Chapter 4

There is a great deal of valuable material for the history of Mahmud and his policy in the unpublished F.O. records (1832-1839), volumes of correspondence markedTurkey.—From Sir Stratford Canning.—From Mr. Mandeville.—From Lord Ponsonby.See further works mentioned underTurkey:History; andMehemet Ali.

(W. A. P.)

MAHMUD NEDIM PASHA(c.1818-1883), Turkish statesman, was the son of Nejib Pasha, ex-governor-general of Bagdad. After occupying various subordinate posts at the Porte he became successively under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, governor-general of Syria and Smyrna, minister of commerce, and governor-general of Tripoli; minister successively of justice and of marine (1869); grand vizier from 1871 to 1872 and from 1875 to 1876. He was high in favour with Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz and fell much under the influence of General Ignatiev, the forceful Russian ambassador before the war of 1877-78, his subserviency to Russia earning for him the nickname of “Mahmudoff.” His administration was most unsuccessful from every point of view, and he was largely responsible for the issue of the decree suspending the interest on the Turkish funds. He was minister of the interior from 1879 to 1883.

MAHMUD1OF GHAZNI(971-1030), son of Sabuktagīn, Afghan conqueror, was born on the 2nd of October 971. His fame rests chiefly on his successful wars, in particular his numerous invasions of India. His military capacity, inherited from his father, Nasir-ud-din Sabuktagīn, was strengthened by youthful experience in the field. Sabuktagīn, a Turki slave of Alptagīn, governor of Khorasan under Abdalmalik I. b. Nuḥ of the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, early brought himself to notice (seeSamanids). He was raised to high office in the state by Alptagīn’s successor, Abū Ishāk, and inA.H.366 (A.D.977), by the choice of the nobles of Ghazni, he became their ruler. He soon began to make conquests in the neighbouring countries,and in these wars he was accompanied by his young son Mahmud. Before he had reached the age of fourteen he encountered in two expeditions under his father the Indian forces of Jaipal, raja of Lahore, whom Sabuktagīn defeated on the Punjab frontier.

In 994 Mahmud was made governor of Khorasan, with the title of Saif addaula (ud-daula) (“Sword of the State”) by the Sāmānīd Nūh II. Two years later, his father Sabuktagīn died in the neighbourhood of Balkh, having declared his second son, Ismail, who was then with him, to be his successor. As soon as Ismail had assumed the sovereignty at Balkh, Mahmud, who was at Nishapur, addressed him in friendly terms, proposing a division of the territories held by their father at his death. Ismail rejected the proposal, and was immediately attacked by Mahmud and defeated. Retreating to Ghazni, he there yielded, and was imprisoned, and Mahmud obtained undisputed power as sovereign of Khorasan and Ghazni (997).

The Ghaznevid dynasty is sometimes reckoned by native historians to commence with Sabuktagīn’s conquest of Bost and Kosdār (978). But Sabuktagīn, throughout his reign at Ghazni, continued to acknowledge the Sāmānid suzerainty, as did Mahmud also, until the time, soon after succeeding to his father’s dominions, when he received from Qādir, caliph of Bagdad (seeCaliphate, C. § 25), akhilat(robe of honour), with a letter recognizing his sovereignty, and conferring on him the titlesYamiīn-addaula(“Right hand of the State”), andAmīn-ul-Millat(“Guardian of the Faith”). From this time it is the name of the caliph that is inscribed on Mahmud’s coins, together with his own new titles. Previously the name of the Sāmānid sovereign, Mansūr II. b. Nūh is given along with his own former title, Saif addaula Mahmūd. The earliest of those of the new form gives his name Mahmūd bin Sabuktagīn. Thereafter his father’s name does not appear on his coins, but it is inscribed again on his tomb.

The new honours received from the caliph gave fresh impulse to Mahmud’s zeal on behalf of Islam, and he resolved on an annual expedition against the idolaters of India. He could not quite carry out this intention, but a great part of his reign was occupied with his Indian campaigns. In 1000 he started on the first of these expeditions, but it does not appear that he went farther than the hill country near Peshawar. The hostile attitude of Khalaf ibn Ahmad, governor of Seistan, called Mahmud to that province for a short time. He was appeased by Khalaf’s speedy submission, together with the gift of a large sum of money, and further, it is said, by his subdued opponent addressing him assultān, a title new at that time, and by which Mahmud continued to be called, though he did not formally adopt it, or stamp it on his coins. Four years later Khalaf, incurring Mahmud’s displeasure again, was imprisoned, and his property confiscated.

Mahmud’s army first crossed the Indus in 1001, opposed by Jaipāl, raja of Lahore. Jaipāl was defeated, and Mahmud, after his return from this expedition, is said to have taken the distinctive appellation ofGhāzi(“Valiant for the Faith”), but he is rarely so-called. On the next occasion (1005) Mahmud advanced, as far as Bhera on the Jhelum, when his adversary Anang-pāl, son and successor of Jaipāl, fled to Kashmir. The following year saw Mahmud at Multan. When he was in the Punjab at this time, he heard of the invasion of Khorāsan by the Ilek Khan Nasr I. ruler of Transoxiana whose daughter Mahmud had married. After a rapid march back from India, Mahmud repelled the invaders. The Ilek Khan, having retreated across the Oxus, returned with reinforcements, and took up a position a few miles from Balkh, where he was signally defeated by Mahmud.

Mahmud again entered the Punjab in 1008, this time for the express purpose of chastising Sēwah Pāl, who, having become a Mussulman, and been left by Mahmud in charge of Multan, had relapsed to Hinduism. The Indian campaign of 1009 was notable. Near the Indus Mahmud was opposed again by Anang-pāl, supported by powerful rajas from other parts of India. After a severe fight, Anang-pāl’s elephants were so terror-struck by the fire-missiles flung amongst them by the invaders that they turned and fled, the whole army retreating in confusion and leaving Mahmud master of the field. Mahmud, after this victory, pushed on through the Punjab to Nagar-kōt (Kangra), and carried off much spoil from the Hindu temples to enrich his treasury at Ghazni. In 1011 Mahmud, after a short campaign against the Afghans under Mahommed ibn Sūr in the hill country of Ghur, marched again into the Punjab. The next time (1014) he advanced to Thanēsar, another noted stronghold of Hinduism, between the Sutlej and the Jumna. Having now found his way across all the Punjab rivers, he was induced on two subsequent occasions to go still farther. But first he designed an invasion of Kashmir (1015), which was not carried out, as his progress was checked at Lōh-kōt, a strong hill fort in the north-west of the Punjab. Then before undertaking his longer inroad into Hindustan he had to march north into Khwārizm (Khiva) against his brother-in-law Mamūn, who had refused to acknowledge Mahmud’s supremacy. The result was as usual, and Mahmud, having committed Khwārizm to a new ruler, one of Mamūn’s chief officers, returned to his capital. Then in 1018, with a very large force, he proceeded to India again, extending his inroad this time to the great Hindu cities of Mathra on the Jumna and Kanauj on the Ganges. He reduced the one, received the submission of the other, and carried back great stores of plunder. Three years later he went into India again, marching over nearly the same ground, to the support, this time, of the raja of Kanauj, who, having made friendship with the Mahommedan invader on his last visit, had been attacked by the raja of Kalinjar. But Mahmud found he had not yet sufficiently subdued the idolaters nearer his own border, between Kabul and the Indus, and the campaign of 1022 was directed against them, and reached no farther than Peshawar. Another march into India the following year was made direct to Gwalior.

