Afṭaḥites.—Shi‘ites of the Imāmite class, who ascribe the imāmate to ‘Abdallah ul-Afṭaḥi, the son of Ṣādiq.Ajārida.—Khārijites, followers of Ibn ‘Ajarrad, who agreed for the most part with the Najadāt (below), considered grave sins as equivalent to unbelief, but remained friendly with those who professed Islam but did not fight for it. They rejectedsura7 as a fable. Shahrastānī enumerates seven divisions of this sect.Akhnasites.—A section of the Tha‘āliba not so strict in treatment of those who fear to fight for Islam.Ash‘arites.—Followers of Ash‘arī (q.v.) who are counted by Shahrastānī among the Ṣifātites.Aṭrāfites.—A division of the ‘Ajārida who agree with the Ḥamzites except that they excuse the lower classes for inaction when they are ignorant of the law.Azraqites.—Khārijites who followed al-Azraq in the days of Ibn Zubair. They held ‘Ali to be an unbeliever; those who did not fight were unbelievers; the children of unbelievers were to be put to death and went to hell. Sin is unbelief.Bahshamites.—Mu‘tazilites akin to the Jubbā‘ites.Baihasites.—Khārijites, followers of Abu Baihas ul-Haitham, who was put to death by the caliph Walīd. They asserted the necessity of knowledge for religion.Bāqirites.—Shi‘ites who followed Abū Ja‘far ul-Bāqir, the fifth imām, and looked for his return.Bāṭinites.—Isma‘ilites, so called because they believe that every external has an internal (bātin), and every passage in the Koran has an allegoric meaning.Bishrites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Bishr ibn Mu‘tamir, one of the most learned men of his party. His teaching was philosophical and was distinguished by his doctrine of “origination” (tawallud).Bunānites.—Kaisānites, followers of Bunān ibn Sim‘ān un-Nahdī, who claimed that the imāmate passed from Abū Hāshim to himself and that he had also acquired the divine element of ‘Alī.Butrites.—Zaidites, followers of Kathīr un-Nawā ul-Abtar, who agreed with the Suleimanites (Sulaimānites) except that he suspended judgment as to whether Othmān was a believer or not.Ḍirārites.—Jabarites who empty God of his attributes, and assert that man has a sixth sense by which he will see God on the day of resurrection. The actions of man are “created” and acquired by him. A caliph need not be chosen from the Koreish.Ghāliites(Ghulā) are the extreme Shi‘ites (q.v.) in ascribing deity to the imāms. Their heresies are said to be four in number: (1) Making God resemble man, (2) ascribing change of mind to God, (3) looking for the return of the imām, (4) metempsychosis. They are divided by Shahrastānī into ten classes.Ghassānites.—Murjiites, followers of Ghassān ibn ul-Kufī, who say that faith consists of knowledge of God, his apostle, and the Koran in general not in detail, and that faith increases but is not diminished.Ḥabities= Ḥāyitites (below).Ḥadathites(Ḥudabites) are Mu‘tazilites, followers of Faḍl ibn ul-Ḥadathī, who agreed with the Ḥāyitites (below).Ḥafṣites.—Ibāḍites, followers of Ḥafṣ ibn abī-l-Miqdām, who distinguished between idolatry (shirk) and unbelief (kufr).Ḥamzites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Hamza ibn Adrak in Sijistān. They agree with the Maimūnites, but condemn the children of unbelievers to hell.Ḥārithites.—Ibāḍites who differ from others in holding the Mu‘tazilite doctrine of free-will.Ḥarūrites.—A name given to the first Khārijites, who rebelled against ‘Āli, and met in Ḥarūra near Kufa.Hāshimites.—Shi‘ites who supported Abū Hāshim, son of Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafiyya, although they held that his father had gone astray.Hāshwiites.—A party who asserted the eternity even of the letters of the Koran. They are not mentioned as a separate sect by Shahrastānī; cf. van Vloten, “Les Hachwia et Nabita,” in theActs of the 11th Oriental Congress(Paris, 1899), pt. iii., pp. 99 sqq.Ḥāyiṭites.—Mu‘tazilites who agreed with the Naẓẓāmites, but added three heresies of their own: (1) the divinity of the Messiah, (2) metempsychosis, (3) the interpretation of all references to the vision of God as referring to the “first Reason” or “creative Reason.”Hishāmites.—A name given to two sects: (1) Mu‘tazilites, strong in their assertion of man’s free-will, even opposing the statement of the Koran. (2) Shi‘ites of the extreme kind, who attributed to God a body with quantities (measurements) and qualities.Ḥudabites.—See Ḥadathites.Hudhailites(Hodhailites).—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Hudhail Ḥamdān, who was a leading teacher of his party and developed the philosophical side of its teaching. Ten of his main doctrines are given by Shahrastānī.Ibaḍites.—Khārijites of moderate tendencies (see above).Ilbāites.—Ghāliites who put ‘Alī above Mahomet and blamed the latter because he called men to himself instead of to ‘Alī.Imāmites.—One of the chief divisions of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).Isḥāqites.—Ghāliites agreeing with the Nuṣairites except that they incline to speak of the imams’ participation in the prophetic office rather than of their divinity.Isma‘īlites.—This name is applied to all who consider Isma‘īl ibn Ja‘far the last imām, some believing that he did not die but will return, others, that at his death his son Mahommed became imām (seeAssassins); it is also used as equivalent to the Bāṭinites.Ithna‘asharites.—Imāmites who accept the twelve imāms (seeShi‘ites).Jabarites.—Those who deny all actions and power to act to man and ascribe all to God (see above).Ja‘farites.