piece of the Arabic Koran. It need hardly be said that the Moslems have from of old applied themselves with great assiduity to the decipherment of these initials, and have sometimes found the deepest mysteries in them. Generally, however, they are content with the prudent conclusion that God alone knows the meaning of these letters.
At the head of twenty-nine of the sūras stand certain initial letters, from which no clear sense can be obtained. Thus, before ii. iii. xxxi. xxxii. we find(Alif Lām Mīm), before xl.-xlvi.(Ḥā Mīm). Nöldeke at one time suggestedMysterious Letters.that these initials did not belong to Mahomet’s text, but might be the monograms of possessors of codices, which, through negligence on the part of the editors, were incorporated in the final form of the Koran; he now deems it more probable that they are to be traced to the Prophet himself, as Sprenger, Loth and others suppose. One cannot indeed admit the truth of Loth’s statement that in the proper opening words of these sūras we may generally find an allusion to the accompanying initials; but it can scarcely be accidental that the first verse of the great majority of them (in iii. it is the second verse) contains the word “book,” “revelation,” or some equivalent. They usually begin with: “This is the book,” or “Revelation (’down sending’) of the book,” or something similar. Of sūras which commence in this way only a few (xviii. xxiv. xxv. xxxix.) want the initials, while only xxix. and xxx. have the initials and begin differently. These few exceptions may easily have proceeded from ancient corruptions; at all events they cannot neutralize the evidence of the greater number. Mahomet seems to have meant these letters for a mystic reference to the archetypal text in heaven. To a man who regarded the art of writing, of which at the best he had but a slight knowledge, as something supernatural, and who lived amongst illiterate people, an A B C may well have seemed more significant than to us who have been initiated into the mysteries of this art from our childhood. The Prophet himself can hardly have attached any particular meaning to these symbols: they served their purpose if they conveyed an impression of solemnity and enigmatical obscurity. In fact, the Koran admits that it contains many things which neither can be, nor were intended to be, understood (iii. 5). To regard these letters as ciphers is a precarious hypothesis, for the simple reason that cryptography is not to be looked for in the very infancy of Arabic writing. If they are actually ciphers, the multiplicity of possible explanations at once precludes the hope of a plausible interpretation. None of the efforts in this direction, whether by Moslem scholars or by Europeans, has led to convincing results. This remark applies even to the ingenious conjecture of Sprenger, that the letters(Kāf Hē Yē Ain Sād) before xix. (which treats of John and Jesus, and, according to tradition, was sent to the Christian king of Abyssinia) stand forJesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum. Sprenger arrives at this explanation by a very artificial method; and besides, Mahomet was not so simple as the Moslem traditionalists, who imagined that the Abyssinians could read a piece of the Arabic Koran. It need hardly be said that the Moslems have from of old applied themselves with great assiduity to the decipherment of these initials, and have sometimes found the deepest mysteries in them. Generally, however, they are content with the prudent conclusion that God alone knows the meaning of these letters.
It is probable (see above) that Mahomet had already caused revelations to be written down at Mecca, and that this began from the moment when he felt certain that he was the transmitter of the actual text of a heavenly book to mankind. It is even true that he may at some time or another have formed the intention of collecting these revelations. The idea of a heavenly model would in itself have suggested such a course and, only in an inferior degree to this, the necessity of setting a new and uncorrupted document of the divine will over against the sacred scriptures of the Jews and Christians, the people of the Book, as the Koran calls them. In any case, when Mahomet died, the separate pieces of the Koran, notwithstanding their theoreticalTransmission of the Koran.sacredness, existed only in scattered copies; they were consequently in great danger of being partially or entirely destroyed. Many Moslems knew large portions by heart, but certainly no one knew the whole; and a merely oral propagation would have left the door open to all kinds of deliberate and inadvertent alterations. But now, after the death of the Prophet, most of the Arabs revolted against his successor, and had to be reduced to submission by force. Especially sanguinary was the struggle against the prophet Maslama (Mubarrad,Kāmil443, 5), commonly known by the derisive diminutive Mosailima. At that time (A.D.633) many of the most devoted Moslems fell, the very men who knew most Koran pieces by heart. Omar then began to fear that the Koran might be entirely forgotten, and he induced the Caliph Abū Bekr to undertake the collection of all its parts. The Caliph laid the duty on Zaid ibn Thābit, a native of Medina,Zaid’s First Koran.then about twenty-two years of age, who had often acted as amanuensis to the Prophet, in whose service he is even said to have learned the Jewish letters. The account of this collection of the Koran has reached us in several substantially identical forms, and goes back to Zaid himself. According to it, he collected the revelations from copies written on flat stones, pieces of leather, ribs of palm-leaves (not palm-leaves themselves), and such-like material, but chiefly “from the breasts of men,”i.e.from their memory. From these he wrote a fair copy, which he gave to Abū Bekr, from whom it came to his successor Omar, who again bequeathed it to his daughter Ḥafṣa, one of the widows of the Prophet. This redaction, commonly calledal-ṣoḥof(“the leaves”), had from the first no canonical authority; and its internal arrangement can only be conjectured.
