From this time, however, the road towards the eventual taking of Mecca became easy, and we are told that such was the importance attached to that city throughout Arabia that its acquisition meant for the Prophet the acquisition of the whole peninsula. The next year (A.H.6) he deemed it advisable to make a truce with the Meccans (the Truce of Ḥodaibiyah), whereby he secured for his followers the right of performing the pilgrimage in the following year; on this occasion he even consented to forgo his title “Prophet of Allah,” when the Meccans refused to sign a deed in which it was employed, greatly to the scandal of his more earnest followers, including Omar; they were however too deeply committed to Islam to be able to defy the Prophet. When the pilgrimage was performed (A.H.7), Mahomet not only won important converts in the persons of Khālid and the no less able ‘Amr b. al-‘Aṣ, but in general impressed the population with the idea that his was the winning side. An excuse was easily found for invading Mecca itself in the following year, when Abū Sofiān took the opportunity of embracing Islam before it was too late. Very little resistance was now made by the Meccans, whose chiefs were already in Mahomet’s camp, and Mahomet used his victory with great moderation; his proscription list was finally reduced to two. The theory that all offences were cancelled by conversion was loyally observed. Moreover the Prophet incurred the displeasure of his Medinese friends by the anxiety which he displayed to soothe the feelings of his former enemies and antagonists. The Medinese, however, prevailed upon him to maintain their city as his political capital, while making Mecca the religious centre of his system; and this arrangement accounts perhaps more than anything else for the persistence of the system amid so many dynastic changes.
In the main he appears to have introduced little alteration into the government of Mecca, and it is said that he even declined to retaliate on those who had confiscated the possessions of the Refugees. Even the Ka‘ba was left in the keeping of its former custodian, though of course its interior as well as its precincts were cleansed of all that could offend monotheists. In the following year the pilgrimage was for the first time conducted by a Moslem official, Abū Bekr. A proclamation was made on that occasion, forbidding idolaters in future to take part in the pilgrimage, and giving all Arabs who were not as yet converted four months’ grace before force was to be brought to bear upon them. In the following year Mahomet conducted the Pilgrimage himself. This solemn occasion (the “Farewell Pilgrimage”) was also employed for the delivery of an important proclamation, wherein the Prophet declared that God had completed their religion. The principle whereon he specially insisted was the brotherhood of Islam; but there is some difficulty in enucleating the original sermon from later additions.
It would seem that Mahomet’s enterprise originally comprised the conversion of Mecca only, and that he thought of himself as sent to his fellow-citizens only, as had been the case with earlier prophets, whose message was forConquest of Arabia.their “brethren.” His views took a somewhat different direction after his brief exile to Ṭāif, and the conquest of Arabia was in a way forced upon him in the course of his struggle with the Meccans. It is not indeed perfectly clear by what process he arrived at the resolution to exclude paganism from Arabia; at first he appears to have tolerated it at Medina, and in some of his earlier contracts with neighbouring tribes he is represented as allowing it, though some of our texts make him reserve to himself the right of enforcing Islam if he chose; only the Meccans were at first, according to the most authentic documents, excluded from all truce or treaty. At the battle of Badr he appears to have formulated the rule that no one might fight on his side who had not embraced Islam; and when once he had won fame as a successful campaigner, those who wished to share his adventures had to pass the Islamic test. After the battle of Uhud (Ohod) we hear of a tribe demanding missionaries to instruct them in Islamic principles; and though in the case recorded the demand was treacherous, the idea of sending missionaries appears not to have been unfamiliar even then, albeit the number sent (70), if rightly recorded, implies that the Prophet suspected the good faith of the applicants. After the taking of Mecca, whereby the chief sanctuary at any rate of north Arabia had been cleared of all idolatrous associations, and consecrated to monotheism, paganism in general was conscious of being attacked; and the city had scarcely been brought under the new régime before the Prophet had to face a confederation of tribes called Hawāzin and Thaqīf. The battle which ensued, known as the Day of Honain, was near ending disastrously for Islam; some of Mahomet’s sturdiest followers fled; but the terrible danger of a defeat in the neighbourhood of recently conquered Mecca roused the Prophet and Ali to heroism, and they saved the day. Emissaries were now sent far and wide demanding the destruction of idols, and only Ṭāif appears to have made any considerable resistance; against this place for the first time the Prophet made use of siege artillery, such as was employed by the Byzantines; though compelled by the bravery of the inhabitants to raise the siege, he was afterwards able to take the city by capitulation. It has been observed that here only do we read of much attachment to the old deities; in most places they were discarded with few regrets when once their impotence had been found out. After the taking of Mecca and the victory of Honain there appears to have been a general desire, extending even to the extreme south of Arabia, to make the best terms with the conqueror so soon as possible; iconoclasm became general. Flatterers of various kinds, including poets, came to seek the favour of the sovereign; and a mock war of words appears to have been substituted by some tribes for more serious fighting, to terminate in surrender. For warfare of his sort Mahomet had a powerful helper in the poet Ḥāssan b. Thābit, for whose effusions a pulpit was erected in the Medina mosque, and whose verses were said to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; though, as has been seen, Mahomet was not himself able to judge of their artistic merit. It was not, however, found easy to enforce the payment of the alms on these new converts; and this taxation caused an almost general revolt so soon as Mahomet’s death had been ascertained.
Although the central portions of the peninsula in Mahomet’s time were practically independent, large portions of the north-west and south-east were provinces of the Byzantine and Persian empires respectively, whence any schemePlan of World-conquest.for the conquest of Arabia would necessarily involve the conqueror in war with these great powers. The conquest of Persia is said to have been contemplated by the Prophet as early asA.H.5, when the famous Trench was being dug; but it was not till the yearA.H.7, on the eve of the taking of Mecca, that the Prophet conceived the idea of sending missives to all known sovereigns and potentates, promising them safety if, but only if, they embraced Islam. The text of these letters, which only varied in the name of the person addressed, is preserved (doubtless faithfully) by the Moslem Oral Tradition; in the middle of the last century a French explorer professed to discover in Egypt the original of one of them—addressed to the mysterious personage called the Muqauqis (Muḳauḳis) of Egypt—and this, it appears, is still preserved amid other supposed relics of the Prophet in Constantinople, though there is little reason for believing it to be genuine. The anecdotes dealing with the reception of these letters by their addressees are all fabulous in character. Two appear to have sent favourable replies: the king of Axum, who now could send the exiles whom he had so long harboured to their successful master; and the Egyptian governor, who sent Mahomet a valuable present, including two Coptic women for his harem. The emperor Heraclius is claimed as a secret convert to Islam, on whom pressure had to be put by his advisers to conceal his convictions. The Persian king is said to have sent orders to have Mahomet arrested; his messengers arrived in Medina, but were unable to carry out the commands of their master, who died while they were there. Two of the letters are said to have had important results. One was addressed to the Himyarite chiefs (called by the south Arabian appellationqail) in Yemen, and effected their conversion; another to the governor of Bostra in Roman Arabia, who put the bearer of this insolent message to death; a force was despatched by Mahomet immediately afterwards (beginning ofA.H.8) to avenge this outrage; and though the Moslems were defeated in their first encounter with the Byzantine forces at Mutah, they appear to have given a good account of themselves; it was here that Ja‘far, cousin of the Prophet, met his death. InA.H.9 a successful expedition was led by the Prophet himself northward, in which, though no Byzantine force was encountered, a considerable region was withdrawn from the Byzantine sphere of influence, and made either Islamic or tributary to Islam. At the time of his death (of fever, after a short illness) he was organizing an expedition for the conquest of Syria.