The next expedition (1025) is the most famous of all. The point to which it was directed was the temple of Somnath on the coast of the Gujarāt peninsula. After an arduous journey by Multan, and through part of Rajputana, he reached Somnath, and met with a very vigorous but fruitless resistance on the part of the Hindus of Gujarāt. Moslem feet soon trod the courts of the great temple. The chief object of worship it contained was broken up, and the fragments kept to be carried off to Ghazni. The story is often told of the hollow figure, cleft by Mahmud’s battle-axe, pouring out great store of costly jewels and gold. But the idol in this Sivite temple was only a tall block or pillar of hewn stone, of a familiar kind. The popular legend is a very natural one. Mahmud, it was well known, made Hindu temples yield up their most precious things. He was a determined idol-breaker. And the stone block in this temple was enriched with a crown of jewels, the gifts of wealthy worshippers. These data readily give the Somnath exploit its more dramatic form. For the more recent story of the Somnath gates seeSomnath.

After the successes at Somnath, Mahmud remained some months in India before returning to Ghazni. Then in 1026 he crossed the Indus once more into the Punjab. His brilliant military career closed with an expedition to Persia, in the third year after this, his last, visit to India. The Indian campaigns of Mahmud and his father were almost, but not altogether, unvarying successes. The Moslem historians touch lightly on reverses. And, although the annals of Rajputana tell how Sabuktagīn was defeated by one raja of Ajmere and Mahmud by his successor, the course of events which followed shows how little these and other reverses affected the invader’s progress. Mahmud’s failure at Ajmere, when the brave raja Bisal-deo obliged him to raise the siege but was himself slain, was when the Moslem army was on its way to Somnath. Yet Mahmud’s Indian conquests, striking and important in themselves, were, after all, in great measure barren, except to the Ghazni treasury. Mahmud retained no possessions in India under his own direct rule. But after the repeated defeats, by his father and himself, of two successive rajas of Lahore, the conqueror assumed the right of nominating the governors of the Punjab as a dependency of Ghazni, a right which continued to be exercised by seven of his successors. And for a time, in the reign of Masa‘ud II.(1098-1114), Lahore was the place of residence of the Ghaznevid sovereign.

Mahmud died at Ghazni in 1030, the year following his expedition to Persia. He is conspicuous for his military ardour, his ambition, strong will, perseverance, watchfulness and energy, combined with great courage and unbounded self-reliance. But his tastes were not exclusively military. His love of literature brought men of learning to Ghazni, and his acquaintance with Moslem theology was recognized by the learned doctors.

The principal histories of Mahmud’s reign are—Kitāb-i-Yamīnī(Utbi);Tarīkh-us-Subuktigīn(Baihaki);Tabakāt i Nasiri(Minhāj el-Sirāj);Rauzat-us-Safa(Mir Khond);Habīb-us-Sivar(Khondamir). See Elliot,History of India; Elphinstone,History of India; and Roos-Keppel’s translation of theTarīkh-i-Sultan Mahmūd-i-Ghaznavi(1901).

1The name is strictly Maḥmūd.

MAHOBA,an ancient town in India, in Hamirpur district of the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 10,074. As the capital of the Chandel dynasty, who ruled over Bundelkhand from the 9th to the 13th century, the neighbourhood is covered with architectural antiquities, prominent among which are artificial lakes, formed by banking up valleys with masonry dams. The largest of these is more than 4 m. in circuit.

MAHOGANY,a dark-coloured wood largely used for household furniture, the product of a large tree indigenous to Central America and the West Indies. It was originally received from Jamaica; 521,300 ft. were exported from that island in 1753. It is known botanically asSwietenia Mahogani, and is a member of the orderMeliaceae. It bears compound leaves, resembling those of the ash, and clusters of small flowers, with five sepals and petals and ten stamens which are united into a tube. The fruit is a pear-shaped woody capsule, and contains many winged seeds. The dark-coloured bark has been considered a febrifuge, and the seeds were used by the ancient Aztecs with oil for a cosmetic, but the most valuable product is the timber, first noticed by the carpenter on board Sir Walter Raleigh’s ship in 1595 for its great beauty, hardness and durability. Dr Gibbons brought it into notice as well adapted for furniture in the early part of the 18th century, and its use as a cabinet wood was first practically established by a cabinet-maker named Wollaston, who was employed by Gibbons to work up some mahogany brought to England by his brother. It was introduced into India in 1795, and is now cultivated in Bengal and as far north as Saharunpur.

The timber of species ofCedrelaandMelia, other members of the orderMeliaceae, are used as Mahogany, and the product of the West AfricanKhaya senegalensisis known as African mahogany. There is some confusion between the product of these various trees. Herbert Stone (The Timbers of Commerce, 1904) says: “The various species of mahogany and cedar are so confusing that it is difficult to make precise statements as to their structure or origin. I know of no convincing proof that any of the American kinds met with on the English market are the wood ofSwietenia Mahogani, nor that those shipped from Africa are the wood ofKhaya senegalensis. These two genera are very nearly allied toCedrelaandMelia, and it is difficult to separate any of the four from the rest by the characters of the wood. After giving the most careful attention to every detail, I lean to the view that most if not all of the mahoganies commonly met with are Cedrelas.”Kiggelaria Dregeana(natural orderBixineae), a native of South Africa, is known as Natal mahogany.

Kiggelaria Dregeana(natural orderBixineae), a native of South Africa, is known as Natal mahogany.

MAHOMET(strictlyMuḥammad, commonly alsoMohammed), founder of the religious system called in Europe after him Mahommedanism, and by himself Islam or Ḥanifism. He died, according to the ordinary synchronism, on the 7th of June 632 (12 Rabia,A.H.11), and his birthday was exactly sixty-three or sixty-five years earlier, the latter number being evidently an interpretation in lunar years of a number thought to refer to solar years. The lunar system was introduced into Arabia by Mahomet himself quite at the close of his career; that which existed before was certainly solar, as it involved a process of intercalation—which, however, seems to have been arbitrarily manipulated by priests, whence certain synchronisms cannot be got for the events in the Prophet’s career. The number 63 for the years of his life may rest on tradition, though it is unlikely that such matters were accurately noted; it can also be accounted for by a priori combination. A Meccan, it is said, became a full citizen at the age of 40; this then would be the age at which the mission might be started. The Medina period (of which count was kept) lasted ten to eleven years; for the Meccan period ten years would seem a likely length. Finally it was known that for some years—about three—the mission had been conducted secretly. The only event in contemporary history to which the Koran alludes in its earlier parts is the Persian conquest of Palestine in 616. Clearly Mahomet had begun to prophesy at that date.