—Imāmites who carry the imāmate no farther than Ja‘far uṣ-Ṣadīq.Jāhizites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of the celebrated writer Jāhiẓ (q.v.), who indulged in philosophical speculations, believed in the eternity of matter, and was regarded as a naturalist (ṭaba‘ī) rather than a theist (allahī).Jahmites.—Jabarites, followers of Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, who was put to death at Merv toward the close of the Omayyad period. He was extreme in his denial of the attributes of God.Jārūdites.—Zaidites who held that Mahomet designated ‘Alī as imām, not by name but by his attributes, and that the Moslem sinned by not taking sufficient trouble to recognize these attributes.Jubbā‘ites.—Mu‘tazilites who followed the philosophical teaching of Abu ‘Alī Mahommed ul-Jubbā‘i of Basra.Kaisānites.—A main class of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).Kāmilites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Kāmil, who condemned the companions (Anṣār) because they did not do allegiance to ‘Alī, and ‘Alī because he surrendered his claims.Karrāmites.—Ṣifātites, followers of Ibn Karrām, who went so far as to ascribe a body to God, and assimilated his nature to human nature.Kayyālites.—Ghāliites, followers of Ahmad ibn Kayyāl, who, after supporting a propaganda for an Aliite, claimed to be the imām himself on the ground of his power over the spheres.Khalafites.—‘Ajārida of Kermān and Multān, who believed that God wills good and evil, but condemned the children of unbelievers to hell.Khārijites.—One of the earliest sects of Islam (see above).Khārimites.—‘Ajārida, agreeing mostly with the Shu‘aibites and teaching that the relation of God to a man depends on what he professes at the end of his life.Khaṭṭābites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū-l Khaṭṭāb, who was put to death by Ibn Mūsā at Kufa. He was a violent supporter of Ja‘far uṣ-Ṣādiq, who however disowned him.Khayyātites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Ḥosain ul-Khayyāt, a teacher in Bagdad, part of whose philosophical teaching was that the non-existent is a thing.Ma‘badites.—Tha‘labites who differed from the Akhnasites on the question of the marriage of believing women and from Tha‘lab on the question of taking alms from slaves.Maimūnites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Maimūn ibn Khālid, who believed that God wills good only and that man determines his actions.Majhūlites.—Tha‘labites, agreeing generally with the Khārimites, but teaching that he who knows some names and attributes of God and is ignorant of some knows God.Ma‘lūmites.—Tha‘labites agreeing generally with the Khārimites but alleging that a believer must know all the names and attributes of God.Manṣūrites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Manṣūr ul-‘Ijlī, who at first supported al-Bāqir, but, rejected by him, claimed the imāmate for himself. He was crucified by the caliph Hishām ibn ‘Abd ul-Mālik (Abdalmalik).Mu‘ammarites.6—Mu‘tazilites who strongly denied the predestination of God, and affirmed that God created bodies only, and that the accidents spring naturally from them.Mufaḍḍalites.6—The same as the Mūsāites (q.v.).Mughīrites.6—Ghāliites, followers of Mughīra ibn Sa‘īd ul-‘Ijlī, who claimed the imāmate and prophetic office and held extremely gross views of God.Muhakkima6(the first).—Another name for the Ḥarūrites (above).Mukarramites.6—Tha‘labites who taught that sin consists in ignorance of God.Mukhtārites.6—Kaisānites, followers of al-Mukhtār ibn ‘Ubaid, who held to Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafīyya but was disowned by him. He allowed the possibility of change of mind on the part of God.Murjiites.—Those who postponed judgment of actions until the Day of Judgment. See above.Mūṣāites.—Imāmites who held to the imāmate of Mūsā ibn Ja‘far, who was imprisoned by Harun al-Rashid and poisoned.Mushabbiha.6—Ṣifātites who compared God’s actions with human actions. They said that the Koran was eternal with all its letters, accents and written signs.Mu‘tazilites.6—The rationalists of Islam. See above, cf. also H. Steiner,Die Mu‘taziliten oder die Freidenker im Islām(Leipzig, 1865).Muzdārites.6—Mu‘tazilites, followers of al-Muzdār, a pupil of Bishr (cf. Bishrites) whose teaching he developed further. He taught that God has power to do evil, but, if he acted thus, would be an evil God; also that man can produce the equal of the Koran.Najadat(also known as‘Adhirites).—Kharijites, who followed Najda ibn ‘Āmir of Yemāma as he went to join the Azraqites but withdrew from these, being more orthodox than they. He held that fear of fighting was not sin.Nāwisitestake their name from a person or a place. They are Ja‘farites who believe in Ṣādiq as the mahdi.Nazzāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Ibrahīm ibn Sayyār un-Nazzām, who was an extremist in his teaching of man’s free-will and other philosophical doctrines.Nu‘mānites.6—Ghāliites agreeing in some points with Hishāmites, but holding that God is a light in the form of a man, yet not a body.Nuṣairites.6—Ghāliites who agree with the Isḥāqites except that they lay more stress on the incorporation of the deity.Qadarites.—The upholders of free-will (see above).Qata‘ites.—Mūsāites who regard the rank of the imāms as closed with the death of Mūsā.Rāfiḍites.