The Moslems were as far as ever from possessing a uniform text of the Koran. The bravest of their warriors sometimes knew deplorably little about it; distinction onthatfield they cheerfully accorded to pious men like Ibn Mas‘ūd. It was inevitable, however, that discrepancies should emerge between the texts of professed scholars, and as these men in their several localities were authorities on the reading of the Koran, quarrels began to break out between the levies from different districts about the true formof the sacred book. During a campaign inA.H.30 (A.D.650-651), Ḥodhaifa, the victor in the great and decisive battle of Nehāveand (seeCaliphate; andPersia:History) perceived that such disputes might become dangerous, and therefore urged on the caliph Othmān the necessity for a universallyOthman’s Koran.binding text. The matter was entrusted to Zaid, who had made the former collection, with three leading Koreishites. These brought together as many copies as they could lay their hands on, and prepared an edition which was to be canonical for all Moslems. To prevent any further disputes, they burned all the other codices except that of Ḥafṣa, which, however, was soon afterwards destroyed by Merwān the governor of Medina. The destruction of the earlier codices was an irreparable loss to criticism; but, for the essentially political object of putting an end to controversies by admitting only one form of the common book of religion and of law, this measure was necessary.
The result of these labours is in our hands; as to how they were conducted we have no trustworthy information, tradition being here too much under the influence of dogmatic presuppositions. The critical methods of a modern scientific commission will not be expected of an age when the highest literary education for an Arab consisted in ability to read and write. It now appears highly probable that this second redaction took this simple form: Zaid read off from the codex which he had previously written, and his associates, simultaneously or successively, wrote one copy each to his dictation. These three manuscripts will therefore be those which the caliph, according to trustworthy tradition, sent in the first instance as standard copies to Damascus, Basra and Kufa to the warriors of the provinces of which these were the capitals, while he retained one at Medina. Be that as it may, it is impossible now to distinguish in the present form of the book what belongs to the first redaction from what is due to the second.
In the arrangement of the separate sections, a classification according to contents was impracticable because of the variety of subjects often dealt with in one sūra. A chronological arrangement was out of the question, because the chronology of the older pieces must have been imperfectly known, and because in some cases passages of different dates had been joined together. Indeed, systematic principles of this kind were altogether disregarded at that period. The pieces were accordingly arranged in indiscriminate order, the only rule observed being to place the long sūras first and the shorter towards the end, and even that was far from strictly adhered to. The two magic formulae, sūras cxiii., cxiv. owe their position at the end of the collection to their peculiar contents, which differ from all the other sūras; they are protecting spells for the faithful. Similarly it is by reason of its contents that sūra i. stands at the beginning: not only because it is in praise of Allah, as Psalm i. is in praise of the righteous man, but because it gives classical expression to important articles of the faith. These are the only special traces of design. The combination of pieces of different origin may proceed partly from the possessors of the codices from which Zaid compiled his first complete copy, partly from Zaid himself. The individual sūras are separated simply by the superscription: “In the name of God, the compassionate Compassioner,” which is wanting only in the ninth. The additional headings found in our texts (the name of the sūras, the number of verses, &c.) were not in the original codices, and form no integral part of the Koran.
It is said that Othmān directed Zaid and his associates, in cases of disagreement, to follow the Ḳoreish dialect; but, though well attested, this account can scarcely be correct. The extremely primitive writing of those days was quite incapable of rendering such minute differences as can have existed between the pronunciation of Mecca and that of Medina.
Othmān’s Koran was not complete. Some passages are evidently fragmentary; and a few detached pieces are still extant which were originally parts of the Koran, although they have been omitted by Zaid. Amongst these areThe Koran not complete.some which there is no reason to suppose Mahomet desired to suppress. Zaid may easily have overlooked a few stray fragments, but that he purposely omitted anything which he believed to belong to the Koran is very unlikely. It has been conjectured that in deference to his superiors he kept out of the book the names of Mahomet’s enemies, if they or their families came afterwards to be respected. But it must be remembered that it was never Mahomet’s practice to refer explicitly to contemporary persons and affairs in the Koran. Only a single friend, his adopted son Zaid (xxxiii. 37), and a single enemy, his uncle Abū Lahab (cxi.)—and these for very special reasons—are mentioned by name; and the name of the latter has been left in the Koran with a fearful curse annexed to it, although his son had embraced Islam before the death of Mahomet, and his descendants belonged to the noblest families. So, on the other hand, there is no single verse or clause which can be plausibly made out to be an interpolation by Zaid at the instance of Abū Bekr, Omar, or Othmān. Slight clerical errors there may have been, but the Koran of Othmān contains none but genuine elements—though sometimes in very strange order. All efforts of European scholars to prove the existence of later interpolations in the Koran have failed.