Before the rise of Islam, Mahomet’s native place, Mecca, appears to figure nowhere in historical records, unless there be a reference to it in the “valley of Baca” (Psalm lxxxiv. 6). Its sacred, and therefore archaic, nameHis Country.isBakkah; hence the identification of the name with that of the sanctuary Makoraba, known to the Greek geographers, is not philologically tenable; although so eminent a linguist as Dozy evolved a theory of the origin of the city from this name, which appears to be South Arabian for “sanctuary,” and has no connexion with Hebrew (as Dozy supposed). In the 3rd century of Islam the mythology of Mecca was collected and published in book form, but we learn little more from it than names of tribes and places; it is clear that there was no record of the mode in which the community inhabiting the place had got there, and that little was remembered with accuracy of the events which preceded the rise of its prophet. The city had a sanctuary, called theCube(ka‘ba), of which the nucleus was the “Black Stone,” probably to be identified with Allah, the god of the community; both still exist, or rather their legitimate substitutes, as the Ka‘ba has been repeatedly reconstructed, and the original Black Stone was stolen by the Carmathians in the 4th century of Islam; they afterwards returned one, but it may or may not have been the same as that which they removed. At some time in the 6th century—said to have been the birth-year of the Prophet, but really much earlier—an Abyssinian invader raided Mecca with the view of abolishing this sanctuary; but for some reason had to desist. This expedition, known as the “Raid of the Elephant,” one of these animals being employed in it, seems to be of great importance for explaining the rise of Islam; for a sanctuary which can repel an invader acquires tremendous reputation. Some verses in the Koran which are perhaps not genuine, record the miracle whereby Allah repelled the “People of the Elephant.” The sanctuary was apparently in the possession of the tribe Koreish (Quraish), the origin of whose name is unknown, said to have come originally from Cutha in Mesopotamia. They were known (we are told) as the people of Allah, and, by wearing a badge, were sacrosanct throughout Arabia. If this be true, it was probably a privilege earned by the miraculous defence of the Ka‘ba, and is sufficient to account for the rise of Meccan commerce of which we hear much in the biography of the Prophet, and to which some verses of the earliest part of the Koran allude; for merchants who were safe from attacks by bandits would have an enormous advantage. The records seem, however, to be inconsistent with this assertion; and the growth of the Meccan commerce is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that after the Abyssinian invasion pilgrimage to the Ka‘ba became the practice of numerous Arab tribes, and for four months in the year (selected by Meccan priests) raiding was forbidden, in order to enable the pilgrimage to be safely made. In addition to this it would seem that all Mecca counted as sanctuary—i.e.no blood might under any circumstances be shed there. The community lived by purveying to pilgrims and the carrying trade; and both these operations led to the immigration of strangers.

There seems to be no doubt that Mahomet was himself a member of the tribe Koreish, and indeed too many of his relatives figure in history to permit of his parentage being questioned. His cousin ‘Ali, fourth caliph, was the son of AbūMahomet’s Family.Ṭālib, whose name attests the historical character of the kindred name ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib, Mahomet’s grandfather: for the fact that this name is in part enigmatical is certainly no argument against its genuineness. In the 3rd century of Islama document was shown in which a man of San’a in Yemen acknowledged that he had borrowed from ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib 1000 silver dirhems of the Hudaida standard, and Allāh with the two “angels” (probably a euphemism for the goddesses Al-lāt and al-‘Uzzā) served as witness; it is difficult to see why such a document should have been forged. The name Hāshim (for ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib’s father) may or may not be historical; here, as in the ascending line throughout, we have subjects without predicates. The name of ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib’s son, who was Mahomet’s father, is given as ‘Abdallāh; the correctness of this has been questioned, because “Servant of Allah” would seem to be too appropriate, and the name was often given by the Prophet to converts as a substitute for some pagan appellation. This, however, is hypercritical, as the name of the father could not easily be altered, when relatives abounded, and it would seem that at one time the Prophet made no theological use of the name Allah, for which he intended to substitute Raḥmān. The name of his mother is given as Āminah, and with this one of his own titles, Amīn, agrees; although the Arabs do not appear to bring the two into connexion. Her father’s name is given as Wahb, and she is brought into relation with a Medinese tribe called the Banū ‘Adī b. al-Najjār, to whom she is said to have brought her son in his early infancy. The circumstances may have been suggested by his later connexion with that place; yet in what seems a historical narrative her grave is mentioned as known to be at Abwa, midway between the two cities, whence this early bond between the Prophet and his future home may have really existed.

His own name is given in the Koran in the forms Aḥmad and the familiar Muḥammad; in contemporary poetry we also find the form Maḥmūd. Similar variation between derivatives from the same root is found in proper names which occur in early poetry; the meaning of all would be “the praised,” if the root be given its Arabic signification—“the desired” if interpreted from the Hebrew.

The form Muḥammad (ordinarily transliterated Mohammed; Mahomet, Mehmet, &c., represent the Turkish pronunciation) is found in a pre-Islamic inscription, and appears to have been fairly common in Arabia. In Hag. ii. 7 a derivative of the Hebrew equivalent root occurs in the prophecy “and the desired of all nations shall come,” and this passage has suggested the idea that the name may have been taken by the Prophet as the equivalent of “Messiah,” while the Moslems themselves find its equivalent in theParacleteof the Fourth Gospel, though this identification requires more ingenuity. Hiskunyah(i.e.the Arab title of respect, in which a man is called after his son) is Abu‘l-Qāsim; other names by which he is called are titles of honour,e.g.Muṣṭafā “chosen.” (See further the genealogical table,ad fin.)

In the Koran, Allah says that He found the Prophet an orphan, poor and astray; it is possible that all these expressions should be understood figuratively, like the “poor, naked, blind” of Christian hymns; the Arabs, however,Early Life.take them literally, and Mahomet is said to have been a posthumous child, whose mother died a few months or years after his birth, and who was brought up first by his grandfather, and then by his uncle Abū Ṭālib, one of the poorer members of the family; in the controversy between the Alid and Abbasid pretenders of the 2nd century of Islam the Abbasid Manṣūr claims that his ancestor fed the ancestor of ‘Ali,i.e.Abū Ṭālib, otherwise he would have had to beg. There was evidently an apparent inconsistency between Mahomet’s being a poor orphan and the favourite grandchild of the eminent and wealthy ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib; and it was solved in this way. There was a tradition that in his early years he was sent into the desert to acquire the habits and the language of the Bedouins; and this seems to have been attested by the Prophet himself. In a tribal fight he is said to have acted as armour-bearer to one of his uncles, Zubair. There seems no doubt that he often accompanied Meccan caravans to the countries with which the Meccans had trade relations; such especially were Syria and south Arabia, and perhaps Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is conceivable that he may have visited Abyssinia by sea. For though accurate knowledge is nowhere to be found in the Koran, it exhibits a large amount of miscellaneous information, such as a trader might well pick up. His career as a caravan-conductor appears to have terminated with his marriage to Khadīja, daughter of Khuwailid, represented by the tradition as a wealthy widow, fifteen years his senior and forty years of age at the time of the union. As she became the mother of a numerous family, a special rule was discovered by Moslem physiologists extending the child-bearing period of Korashite women beyond that of others. Since it is claimed for Mahomet that he first gave Arab women the right to inherit property, the difficulty noticed is not the only one connected with this marriage; and Robertson Smith has called attention to some others, unconnected with his theory of “marriage and kinship in early Arabia.” After his marriage Mahomet appears to have been partner in a shop in Mecca; where he apparently sold agricultural produce. His style is strongly marked by phrases and metaphors drawn from trade, though as a statesman he never displayed any financial ability.

Writing in the monumental script of South Arabia had been known for centuries in the peninsula; and shortly before the rise of Islam a cursive script—the parent of the ordinary Arabic character—had been started in the ChristianEducation.state of Hira, with which the beginnings of modern Arabic literature are connected. A modification of this had been introduced into Mecca, and was probably used for contracts and similar documents. The wordummī, literally “popular” or “plebeian” (according to one etymology), applied to Mahomet in the Koran, is said to mean “one who can neither read nor write,” and the most generally accepted view is that he could do neither, a supposition which enters into the doctrine of the miraculous nature of the Koran. According to another interpretation the word means “Meccan,”i.e.native of “the Mother of the Villages” (Umm al-Qura); and the most probable theory is that he could do both, but unskilfully. Indeed on one historic occasion he erased certain words in a document; and where in the Koran he rebuts the charge of “taking notes,” he does not employ the obvious retort that he could not write, but gives a far less convincing answer. For poetry, which seems to have been cultivated in Arabia long before his time, he possessed no ear; but we have little reason for supposing that either writing or versification had yet entered into Arabian education. The former would be acquired by those who needed it, the latter was regarded as a natural gift. There is reason for thinking the language of the Koran incorrect and ungrammatical in parts, but as it afterwards became the ultimate standard of classical Arabic, this point is not easy to prove. On the whole then his early life seems to have been such as was normal in the case of a man belonging to one of the more important families in a community which had not long been started on a career of prosperity.