—A term used by some writers to denote the Shi‘ites as a whole; by others given to a class of the Shi‘ites who forsook Zaid ibn ‘Alī because he forbade them to abuse the Companions.Rashīdites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Rashīd ut-Tūsi, sometimes called ‘Ushrites (“tithers”) because they differed from others on the question of tithing the produce of land watered by rivers and canals.Rizāmites.—Kaisānites of Khorasān at the time of Abū Muslim, to whom they ascribed the imāmate and the Spirit of God. They also believed in metempsychosis.Saba‘ites.—Ghāliites, who followed ‘Abdallah ibn Sabā (seeShi‘ites).Ṣāliḥites.—(a) Zaidites, followers of al-Hasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, who agreed with the teachings of the Butrites (above); (b) Murjiites, followers of Ṣāliḥ ibn Amr, who united with the doctrines of their own party those of the Qadarites.Ṣaltites.—‘Ajārida who had nothing to do with the children of believers until they had grown up and professed Islam.Shaibānites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Shaibān ibn Salama, who was killed in the time of Abū Muslim (Moslem). They arose chiefly in Jorjān and Armenia and agreed in doctrine with the Jahmites.Shamīṭites.—Ja‘farites, followers of Yaḥyā ibn Abū Shamīṭ.Shi‘ites.—See separate article.Shu‘aibites.—‘Ajārida who said that God creates the actions of men, and men appropriate them.Ṣifātitesare those who ascribe eternity to all the attributes of God, whether they denote essence or action, or are of the class called descriptive attributes.Ṣifrites, the same as Ziyādites (below).Sulaimānites(Suleimanites).—Zaidites, followers of Suleimān ibn Jarīr, who held that the appointment to the imāmate was a matter of consultation and that the imāmates of Abū Bekr and Omar were legal although ‘Alī had a better claim.Tha‘labites.—A party of the Khārijites, followers of Tha‘lab ibn Amir, who agreed with the ‘Ajārida except that he was friendly with children until they actually denied the faith. He also took alms from slaves when they were rich, and gave alms to poor slaves.Thaubānites.—Murjiites who said that faith consists in the knowledge and confession of God and His apostle, and what the intellect is not capable of doing. What the intellect can do (or leave) is not of faith.Thumāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Thumāma ibn Ashras in the days of Mamūn, who taught that all non-Moslems would become dust on the day of resurrection.Tūmanites.—Murjiites who taught that faith depends on obedience rather to the principles than to the commands of Islam.‘Ubaidites.—Murjiites who believed that anything but idolatry might be forgiven, and that if a man died professing the unity of God his sins would not hurt him.Wa‘īdites.—Those who, opposed to the Murjiites, pronounced judgment in this life; they are not counted as a separate sect by Shahrastānī (see above).Wāṣilites.—A name given to those who followed Wāṣil ibn ‘Atā, the founder of Mu‘tazilitism, who denied the attributes of God, asserted the power of man over his own actions, taught the existence of a middle place between heaven and hell, and despised the parties of Othman and ‘Alī alike.Yazīdites.—Ibāḍites who said that they followed the religion of the Sabians in the Koran, and believed that God would send an apostle from the Persians.Yūnusites.—Murjiites who taught that faith consists in knowledge of God, subjection to Him, abandonment of pride before Him, and love in the heart. Obedience apart from knowledge is not of faith.Zaidites.—The moderate Shi‘ites (seeShi‘ites).Ziyādites.—Khārijites, followers of Ziyād ibn ul-Aṣfar, who did not regard those who abstained from fighting for Islam as unbelievers, and did not kill the children of idolaters or condemn them to hell.Authorities.—For the philosophy and theology of Ash‘arī see M. A. F. Mehren,Exposé de la réforme de l’Islamisme par Abou-‘l Hasan Ali el-Ash‘arī(Leiden, 1878); W. Spitta,Zur Geschichte Abu-l Hasan al-Ash‘arīs(Leipzig, 1876); M. Schreiner,Zur Geschichte des Ash‘aritenthums(Leiden, 1891); D. B. Macdonald,Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory(London, 1903). The last work contains translations of the creeds of Ash‘arī and Nasafī (Matāridite). A further bibliography of works on the faith and outlook of Islam will be found in D. B. Macdonald’sMuslim Theology.The text of the Koran has been edited by G. Flügel, Leipzig, various dates; and by G. M. Redslob, Paris, 1868 and 1880. There are also hundreds of Eastern editions. Concordances have been published by G. Flügel, Leipzig, 1842 (several times reprinted), also in Egypt, Palestine and India. A dictionary and glossary were published by J. Penrice, London, 1873. English translations have been made by G. Sale, London, 1734 (the fullest edition is that with notes by E. M. Wherry, 4 vols., London, 1882-1886); by J. M. Rodwell with notes, London, 1861 and 1876; and by E. H. Palmer in vols, vi. and ix. of the “Sacred Books of the East,” Oxford, 1880-1882. Among the best or best-known Arabic commentaries are those of Ṭabarī (q.v.), Zamakhsharī (q.v.), Baidhawī (q.v.), the Jalalain (seeSuyuti), and such later ones as the Mafātiḥ ul-Ghaib of ar-Rāzī (d. 1210). The composition and theology of the Koran are treated in the works of Nöldeke and Grimme referred to above.On the eschatology of Islam see M. Wolff,Muhammedanische Eschatologie(Leipzig, 1872); and on the doctrine of revelation. Otto Pautz,Muhammeds Lehre von der Offenbarung(Leipzig, 1898).