Of the four exemplars of Othmān’s Koran, one was kept in Medina, and one was sent to each of the three metropolitan cities, Kufa, Baṣra, and Damascus. It can still be pretty clearly shown in detail that these four codices deviated from one another in points of orthography, in the insertion or omission of a wa (“and”) and such-like minutiae; but these variations nowhere affect the sense. All later manuscripts are derived from these four originals.
At the same time, the other forms of the Koran did not at once become extinct. In particular we have some information about the codex of Ubay ibn Ka’b. If the list which gives the order of its sūras is correct, it must haveOther Editions.contained substantially the same materials as our text; in that case Ubay ibn Ka’b must have used the original collection of Zaid. The same is true of the codex of Ibn Mas’ūd, of which we have also a catalogue. It appears that the principle of putting the longer sūras before the shorter was more consistently carried out by him than by Zaid. He omits i. and the magical formulae of cxiii., cxiv. Ubay, on the other hand, had embodied two additional short prayers, which we may regard as Mahomet’s. One can easily understand that differences of opinion may have existed as to whether and how far formularies of this kind belonged to the Koran. Some of the divergent readings of both these texts have been preserved as well as a considerable number of other ancient variants. Most of them are decidedly inferior to the received readings, but some are quite as good, and a few deserve preference.
The only man who appears to have seriously opposed the general introduction of Othmān’s text is Ibn Mas‘ūd. He was one of the oldest disciples of the Prophet, and had often rendered him personal service; but he was a man of contractedIbn Mas‘ūd.views, although he is one of the pillars of Moslem theology. His opposition had no effect. Now when we consider that at that time there were many Moslems who had heard the Koran from the mouth of the Prophet, that other measures of the imbecile Othmān met with the most vehement resistance on the part of the bigoted champions of the faith, that these were still further incited against him by some of his ambitious old comrades until at last they murdered him, and finally that in the civil wars after his death the several parties were glad of any pretext for branding their opponents as infidels;—when we consider all this, we must regard it as a strong testimony in favour of Othmān’s Koran that no party found fault with his conduct in this matter, or repudiated the text formed by Zaid, who was one of the most devoted adherents of Othmān and his family, and that even among the Shiites criticism of the caliph’s action is only met with as a rare exception.
But this redaction is not the close of the textual history of the Koran. The ancient Arabic alphabet was very imperfect; it not only wanted marks for the short and in part even for the long vowels, but it often expressed several consonants by the same sign,Later History of the Text.e.g.one and the same character could mean B, T, Th at the beginning and N and J (I) in the middle of words. Hence there weremany words which could be read in very different ways. This variety of possible readings was at first very great, and many readers seem to have actually made it their object to discover pronunciations which were new, provided they were at all appropriate to the ambiguous text. There was also a dialectic licence in grammatical forms, which had not as yet been greatly restricted. An effort was made by many to establish a more refined pronunciation for the Koran than was usual in common life or in secular literature. The various schools of “readers” differed very widely from one another; although for the most part there was no important divergence as to the sense of words. A few of them gradually rose to special authority, and the rest disappeared. Seven readers are generally reckoned chief authorities, but for practical purposes this number was continually reduced in process of time; so that at present only two “reading-styles” are in actual use,—the common style of Ḥafṣ, and that of Nāfi’; which prevails in Africa to the west of Egypt. There is, however, a very comprehensive massoretic literature in which a number of other styles are indicated. The invention of vowel-signs of diacritic points to distinguish similarly formed consonants, and of other orthographic signs, soon put a stop to arbitrary conjectures on the part of the readers. Many zealots objected to the introduction of these innovations in the sacred text, but theological consistency had to yield to practical necessity. In accurate codices, indeed, all such additions, as well as the titles of the sūra, &c., are written in coloured ink, while the black characters profess to represent exactly the original of Othmān. But there is probably no copy quite faithful in this respect. Moreover, the right recitation of the Koran is an art which even people of Arab tongue can only learn with great difficulty. In addition to the nuances of pronunciation already alluded to, there is a semi-musical modulation. In these matters also the various schools differ.In European libraries, besides innumerable modern manuscripts of the Koran, there are also codices, or fragments, of high antiquity, some of them probably dating from the 1st century of the Flight. For the restoration of the text, however,Manuscripts.the works of ancient scholars on its readings and modes of writing are more important than the manuscripts; which, however elegantly they may be written and ornamented, proceed from irresponsible copyists. The original, written by Othmān himself, has indeed been exhibited in various parts of the Mahommedan world. The library of the India Office contains one such manuscript, bearing the subscription: “Written by ‘Othmān the son of ‘Affān.” These, of course, are barefaced forgeries, although of very ancient date; so are those which profess to be from the hand of ‘Alī, one of which is preserved in the same library. In recent times the Koran has been often printed and lithographed, both in the East and the West. In Mahommedan countries lithography alone is employed.Shortly after Mahomet’s death certain individuals applied themselves to the exposition of the Koran. Much of it was obscure from the beginning, other sections were unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the circumstances of their origin.Commentators.Unfortunately, those who took possession of this