The Prophet claimed throughout that his revelation confirmed the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and this claim is on the whole reasonable, though his acquaintance with both was in the highest degree vague and inaccurate.Jewish and Christian Communities.Still he reproduced the Old Testament as faithfully as he could, and though he patriotically endeavours to shed some lustre on his supposed ancestor Ishmael, he does not appear to have questioned the Biblical theory according to which the founder of the north Arabian nations was the son of a slave girl. On neither the truth of the Biblical history and miracles nor the validity of the Mosaic legislation does he appear to have cast any doubt. He even allows that Israel was the chosen people. The Gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources, which cannot certainly be identified; but he accepted the doctrine of the Virgin-birth, the miracles of healing the sick and raising the dead, and the ascension; the crucifixion and resurrection were clearly denied by the sect from whom he had received his information, and rejected by him, though certainly not because of any miracle which the latter involved. His quarrel with the Jews at Medina appears to have been by no means of his own seeking, but to have arisen unavoidably, owing to his particular view of his office being such as they could not accept; and his attempt to discredit, not the Mosaic Law, but the form in which they presented it, was an expedient to which he resorted in self-defence. An attempt was made shortly after his arrival at Medina to settle the relations between the two communities by a treaty, according to which, while their equality was guaranteed there should be little interference between the two; this, however, was found unworkable, and each victory of Mahomet over the Meccans was followed by violent measures against the Medinese Israelites. When experience had shown him their military incompetence he appears to have been unable to resist the temptation to appropriate their goods for the benefit of his followers; and his attack on the flourishing Jewish settlement of Khaibar, after the affair of Ḥodaibiyah, appears to have been practically unprovoked, and designed to satisfy his discontented adherents by an accession of plunder. Yet the consciousness that this process was economically wasteful suggested to him an idea which Islamic states are only now abandoning, viz. that of a tolerated caste, who should till the soil and provide sustenance for the Believers who were to be the fighting caste. Whereas then his former plan in dealing with Israelites had been to banish or massacre, he now left the former owners of Khaibar (who had survived the capture of the place) in possession of the soil, of whose produce they were to pay a fixed proportion to the Islamic state. The same principle was adopted in the case of later conquests of Jewish settlements.
Disputes with Christians occur somewhat later in the Prophet’s career than those with Jews, for neither at Mecca nor Medina were the former to be found in any numbers; individuals are likely to have been found in both cities, and we hear of one Medinese “Abu’Amir the Monk,” who after Mahomet’s arrival at Medina branded him as an impostor, and, going himself into exile, made many an abortive attempt to discredit and injure Mahomet’s cause. The notices of him are meagre and obscure. Mahomet’s manifesto to the world, about the time of the taking of Khaibar, appears to represent his definite breach with Christianity; and when in the “year of the embassies” the Christians of Najran sent a deputation to him, they found that the breach between the two systems was not to be healed. Of the three alternatives open to them—conversion, internecine war, and tribute, they chose the last. The Christian tribes of north Arabia showed greater inclination towards the first. The Prophet’s policy was to give Christians lighter terms than Jews, and though the Koran reflects the gradual adoption by the Prophet of an attitude of extreme hostility to both systems, its tone is on the whole far more friendly to the former than to the latter. Some other communities are mentioned in the Koran, but merely in casual allusions: thus we know that Mahomet’s sympathy was with the Byzantines in their struggle with Persia, but in his most tolerant utterance the Magians or Mazdians as well as the Sabians (with whom his followers were identified by the Meccans) are mentioned with respect.
The financial requirements of Mahomet’s state were of the simplest kind, for there is no trace of any form of governmental department having been instituted by him, even when he was master of the peninsula; nor can weMahomet’s Administration.name any permanent officials in his employ except hismuaddhinBilal, and perhaps his court-poet Hassān. A staff of scribes was finally required both to take down his revelations and to conduct correspondence; but although he encouraged the acquisition of penmanship (indeed some of the prisoners at Badr are said to have been allowed to ransom themselves by teaching it to the Medinese), we know of no regular secretaries in his employ. As despot of Medina he combined the functions of legislator, administrator, general and judge; his duties in the last three capacities were occasionally delegated to others, as when he appointed a governor of Medina during his absence, or leaders for expeditions, with provision for successors in case of their falling, but we hear of no permanent or regular delegation of them. Till near the end of his career at Medina he maintained the principle that migration to that city was a condition of conversion; but when, owing to the extension of his power, this was no longer practicable, his plan was in the main to leave the newly converted communities to manage their internal affairs as before, only sending occasional envoys to discharge special duties, especially instruction in the Koran andthe principles of Islam, and to collect the Alms; quite towards the end of his life he appears to have sent persons to the provinces to act as judges, with instructions to judge according to the Koran, and where that failed,the practice(sunna),i.e.the practice of the community, for which a later generation substituted the practice of the Prophet. There were, therefore, no regular payments to permanent officials; and the taxation calledAlms, which developed into an income-tax, but was at first a demand for voluntary contributions, was wholly for the support of the poor Moslems; it might not be used for the maintenance of the state,i.e.Mahomet and his family. For them, and for public business,e.g.the purchase of war material and gratuities to visitors, provision was made out of the booty, of which Mahomet claimed one-fifth (the chieftain’s share had previously, we are told, been one-fourth), while the remainder—or at least the bulk of it—was distributed among the fighting men; the Prophet appears to have prided himself on the justice of his distribution on these occasions, and doubtless won popularity thereby, though we hear occasionally of grumbling; for difficulties occurred when a defeated tribe embraced Islam, and so could claim equality with their conquerors, or when portions of the spoil were irregularly employed by Mahomet to allay resentment: the persons whose allegiance was thus purchased were euphemistically termed “those whose hearts were united.” What afterwards proved the main source of revenue in Islamic states dates from the taking of Khaibar; for the rent paid to the state by tolerated communities for the right to work their land developed long after Mahomet’s time into a poll-tax for Unbelievers (seeCaliphate,e.g.B. § 8 andMahommedan Institutions), and a land-tax for all owners of land. Immediately after the taking of Khaibar certain communities, of which the most notable was Fadak, sent tribute before they had been attacked and reduced; their land was regarded by Mahomet as his private domain, but after his death it was withdrawn from his heirs by his successor Abū Bekr, in virtue of a maxim that Prophets left no inheritance, which in the opinion of Fāṭima was contrary to Koranic doctrine, and invented by Ayesha’s father expressly for the purpose of excluding her and her husband from their rights; and this is likely to have been the case.
As a military organizer Mahomet, as has been seen, was anxious to adopt the most advanced of contemporary methods, and more than once is said to have scandalized the Arabs by foreign innovations, as at a later time the Moslem chiefs who first used gunpowder scandalized their co-religionists. The unit in his armies seems to have been, as of old, the tribe, under its natural leader; that he introduced no more scientific division, and nothing like a hierarchy of officers was perhaps due to the difficulty of reconciling such a system with the equality of all Moslems.
As has been seen, the Koran only assumed the character of a civil code as the need for one arose; and for some time after Mahomet’s arrival at Medina old-fashioned methods of settling disputes continued in use, and doubtless in accordance with precedent where such was known. For difficult cases, even in Arab opinion, divine inspiration was required; and since Mahomet naturally claimed to be in sole enjoyment of this, his utterances soon became the unique source of law, though he did not at first think of organizing a code. Such a plan is said to have occurred to him, and he even wished to dictate a code upon his deathbed; but his friends supposed or professed to suppose him to be delirious. A table regulating the “Alms” was left by him, it is said, in the possession of Abū Bekr; but other traditions assign another origin to this document.
Just as there were no regular officials for the arrangement of business, so there were none for its execution; when punishment was to be administered, any follower of Mahomet might be called upon to administer it. In the case of the massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah care was taken to see that some of the heads were struck off by their former allies, in order that the latter might be unable at any time to bring a demand for vengeance. The Prophet hoped by the mere terror of his name to make complete security reign throughout Arabia, and there is no evidence that any system of policing either it or even Medina occurred to him.