Afṭaḥites.—Shi‘ites of the Imāmite class, who ascribe the imāmate to ‘Abdallah ul-Afṭaḥi, the son of Ṣādiq.
Ajārida.—Khārijites, followers of Ibn ‘Ajarrad, who agreed for the most part with the Najadāt (below), considered grave sins as equivalent to unbelief, but remained friendly with those who professed Islam but did not fight for it. They rejectedsura7 as a fable. Shahrastānī enumerates seven divisions of this sect.
Akhnasites.—A section of the Tha‘āliba not so strict in treatment of those who fear to fight for Islam.
Ash‘arites.—Followers of Ash‘arī (q.v.) who are counted by Shahrastānī among the Ṣifātites.
Aṭrāfites.—A division of the ‘Ajārida who agree with the Ḥamzites except that they excuse the lower classes for inaction when they are ignorant of the law.
Azraqites.—Khārijites who followed al-Azraq in the days of Ibn Zubair. They held ‘Ali to be an unbeliever; those who did not fight were unbelievers; the children of unbelievers were to be put to death and went to hell. Sin is unbelief.
Bahshamites.—Mu‘tazilites akin to the Jubbā‘ites.
Baihasites.—Khārijites, followers of Abu Baihas ul-Haitham, who was put to death by the caliph Walīd. They asserted the necessity of knowledge for religion.
Bāqirites.—Shi‘ites who followed Abū Ja‘far ul-Bāqir, the fifth imām, and looked for his return.
Bāṭinites.—Isma‘ilites, so called because they believe that every external has an internal (bātin), and every passage in the Koran has an allegoric meaning.
Bishrites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Bishr ibn Mu‘tamir, one of the most learned men of his party. His teaching was philosophical and was distinguished by his doctrine of “origination” (tawallud).
Bunānites.—Kaisānites, followers of Bunān ibn Sim‘ān un-Nahdī, who claimed that the imāmate passed from Abū Hāshim to himself and that he had also acquired the divine element of ‘Alī.
Butrites.—Zaidites, followers of Kathīr un-Nawā ul-Abtar, who agreed with the Suleimanites (Sulaimānites) except that he suspended judgment as to whether Othmān was a believer or not.
Ḍirārites.—Jabarites who empty God of his attributes, and assert that man has a sixth sense by which he will see God on the day of resurrection. The actions of man are “created” and acquired by him. A caliph need not be chosen from the Koreish.
Ghāliites(Ghulā) are the extreme Shi‘ites (q.v.) in ascribing deity to the imāms. Their heresies are said to be four in number: (1) Making God resemble man, (2) ascribing change of mind to God, (3) looking for the return of the imām, (4) metempsychosis. They are divided by Shahrastānī into ten classes.
Ghassānites.—Murjiites, followers of Ghassān ibn ul-Kufī, who say that faith consists of knowledge of God, his apostle, and the Koran in general not in detail, and that faith increases but is not diminished.
Ḥabities= Ḥāyitites (below).
Ḥadathites(Ḥudabites) are Mu‘tazilites, followers of Faḍl ibn ul-Ḥadathī, who agreed with the Ḥāyitites (below).
Ḥafṣites.—Ibāḍites, followers of Ḥafṣ ibn abī-l-Miqdām, who distinguished between idolatry (shirk) and unbelief (kufr).
Ḥamzites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Hamza ibn Adrak in Sijistān. They agree with the Maimūnites, but condemn the children of unbelievers to hell.
Ḥārithites.—Ibāḍites who differ from others in holding the Mu‘tazilite doctrine of free-will.
Ḥarūrites.—A name given to the first Khārijites, who rebelled against ‘Āli, and met in Ḥarūra near Kufa.
Hāshimites.—Shi‘ites who supported Abū Hāshim, son of Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafiyya, although they held that his father had gone astray.