field were not very honourable. Ibn ‘Abbās, a cousin of Mahomet, and the chief source of the traditional exegesis of the Koran, has, on theological and other grounds, given currency to a number of falsehoods; and at least some of his pupils have emulated his example. These earliest expositions dealt more with the sense and connexion of whole verses than with the separate words. Afterwards, as the knowledge of the old language declined, and the study of philology arose, more attention began to be paid to the explanation of vocables. A good many fragments of this older theological and philological exegesis have survived from the first two centuries of the Flight, although we have no complete commentary of this period. The great commentary of Ṭabarī,A.D.839-923, of which for the last few years we have possessed an Oriental edition in 30 parts (CairoA.H.1321 =A.D.1903), is very full when it comes to speak of canonical law, as well as in its accounts of the occasions of the several revelations; for, as in his great historical work, he faithfully records a large number of traditions with the channels by which they have come down to us (genealogical trees,isnād). In other respects the hopes based upon this commentary have not been fulfilled.Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhsharī (A.D.1075-1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar, with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of Baiḍāwī (d.A.D.1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846-1848), is little more than an abridgment of Zamakhsharī’s. Thousands of commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt, see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view, however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy beginning was made in Geiger’s youthful essayWas hat Mohamed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?(Bonn, 1833; the “second revised edition,” Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough commentary, executedTranslations.with the methods and resources of modern science. No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order, and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer’s translation is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship. Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W. Lane’sSelections from the Kur-ān. Not much can be said in praise of the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert’s excellent version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives only selections. M. Klamroth’s translation of the fifty oldest sūras,Die fünfzig ältesten Suren(Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L. Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern editions, commentaries, &c., seeMahommedan Religion:Bibliography).Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would nowadays be called “historical and critical introductions.” Moreover, the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary, influence has not been felt.The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word,i.e.thought, is immanent in God, and consequentlyeternalanduncreated. This dogma, which was doubtless dueEternity of the Koran.to the influence of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Word of God, has been accepted by almost all Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?Bibliography.—The following works may be especially consulted: Weil,Einleitung in den Korān(2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke,Geschichte des Qorān’s(Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908); the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols. i.-iii., Berlin, 1861-1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje,Het mekkaansche Feest(Leiden, 1880),De Islam(de Gids, 1886, ii. 257-273, 454-498, iii. 90-134); “Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed,”Revue de l’histoire des religions, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.; Leone Caetani,Annali dell’ Islam, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan, 1907); Frants Buhl,Muhammeds Liv(Copenhagen, 1903).
But this redaction is not the close of the textual history of the Koran. The ancient Arabic alphabet was very imperfect; it not only wanted marks for the short and in part even for the long vowels, but it often expressed several consonants by the same sign,Later History of the Text.e.g.one and the same character could mean B, T, Th at the beginning and N and J (I) in the middle of words. Hence there weremany words which could be read in very different ways. This variety of possible readings was at first very great, and many readers seem to have actually made it their object to discover pronunciations which were new, provided they were at all appropriate to the ambiguous text. There was also a dialectic licence in grammatical forms, which had not as yet been greatly restricted. An effort was made by many to establish a more refined pronunciation for the Koran than was usual in common life or in secular literature. The various schools of “readers” differed very widely from one another; although for the most part there was no important divergence as to the sense of words. A few of them gradually rose to special authority, and the rest disappeared. Seven readers are generally reckoned chief authorities, but for practical purposes this number was continually reduced in process of time; so that at present only two “reading-styles” are in actual use,—the common style of Ḥafṣ, and that of Nāfi’; which prevails in Africa to the west of Egypt. There is, however, a very comprehensive massoretic literature in which a number of other styles are indicated. The invention of vowel-signs of diacritic points to distinguish similarly formed consonants, and of other orthographic signs, soon put a stop to arbitrary conjectures on the part of the readers. Many zealots objected to the introduction of these innovations in the sacred text, but theological consistency had to yield to practical necessity. In accurate codices, indeed, all such additions, as well as the titles of the sūra, &c., are written in coloured ink, while the black characters profess to represent exactly the original of Othmān. But there is probably no copy quite faithful in this respect. Moreover, the right recitation of the Koran is an art which even people of Arab tongue can only learn with great difficulty. In addition to the nuances of pronunciation already alluded to, there is a semi-musical modulation. In these matters also the various schools differ.