Until the death of Khadija the Prophet’s private life seems to have been normal and happy, for though the loss of his sons in infancy is said to have earned him a contemptuous epithet, he was fortunate in his adoption of Zaid b. Ḥarithah, apparentlyDomestic Life.a prisoner ransomed by Khadija or one of her relatives, who appears as dutiful almost to excess and competent in affairs. The marriages of his daughters seem all to have been happy, with, curiously, the exception of that between Fatima and Ali. His domestic troubles, to which an unreasonable amount of space seems to be devoted, even in the Koran, began after the Migration, when, probably in the main for political reasons, he instituted a royal harem. One of these political motives was the principle which long survived, that the conquest of a state was consummated by possession of the former monarch’s wife, or daughter; another, as has been seen, the desire to obtain the securest possible hold on his ministers. In his marriage with the daughter of his arch-enemy Abū Sofiān, before the latter’s conversion, we can see a combination of the two. Few, therefore, of these marriages occasioned scandal; yet public morality seemed to be violated when the Prophet took to himself the wife of his adopted son Zaid, whose name has in consequence the honour of mention in the Koran in the revelation which was delivered in defence of this act. Its purpose was, according to this, to establish the difference between adoptive and real filiation. Serious trouble was occasioned by a charge of adultery brought against the youthful favourite Ayesha, and this had to be refuted by a special revelation; the charge, which was backed up apparently by Ali, seems to have been connected with some deeper scheme for causing dissension between the Prophet and his friends. Yet another revelation is concerned with a mutiny in the harem organized by Omar’s daughter Hafsa, owing to undue favour shown to a Coptic concubine (Mary, mother of a son called Ibrahim, who died in infancy; his death was marked by an eclipse, January 27, 632); and various details of factions within the harem are told us by Mahomet’s biographers.Of the members of this harem the only prominent one is Ayesha, married to the Prophet shortly after the Flight, when she had scarcely passed the period of infancy, but who appears to have been gifted with astuteness and ambition that were quite beyond her years, and who maintained her ascendancy over the Prophet in spite of the fact that many carping criticisms of his revelations are attributed to her. Some of this may have been due to the obligations (including pecuniary obligations) under which her father had laid Mahomet; but her reputation seems to have been greatly enhanced by the sending down of a revelation to exonerate her (A.H.6), for which she thanked God and not the Prophet. Each accession to the harem rendered the building of a house or room necessary for the newcomer’s accommodation; a fact in which Robertson Smith perhaps rightly saw a relic of the older system whereby the tent was the property of women. The trouble noticed above seems to have arisen from the want of a similar arrangement in the case of slave girls, with whom Mahomet’s system permits cohabitation. When Mahomet, whether in consequence of the fatigue incurred by the “Farewell Pilgrimage,” or, as others thought, by the working of some poison put into his food some years before by a Jewess of Khaibar, was attacked by the illness which proved fatal, it was to the house of Ayesha that he was transferred (from that of another wife) to be nursed; and he apparently died in the arms of the favourite, on whose statements we have to rely for what we know of his last hours.The traditional description of Mahomet is “of middle height, greyish, with hair that was neither straight nor curly; with a large head, large eyes, heavy eyelashes, reddish tint in the eyes, thick-bearded, broad-shouldered, with thick handsGeneral Characteristics.and feet”; he was in the habit of giving violent expression to the emotions of anger and mirth. The supposition that he at any time suffered from physical weakness seems absolutely refuted by his career as a leader of difficult, dangerous and wearisome expeditions, from his migration to Medina until his death; indeed, during his last years he exhibited a capacity for both physical and intellectual activity which implies a high degree of both health and strength; and without these the previous struggle at Mecca could scarcely have been carried on. The supposition that he was liable to fits (epileptic or cataleptic) was intended to account for certain of the phenomena supposed to accompany the delivery of revelations; some of these however rest on very questionable authority: and the greater number of the revelations give evidence of careful preparation rather than spontaneity.The literary matter ascribed to the Prophet consists of (1) the Koran (q.v.); (2) certain contracts, letters and rescripts preserved by his biographers; (3) a number of sayings on a vast variety of topics, collected by traditionalists. The references in the Koran to a form of literature called “Wisdom” (ḥikmah) suggest that even in the Prophet’s time some attempts had been made to collect or at least preserve some of the last; the general uncertainty of oral tradition and the length of time which elapsed before any critical treatment of it was attempted, and the variety of causes, creditable and discreditable, which led to the wilful fabrication of prophetic utterances,render the use to which No. 3 can be put very limited. Thus the lengthy description of the journey to heaven which Sprenger was inclined to accept as genuine is regarded by most critics as a later fabrication. It is very much to be regretted that the number ofpièces justificatives(No. 2) quoted by the biographers is so small, and that for these oral tradition was preferred to a search for the actual documents, some of which may well have been in existence when the earliest biographies were written. Their style appears to have been plain and straightforward, though the allusions which they contain are not always intelligible.In his personal relations with men Mahomet appears to have been able to charm and impress in an extraordinary degree, whence we find him able to control persons like Omar and Khalid, who appear to have been self-willed and masterful, and a single interview seems to have been sufficient to turn many an enemy into a devoted adherent. Cases (perhaps legendary) are quoted of his being able by a look or a word to disarm intending assassins.Although the titles which he took were religious in character, and his office might not be described as sovereignty, his interests appear to have lain far more in the building up and maintenance of empire than in ecclesiastical matters. Thus only can we account for the violent and sudden changes which he introduced into his system, for his temporary lapse into paganism, and for his ultimate adoption of the cult of the Black Stone, which, it is said, gave offence to some of his sincere adherents (e.g.Omar), and seems hard to reconcile with his tirades against fetish-worship. The same is indicated by his remarkable doctrine that the utterance of the creed constituted a Moslem and not its cordial acceptance, and his practice of at times buying adhesion. Even an historian so favourable to the Prophet as Prince Caetani recognizes that ultimately what he regarded as most important was that his subjects should pay their taxes. And in general his system was not favourable to fanaticism (al-ghulū fi‘l-dīn); he repeatedly gave permission for concealment of faith when the profession of it was dangerous; he took care to avoid institutions which, like the Jewish Sabbath, interfered seriously with military expeditions and the conduct of business, and permitted considerable irregularity in the matters of prayer and fasting when circumstances rendered it desirable. In his theory that Koranic texts could be abrogated he made wise provision against the danger of hasty legislation, though some of its usefulness was frustrated by his failure to provide for such abrogation after his death.
Until the death of Khadija the Prophet’s private life seems to have been normal and happy, for though the loss of his sons in infancy is said to have earned him a contemptuous epithet, he was fortunate in his adoption of Zaid b. Ḥarithah, apparentlyDomestic Life.a prisoner ransomed by Khadija or one of her relatives, who appears as dutiful almost to excess and competent in affairs. The marriages of his daughters seem all to have been happy, with, curiously, the exception of that between Fatima and Ali. His domestic troubles, to which an unreasonable amount of space seems to be devoted, even in the Koran, began after the Migration, when, probably in the main for political reasons, he instituted a royal harem. One of these political motives was the principle which long survived, that the conquest of a state was consummated by possession of the former monarch’s wife, or daughter; another, as has been seen, the desire to obtain the securest possible hold on his ministers. In his marriage with the daughter of his arch-enemy Abū Sofiān, before the latter’s conversion, we can see a combination of the two. Few, therefore, of these marriages occasioned scandal; yet public morality seemed to be violated when the Prophet took to himself the wife of his adopted son Zaid, whose name has in consequence the honour of mention in the Koran in the revelation which was delivered in defence of this act. Its purpose was, according to this, to establish the difference between adoptive and real filiation. Serious trouble was occasioned by a charge of adultery brought against the youthful favourite Ayesha, and this had to be refuted by a special revelation; the charge, which was backed up apparently by Ali, seems to have been connected with some deeper scheme for causing dissension between the Prophet and his friends. Yet another revelation is concerned with a mutiny in the harem organized by Omar’s daughter Hafsa, owing to undue favour shown to a Coptic concubine (Mary, mother of a son called Ibrahim, who died in infancy; his death was marked by an eclipse, January 27, 632); and various details of factions within the harem are told us by Mahomet’s biographers.