Hāshwiites.—A party who asserted the eternity even of the letters of the Koran. They are not mentioned as a separate sect by Shahrastānī; cf. van Vloten, “Les Hachwia et Nabita,” in theActs of the 11th Oriental Congress(Paris, 1899), pt. iii., pp. 99 sqq.
Ḥāyiṭites.—Mu‘tazilites who agreed with the Naẓẓāmites, but added three heresies of their own: (1) the divinity of the Messiah, (2) metempsychosis, (3) the interpretation of all references to the vision of God as referring to the “first Reason” or “creative Reason.”
Hishāmites.—A name given to two sects: (1) Mu‘tazilites, strong in their assertion of man’s free-will, even opposing the statement of the Koran. (2) Shi‘ites of the extreme kind, who attributed to God a body with quantities (measurements) and qualities.
Ḥudabites.—See Ḥadathites.
Hudhailites(Hodhailites).—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Hudhail Ḥamdān, who was a leading teacher of his party and developed the philosophical side of its teaching. Ten of his main doctrines are given by Shahrastānī.
Ibaḍites.—Khārijites of moderate tendencies (see above).
Ilbāites.—Ghāliites who put ‘Alī above Mahomet and blamed the latter because he called men to himself instead of to ‘Alī.
Imāmites.—One of the chief divisions of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).
Isḥāqites.—Ghāliites agreeing with the Nuṣairites except that they incline to speak of the imams’ participation in the prophetic office rather than of their divinity.
Isma‘īlites.—This name is applied to all who consider Isma‘īl ibn Ja‘far the last imām, some believing that he did not die but will return, others, that at his death his son Mahommed became imām (seeAssassins); it is also used as equivalent to the Bāṭinites.
Ithna‘asharites.—Imāmites who accept the twelve imāms (seeShi‘ites).
Jabarites.—Those who deny all actions and power to act to man and ascribe all to God (see above).
Ja‘farites.—Imāmites who carry the imāmate no farther than Ja‘far uṣ-Ṣadīq.
Jāhizites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of the celebrated writer Jāhiẓ (q.v.), who indulged in philosophical speculations, believed in the eternity of matter, and was regarded as a naturalist (ṭaba‘ī) rather than a theist (allahī).
Jahmites.—Jabarites, followers of Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, who was put to death at Merv toward the close of the Omayyad period. He was extreme in his denial of the attributes of God.
Jārūdites.—Zaidites who held that Mahomet designated ‘Alī as imām, not by name but by his attributes, and that the Moslem sinned by not taking sufficient trouble to recognize these attributes.
Jubbā‘ites.—Mu‘tazilites who followed the philosophical teaching of Abu ‘Alī Mahommed ul-Jubbā‘i of Basra.
Kaisānites.—A main class of the Shi‘ites (q.v.).
Kāmilites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Kāmil, who condemned the companions (Anṣār) because they did not do allegiance to ‘Alī, and ‘Alī because he surrendered his claims.
Karrāmites.—Ṣifātites, followers of Ibn Karrām, who went so far as to ascribe a body to God, and assimilated his nature to human nature.
Kayyālites.—Ghāliites, followers of Ahmad ibn Kayyāl, who, after supporting a propaganda for an Aliite, claimed to be the imām himself on the ground of his power over the spheres.
Khalafites.—‘Ajārida of Kermān and Multān, who believed that God wills good and evil, but condemned the children of unbelievers to hell.
Khārijites.—One of the earliest sects of Islam (see above).
Khārimites.—‘Ajārida, agreeing mostly with the Shu‘aibites and teaching that the relation of God to a man depends on what he professes at the end of his life.
Khaṭṭābites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū-l Khaṭṭāb, who was put to death by Ibn Mūsā at Kufa. He was a violent supporter of Ja‘far uṣ-Ṣādiq, who however disowned him.
Khayyātites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Abū-l Ḥosain ul-Khayyāt, a teacher in Bagdad, part of whose philosophical teaching was that the non-existent is a thing.
Ma‘badites.—Tha‘labites who differed from the Akhnasites on the question of the marriage of believing women and from Tha‘lab on the question of taking alms from slaves.
Maimūnites.—‘Ajārida, followers of Maimūn ibn Khālid, who believed that God wills good only and that man determines his actions.
Majhūlites.—Tha‘labites, agreeing generally with the Khārimites, but teaching that he who knows some names and attributes of God and is ignorant of some knows God.
Ma‘lūmites.—Tha‘labites agreeing generally with the Khārimites but alleging that a believer must know all the names and attributes of God.
Manṣūrites.—Ghāliites, followers of Abū Manṣūr ul-‘Ijlī, who at first supported al-Bāqir, but, rejected by him, claimed the imāmate for himself. He was crucified by the caliph Hishām ibn ‘Abd ul-Mālik (Abdalmalik).
Mu‘ammarites.6—Mu‘tazilites who strongly denied the predestination of God, and affirmed that God created bodies only, and that the accidents spring naturally from them.
Mufaḍḍalites.6—The same as the Mūsāites (q.v.).