Of the organization of that community we unfortunately know very little, though we hear of a council-chamber, and, as has been seen, of an age-qualification for admission to it. It is, however, certain that the theory ofSocial System.decision by majority was absolutely unknown to Mahomet’s second successor, whence we learn little from this tradition (even if it be authentic) of the mode whereby the tribes who together formed the Meccan population managed their common concerns, whether commercial or political. The form of government seems to have been a rudimentary oligarchy, directed by some masterful individual; before the Flight we read of various prominent personages, after the Flight and the battle of Badr (A.H.2) one chieftain, Abū Sofiān (seeCaliphate,ad init.), appears to take the lead whether in war or in policy. It would seem, however, that the right of independent action belonged to the individual tribes, even to the extent of refusing to take part in a campaign. For the settlement of ordinary disputes recourse was had (it appears) rather to soothsayers, near or distant, than to any regularly constituted authority or tribunal. On the other hand we are furnished with a list of officials who were concerned with different parts of the festal performances and the ordinary worship. Of these we may mention the Custodian of the Ka‘ba, and the official whose duty wassiqāyah(“watering”), said to mean furnishing the pilgrims with water,but more ingeniously interpreted in recent times as “rain-bringing,” a function which even in the 2nd century of Islam the governor in some places was supposed to exercise.

Of Arabian paganism we possess no trustworthy or complete account; since we hear of no theological literature belonging to it, probably no such account could have been given. There were doubtless a variety of practices, many ofBeginnings of the Mission.which have been continued to this day in the ceremonies of the pilgrimage, and offerings of different sorts to various deities, interpreted variously by the worshippers in accordance with their spiritual, intellectual and moral levels;e.g.as actual stones, or as men (or more often women) residing in the stones or otherwise connected with them, or bearing a similar relation to trees, or stars, &c. In general every tribe had its patron of the kind, and where there were aggregations of tribes, connexions were established between these deities, and affiliation-theories excogitated; hence the theory attributed in the Koran to the Meccans that the goddesses al-‘Uzzā, &c. were the daughters of Allah, may well represent the outcome of such speculation. These, however, were known to few, whereas the practices were familiar to all. Some of these were harmless, others barbarous; many offensive, but not very reprehensible, superstitions.

Before Mahomet’s time Arabian paganism had already been attacked both from the outside and from the inside. On the one hand the northern tribes had gradually been christianized, owing to the influence of the ByzantineExternal Influences.empire; on the other hand south Arabia had fallen successively under Jewish, Abyssinian and Persian influence; and the last, though little is known of Persian rule, is unlikely to have favoured pagan cults. Christianity had also some important representation in Najran far south of Mecca, while Jewish settlements were prospering north of Mecca in the Prophet’s future home Yathrib and its neighbourhood. Power, civilization and learning were thus associated with monotheism (Judaism), dualism (Mazdaism) and tritheism (as the Arabs interpreted Christianity); paganism was the religion of ignorance (jāhiliyyah, interpreted by Goldziher as “barbarism,” but the difference is not very considerable). Mecca itself and the neighbouring and allied Ṭāif are said to have produced some monotheists or Christians, who identified theAllahof Mecca with theAllāhāor God of the Syrian Christians, called by the Abyssinian Christians “Lord of the Regions,” and by the Jews “the Merciful” (Raḥmānā); one such is said to have been a cousin of Khadija, Mahomet’s wife; his name is given as Waraqah, son of Naufal, and he is credited with copying or translating a Gospel. We even hear of flagellant monks and persons vowed to total abstinence among the precursors of Islam.

With these persons Mahomet had little in common, since they do not appear to have claimed to enforce their views upon others, or to have interfered with politics. He appears mainly to have been struck by the personality of the founders of the systems dominant in the civilized world, and to have aspired from the first to occupy the place of legislator or mouthpiece of the Deity; and that he was this was and is the main proposition of the Mahommedan creed. The “Prophet” or “Apostle” (at different times he employed both the Jewish and the Christian phrase) was the divinely appointed dictator of his community; if he were not obeyed, divine vengeance would overtake the disobedient. At this proposition Mahomet arrived by induction from the records of the Biblical prophets, as well as others who seem to have figured in Arabian mythology,e.g.the destruction of the tribe Thamūd (mentioned by Pliny, and therefore historical) for their disobedience to their prophet Ṣāliḥ, and of ‘Ad (probably mythical) for their similar treatment of Hūd. The character of the message did not affect the necessity for obedience; at times it was condemnation of some moral offence, at others a trivial order. Divine vengeance overtook those who disobeyed either.

This is the theory of the prophetic office which pervades the Koran, wherein the doctrine is formulated that every nation had its divine guide and that Mecca before Mahomet’s time had none. This place, then, Mahomet felt a divine call to fill.The Prophet’s Call.But we are never likely to ascertain what first put the idea into his mind. The fables which his biographers tell on this subject are not worth repeating; his own system, in which he is brought into direct communication with the Deity, though at a later period the angel Gabriel appears to have acted as intermediary, naturally leaves no room for such speculations; and since his dispensation was thought to be absolutely new, and to make atabula rasaof the pagan past, his first followers, having broken with that past, left no intelligible account of the state of affairs which preceded their master’s call. Some generations therefore elapsed before that past was studied with any sort of sympathy, and details could not then be recovered, any more than they can now be supplied by conjecture.

So far as Mahomet may be said from the first to have formulated a definite notion of his work, we should probably be right in thinking it to be the restoration of the religion of Abraham, or (as the Koran calls him) Ibrahim. Though we have no reason for supposing the name of Abraham or Ishmael to have been known in Mecca generally before Mahomet’s time, the Biblical ethnology was not apparently questioned by those who were told of it, and there are stories, not necessarily apocryphal, of precursors of Mahomet going abroad in search of the “religion of Abraham.” One feature of that system, associated in the Bible with the name of Ishmael as well, was circumcision, which was actually observed by the Meccan tribes, though it would appear with technical differences from the Jewish method; the association of monotheism with it would seem reasonable enough, in view of Jewish traditions, such as Mahomet may have heard on his travels; why the doctrine of the future life should be coupled with it is less obvious. That the Meccan temple and its rites had been founded by these two patriarchs appears to have been deduced by Mahomet himself, but perhaps at a later stage of his career. That these rites, so far as they were idolatrous, were in flagrant defiance of the religion of Abraham must have struck any one who accepted the accounts of it which were current among Jews and Christians. The precursors, however, appear to have felt no call to reform their fellow-citizens; whereas it is evident that Mahomet regarded himself as charged with a message, which he was bound to deliver, and which his God would in some way render effective.

As it was obvious that the claim to be God’s mouthpiece was to claim autocracy, Mahomet employed the utmost caution in his mode of asserting this claim; on the question of his sincerity there have been different opinions held, and it is not necessary to take any view on this matter. For three years his followers were a secret society; and this period appears to have been preceded by one of private preparation, the first revelation being received when the Prophet was in religious retirement—a ceremony calledtaḥannuth, of which the meaning is uncertain, but which can have no connexion with the Hebrewteḥinnōth(“supplications”)—on Mount Ḥirā, near Mecca.