Of the members of this harem the only prominent one is Ayesha, married to the Prophet shortly after the Flight, when she had scarcely passed the period of infancy, but who appears to have been gifted with astuteness and ambition that were quite beyond her years, and who maintained her ascendancy over the Prophet in spite of the fact that many carping criticisms of his revelations are attributed to her. Some of this may have been due to the obligations (including pecuniary obligations) under which her father had laid Mahomet; but her reputation seems to have been greatly enhanced by the sending down of a revelation to exonerate her (A.H.6), for which she thanked God and not the Prophet. Each accession to the harem rendered the building of a house or room necessary for the newcomer’s accommodation; a fact in which Robertson Smith perhaps rightly saw a relic of the older system whereby the tent was the property of women. The trouble noticed above seems to have arisen from the want of a similar arrangement in the case of slave girls, with whom Mahomet’s system permits cohabitation. When Mahomet, whether in consequence of the fatigue incurred by the “Farewell Pilgrimage,” or, as others thought, by the working of some poison put into his food some years before by a Jewess of Khaibar, was attacked by the illness which proved fatal, it was to the house of Ayesha that he was transferred (from that of another wife) to be nursed; and he apparently died in the arms of the favourite, on whose statements we have to rely for what we know of his last hours.
The traditional description of Mahomet is “of middle height, greyish, with hair that was neither straight nor curly; with a large head, large eyes, heavy eyelashes, reddish tint in the eyes, thick-bearded, broad-shouldered, with thick handsGeneral Characteristics.and feet”; he was in the habit of giving violent expression to the emotions of anger and mirth. The supposition that he at any time suffered from physical weakness seems absolutely refuted by his career as a leader of difficult, dangerous and wearisome expeditions, from his migration to Medina until his death; indeed, during his last years he exhibited a capacity for both physical and intellectual activity which implies a high degree of both health and strength; and without these the previous struggle at Mecca could scarcely have been carried on. The supposition that he was liable to fits (epileptic or cataleptic) was intended to account for certain of the phenomena supposed to accompany the delivery of revelations; some of these however rest on very questionable authority: and the greater number of the revelations give evidence of careful preparation rather than spontaneity.
The literary matter ascribed to the Prophet consists of (1) the Koran (q.v.); (2) certain contracts, letters and rescripts preserved by his biographers; (3) a number of sayings on a vast variety of topics, collected by traditionalists. The references in the Koran to a form of literature called “Wisdom” (ḥikmah) suggest that even in the Prophet’s time some attempts had been made to collect or at least preserve some of the last; the general uncertainty of oral tradition and the length of time which elapsed before any critical treatment of it was attempted, and the variety of causes, creditable and discreditable, which led to the wilful fabrication of prophetic utterances,render the use to which No. 3 can be put very limited. Thus the lengthy description of the journey to heaven which Sprenger was inclined to accept as genuine is regarded by most critics as a later fabrication. It is very much to be regretted that the number ofpièces justificatives(No. 2) quoted by the biographers is so small, and that for these oral tradition was preferred to a search for the actual documents, some of which may well have been in existence when the earliest biographies were written. Their style appears to have been plain and straightforward, though the allusions which they contain are not always intelligible.
In his personal relations with men Mahomet appears to have been able to charm and impress in an extraordinary degree, whence we find him able to control persons like Omar and Khalid, who appear to have been self-willed and masterful, and a single interview seems to have been sufficient to turn many an enemy into a devoted adherent. Cases (perhaps legendary) are quoted of his being able by a look or a word to disarm intending assassins.
Although the titles which he took were religious in character, and his office might not be described as sovereignty, his interests appear to have lain far more in the building up and maintenance of empire than in ecclesiastical matters. Thus only can we account for the violent and sudden changes which he introduced into his system, for his temporary lapse into paganism, and for his ultimate adoption of the cult of the Black Stone, which, it is said, gave offence to some of his sincere adherents (e.g.Omar), and seems hard to reconcile with his tirades against fetish-worship. The same is indicated by his remarkable doctrine that the utterance of the creed constituted a Moslem and not its cordial acceptance, and his practice of at times buying adhesion. Even an historian so favourable to the Prophet as Prince Caetani recognizes that ultimately what he regarded as most important was that his subjects should pay their taxes. And in general his system was not favourable to fanaticism (al-ghulū fi‘l-dīn); he repeatedly gave permission for concealment of faith when the profession of it was dangerous; he took care to avoid institutions which, like the Jewish Sabbath, interfered seriously with military expeditions and the conduct of business, and permitted considerable irregularity in the matters of prayer and fasting when circumstances rendered it desirable. In his theory that Koranic texts could be abrogated he made wise provision against the danger of hasty legislation, though some of its usefulness was frustrated by his failure to provide for such abrogation after his death.
As has been seen, Mahomet claimed to introduce a wholly new dispensation, and a maxim of his law is that Islam cancels all that preceded it, except, indeed, pecuniary debts; it is not certain that even this exception always held good.Mahomet’s Reforms.Hence his system swept away a number of practices (chiefly connected with the camel) that were associated with pagan superstitions. The most celebrated of these is the arrow-game, a form of gambling for shares in slaughtered camels, to which poetic allusions are very frequent. More important than this was his attitude towards the blood-feud, or system of tribal responsibility for homicide (whether intentional or accidental), whereby one death regularly led to protracted wars, it being considered dishonourable to take blood-money (usually in the form of camels) or to be satisfied with one death in exchange. This system he endeavoured to break down, chiefly by sinking all earlier tribal distinctions in the new brotherhood of Islam; but also by limiting the vengeance to be demanded to such as was no more than the equivalent of the offence committed, and by urging the acceptance of money-compensation instead, or complete forgiveness of the offence. The remembrance of pre-Islamic quarrels was visited by him with condign punishment on those who had embraced Islam; and though it was long before the tribal system quite broke down, even in the great cities which rose in the new provinces, and the old state of things seems to have quickly been resumed in the desert, his legislation on this subject rendered orderly government among Arabs possible.
Next in importance to this is the abolition of infanticide, which is condemned even in early Suras of the Koran. The scanty notices which we have of the practice are not altogether consistent; at times we are told that it was confined to certain tribes, and consisted in the burying alive of infant daughters; at other times it is extended to a wider area, and said to have been carried out on males as well as females. After the taking of Mecca this prohibition was included among the conditions of Islam.
In the laws relating to women it seems likely that he regulated current practice rather than introduced much that was actually new, though, as has been seen, he is credited with giving them the right to inherit property; the most precise legislation in the Koran deals with this subject, of which the main principle is that the share of the male equals that of two females. Our ignorance of the precise nature of the marriage customs prevalent in Arabia at the rise of Islam renders it difficult to estimate the extent to which his laws on this subject were an improvement on what had been before. The pre-Islamic family, unless our records are wholly misleading, did not differ materially from the Islamic; in both polygamy and concubinage were recognized and normal; and it is uncertain that the text which is supposed to limit the number of wives to four was intended to have that meaning. The “condition of Islam” whereby adultery was forbidden is said to have been ridiculed at the time, on the ground that this practice had never been approved. Yet it would seem that certain forms of promiscuity had been tolerated, though the subject is obscure. Against these services we must set the abrogation of some valuable practices. His unfortunate essay in astronomy, whereby a calendar of twelve lunar months, bearing no relation to the seasons, was introduced, was in any case a retrograde step; but it appears to have been connected with the abrogation of the sanctity of the four months during which raiding had been forbidden in Arabia, which, as has been seen, he was the first to violate. He also, as has been noticed, permitted himself a slight amount of bloodshed in Mecca itself, and that city perhaps never quite recovered its sacrosanct character. Of more serious consequences for the development of the community was his encouragement of the shedding of kindred blood in the cause of Islam; the consequences of the abrogation of this taboo seem to have been felt for a great length of time. His assassinations of enemies were afterwards quoted as precedents in books of Tradition. No less unfortunate was the recognition of the principle whereby atonement could be made for oaths. On the question how far the seclusion of women was enjoined or countenanced by him different views have been held.