In European libraries, besides innumerable modern manuscripts of the Koran, there are also codices, or fragments, of high antiquity, some of them probably dating from the 1st century of the Flight. For the restoration of the text, however,Manuscripts.the works of ancient scholars on its readings and modes of writing are more important than the manuscripts; which, however elegantly they may be written and ornamented, proceed from irresponsible copyists. The original, written by Othmān himself, has indeed been exhibited in various parts of the Mahommedan world. The library of the India Office contains one such manuscript, bearing the subscription: “Written by ‘Othmān the son of ‘Affān.” These, of course, are barefaced forgeries, although of very ancient date; so are those which profess to be from the hand of ‘Alī, one of which is preserved in the same library. In recent times the Koran has been often printed and lithographed, both in the East and the West. In Mahommedan countries lithography alone is employed.
Shortly after Mahomet’s death certain individuals applied themselves to the exposition of the Koran. Much of it was obscure from the beginning, other sections were unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the circumstances of their origin.Commentators.Unfortunately, those who took possession of this field were not very honourable. Ibn ‘Abbās, a cousin of Mahomet, and the chief source of the traditional exegesis of the Koran, has, on theological and other grounds, given currency to a number of falsehoods; and at least some of his pupils have emulated his example. These earliest expositions dealt more with the sense and connexion of whole verses than with the separate words. Afterwards, as the knowledge of the old language declined, and the study of philology arose, more attention began to be paid to the explanation of vocables. A good many fragments of this older theological and philological exegesis have survived from the first two centuries of the Flight, although we have no complete commentary of this period. The great commentary of Ṭabarī,A.D.839-923, of which for the last few years we have possessed an Oriental edition in 30 parts (CairoA.H.1321 =A.D.1903), is very full when it comes to speak of canonical law, as well as in its accounts of the occasions of the several revelations; for, as in his great historical work, he faithfully records a large number of traditions with the channels by which they have come down to us (genealogical trees,isnād). In other respects the hopes based upon this commentary have not been fulfilled.
Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhsharī (A.D.1075-1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar, with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of Baiḍāwī (d.A.D.1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846-1848), is little more than an abridgment of Zamakhsharī’s. Thousands of commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt, see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view, however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy beginning was made in Geiger’s youthful essayWas hat Mohamed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?(Bonn, 1833; the “second revised edition,” Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough commentary, executedTranslations.with the methods and resources of modern science. No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order, and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer’s translation is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship. Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W. Lane’sSelections from the Kur-ān. Not much can be said in praise of the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert’s excellent version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives only selections. M. Klamroth’s translation of the fifty oldest sūras,Die fünfzig ältesten Suren(Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L. Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern editions, commentaries, &c., seeMahommedan Religion:Bibliography).
Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would nowadays be called “historical and critical introductions.” Moreover, the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary, influence has not been felt.
The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word,i.e.thought, is immanent in God, and consequentlyeternalanduncreated. This dogma, which was doubtless dueEternity of the Koran.to the influence of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Word of God, has been accepted by almost all Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?
Bibliography.—The following works may be especially consulted: Weil,Einleitung in den Korān(2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke,Geschichte des Qorān’s(Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908); the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols. i.-iii., Berlin, 1861-1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje,Het mekkaansche Feest(Leiden, 1880),De Islam(de Gids, 1886, ii. 257-273, 454-498, iii. 90-134); “Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed,”Revue de l’histoire des religions, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.; Leone Caetani,Annali dell’ Islam, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan, 1907); Frants Buhl,Muhammeds Liv(Copenhagen, 1903).
(Th. N.; Fr. Sy.)
1Reproductions of such Ptolemaic and Lysimachan coins are to be found in J. J. Bernouilli,Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders d. Gr.(Munich, 1905), Tab. VIII.; also in Theodor Schreiber, “Studien über das Bildniss Alexanders des Gr.” in theAbh. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Bd. xxi. (1903), Tab. XIII.2For the schemes of Nöldeke and Grimm seeMahommedan Religion.3See Bibliography at end.4Since in Arabic also the rootsignifies “to have pity,” the Arabs must have at once perceived the force of the new name. While the foreign wordRaḥmānis, in accordance with its origin, everywhere in the Koran to be understood as “Merciful,” there is some doubt as toRaḥīm. The close connexion of the two expressions, it is true, makes it probable that Mahomet only added the adjectiveRaḥīmto the substantiveRaḥmānin order to strengthen the conception. But the genuine Arab meaning ofRaḥīmis “gracious,” and thus, the old Mahommedan Arab papyri render this word byφιλάνθρωπος.
1Reproductions of such Ptolemaic and Lysimachan coins are to be found in J. J. Bernouilli,Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders d. Gr.(Munich, 1905), Tab. VIII.; also in Theodor Schreiber, “Studien über das Bildniss Alexanders des Gr.” in theAbh. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Bd. xxi. (1903), Tab. XIII.
2For the schemes of Nöldeke and Grimm seeMahommedan Religion.
3See Bibliography at end.