If the traditional dates assigned to thesuras(chapters) of the Koran (q.v.) are correct, the earliest revelations took the form of pages or rolls which the Prophet was to read by the “grace of God,” as Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon community,The Koran.said of the power given him to read the “Egyptian” characters on the gold plates which he had found. The command to read is accompanied by the statement that “his most generous Lord had taught man by the pen (calamus) that which he did not know.” Waraqah, to whom the event is said to have been communicated by Khadija, called these communications “the Greater Law (nomos).” The Prophet was directed to communicate his mission at the first only to his nearest relatives. The utterances were from the first in a sort of rhyme, such as is said to have been employed for solemn matter in general,e.g.oracles or prayers. At an early period the production of a written communication was abandoned for oral communications, delivered by the Prophet in trance; their delivery was preceded by copious perspiration, for which the Prophet prepared (in accordance with instructions found in the Koran)by wrapping himself in a blanket. Trusty followers were instructed to take these utterances down, but the phenomena which accompanied their delivery at least in one case suggested imposture to the scribe, who apostatized in consequence. It is extraordinary that there is no reason to suppose that any official record was ever kept of these revelations; the Prophet treated them somewhat as the Sibyl did her leaves. This carelessness is equally astounding whether the Prophet was sincere or insincere.

If the matter afterwards collected in the Koran be genuine, the early revelations must have been miscellaneous in content, magical, historical and homiletic. To some strange oaths are prefixed. Apparently the purpose to be compassed was to convince the audience of their miraculous origin. The formulation of doctrines belongs to a later period and that of jurisprudence to the latest of all. In that last period also, when Mahomet was despot of Medina, the Koran served as an official chronicle, well compared by Sprenger to the leading articles on current events in a ministerial organ. Where the continuous paragraph is substituted for the ejaculation, the divine author apologizes for the style.

Certain doctrines and practices (e.g.washing of the person and the garments) must have been enjoined from the first, but our authorities scarcely give us any clear notion what they were. The doctrines to which the Prophet himself throughout assigned most value seem to have been the unity of God and the future life, or resurrection of the body. The former necessitated the abandonment of the idolatrous worship which formed part of the daily life of Mecca, and in which Mahomet and Khadija had been accustomed to take their part. Yet it seems to have been due to the initiative of the proselytes themselves rather than to the Prophet’s orders that the Meccan worship was actually flouted by them; for the anecdote which represents the Prophet and his young cousin attempting to pull down the images in or about the Ka’ba appears to be apocryphal. The first Moslem ceremony would appear to have been the religious meeting for the purpose of hearing the delivery of revelations, of which after the Prophet’s death the sermon (khuṭbah) took the place. After various provisional meeting-places, the house of one al-Arqam on Mt. Safa was adopted for this purpose; and here proselytes were initiated.

The names which the new community received from its founder are both philological puzzles; for the natural sense of Moslem (Muslim) appear to be “traitors,” and to this a contemporary war-song of Mahomet’s enemiesGrowth of the Early Community.alludes; whileḤanīf(especially applied in the Koran to Abraham) seems to be the Hebrew word for “hypocrite.” The former is explained in the Koran to mean “one who hands over his face or person to God,” and is said to have been invented by Abraham; of the latter no explanation is given, but it seems to signify from the context “devotee.” Since the divine nameRaḥmānwas at one time favoured by Mahomet, and this was connected with one Maslama of the tribe Ḥanīfa, who figures in politics at the end of Mahomet’s career but must have been a religious leader far earlier, it has been suggested that the names originally belonged to Maslama’s community. The honour of having been Mahomet’s first convert is claimed for three persons: his wife Khadīja, his cousin Ali, who must have been a lad at the commencement of the mission, and Abū Bekr, son of Abū Quḥāfah, afterwards Mahomet’s first successor. This last person became Mahomet’salter ego, and is usually known as theṢiddiq(Heb. word signifying “the saint,” but to the Arabs meaning “faithful friend)”. His loyalty from first to last was absolutely unswerving; he was selected to accompany Mahomet on the most critical occasion of his life, the Flight from Mecca; Mahomet is said to have declared that had he ever made a confidant of any one, that person would have been Abū Bekr; implying that there were things which were not confided even to him. The success of the Prophet’s enterprise seems to have been very largely due to the part played by this adherent, who possessed a variety of attainments which he put at Mahomet’s service; who when an intermediary was required was always ready to represent him, and who placed the commendation of the Prophet above every other consideration, private or public. The two appear to have regularly laid siege to those persons in Mecca whose adherence was desirable; and the ability which many of the earlier converts afterwards displayed, whether as statesmen or generals, is a remarkable testimony to their power of gauging men. It seems clear that the growth of wealth in Mecca had led to the accentuation of the difference between persons of different station, and that many were discontented with the oligarchy which governed the city. Converts could, therefore, be won without serious difficulty among the aliens and in general those who suffered under various disqualifications. Some members of the Jewish community seem also to have joined; and some relics of the Abyssinian expedition (i.e.descendants of the invaders). Among the most important converts of the Meccan period were Mahomet’s uncle Ḥamza, afterwards for his valour called “the Lion of God”; ‘Abd al-Raḥman (Abdar-raḥman) son of ‘Auf; Othman, son of ‘Affān, who married two of the Prophet’s daughters successively, and was Mahomet’s third successor; and, more important than any save Abū Bekr, Omar, son of al-Khattāb, a man of extraordinary force of character, to whom siege seems to have been laid with extraordinary skill. At some time he received the honourable titleFārūq(“Deliverer”); he is represented as regularly favouring force, where Abū Bekr favoured gentle methods; unlike Abū Bekr, his loyalty was not always above suspicion. His adherence is ascribed to the period of publicity.

The secrecy which marked its early years was of the greatest value for the eventual success of the mission; for when Mahomet came forward publicly he was already the head of a band of united followers. His own family appear to have been either firm adherents, or violent enemies, or lukewarm and temporizing—this is the best which can be said for ‘Abbās, eponymus of the Abbasid dynasty; or finally espousers of his cause, on family grounds, but not as believers.

Rejecting accounts of Mahomet’s first appearance as a public preacher, which are evidently comments on a text of the Koran, we have reason for supposing that his hand was forced by ardent followers, who many times in his careerFirst Period of Publicity.compelled him to advance. The astute rulers of the community perceived that the claim made by Mahomet was to be dictator or autocrat; and while this was naturally ridiculed by them, some appear to have been devoted adherents of the gods or goddesses whom he attacked. The absence of dated documents for the period between this open proclamation (which in any case commenced before 616) and the Flight to Medina in 622 renders the course of events somewhat conjectural, though certain details appear to be well established. Apparently there was a war of words, followed by a resort to diplomacy and then to force; and then a period in which Mahomet’s attention was directed to foreign conversions, resulting in his being offered and accepting the dictatorship of Yathrib.

Of the war of words we have an imperfect record in the Meccan suras of the Koran, which occasionally state the objections urged by the opponents. In the course of the debate the theological position of both parties seems to have shifted, and the knowledge of both was probably increased in various ways. The miracle of the Koran, which at first consisted in its mode of production, was transformed into a marvel connected with its contents; first by Mahomet’s claiming to tell historical narratives which had previously been unknown to him; afterwards by the assertion that the united efforts of mankind and Jinn would be unable to match the smallest passage of the Koran in sublimity. Probably the first of these claims could not be long maintained, though A. J. Davis, “the Seer of Poughkeepsie,” in our own time brought a similar one in regard to hisPrinciples of Nature. Indeed both parties evidently resorted to external aid. To those who undertook to name the man who dictated stories of the ancients to Mahomet day and night, he replied that the individual whom they had in mind was a foreigner, whereas the Koran was in pure Arabic. This was obviously a quibble, for it was scarcely asserted that he delivered the matter dictated to him withoutalteration. The purity of the Arabic also appears to have been very questionable; for several expressions appear to be Ethiopic rather than Arabic, and the person whom the Meccans had in mind is likely to have been an Abyssinian Christian, since the Christian technicalities of the Koran are mainly derived from the Ethiopic Gospels and Acts. On one occasion when some questions suggested by learned foreigners had been propounded to the Prophet he required a fortnight’s delay before the revelation which solved them came; the matter contained in his reply was certainly such as required research. His sources of information seem at all times to have been legendary rather than canonical; and the community which seemed to his opponents to agree best with his views was that of the Sabians or Mandaeans (qq.v.).