Besides the contemporary documents enumerated above (Koranic texts, rescripts and authentic traditions) many of the events were celebrated by poets, whose verses were ostensibly incorporated in the standard biography of Ibn Isḥāq; inSources.the abridgment of that biography which we possess many of these are obelized as spurious, and, indeed, what we know of the procedure of those who professed to collect early poetry gives us little confidence in the genuineness of such odes. A few, however, seem to stand criticism, and thediwan(or collection of poems) attributed to Ḥassan b. Thābit is ordinarily regarded as his. Though they rarely give detailed descriptions of events, their attestation is at times of value,e.g.for the story that the bodies of the slain at Badr were cast by the Prophet into a pit. Besides this, the narratives of eyewitnesses of important events, or of those who had actually taken part in them, were eagerly sought by the second generation, and some of these were committed to writing well before the end of the 1st century. The practice instituted by the second Caliph, of assigning pensions proportioned to the length of time in which the recipient had been a member of the Islamic community, led to the compilation of certain rolls, and to the accurate preservation of the main sequence of events from the commencement of the mission, and for the detailed sequence after the Flight, which presently became an era (beginning with the first month of the year in which the Flight took place). The procedure whereby the original dates of the events (so far as they were remembered) were translated into the Moslem calendar—for something of this sort must have been done—is unknown, and is unlikely to have been scientific.Mahomet’s conduct being made the standard of right and wrong, there was little temptation to “whitewash” him, although the original biography by Ibn Isḥāq appears to have contained details which the author of the abridgment omitted as scandalous. The preservation of so much that was historical left little room for the introduction of miraculous narrations; these therefore either belong to the obscure period of his life or can be easily eliminated; thus the narratives of the Meccan council at which the assassination of Mahomet was decided, of the battles of Badr, Uḥud and Ḥonain, and the death of Sad‘b. Mu ‘adh, would lose nothing by the omission of the angels and the devil, though a certain part is assigned the one or the other on all these occasions. We should have expected biographies which were published when the ‘Abbasids were reigning to have falsified history for the purpose of glorifying ‘Abbās, their progenitor; the very small extent to which this expectation is justified is a remarkable testimony to their general trustworthiness.Relatives of the Prohet11.Family of ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib, Mahomet’s maternal grandfather:—*‘Abbās (d.A.H.32 or 34), *Ḥamza (d.A.H.3), ‘Abdallah, father of theProphet, *Abū Ṭālib (said to be named ‘Abd Manāf), ? *Zubair, Ḥārith, Ḥajal, Moqawwam, Ḍirār, *Abū Lahab (said to be named ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā, d.A.H.2), *Ṣafiyyah(d.A.H.20),Umm Ḥakīm,al-Baiḍā,‘Ātikah,Umaimah,Arwā,Barrah.2.Family of Abū Tālib:—*‘Aqīl (d. afterA.H.40), *Ja‘far (d.A.H.8), Ṭālib, Ṭulaiq, ‘Alī, the caliph,Umm Hāni’,Jumānah,Raiṭah.3.Family of Mahomet.Wives:—*Khadīja(Children:—Qāsim; ? ‘Abd Manāf (Ṭāhir, Tayyib); *Zainabm. Abu’l-‘Ās b. Rabī’, d.A.H.7; *Ruqayyah, m. ‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d.A.H.2; *Umm Kulthūmm. ‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d.A.H.9; *Fāṭimah, m. ‘Alī, d.A.H.11): *Saudah bint Zam‘ah,? d.A.H.54, *‘A’ishah (Ayesha) bint Abī Bekr(d.A.H.56), *Hafṣa bint ‘Omar(d.A.H.45 or 47), *Zainab bint Khuzaimah, d. beforeA.H.11, *Zainab bint Jaḥsh, d.A.H.20, *Umm Salimah, d.A.H.59, *Maimūnah, d.A.H.38, *Juwairiyah, d.A.H.56, *Umm Ḥabībah Ramlah bint Abī Sofiān, d.A.H.44.Concubines:—*Ṣafiyyah bint Ḥuyyay, d.A.H.36, *Raiḥānah bint Zaid, *Māriyah the Copt, d.A.H.15 or 16, mother of Ibrāhim. (Other names given by Ibn Sa‘d, vol. viii.)Chronological Table of Chief Events in the Life of Mahomet.2? 570 Birth.? 595 Marriage with Khadīja.? 610 Commencement of call.? 613 Public appearance. 616 Persian conquest of the nearer East.? 617 Flight of his followers to Abyssinia.? 618-619 Siege in Mecca. Retractation and subsequent repudiation. Death of Abū Talīb and Khadija.? 620 Flight to Ṭāif.622 July 16. Beginning of the Moslem era. Sept. 20. Arrival at Kuba after the Flight.632 Jan. 27. Death of his son Ibrāhīm.632 June 7. Death of Mahomet.The following dates are given by the Arabic historians according to their own calendar. For the reasons which have been seen it is impossible to obtain certain synchronisms.A.H.2. Rajab 1. Raid of ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to Nakhlah.Ramaḍān 19. Battle of Badr.Shawwāl 15. Attack on the Banū Qainuqā.3. Rabīa I. 14. Assassination of Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf.Shawwāl 7. Battle of Uḥud.4. Ṣaphar. Massacre of Mahomet’s 70 missionaries at Bi’r Ma‘ūnah.Rabīa I. Attack on the Banu Naḍīr.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Abortive raid called “the lesser Badr.”5. Shaabān 2. Attack on the Banu’l-Muṣṭaliq (according to Wāqidī).Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Battle of the Trench.Massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah.6. Jomādā i. Capture of a caravan by Zaid b. Ḥārithah.Futile attempt to assassinate Abū Sofiān.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Affair of Ḥodaibiyah.7. Jomādā i. Taking of Khaibar. Mission extended to the world.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Pilgrimage to Mecca (called‘umrat al-qaḍiyyah)8. Jomādā i. Expedition to Mūtah.Ramaḍān 20. Taking of Mecca.Shawwāl. Battle of Ḥonain.Attack on Ṭā‘if.9. Muḥarram. Tax-gatherers sent over Arabia.Rajab. Expedition to Tabūk.Rival Mosque built at Kubā, destroyed on Mahomet’s return to Medina.Dhu’l-Ḥijja. Pilgrimage conducted by Abu Bekr.Abolition of idolatry in Arabia.10. Ramaḍān. Expedition of ‘Alī to Yemen.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. “Farewell Pilgrimage.”11. Ṣaphar. Expedition ordered against the Byzantines.Companions of the Prophet.Thesaḥābah, as they are called, are the subject of a vast literature, and the biographical dictionaries devoted to them, of which the best known are theUsd ul-ghābaof the historian Ibn Athīr and theIṣābahof Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalāni, enumerate many thousands. The following two lists are of special groups.(a)Naqībs,i.e.leaders selected by Mahomet from the Medinese tribes: i.Khazrajites:—As‘ad b. Zurārah, Sa‘d b. al-Rabī‘, ‘Abdallah b. Rawāḥah, al-Barā’ b. Ma‘rūr, ‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. Ḥarām, ‘Ubādah b. al-Ṣāmit, Sa‘d b. ‘Ubādah, al-Mondhir b. ‘Amr; ii.Ausites: Usaid b. Ḥuḍair, Sa‘d b. Khaithamah, Rifā‘ah b. ‘Abd al-Mondhir.(b)Commanders of Expeditions: names occurring in (a) are not repeated: ‘Abdallāh b. Jaḥsh, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān b. ‘Auf, Abū Bekr, Abū Qatādah, Abū ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrāḥ, ‘Ali, ‘Alqamah b. Mujazziz, ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ (ibn el-Ass), Bashīr b. Sa‘d, Ḍaḥḥāk b. Sofiān, Ghālib b. ‘Abdallāh, Ibn Abi’l-Aujā, Ka‘b b. ‘Umair, Khālid b. al-Walīd, Kurz b. Jābir, Marthad b. Abī Marthad, Muḥammad b. Maslamah, Quṭbah b. ‘Āmir, Sa‘d b. Abī Waqqāṣ, Sa‘d d. Zaid, Salama b. ‘Abd al-Asad, Shujā‘ b. Wahb, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Ḥārith, ‘Ukkāshah b. Miḥṣan, ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, Usamah b. Zaid, ‘Uyainah b. Ḥiṣn, Zaid b. Ḥārithah.Authorities.