Mughīrites.6—Ghāliites, followers of Mughīra ibn Sa‘īd ul-‘Ijlī, who claimed the imāmate and prophetic office and held extremely gross views of God.
Muhakkima6(the first).—Another name for the Ḥarūrites (above).
Mukarramites.6—Tha‘labites who taught that sin consists in ignorance of God.
Mukhtārites.6—Kaisānites, followers of al-Mukhtār ibn ‘Ubaid, who held to Mahommed ibn ul-Ḥanafīyya but was disowned by him. He allowed the possibility of change of mind on the part of God.
Murjiites.—Those who postponed judgment of actions until the Day of Judgment. See above.
Mūṣāites.—Imāmites who held to the imāmate of Mūsā ibn Ja‘far, who was imprisoned by Harun al-Rashid and poisoned.
Mushabbiha.6—Ṣifātites who compared God’s actions with human actions. They said that the Koran was eternal with all its letters, accents and written signs.
Mu‘tazilites.6—The rationalists of Islam. See above, cf. also H. Steiner,Die Mu‘taziliten oder die Freidenker im Islām(Leipzig, 1865).
Muzdārites.6—Mu‘tazilites, followers of al-Muzdār, a pupil of Bishr (cf. Bishrites) whose teaching he developed further. He taught that God has power to do evil, but, if he acted thus, would be an evil God; also that man can produce the equal of the Koran.
Najadat(also known as‘Adhirites).—Kharijites, who followed Najda ibn ‘Āmir of Yemāma as he went to join the Azraqites but withdrew from these, being more orthodox than they. He held that fear of fighting was not sin.
Nāwisitestake their name from a person or a place. They are Ja‘farites who believe in Ṣādiq as the mahdi.
Nazzāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Ibrahīm ibn Sayyār un-Nazzām, who was an extremist in his teaching of man’s free-will and other philosophical doctrines.
Nu‘mānites.6—Ghāliites agreeing in some points with Hishāmites, but holding that God is a light in the form of a man, yet not a body.
Nuṣairites.6—Ghāliites who agree with the Isḥāqites except that they lay more stress on the incorporation of the deity.
Qadarites.—The upholders of free-will (see above).
Qata‘ites.—Mūsāites who regard the rank of the imāms as closed with the death of Mūsā.
Rāfiḍites.—A term used by some writers to denote the Shi‘ites as a whole; by others given to a class of the Shi‘ites who forsook Zaid ibn ‘Alī because he forbade them to abuse the Companions.
Rashīdites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Rashīd ut-Tūsi, sometimes called ‘Ushrites (“tithers”) because they differed from others on the question of tithing the produce of land watered by rivers and canals.
Rizāmites.—Kaisānites of Khorasān at the time of Abū Muslim, to whom they ascribed the imāmate and the Spirit of God. They also believed in metempsychosis.
Saba‘ites.—Ghāliites, who followed ‘Abdallah ibn Sabā (seeShi‘ites).
Ṣāliḥites.—(a) Zaidites, followers of al-Hasan ibn Ṣāliḥ, who agreed with the teachings of the Butrites (above); (b) Murjiites, followers of Ṣāliḥ ibn Amr, who united with the doctrines of their own party those of the Qadarites.
Ṣaltites.—‘Ajārida who had nothing to do with the children of believers until they had grown up and professed Islam.
Shaibānites.—Tha‘labites, followers of Shaibān ibn Salama, who was killed in the time of Abū Muslim (Moslem). They arose chiefly in Jorjān and Armenia and agreed in doctrine with the Jahmites.
Shamīṭites.—Ja‘farites, followers of Yaḥyā ibn Abū Shamīṭ.
Shi‘ites.—See separate article.
Shu‘aibites.—‘Ajārida who said that God creates the actions of men, and men appropriate them.
Ṣifātitesare those who ascribe eternity to all the attributes of God, whether they denote essence or action, or are of the class called descriptive attributes.
Ṣifrites, the same as Ziyādites (below).
Sulaimānites(Suleimanites).—Zaidites, followers of Suleimān ibn Jarīr, who held that the appointment to the imāmate was a matter of consultation and that the imāmates of Abū Bekr and Omar were legal although ‘Alī had a better claim.
Tha‘labites.—A party of the Khārijites, followers of Tha‘lab ibn Amir, who agreed with the ‘Ajārida except that he was friendly with children until they actually denied the faith. He also took alms from slaves when they were rich, and gave alms to poor slaves.
Thaubānites.—Murjiites who said that faith consists in the knowledge and confession of God and His apostle, and what the intellect is not capable of doing. What the intellect can do (or leave) is not of faith.
Thumāmites.—Mu‘tazilites, followers of Thumāma ibn Ashras in the days of Mamūn, who taught that all non-Moslems would become dust on the day of resurrection.
Tūmanites.—Murjiites who taught that faith depends on obedience rather to the principles than to the commands of Islam.
‘Ubaidites.—Murjiites who believed that anything but idolatry might be forgiven, and that if a man died professing the unity of God his sins would not hurt him.