It has been suggested that Mahomet first threatened the Meccans with temporal punishment, and only when this threat failed to take effect resorted to the terrors of the Day of Judgment and the tortures of Hell; it seems however a mistake to distinguish between the two. These threats provided the Prophet with his most powerful sermons. The boasts of incomparable eloquence which the Koran contains are evidence that his oratorical power was effective with his audiences, since the more successful among the Arabic poets talk of their compositions somewhat in the same way. These discourses certainly led to occasional conversions, perhaps more frequently among women than men.

The diplomatic war seems to have been due to the Prophet’s increasing success, which led to serious persecution of Mahomet’s less influential followers, though, as has been seen, no blood could be shed in Mecca. Abū Ṭālib, moreover,The Exiles in Axum.prevented him from being exiled, though he probably had to endure many personal insults. Something however had to be done for the persecuted Moslems, and (perhaps at the suggestion of his Abyssinian helper) Mahomet endeavoured to find a refuge for them in the realm of Axum. Abyssinia was doubtless connected in every Meccan mind with the “Expedition of the Elephant”; and such an alliance secured by Mahomet was a menace to the existence of the Meccan community. A deputation was therefore sent by the Meccan leaders to demand extradition of the exiles; and as chief of this expedition the future conqueror of Egypt, ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ (see‘Amr ibn el-Ass), first figures in history. To frustrate his efforts Mahomet sent his cousin Ja’far armed with an exposition of the Prophet’s beliefs and doctrines afterwards embodied in the Koran as the Sura of Mary (No. XIX.; though with the addition of some anti-Christian matter). The original document contained an account of the Nativity of Christ with various miracles not known to either the canonical or even the apocryphal gospels which have been preserved, but which would be found edifying rather than unorthodox by a church one of whose most popular books isThe Miracles of the Virgin Mary. To this there were added certain notices of Old Testament prophets. The Abyssinian king and his ecclesiastical advisers took the side of Mahomet and his followers, whom they appear to have regarded as persecuted Christians; and an attempt made probably by the astute ‘Amr to embroil them with the Abyssinians on the difficult question of the Natures of Christ failed completely. There seems reason for thinking that the Abyssinian king contemplated bringing back the exiles by force, but was diverted from this purpose by frontier wars; meanwhile they were safely harboured, though they seem to have suffered from extreme poverty. The want of an Abyssinian chronicle for this period is a serious disadvantage for the study of Islamic origins. The sequel shows that regular correspondence went on between the exiles and those who remained in Mecca, whence the former were retained within the fold of Islam, with occasional though rare apostasies to Christianity.

Mahomet’s diplomatic victory roused the Meccan leaders to fury, and they decided on the most vigorous measures to which they could rise; Abū Ṭālib, Mahomet’s protector, and the clan which acknowledged him assheikh, including the Prophet and his family, were blockaded in the quarter which they occupied; as in other sanctuaries, though blood might not be shed, a culprit might be starved to death. That this did not occur, though the siege appears to have lasted some months at least, was due to the weak good nature of the Meccans, but doubtless also to the fact that there were enlisted on Mahomet’s side many men of great physical strength and courage (as their subsequent careers proved), who could with impunity defy the Meccan embargo. After a time however the besieged found the situation intolerable, and any assistance which they might have expected from the king of Axum failed to come. The course adopted by Mahomet was retractation of those of his utterances which had most offended the Meccans, involving something like a return to paganism. A revelation came acknowledging the effectiveness of the Meccan goddesses as well as Allah, and the Meccans raised the siege. News of the reconciliation reached the Abyssinian exiles and they proceeded to return.

By the time they reached the Arabian coast the dispute had recommenced. The revelation was discovered to be a fabrication of the Devil, who, it appears, regularly interpolates in prophetic revelations; such at least is the apology preserved in the Koran, whence the fabricated verses have been expunged. Since our knowledge of this episode (regarded as the most disgraceful in the Prophet’s career) is fragmentary, we can only guess that the Prophet’s hand had once more been forced by the more earnest of his followers, for whom any compromise with paganism was impossible. The exiles went back to Abyssinia; and about this time both Abū Ṭālib and Khadīja died, leaving the Prophet unprotected.

He fled to the neighbouring oasis of Ṭāif, where wealthy Meccans had possessions, and where the goddess al-‘Uzza was worshipped with special zeal—where she is said still to exist in the form of a block of stone. He had but little success there in proselytizing, and indeed had to cease preaching; but he opened negotiations with various Meccan magnates for a promise of protection in case of his return. This was at last obtained with difficulty from one Moṭ‘im b. ‘Adi. It would appear that his efforts were now confined to preaching to the strangers who assembled at or near Mecca for the ceremonies connected with the feasts. He received in consequence some invitations to come and expound his views away from Mecca, but had to wait some time before one came of a sort which he could wisely accept.

The situation which led to Mahomet’s Flight (hijra, anglicized incorrectlyhejira,q.v.) was singularly favourable to Mahomet’s enterprise, and utilized by him with extraordinary caution and skill. At the palm plantation calledThe Flight to Yathrib.Yathrib, afterwards known asal-Medina, Medina, “the City” (i.e.of the Prophet), there were various tribes, the two most important, called Aus and Khazraj, being pagan, and engaged in an internecine feud, while under their protection there were certain Jewish tribes, whose names have come down to us as Qainuqā, Naḍīr and Quraiza—implying that the Israelites, as might be expected, imitated the totem nomenclature of their neighbours. The memory of these Israelites is exclusively preserved by the Moslem records; the main stream of Jewish history flowed elsewhere. In the series of combats between the Aus and Khazraj the former had generally been worsted; the Jews, as usual, had avoided taking any active part in the fray. Finally, owing to an act of gross perfidy, they were compelled to fight in aid of the Aus; and in the so-called battle of Bu‘āth the Aus aided by the Jews had won a victory, doubtless attributed to the God of the Jews. As has been seen, the divine name employed by Mahomet (Raḥmān) was one familiar to the Jews; and the Yathribites who visited Mecca at feast-time were naturally attracted by a professed representative of al-Raḥmān. The first Yathribite converts appear to have been Khazrajites, and one As‘ad, son of Zurarah, is the most prominent figure. Their idea may have been in the first place to secure the aid of the Israelitish Deity in their next battle with the Aus, and indeed the primary object of their visit to Mecca is said to have been to request assistance for their war. For this the plan was substituted of inviting the Prophet to come to Mecca as dictator, to heal the feud and restore order, a procedure to which Greek antiquity offers parallels. The new converts were told to carry on secret propaganda in Yathrib with this end in view. At the next feastsome of the rival faction embraced Islam. A trusty follower of Mahomet, Mus’ab b.’Umair, who resembled Mahomet in personal appearance, was sent to Yathrib to assist in the work. The correspondence between this person and the Prophet would, if we possessed it, be of the greatest value for the study of Islamic antiquity. We first hear at this time ofthe conditions of Islam,i.e.a series of undertakings into which the convert entered: namely, to abstain from adultery, theft, infanticide and lying, and to obey Mahometin licitis et honestis. The wholesale conversion of Yathrib was determined by that of two chieftains, Usaid b. Ḥuraith and Sa‘d b. Mu’adh, both Ausites. The example of these was quickly followed, and iconoclasm became rife in the place. At the next Meccan feast a deputation of seventy Yathribites brought Mahomet a formal invitation, which he accepted, after imposing certain conditions. The interviews between Mahomet and the Yathribites are known as the‘Aqabah(probably with reference to a text of the Koran). The attitude of the Jews towards the project appears to have been favourable.