4Since in Arabic also the rootsignifies “to have pity,” the Arabs must have at once perceived the force of the new name. While the foreign wordRaḥmānis, in accordance with its origin, everywhere in the Koran to be understood as “Merciful,” there is some doubt as toRaḥīm. The close connexion of the two expressions, it is true, makes it probable that Mahomet only added the adjectiveRaḥīmto the substantiveRaḥmānin order to strengthen the conception. But the genuine Arab meaning ofRaḥīmis “gracious,” and thus, the old Mahommedan Arab papyri render this word byφιλάνθρωπος.
KORAT,the capital of the provincial division (Monton) of Nakawn Racha Sema, or “the frontier country,” in Siam; in 102° 5´ E., 14° 59´ N. Pop. about 7000, mixed Cambodian and Siamese. It is the headquarters of a high commissioner and of an army division. It is the terminus of a railway from Bangkok, 170 m. distant, and the distributing centre for the whole of the plateau district which forms the eastern part of Siam. There are copper mines of reputed wealth in the neighbourhood. It is the centre of a silk-growing district and is the headquarters of the government sericultural department, instituted in 1904 with the assistance of Japanese experts for the purpose of improving the quality of Siamese silk. The government is that of an ordinary provincial division of Siam. A French vice-consul resides here. Since the founding of Ayuthia in the 14th century,Korat has been tributary to, or part of, Siam, with occasional lapses into independence or temporary subjection to Cambodia. Before that period it was probably part of Cambodia, as appears from the nature of the ruins still to be seen in its neighbourhood. In 1896 the last vestige of its tributary condition vanished with the introduction of the present system of Siamese rural administration.
KORDOFAN,a country of north-east Africa, forming amudiria(province) of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It lies mainly between 12° and 16° W. and 29° and 32½° E., and has an area of about 130,000 sq. m., being bounded W. by Darfur, N. by the Bayuda steppes, E. by the White Nile mudiria and S. by the country of the Shilluks and other negro tribes, forming part of the Upper Nile mudiria.
The greater part of Kordofan consists of undulating plains, riverless, barren, monotonous, with an average altitude of 1500 ft. Thickets and small acacias dot the steppes, which, green during thekharifor rainy season, at other times present a dull brown burnt-up aspect. In the west, isolated peaks, such as Jebel Abu Senum and Jebel Kordofan, rise from 150 to 600 ft. above the plain. North-west are the mountain groups of Kaja and Katul (2000 to 3000 ft.), in the east are the Jebel Daier and Jebel Tagale (Togale), ragged granitic ranges with precipitous sides. In the south are flat, fertile and thickly wooded plains, which give place to jungle at the foot of the hills of Dar Nuba, the district forming the south-east part of Kordofan. Dar Nuba is well-watered, the scenery is diversified and pretty, affording a welcome contrast to that of the rest of the country. Some of the Nuba hills exceed 3000 ft. in height. The south-western part of the country, a vast and almost level plain, is known as Dar Homr. A granitic sand with abundance of mica and feldspar forms the upper stratum throughout the greater part of Kordofan; but an admixture of clay, which is observable in the north, becomes strongly marked in the south, where there are also stretches of black vegetable mould. Beneath there appears to be an unbroken surface of mica schist. Though there are no perennial rivers, there are watercourses (khorsorwadis) in the rainy season; the chief being the Khor Abu Habl, which traverses the south-central region. In Dar Homr the Wadi el Ghalla and the Khor Shalango drain towards the Homr affluent of the Bahr el Ghazal. During the rainy season there is a considerable body of water in these channels, but owing partly to rapid evaporation and partly to the porous character of the soil the surface of the country dries rapidly. The water which has found its way through the granitic sand flows over the surface of the mica schist and settles in the hollows, and by sinking wells to the solid rock a supply of water can generally be obtained. It is estimated that (apart from those in a few areas where the sand stratum is thin and water is reached at the depth of a few feet) there are about 900 of these wells. They are narrow shafts going down usually 30 to 50 ft., but some are over 200 ft. deep. The water is raised by rope and bucket at the cost of enormous labour, and in few cases is any available for irrigation. The very cattle are trained to go a long time without drinking. Entire villages migrate after the harvest to the neighbourhood of some plentiful well. In a few localities the surface depressions hold water for the greater part of the year but there is only one permanent lake—Keilat, which is some four miles by two. As there is no highland area draining into Kordofan, the underground reservoirs are dependent on the local rainfall, and a large number of the wells are dry during many months. The rainy season lasts from mid-June to the end of September, rain usually falling every three or four days in brief but violent showers. In general the climate is healthy except in the rainy season, when large tracts are converted into swamps and fever is very prevalent. In theshitaor cold weather (October to February inclusive) there is a cold wind from the north. The seif or hot weather lasts from March to mid-June; the temperature rarely exceeds 105° F.