Wa‘īdites.—Those who, opposed to the Murjiites, pronounced judgment in this life; they are not counted as a separate sect by Shahrastānī (see above).
Wāṣilites.—A name given to those who followed Wāṣil ibn ‘Atā, the founder of Mu‘tazilitism, who denied the attributes of God, asserted the power of man over his own actions, taught the existence of a middle place between heaven and hell, and despised the parties of Othman and ‘Alī alike.
Yazīdites.—Ibāḍites who said that they followed the religion of the Sabians in the Koran, and believed that God would send an apostle from the Persians.
Yūnusites.—Murjiites who taught that faith consists in knowledge of God, subjection to Him, abandonment of pride before Him, and love in the heart. Obedience apart from knowledge is not of faith.
Zaidites.—The moderate Shi‘ites (seeShi‘ites).
Ziyādites.—Khārijites, followers of Ziyād ibn ul-Aṣfar, who did not regard those who abstained from fighting for Islam as unbelievers, and did not kill the children of idolaters or condemn them to hell.
Authorities.—For the philosophy and theology of Ash‘arī see M. A. F. Mehren,Exposé de la réforme de l’Islamisme par Abou-‘l Hasan Ali el-Ash‘arī(Leiden, 1878); W. Spitta,Zur Geschichte Abu-l Hasan al-Ash‘arīs(Leipzig, 1876); M. Schreiner,Zur Geschichte des Ash‘aritenthums(Leiden, 1891); D. B. Macdonald,Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory(London, 1903). The last work contains translations of the creeds of Ash‘arī and Nasafī (Matāridite). A further bibliography of works on the faith and outlook of Islam will be found in D. B. Macdonald’sMuslim Theology.
The text of the Koran has been edited by G. Flügel, Leipzig, various dates; and by G. M. Redslob, Paris, 1868 and 1880. There are also hundreds of Eastern editions. Concordances have been published by G. Flügel, Leipzig, 1842 (several times reprinted), also in Egypt, Palestine and India. A dictionary and glossary were published by J. Penrice, London, 1873. English translations have been made by G. Sale, London, 1734 (the fullest edition is that with notes by E. M. Wherry, 4 vols., London, 1882-1886); by J. M. Rodwell with notes, London, 1861 and 1876; and by E. H. Palmer in vols, vi. and ix. of the “Sacred Books of the East,” Oxford, 1880-1882. Among the best or best-known Arabic commentaries are those of Ṭabarī (q.v.), Zamakhsharī (q.v.), Baidhawī (q.v.), the Jalalain (seeSuyuti), and such later ones as the Mafātiḥ ul-Ghaib of ar-Rāzī (d. 1210). The composition and theology of the Koran are treated in the works of Nöldeke and Grimme referred to above.
On the eschatology of Islam see M. Wolff,Muhammedanische Eschatologie(Leipzig, 1872); and on the doctrine of revelation. Otto Pautz,Muhammeds Lehre von der Offenbarung(Leipzig, 1898).
(G. W. T.)
1See alsoKoran.2Underlined = with interpolations.3For the doctrines of these two sects see Shahrastānī’sBook of Sects, and for the Qadarites, A. de Vlieger’sKitāb ul-Qadr, matériaux pour servir à l’étude de la doctrine de la prédestination dans la théologie musulmane(Leiden, 1903).4For the origin and significance of this number see M. Steinschneider, “Die kanonische Zahl der muhammedanischen Secten und die Symbolik der Zahl, 70-73,”in Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, iv., 145-170 (1850); and I. Goldziher, “Le Denombrement des sectes mohamétanes” inRevue de l’hist. des religions, xxvi. 129-137 (1892).5The names are given throughout in the anglicized form on the analogy of Shi‘ites, which is recognized in common usage. The strict termination according to the scheme of transliteration adopted in this work isiyya, oriya,e.g.Hishāmiyya for Hishāmites. For information regarding the important sects see separate articles and the preceding portion of this article.6All these names are alternatively spelt Mo- instead of Mu-.
1See alsoKoran.
2Underlined = with interpolations.
3For the doctrines of these two sects see Shahrastānī’sBook of Sects, and for the Qadarites, A. de Vlieger’sKitāb ul-Qadr, matériaux pour servir à l’étude de la doctrine de la prédestination dans la théologie musulmane(Leiden, 1903).
4For the origin and significance of this number see M. Steinschneider, “Die kanonische Zahl der muhammedanischen Secten und die Symbolik der Zahl, 70-73,”in Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, iv., 145-170 (1850); and I. Goldziher, “Le Denombrement des sectes mohamétanes” inRevue de l’hist. des religions, xxvi. 129-137 (1892).
5The names are given throughout in the anglicized form on the analogy of Shi‘ites, which is recognized in common usage. The strict termination according to the scheme of transliteration adopted in this work isiyya, oriya,e.g.Hishāmiyya for Hishāmites. For information regarding the important sects see separate articles and the preceding portion of this article.
6All these names are alternatively spelt Mo- instead of Mu-.