—The biography of Ibn Isḥāq was before the world long before the two chief causes for the falsification of tradition had begun to have serious effects; these were the need for legal precedents, and the concept of saintliness, combining those of asceticism and thaumaturgy. These gave rise to the classical works on theEvidences of Mohammed’s Missionby Abū Nu‘aim (d.A.D.1012-1013) and Baihaqī (d.A.D.1066).Lives of the Prophet(† indicates that the work is lost); †‘Urwah b. Zubair (d. 712-713); †Musa b. ‘Ukbah (d. 758-759); †Mohammed b. Isḥāq (d. 768); Mohammed b. Hishām (d. 828-829), ed. Wüstenfeld (Göttingen, 1860); reprinted in Egypt by Zubair Pasha, a series of excerpts from the last; Mohammed b. Omar al-Wāqidī (d. 823), portion published by Kremer (Calcutta, 1855), abridged trans. of a fuller copy by Wellhausen,Muhammad in Medina(Berlin, 1882); Mohammed b. Sa‘d (d. 844-845), an encyclopaedic work on the history of Mahomet and his followers, calledṬabaqat, ed. Sachau and others (Berlin, foll.); Mohammed b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (seeTabari). Many more writers on this subject are enumerated in theFihrist, cf. Sprenger’sLeben Muhammads, iii. 54-76.Among the most popular compilers of later times are: Ibn al-Athir (q.v.) al Jazarī, the historian (d. 1233); Aḥmad b. Ali al Kasṭalānī (d.A.D.1517), whoseal-Mawāhib al-Laduniyyahwas published with commentary (Cairo, 1278); Ḥosain b. Mohammed al Diyarbakrī (d. 1574) whose workTa’rikh al-Khamīswas published in Cairo,A.H.1382; ‘Ali b. Burhān al-dīn al-Ḥalabī (d.A.D.1634), whose biography calledInsān al-‘uyūnwas published in Cairo,A.H.1292. To these must be added all the collections of Tradition.Modern Authorities.—The critical study of the Life of Mahomet begins in Europe with the publication by Th. Gagnier in 1723 of the Life by Abulfeda (q.v.). Presently there appeared an apologetic biography by Henri Cmte. de Boulainvilliers (2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1731), to which Gagnier replied in 1732 (La Vie de Mahomet, traduite, &c. ibid.). The next considerable advance in the treatment of the subject is marked by the biography of G. Weil (Muhammed der Prophet, Stuttgart, 1843), which is wholly without religious bias; the popular life by Washington Irving (London, 1849) is based on this. That by J. L. Merrick (theLife and Religion of Mohammed, Boston, U.S.A., 1850) rests on Shi‘ite sources. The search for MSS. in India conducted by A. Sprenger led to the discovery of fresh material, which was utilized by Sprenger himself in his unfinishedLife of Mohammad(Pt. 1, Allahabad, 1851), and his more elaborateDas Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad(Berlin, 1861-1865), and by Sir William Muir in hisLife of Mahomet, (London, 1858-1861) 4 vols.: afterwards abridged in one volume and reprinted. These are still the standard treatises on the subject; the pro-Christian bias of Muir is very marked, while Sprenger has hazarded numerous conjectures on subjects with which he had little familiarity. The biography by S. W. Koelle,Mohammed and Mohammedanism(London, 1889), is pro-Christian, the popular work of Syed Ameer AliThe Spirit of Islam, (London, 1896) an apology for Mahommedanism. Later treatises, resting on original authorities, are those by H. GrimmeMohamed, (Münster, 1892, and Munich, 1904), F. Buhl,Mohameds Liv(Copenhagen, 1903—Danish: since translated into German), D. S. MargoliouthMohammed and the Rise of Islam(N.Y., 1905, &c.), and Prince CaetaniAnnali del Islam, i. ii. (Milan, 1905-1907). For the direction of public opinion in Mahomet’s favour the Lecture onThe Hero as Prophetin Carlyle’sHeroes and Hero-worship(London, 1846) was singularly effective; his views were enforced by R. Bosworth SmithMohammed and Mohammedanism, (London, 1873, &c.). A somewhat similar line was taken in France by J. Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire,Mahomet et le Coran, (Paris, 1865), while theVie de Mahomet d’après la Traditionof E. Lamairesse and G. Dujarric (Paris, 1897) is written entirely from the Moslem standpoint.See furtherCaliphate,ad init.;Mahommedan Institutions;Mahommedan Law;Mahommedan Religion.
Besides the contemporary documents enumerated above (Koranic texts, rescripts and authentic traditions) many of the events were celebrated by poets, whose verses were ostensibly incorporated in the standard biography of Ibn Isḥāq; inSources.the abridgment of that biography which we possess many of these are obelized as spurious, and, indeed, what we know of the procedure of those who professed to collect early poetry gives us little confidence in the genuineness of such odes. A few, however, seem to stand criticism, and thediwan(or collection of poems) attributed to Ḥassan b. Thābit is ordinarily regarded as his. Though they rarely give detailed descriptions of events, their attestation is at times of value,e.g.for the story that the bodies of the slain at Badr were cast by the Prophet into a pit. Besides this, the narratives of eyewitnesses of important events, or of those who had actually taken part in them, were eagerly sought by the second generation, and some of these were committed to writing well before the end of the 1st century. The practice instituted by the second Caliph, of assigning pensions proportioned to the length of time in which the recipient had been a member of the Islamic community, led to the compilation of certain rolls, and to the accurate preservation of the main sequence of events from the commencement of the mission, and for the detailed sequence after the Flight, which presently became an era (beginning with the first month of the year in which the Flight took place). The procedure whereby the original dates of the events (so far as they were remembered) were translated into the Moslem calendar—for something of this sort must have been done—is unknown, and is unlikely to have been scientific.
Mahomet’s conduct being made the standard of right and wrong, there was little temptation to “whitewash” him, although the original biography by Ibn Isḥāq appears to have contained details which the author of the abridgment omitted as scandalous. The preservation of so much that was historical left little room for the introduction of miraculous narrations; these therefore either belong to the obscure period of his life or can be easily eliminated; thus the narratives of the Meccan council at which the assassination of Mahomet was decided, of the battles of Badr, Uḥud and Ḥonain, and the death of Sad‘b. Mu ‘adh, would lose nothing by the omission of the angels and the devil, though a certain part is assigned the one or the other on all these occasions. We should have expected biographies which were published when the ‘Abbasids were reigning to have falsified history for the purpose of glorifying ‘Abbās, their progenitor; the very small extent to which this expectation is justified is a remarkable testimony to their general trustworthiness.
Relatives of the Prohet1
1.Family of ‘Abd al-Moṭṭalib, Mahomet’s maternal grandfather:—*‘Abbās (d.A.H.32 or 34), *Ḥamza (d.A.H.3), ‘Abdallah, father of theProphet, *Abū Ṭālib (said to be named ‘Abd Manāf), ? *Zubair, Ḥārith, Ḥajal, Moqawwam, Ḍirār, *Abū Lahab (said to be named ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā, d.A.H.2), *Ṣafiyyah(d.A.H.20),Umm Ḥakīm,al-Baiḍā,‘Ātikah,Umaimah,Arwā,Barrah.
2.Family of Abū Tālib:—*‘Aqīl (d. afterA.H.40), *Ja‘far (d.A.H.8), Ṭālib, Ṭulaiq, ‘Alī, the caliph,Umm Hāni’,Jumānah,Raiṭah.