The chief constituent of the low scrub which covers the northern part of the country is the grey gum acacia (hashob). In the south the red gum acacias (talh) are abundant. In Dar Hamid, in the N.W. of Kordofan, date, dom and other palms grow. The basbab or calabash tree, known in the eastern Sudan as thetebeldiand locallyHomr, is fairly common and being naturally hollow the trees collect water, which the natives regularly tap. Another common source of water supply is a small kind of water melon which grows wild and is also cultivated. In the dense jungles of the south are immense creepers, some of them rubber-vines. The cotton plant is also found. The fauna includes the elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo, giraffe, lion, leopard, cheetah, roan-antelope, hartebeeste, kudu and many other kinds of antelope, wart-hog, hares, quail, partridge, jungle-fowl, bustard and guinea-fowl. Nearly all the kinds of game mentioned are found chiefly in the western and southern districts. The ril or addra gazelle found in N. and N.W. Kordofan are not known elsewhere in the eastern Sudan. Reptiles, sand-flies and mosquitoes are common. Ostriches are found in the northern steppes. The chief wealth of the people consists in the gum obtained from the grey acacias, in oxen, camels and ostrich feathers. The finest cattle are of the humped variety, the bulls of the Baggara being trained to the saddle and to carry burdens. There are large herds of camel, the camel-owning Arabs usually owning also large numbers of sheep and goats. Dukhn, a species of millet which can grow in the arid northern districts is there the chief grain crop, its place in the south being taken by durra. Dukhn is, however, the only crop cultivated in Dar Homr. From this grain a beer calledmerissais brewed. Barley and cotton are cultivated in some districts. A little gold dust is obtained, but the old gold and other mines in the Tagale country have been, apparently, worked out. Iron is found in many districts and is smelted in a few places. In the absence of fuel the industry is necessarily a small one. There are large beds of hematite some 60 m. N.W. and the same distance N.E. of El Obeid.
The chief constituent of the low scrub which covers the northern part of the country is the grey gum acacia (hashob). In the south the red gum acacias (talh) are abundant. In Dar Hamid, in the N.W. of Kordofan, date, dom and other palms grow. The basbab or calabash tree, known in the eastern Sudan as thetebeldiand locallyHomr, is fairly common and being naturally hollow the trees collect water, which the natives regularly tap. Another common source of water supply is a small kind of water melon which grows wild and is also cultivated. In the dense jungles of the south are immense creepers, some of them rubber-vines. The cotton plant is also found. The fauna includes the elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo, giraffe, lion, leopard, cheetah, roan-antelope, hartebeeste, kudu and many other kinds of antelope, wart-hog, hares, quail, partridge, jungle-fowl, bustard and guinea-fowl. Nearly all the kinds of game mentioned are found chiefly in the western and southern districts. The ril or addra gazelle found in N. and N.W. Kordofan are not known elsewhere in the eastern Sudan. Reptiles, sand-flies and mosquitoes are common. Ostriches are found in the northern steppes. The chief wealth of the people consists in the gum obtained from the grey acacias, in oxen, camels and ostrich feathers. The finest cattle are of the humped variety, the bulls of the Baggara being trained to the saddle and to carry burdens. There are large herds of camel, the camel-owning Arabs usually owning also large numbers of sheep and goats. Dukhn, a species of millet which can grow in the arid northern districts is there the chief grain crop, its place in the south being taken by durra. Dukhn is, however, the only crop cultivated in Dar Homr. From this grain a beer calledmerissais brewed. Barley and cotton are cultivated in some districts. A little gold dust is obtained, but the old gold and other mines in the Tagale country have been, apparently, worked out. Iron is found in many districts and is smelted in a few places. In the absence of fuel the industry is necessarily a small one. There are large beds of hematite some 60 m. N.W. and the same distance N.E. of El Obeid.
Inhabitants.—The population of Kordofan was officially estimated in 1903 to be 550,000. The inhabitants are roughly divisible into two types—Arabs in the plains and Nubas in the hills. Many of the villagers of the plains are however of very mixed blood—Arab, Egyptian, Turkish, Levantine and Negro. It is said that some village communities are descended from the original negro inhabitants. They all speak Arabic. The most important village tribe is the Gowama, who own most of the gum-producing country. Other large tribes are the Dar Hamid and the Bederia—the last-named living round El Obeid. The nomad Arabs are of two classes, camel owners (Siat El Ilbil) and cattle owners (Baggara), the first-named dwelling in the dry northern regions, the Baggara in southern Kordofan. Of the camel-owning tribes the chief are the Hamar and the Kabbabish. Many of the Hamar have settled down in villages. The Baggara are great hunters, and formerly were noted slave raiders. They possess many horses, but when journeying place their baggage on their oxen. They use a stabbing spear, small throwing spears, and a broad-bladed short sword. Some of the richer men possess suits of chain armour. The principal Baggara tribes are the Hawazma, Meseria, Kenana, Habbania, and Homr. The Homr are said to have entered Kordofan from Wadai about the end of the 18th century and to have come from North Africa. They speak a purer Arabic than the riverain tribes. The Nubas are split into many tribes, each under amekor king, who is not uncommonly of Arab descent. The Nubas have their own language, though the inhabitants of each hill have usually a different dialect. They are a primitive race, very black, of small build but distinctive negro features. They have feuds with one another and with the Baggara. During themahdiathey maintained their independence. The Nubas appear to have been the aboriginal inhabitants of the country and are believed to be the original stock of the Nubians of the Nile Valley (seeNubia). In the northern hills are communities of black people with woolly hair but of non-negro features. They speak Arabic and are called Nuba Arabs. Some of the southern hills are occupied by Arab-speaking negroes, escaped slaves and their descendants, who called themselves after the tribe they formerly served and who have little intercourse with the Nubas.