Among the conditions imposed by Mahomet on his new adherents appears to have been the protection and harbouring of the older proselytes, whom Mahomet most wisely determined to send before him to Yathrib, where, in the event of theThe Refugees.Yathribite loyalty wavering, they could be counted on with certainty. The welcome given these refugees (muhājirūn), as they were from this time known in contra-distinction to the helpers (anṣār) or allies from Yathrib, is said to have been of the warmest; a Helper with two wives would hand one over to a wifeless Refugee. A yet more important condition which preceded the Flight was readiness to fight men of all colours in defence of the faith.

Although the transactions with the people of Yathrib had been carried on with profound secrecy, the nature of Mahomet’s contract with his new adherents was somewhat divulged to the Meccan magnates, and the danger of allowing an implacable enemy to establish himself on the high-road of their north-bound caravans flashed upon them. The rule which forbade bloodshed in the sacred city had at last to be suspended; but elaborate precautions were to be taken whereby every tribe (except Mahomet’s own clan) should have their share in the guilt, which would thus be spread over the whole community fairly. When the committee appointed to perpetrate the crime reached Mahomet’s house, they found that it was too late; Mahomet had already departed, leaving Ali in his bed.

The actual Flight from Mecca to Yathrib has naturally been a favourite subject for romance, and indeed appears to have been executed with the greatest cunning. Accompanied by Abū Bekr only, Mahomet took refuge in a cave of Mt Thaur, in the opposite direction to that which he intended to take finally, and there remained for three days; provision had been made of every requisite, food, powerful camels, a trusty and competent guide. The date at which he reached Kuba, on the outskirts of Yathrib, where there was already some sort of Moslem oratory, is given as 8 Rabia I., of the yearA.H.1; the fact that he arrived there on the Jewish Day of Atonement gives us the date September 20, 622. The Meccans, who had employed professional trackers to hunt down the fugitives, proceeded to confiscate the houses and goods of Mahomet and of his followers who had fled.

The safe arrival of Mahomet at his destination marks the turning-point in his career, which now became one of almost unbroken success; his intellectual superiority over both friends and enemies enabling him to profit byMahomet as Despot of Yathrib.defeat little less than by victory. His policy appears to have been to bind his followers to himself and them to each other by every possible tie; he instituted brotherhoods between the Refugees and Helpers, which were to count as relationships for legal purposes, and having himself no sons, he contracted numerous marriages partly with the same end in view;e.g.with the infant daughter of Abū Bekr, Ayesha (‘A’ishah), whose ability he appears to have discerned; and the unamiable Ḥafṣa, daughter of Omar. Of his own daughters three were given to faithful allies, the one by whom his line is supposed to have been continued to our time, Fāṭima, was reserved for his cousin Ali. Owing to his efforts the alliance between the Refugees and Helpers resisted numerous attempts on the part of enemies to break it up, and only towards the end of the Prophet’s life, when he appeared to favour Meccans unduly, do we hear of any bitterness between the two communities.

The population of Yathrib, or, as it may now be called, Medina, soon divided into three groups: Mahomet’s united followers; the Jews; and a party known as the “Hypocrites,”i.e.professing Moslems, who were lukewarm, or disaffected,The Medina Community.among whom the most prominent is ‘Abdallah b. Ubayy, a Khazrajite chieftain, who is said to have himself aspired to be despot of Yathrib, and who till nearly the end of Mahomet’s career figures somewhat as a leader of the opposition; of his importance there is no question, but the reason for it and the mode whereby he made it felt are often obscure. It would seem that the pagans remaining in Yathrib speedily adopted Islam after the Prophet’s arrival, whence we hear little of serious opposition on their part. Coming in the capacity of prophet of the Israelitish God, Mahomet at first seems to have courted alliance with the Jews, and to have been ready to adopt their system with very slight modifications—similar to those which, according to his opinion, Jesus had come to introduce. The Jews met these advances by submitting him to examination in the intricacies of theTorah, and, finding him very poorly equipped, proceeded to denounce him as an imposter; one of his examiners is said to have even translated theTorahinto Arabic with a view of convicting him of ignorance and imposture. They are’ further charged with exercising their magical arts on the Prophet and his followers, and to have succeeded thereby in producing barrenness among the Moslem women. Their conduct must not of course be judged by the statement of their enemies; it is however clear that Mahomet soon found that there was no possibility of compromising with them on religious questions, or of obtaining their loyal support; meanwhile he discovered that they were incapable of united and persistent action, and useless as warriors except against each other. He therefore resolved on their extermination. His ruthlessness in their case compared with his patience and forbearance in the case of the “Hypocrites” was consistent with his principle (always faithfully observed) that no inquiry was permissible into the motives of conversion, and with his division of mankind into the two antagonistic factions Believers and Unbelievers. The latter principle, as will be seen, was somewhat modified before the end of his life.

Mahomet’s failure to effect a compromise with the Jews caused a reaction in his mind towards paganism, and after about a year’s residence at Medina the direction of prayer, which had till then been towards Jerusalem, wasDevelopment of Islam.turned southward to the pagan temple at Mecca. With this change we may perhaps couple the adoption of the nameAllahfor theDeity; in the Moslem formula “in the Name of Allah the Raḥmān the Merciful,” the translation attached to the wordRaḥmān, and the prefixing to it of the nameAllahfurnish clear evidence of theological transition, though the stages are not recorded; we know, however, that the Meccans approved of the nameAllah, but objected to the nameRaḥmān. Prayer (ṣalāt), said to have been prescribed on the occasion of the Prophet’s ascent into heaven after a miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, began to assume a stereotyped form in the place of assembly built by Mahomet immediately after his arrival; the attitudes of prayer in use among many communities (e.g.the Jewish standing, the prostration of some Christian sects) were combined. In general it was Mahomet’s principle, while taking over a practice from some other sect, to modify it so as to render the Moslem method absolutely distinct; thus when a summons to prayer became requisite, a new mode (by the voice of a crier calledmuaddhinormuezzin) was preferred to the Christian hammer; a new sacred day was adopted, in lieu of the Jewish Saturday and the Christian Sunday, in the weekday on which he had safely reached Kuba, Friday; but the sanctity was reduced to the actual time occupied by public worship. On the subject of food he was satisfied with the regulations of the Council ofJerusalem, recorded in Acts xv.; which were observed by few if any Christian sects. The prohibition of wine, which was enacted inA.H.3, is said to have been occasioned by the riotous conduct of one of his followers when under the influence of liquor; Palgrave saw in it (perhaps with justice) a deliberate attempt to prevent harmony between Moslems and Christians, in whose most sacred rite wine is used. The Fast of Ramaḍān, in which food both liquid and solid is forbidden from sunrise to sunset, is said to be a pagan or semi-pagan institution; its importance for military training and discipline is not likely to have been overlooked by the Prophet. When the direction of prayer was altered, it is probable that Mahomet already intended to introduce into his system the whole of the pagan pilgrimage with its antique ceremonial (with, of course, a new interpretation); before this he is supposed to have aimed at the abolition of the Ka‘ba and all that appertained to it.

The difference between religious and civil law has never been recognized by Islamic jurists, whose manuals deal equally with the law of contract and the amount of the body to be washed before prayer; the Prophet’s ordinances on both subjects were suggested by the occasion in each case, and it would seem that the opinions of trusted advisers were regularly heard before a revelation was issued. Even when this had been done the ordinance might be cancelled by an abrogating revelation; it being “easy for Allah” to substitute for a text already revealed another that was better or at least as good.