3.Family of Mahomet.Wives:—*Khadīja(Children:—Qāsim; ? ‘Abd Manāf (Ṭāhir, Tayyib); *Zainabm. Abu’l-‘Ās b. Rabī’, d.A.H.7; *Ruqayyah, m. ‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d.A.H.2; *Umm Kulthūmm. ‘Othmān b. ‘Affān, d.A.H.9; *Fāṭimah, m. ‘Alī, d.A.H.11): *Saudah bint Zam‘ah,? d.A.H.54, *‘A’ishah (Ayesha) bint Abī Bekr(d.A.H.56), *Hafṣa bint ‘Omar(d.A.H.45 or 47), *Zainab bint Khuzaimah, d. beforeA.H.11, *Zainab bint Jaḥsh, d.A.H.20, *Umm Salimah, d.A.H.59, *Maimūnah, d.A.H.38, *Juwairiyah, d.A.H.56, *Umm Ḥabībah Ramlah bint Abī Sofiān, d.A.H.44.
Concubines:—*Ṣafiyyah bint Ḥuyyay, d.A.H.36, *Raiḥānah bint Zaid, *Māriyah the Copt, d.A.H.15 or 16, mother of Ibrāhim. (Other names given by Ibn Sa‘d, vol. viii.)
Chronological Table of Chief Events in the Life of Mahomet.2
? 570 Birth.? 595 Marriage with Khadīja.? 610 Commencement of call.? 613 Public appearance. 616 Persian conquest of the nearer East.? 617 Flight of his followers to Abyssinia.? 618-619 Siege in Mecca. Retractation and subsequent repudiation. Death of Abū Talīb and Khadija.? 620 Flight to Ṭāif.622 July 16. Beginning of the Moslem era. Sept. 20. Arrival at Kuba after the Flight.632 Jan. 27. Death of his son Ibrāhīm.632 June 7. Death of Mahomet.
? 570 Birth.
? 595 Marriage with Khadīja.
? 610 Commencement of call.
? 613 Public appearance. 616 Persian conquest of the nearer East.
? 617 Flight of his followers to Abyssinia.
? 618-619 Siege in Mecca. Retractation and subsequent repudiation. Death of Abū Talīb and Khadija.
? 620 Flight to Ṭāif.
622 July 16. Beginning of the Moslem era. Sept. 20. Arrival at Kuba after the Flight.
632 Jan. 27. Death of his son Ibrāhīm.
632 June 7. Death of Mahomet.
The following dates are given by the Arabic historians according to their own calendar. For the reasons which have been seen it is impossible to obtain certain synchronisms.
A.H.
2. Rajab 1. Raid of ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to Nakhlah.Ramaḍān 19. Battle of Badr.Shawwāl 15. Attack on the Banū Qainuqā.3. Rabīa I. 14. Assassination of Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf.Shawwāl 7. Battle of Uḥud.4. Ṣaphar. Massacre of Mahomet’s 70 missionaries at Bi’r Ma‘ūnah.Rabīa I. Attack on the Banu Naḍīr.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Abortive raid called “the lesser Badr.”5. Shaabān 2. Attack on the Banu’l-Muṣṭaliq (according to Wāqidī).Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Battle of the Trench.Massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah.6. Jomādā i. Capture of a caravan by Zaid b. Ḥārithah.Futile attempt to assassinate Abū Sofiān.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Affair of Ḥodaibiyah.7. Jomādā i. Taking of Khaibar. Mission extended to the world.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Pilgrimage to Mecca (called‘umrat al-qaḍiyyah)8. Jomādā i. Expedition to Mūtah.Ramaḍān 20. Taking of Mecca.Shawwāl. Battle of Ḥonain.Attack on Ṭā‘if.9. Muḥarram. Tax-gatherers sent over Arabia.Rajab. Expedition to Tabūk.Rival Mosque built at Kubā, destroyed on Mahomet’s return to Medina.Dhu’l-Ḥijja. Pilgrimage conducted by Abu Bekr.Abolition of idolatry in Arabia.10. Ramaḍān. Expedition of ‘Alī to Yemen.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. “Farewell Pilgrimage.”11. Ṣaphar. Expedition ordered against the Byzantines.
2. Rajab 1. Raid of ‘Abdallah b. Jaḥsh to Nakhlah.Ramaḍān 19. Battle of Badr.Shawwāl 15. Attack on the Banū Qainuqā.
3. Rabīa I. 14. Assassination of Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf.Shawwāl 7. Battle of Uḥud.
4. Ṣaphar. Massacre of Mahomet’s 70 missionaries at Bi’r Ma‘ūnah.Rabīa I. Attack on the Banu Naḍīr.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Abortive raid called “the lesser Badr.”
5. Shaabān 2. Attack on the Banu’l-Muṣṭaliq (according to Wāqidī).Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Battle of the Trench.Massacre of the Banū Quraiẓah.
6. Jomādā i. Capture of a caravan by Zaid b. Ḥārithah.Futile attempt to assassinate Abū Sofiān.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Affair of Ḥodaibiyah.
7. Jomādā i. Taking of Khaibar. Mission extended to the world.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. Pilgrimage to Mecca (called‘umrat al-qaḍiyyah)
8. Jomādā i. Expedition to Mūtah.Ramaḍān 20. Taking of Mecca.Shawwāl. Battle of Ḥonain.Attack on Ṭā‘if.
9. Muḥarram. Tax-gatherers sent over Arabia.Rajab. Expedition to Tabūk.Rival Mosque built at Kubā, destroyed on Mahomet’s return to Medina.Dhu’l-Ḥijja. Pilgrimage conducted by Abu Bekr.Abolition of idolatry in Arabia.
10. Ramaḍān. Expedition of ‘Alī to Yemen.Dhu’l-Qa‘da. “Farewell Pilgrimage.”
11. Ṣaphar. Expedition ordered against the Byzantines.
Companions of the Prophet.
Thesaḥābah, as they are called, are the subject of a vast literature, and the biographical dictionaries devoted to them, of which the best known are theUsd ul-ghābaof the historian Ibn Athīr and theIṣābahof Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalāni, enumerate many thousands. The following two lists are of special groups.
(a)Naqībs,i.e.leaders selected by Mahomet from the Medinese tribes: i.Khazrajites:—As‘ad b. Zurārah, Sa‘d b. al-Rabī‘, ‘Abdallah b. Rawāḥah, al-Barā’ b. Ma‘rūr, ‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. Ḥarām, ‘Ubādah b. al-Ṣāmit, Sa‘d b. ‘Ubādah, al-Mondhir b. ‘Amr; ii.Ausites: Usaid b. Ḥuḍair, Sa‘d b. Khaithamah, Rifā‘ah b. ‘Abd al-Mondhir.
(b)Commanders of Expeditions: names occurring in (a) are not repeated: ‘Abdallāh b. Jaḥsh, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān b. ‘Auf, Abū Bekr, Abū Qatādah, Abū ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrāḥ, ‘Ali, ‘Alqamah b. Mujazziz, ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ (ibn el-Ass), Bashīr b. Sa‘d, Ḍaḥḥāk b. Sofiān, Ghālib b. ‘Abdallāh, Ibn Abi’l-Aujā, Ka‘b b. ‘Umair, Khālid b. al-Walīd, Kurz b. Jābir, Marthad b. Abī Marthad, Muḥammad b. Maslamah, Quṭbah b. ‘Āmir, Sa‘d b. Abī Waqqāṣ, Sa‘d d. Zaid, Salama b. ‘Abd al-Asad, Shujā‘ b. Wahb, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Ḥārith, ‘Ukkāshah b. Miḥṣan, ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, Usamah b. Zaid, ‘Uyainah b. Ḥiṣn, Zaid b. Ḥārithah.
Authorities.—The biography of Ibn Isḥāq was before the world long before the two chief causes for the falsification of tradition had begun to have serious effects; these were the need for legal precedents, and the concept of saintliness, combining those of asceticism and thaumaturgy. These gave rise to the classical works on theEvidences of Mohammed’s Missionby Abū Nu‘aim (d.A.D.1012-1013) and Baihaqī (d.A.D.1066).