The capital, El Obeid (q.v.), is centrally situated. On it converge various trade routes, notably from Darfur and from Dueim, a town on the White Nile 125 m. above Khartum, which served as port for the province. Thence was despatched the gum for the Omdurman market. But the railway from Khartum to El Obeid, via Sennar, built in 1909-1911, crosses the Nile some 60 m. farther south above Abba Island. Nahud(pop. about 10,000), 165 m. W.S.W. of El Obeid, is a commercial centre which has sprung into importance since the fall of the dervishes. All the trade with Darfur passes through the town, the chief commerce being in cattle, feathers, ivory and cotton goods. Trade is largely in the hands of Greeks, Syrians, Danagla and Jaalin. Taiara, on the route between El Obeid and the Nile, was destroyed by the dervishes but has been rebuilt and is a thriving mart for the gum trade. El Odoaiya or Eddaiya is the headquarters of the Homr country. It and Baraka in the Muglad district are on the trade road between Nahud and Shakka in Darfur.
Bara is a small town some 50 m. N.N.E. of Obeid. Talodi and Tendek are government stations in the Nuba country. The Nubas have no large towns. They live in villages on the hillsides or summits. The usual habitation built both by Arabs and Nubas is the tukl, a conical-shaped hut made of stone, mud, wattle and daub or straw. The Nuba tukls are the better built. In the chief towns houses are built of mud bricks with flat roofs.
History.—Of the early history of Kordofan there is little record. It never formed an independent state. About the beginning of the 16th century Funj from Sennar settled in the country; towards the end of that century Kordofan was conquered by Suleiman Solon, sultan of Darfur. About 1775 it was conquered by the Funj, and there followed a considerable immigration of Arab tribes into the country. The Sennari however suffered a decisive defeat in 1784 and thereafter under Darfur viceroys the country enjoyed prosperity. In 1821 Kordofan was conquered by Mahommed Bey the defterdar, son-in-law of Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt. It remained under Egyptian rule till 1882 when Mahommed Ahmed, the mahdi, raised the country to revolt. It was in Kordofan that Hicks Pasha and his army, sent to crush the revolt, were annihilated (Nov. 1883). The Baggara of Kordofan from that time onward were the chief supporters of the mahdi, and his successor, the khalifa Abdullah, was a Baggara. In Kordofan in 1899 the khalifa met his death, the country having already passed into the hands of the new Sudan government. The chief difficulty experienced by the administration was to habituate the Arabs and Nubas, both naturally warlike, to a state of peace. In consequence of the anti-slave raiding measures adopted, the Arabs of Talodi in May 1906 treacherously massacred the mamur of that place and 40 men of the Sudanese regiment. The promptness with which this disturbance was suppressed averted what otherwise might have been a serious rising. (SeeSudan:Anglo-Egyptian, § “History.”)
SeeThe Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, edited by Count Gleichen (London, 1905); H. A. MacMichael,Notes on the History of Kordofan before the Egyptian Conquest(Cairo, 1907); John Petherick,Egypt, the Sudan, and Central Africa(London, 1861); Ignaz Pallme,Beschreibung von Kordofan(Stuttgart, 1843; trans.Travels in Kordofan, London, 1844); Major H. G. Prout,General Report on Province of Kordofan(Cairo, 1877); Ernst Marno,Reise in der egypt. Equat. Provinz(Vienna, 1879); papers (with maps) by Capt. W. Lloyd in theGeog. Journ.(June 1907 and March 1910); and the bibliography given underSudan:Anglo-Egyptian.
SeeThe Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, edited by Count Gleichen (London, 1905); H. A. MacMichael,Notes on the History of Kordofan before the Egyptian Conquest(Cairo, 1907); John Petherick,Egypt, the Sudan, and Central Africa(London, 1861); Ignaz Pallme,Beschreibung von Kordofan(Stuttgart, 1843; trans.Travels in Kordofan, London, 1844); Major H. G. Prout,General Report on Province of Kordofan(Cairo, 1877); Ernst Marno,Reise in der egypt. Equat. Provinz(Vienna, 1879); papers (with maps) by Capt. W. Lloyd in theGeog. Journ.(June 1907 and March 1910); and the bibliography given underSudan:Anglo-Egyptian.