As Islam began to spread outside the limits of Medina both conversion to Islam and persistence therein were reduced to simple tests; the pronunciation of the double formula of belief in Allah and Mahomet was sufficient to indicate conversion, whilst payment of an income-tax, called by the Jewish names for alms (zakātandṣadaqah), was evidence of loyalty. This income-tax, of which the definite assessment perhaps belongs to a later period, was for the support of necessitous converts—an element in the community whose presence accounts for the mode in which the development of the Islamic state proceeded.

The industries in which the Meccan Refugees had been engaged were not of a sort which they could exercise at Medina, where the palm took the place of the camel as the basis of society. Moreover the Prophet seems to have givenFirst Campaigns of Mahomet.some disastrous advice on the subject of palmiculture, and thereby to have accentuated the poverty of the place. He had, therefore, to find some fresh source of revenue in order to deal with this difficulty, and one of the Helpers is said to have suggested the plan which he adopted, viz. of attacking the Meccan caravans. With this view he organized a series of expeditions, taking the lead himself sometimes, while at others he gave it to one of his veteran followers; and at first only Refugees took part in them. The leaders of the caravans, however, were expert in evading attacks of this sort, which were doubtless regularly attempted by the desert tribes; and in the first year of his despotism Mahomet did not score a single success of the kind intended. The attempts were not wholly fruitless; for while on the one hand he accustomed his followers to campaigning, on the other he made a series of agreements with the chieftains of the tribes through whose territory the caravans ordinarily passed. Finding continued failure intolerable, he resolved to take advantage of his power to bind and to loose by sending an expedition of seven men under his cousin ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to attack a caravan at the beginning of the sacred month Rajab, when, as raiding during such a season was unknown, success was practically certain. The commander on this, the Nakhlah raid, was given sealed orders, to be opened after two days’ march; the men were then to be given the option of retiring, if they disapproved. Of this no one seems definitely to have availed himself, and the raid ended successfully, for considerable booty was captured, while of the four persons who escorted the caravan two were made prisoners, one escaped, and one, ‘Amr b. al-Ḥaḍrami, was killed; he was the first person slain fighting against an Islamic force. The violation of the sacred month seems to have caused considerable scandal in Arabia, but led to no serious consequence; on the other hand the shedding of blood created a feud between the people of Mecca and the Refugees, with whom the Meccans long declined to identify the people of Medina. The fact that the man who had been killed was a client, not a citizen, made no difference. The circumstance that booty had been actually acquired appears to have helped the Prophet’s cause very considerably.

Both these consequences, the Meccan desire to avenge the blood that had been shed and the anxiety of the Medinese to take part in a successful raid, manifested themselves a few months later, when an expedition was organized byAttack on Meccan Caravan.Mahomet to attack a caravan returning from Syria, which had escaped him the previous year. Many desired to take part in the raid, and finally some 300 persons were selected, including a large number of “Helpers.” The leader of the caravan learned somehow that an attack was being organized by Mahomet on a large scale, and sent to Mecca for aid, while hurrying home by forced marches. This is the first historical appearance of Abū Sofiān (the leader of the caravan), who now for some years played the part of president in the Meccan opposition to Mahomet, and whose son was destined to found the second Mahommedan dynasty (seeCaliphate, B). The day before the battle to be fought at Badr, near the point where the northern road leaves the coast to turn eastwards to Mecca, the Moslem army learned that the Meccan succour (some 1000 strong) was near, but that the caravan had escaped. The Meccans, it is asserted, would have returned home now that their object was secured, but the patrons of the man who had been killed in the former raid were compelled to strike for vengeance.

The battle (Ramaḍān 19,A.H.2, usually made to synchronize with March 17, 624) ended in a complete victory for Mahomet, whose followers killed seventy of the enemy and took seventy prisoners—if we may trust what seem to be round numbers; it was attributed by him to divine co-operation, taking the form of an illusion wrought on the enemy, and the despatch of a regiment of angels to the assistance of the Believers, while on the other hand the treachery of the Devil did mischief to the Meccans. The popular tradition attributed it to the prowess of some of Mahomet’s followers, especially his uncle Ḥamza and his cousin Ali. In the narratives which have come down and which seem to be authentic the result is amply accounted for by the excellence of the Moslem discipline and the complete absence of any on the Meccan side. Mahomet himself is said to have fainted at the first sight of blood, and to have remained during the battle in a hut built for him to which swift camels were tied, to be used in case of a defeat; yet these accounts make him responsible for the tactics, whilst assigning the credit for the strategy to one Ḥobab b. al-Mondhir. Several of Mahomet’s old enemies and friends of Meccan days perished on this occasion; notably one Abu Jahl, his uncle, but represented as an implacable enemy; another hostile uncle, Abu Lahab, who is cursed in the Koran, was not present but died shortly after the battle.

The day is called in the Koran by a Syriac expression the “Day of Deliverance,” and both for internal and external politics it was of incalculable advantage to Islam. The booty and the ransoms of the prisoners provided the means for dealing with distress; the story of supernatural aid soothed the feelings of the defeated Meccans and had a tendency to disarm resistance elsewhere; whilst Mahomet in the popularity acquired by his victory was able to strike forcibly at his enemies in Medina. One of the sequels to the victory was a series of assassinations whereby critics of his actions were removed.

The defeat at Badr naturally led to efforts on the part of the Meccans to avenge their dead and besides to secure the commerce, by which they lived, from an enemy who was gradually getting all the seaboard that lay between JeddahThe Taking of Mecca.and Yanbo within his sphere of influence; and the year after Badr (A.H.3) Abū Sofiān was able to lead a force said to be three times as great as that which had been defeated, and so numbering some 3000 men, against Medina itself; part of it was under Khālid b. al-Walid, one of the greatest of Arab captains, afterwards conqueror of Syria. It is said that Mahomet’s plan was to remain in Medina itself, and leave it to theMeccan commander to discover some way of taking the place; but that his hand was forced by his more ardent followers. Others, however, assign this advice to Abdallah b. Ubayy, and make the Prophet anxious to fight from the first. A battle was in consequence fought under Mt Uḥud (or Ohod), north-west of Medina, wherein Khālid succeeded in inflicting a severe defeat on Mahomet’s forces; his uncle Ḥamza, hero of Badr, was killed on this occasion. Fortunately for the Moslems, the Meccans considered that they had finished their task when they discovered that they had killed a number of the former equal to those who had fallen at Badr on their own side; instead therefore of pursuing their victory they went home. The immediate effect on Arabia appears to have been to dissipate the illusion that the Prophet could count on supernatural assistance in his wars; and we hear of some blows being dealt him from outside. Meanwhile his relations towards the Medinese Jews had grown more and more hostile, and these are credited with doing their best to rouse the Meccans to a sense of the danger which threatened them in the continuance of the Prophet’s power, and in general to stir up hostility against him in Arabia. Whether this part was played by them or not, in the fifth year of the Prophet’s stay at Medina a fresh invasion of the territory took place by a vast confederate force of Meccans with their allies, the tribes Fazarah, Asad, Murrah, &c., to the number, it is said, of 10,000. This time the intention of the leaders was undoubtedly to stamp out Islam. For the first time in Arab warfare Mahomet resorted to the expedient of defending his city by a trench, called by a Persian name, and suggested by a Persian convert. But he also employed agents to sow dissension among the confederates, and succeeded with this no less than with the other expedient. After a brief stay, and scarcely striking a blow, the confederacy dispersed, leaving the Jews who still remained in Medina to the summary vengeance of the Prophet. The want of records written from the Meccan standpoint renders the abortiveness of this last attempt at storming the Prophet’s stronghold scarcely intelligible.

Back to Index Next