Lives of the Prophet(† indicates that the work is lost); †‘Urwah b. Zubair (d. 712-713); †Musa b. ‘Ukbah (d. 758-759); †Mohammed b. Isḥāq (d. 768); Mohammed b. Hishām (d. 828-829), ed. Wüstenfeld (Göttingen, 1860); reprinted in Egypt by Zubair Pasha, a series of excerpts from the last; Mohammed b. Omar al-Wāqidī (d. 823), portion published by Kremer (Calcutta, 1855), abridged trans. of a fuller copy by Wellhausen,Muhammad in Medina(Berlin, 1882); Mohammed b. Sa‘d (d. 844-845), an encyclopaedic work on the history of Mahomet and his followers, calledṬabaqat, ed. Sachau and others (Berlin, foll.); Mohammed b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (seeTabari). Many more writers on this subject are enumerated in theFihrist, cf. Sprenger’sLeben Muhammads, iii. 54-76.
Among the most popular compilers of later times are: Ibn al-Athir (q.v.) al Jazarī, the historian (d. 1233); Aḥmad b. Ali al Kasṭalānī (d.A.D.1517), whoseal-Mawāhib al-Laduniyyahwas published with commentary (Cairo, 1278); Ḥosain b. Mohammed al Diyarbakrī (d. 1574) whose workTa’rikh al-Khamīswas published in Cairo,A.H.1382; ‘Ali b. Burhān al-dīn al-Ḥalabī (d.A.D.1634), whose biography calledInsān al-‘uyūnwas published in Cairo,A.H.1292. To these must be added all the collections of Tradition.
Modern Authorities.—The critical study of the Life of Mahomet begins in Europe with the publication by Th. Gagnier in 1723 of the Life by Abulfeda (q.v.). Presently there appeared an apologetic biography by Henri Cmte. de Boulainvilliers (2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1731), to which Gagnier replied in 1732 (La Vie de Mahomet, traduite, &c. ibid.). The next considerable advance in the treatment of the subject is marked by the biography of G. Weil (Muhammed der Prophet, Stuttgart, 1843), which is wholly without religious bias; the popular life by Washington Irving (London, 1849) is based on this. That by J. L. Merrick (theLife and Religion of Mohammed, Boston, U.S.A., 1850) rests on Shi‘ite sources. The search for MSS. in India conducted by A. Sprenger led to the discovery of fresh material, which was utilized by Sprenger himself in his unfinishedLife of Mohammad(Pt. 1, Allahabad, 1851), and his more elaborateDas Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad(Berlin, 1861-1865), and by Sir William Muir in hisLife of Mahomet, (London, 1858-1861) 4 vols.: afterwards abridged in one volume and reprinted. These are still the standard treatises on the subject; the pro-Christian bias of Muir is very marked, while Sprenger has hazarded numerous conjectures on subjects with which he had little familiarity. The biography by S. W. Koelle,Mohammed and Mohammedanism(London, 1889), is pro-Christian, the popular work of Syed Ameer AliThe Spirit of Islam, (London, 1896) an apology for Mahommedanism. Later treatises, resting on original authorities, are those by H. GrimmeMohamed, (Münster, 1892, and Munich, 1904), F. Buhl,Mohameds Liv(Copenhagen, 1903—Danish: since translated into German), D. S. MargoliouthMohammed and the Rise of Islam(N.Y., 1905, &c.), and Prince CaetaniAnnali del Islam, i. ii. (Milan, 1905-1907). For the direction of public opinion in Mahomet’s favour the Lecture onThe Hero as Prophetin Carlyle’sHeroes and Hero-worship(London, 1846) was singularly effective; his views were enforced by R. Bosworth SmithMohammed and Mohammedanism, (London, 1873, &c.). A somewhat similar line was taken in France by J. Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire,Mahomet et le Coran, (Paris, 1865), while theVie de Mahomet d’après la Traditionof E. Lamairesse and G. Dujarric (Paris, 1897) is written entirely from the Moslem standpoint.
See furtherCaliphate,ad init.;Mahommedan Institutions;Mahommedan Law;Mahommedan Religion.
(D. S. M.*)
1* is prefixed to names which figure on occasions which seem to be historical. Female names are in italics.2Dates are givenA.D.
1* is prefixed to names which figure on occasions which seem to be historical. Female names are in italics.
2Dates are givenA.D.
MAHOMMED AHMED IBN SEYYID ABDULLAH(1848-1885), Sudanese tyrant, known as “the Mahdi,” was born in Dongola. His family, known as excellent boat-builders, claimed to beAshraf(orSherifs),i.e.descendants of Mahomet. His father was afikior religious teacher, and Mahommed Ahmed devoted himself early to religious studies. When about twenty years old he went to live on Abba Island on the White Nile about 150 m. above Khartum. He first acquired fame by a quarrel with the head of the brotherhood which he had joined, Mahommed asserting that his master condoned transgression of the divine law. After this incident many dervishes (religious mendicants) gathered round the young sheikh, whose reputation for sanctity speedily grew. He travelled secretly through Kordofan, where (with ample justification) he denounced to the villagers the extortion of the tax-gatherer and told of the coming of the mahdi who should deliver them from the oppressor. He also wrote apamphlet summoning true believers to purify their religion from the defilements of the “Turks”i.e.the Egyptian officials and all non-native inhabitants of the Sudan. The influence he gained at length aroused the anxiety of the authorities, and in May 1881 a certain Abu Saud, a notorious scoundrel, was sent to Abba Island to bring the sheikh to Khartum. Abu Saud’s mission failed, and Mahommed Ahmed no longer hesitated to call himself al-Mahdi al Montasir, “The Expected Guide.” In August he defeated another force sent to Abba Island to arrest him, but thereafter deemed it prudent to retire to Jebel Gedir, in the Nuba country south of Kordofan, where he was soon at the head of a powerful force; and 6000 Egyptian troops under Yusef Pasha, advancing from Fashoda, were nearly annihilated in June 1882. By the end of 1882 the whole of the Sudan south of Khartum was in rebellion, with the exception of the Bahr-el-Ghazal and the Equatorial Provinces. In January 1883 El Obeid, the capital of Kordofan, was captured. In the November following Hicks Pasha’s force of 10,000 men was destroyed at Kashgil, and in the same year the mahdi’s lieutenant, Osman Digna, raised the tribes in the eastern Sudan, and besieged Sinkat and Tokar, near Suakin, routing General Valentine Baker’s force of 2500 men at El Teb in February 1884. The operations undertaken by Great Britain in face of this state of affairs are narrated underEgypt:Military Operations. It need only be added that General Gordon (q.v.) was besieged at Khartum by the mahdi and was killed there when the town was captured by the mahdists on the 25th-26th of January 1885. The mahdi himself died at Omdurman a few months later (June 22, 1885), and was succeeded in power by his khalifa Abdullah.
When he announced his divine mission Mahommed Ahmed adopted the Shi‘ite traditions concerning the mahdi, and thus put himself in opposition to the sultan of Turkey as the only true commander of the faithful. To emphasize his position the mahdi struck coins in his own name and set himself to suppress all customs introduced by the “Turks.” His social and religious reforms are contained in various proclamations, one of which is drawn up in the form of ten commandments. They concern, chiefly, such matters as ritual, prayers, soberness in food and raiment, the cost of marriage and the behaviour of women. How far the mahdi was the controller of the movement which he started cannot be known, but from the outset of his public career his right-hand man was a Baggara tribesman named Abdullah (the khalifa), who became his successor, and after his flight to Jebel Gedir the mahdi was largely dependent for his support on Baggara sheikhs, who gratified one of his leading tastes by giving him numbers of their young women. In the few months between the fall of Khartum and his death the mahdi, relieved from the incessant strain of toil, copied in his private life all the vices of Oriental despots while maintaining in public the austerity he demanded of his followers. His death is variously attributed to disease and to poisoning by a woman of his harem. On the occupation of Omdurman by the British (Sept. 1898) the mahdi’s tomb was destroyed, his body burnt and the ashes thrown into the Nile (seeSudan:Anglo-Egyptian).