MAHONY, FRANCIS SYLVESTER(1804-1866), known as “Father Prout,” Irish priest and author, son of a woollen manufacturer, was born in Cork in 1804. His classical education was chiefly obtained at a Jesuit college at Amiens, and after studying in Paris he entered the Jesuit college at Rome and was admitted into the Society of Jesus. He served in Switzerland and at Clongoweswood, Ireland, where he was prefect of studies and subsequently master of rhetoric. Here he was involved in scandals that led to his resignation. On going to Italy he was told at Florence that he was expelled from the Society. He succeeded, however, in obtaining priest’s orders at Rome in 1832, and returned to Ireland, but subsequently went to London, officiating for some time in the chapel of the Bavarian Legation. While there he fell in with William Maginn, and about 1834 began to contribute his celebrated “Prout Papers” toFraser’s Magazine. These consist of episodes in the life of the parish priest “Father Prout,” and dialogues after the model of “Christopher North,” varied by translations of well-known English songs into Latin, Greek, French and Italian verse, which he humorously represents as being the true originals from which the English authors had merely plagiarized them. Mahony’s translations have been universally admired for the extraordinary command which they display of the various languages into which his renderings are made, and for their spirit and freedom both of thought and expression. His original verse tends chiefly to show that with all his sarcastic and cynical wit his genius had also its tender, serious and sentimental side. His “Bells of Shandon” has always been greatly admired. In 1846 Mahony became correspondent at Rome to theDaily News, and his letters from that capital gave very vivid pictures of the first years of the reign of Pius IX. The last twelve or fifteen years of his life were spent in Paris, whence he supplied theGlobewith a series of piquant letters on the incidents of the day. He died in Paris on the 18th of May 1866.
TheReliques of Father Proutwere collected fromFraser’s Magazineand published in two volumes in 1836;The Final Reliques of Father Prout, chiefly extracted from theDaily Newsand theGlobe, were edited by Blanchard Jerrold in 1876, and an edition of his works, edited by Charles Kent, was published in 1881.
TheReliques of Father Proutwere collected fromFraser’s Magazineand published in two volumes in 1836;The Final Reliques of Father Prout, chiefly extracted from theDaily Newsand theGlobe, were edited by Blanchard Jerrold in 1876, and an edition of his works, edited by Charles Kent, was published in 1881.
MAHOUT(Hind.mahāwat), an elephant-driver. The mahout sits on the elephant’s neck and directs him by voice and by the use of a goad calledankus.
MAHRATTAS, a people of India, inhabiting the district known by the ancient name of Maharashtra (Sans. “great kingdom or region”). This large tract, extending from the Arabian Sea on the west to the Sātpura mountains in the north, comprises a good part of western and central India, including the modern provinces of the Konkan, Khandesh, Berar, the British Deccan, part of Nagpur, and about half the nizam’s Deccan.
The etymology of the word Mahratta (Marāthā) is uncertain. The name does not indicate a social caste, or a religious sect; it is not even tribal. Strictly, it is confined to the upper class from whom Sivaji’s generals were mostly drawn, and who sometimes claim a Rajput origin. In a wider sense it may be extended to include all who inhabit Maharashtra and speak Mahratti as their mother-tongue. In 1901 the total number of speakers of Mahratti in all India exceeded 18 millions.
The Mahrattas have always been a separate nation or people, and still regard themselves as such, though nowadays they are almost all under British or Mahommedan jurisdiction; that is, they belong either to British India or to the nizam’s dominions. There are indeed still three large native states nominally Mahratta: that of Sindhia near the borders of Hindustan in the north, that of Holkar in Malwa in the heart of the Indian continent, and that of the gaekwar in Gujarat on the western coast. But in these states the prince, his relatives and some of his ministers or officials only are Mahrattas; the mass of the people belong to other sections of the Hindu race. These states then are not to be included in the Mahratta nation, though they have a share in Mahratta history.
In general terms the Mahrattas, in the wider sense, may be described under two main heads: first the Brahmans, and secondly the low-caste men. The Mahratta Brahmans possess, in an intense degree, the qualities of that famous caste, physical, intellectual and moral. They have generally the lofty brow, the regular features, the spare upright figure, and the calm aspect which might be expected in a race maintained in great purity yet upon a broad basis. In modern times they have proved themselves the most able and ambitious of all the Brahmans in the Indian Empire. They are notably divided into two sections: the Konkanast, coming from the Konkan or littoral tract on the west coast below the Western Ghāt mountains; and the Deshast, coming from the uplands or Deccan, on the east of the mountains. Though there have been many distinguished Deshasts, yet the most remarkable of all have been Konkanasts. For instance, the pēshwas, or heads of the Mahratta confederation which at one time dominated nearly all India, were Konkanast Brahmans. The birthplaces of these persons are still known, and to this day there are sequestered villages, nestling near the western base of the Ghāts, which are pointed to as being the ancestral homes of men who two centuries ago had political control over half India.Apart from the Brahmans, the Mahrattas may be generally designated as Sūdras, the humblest of the four great castes into which the Hindu race is theoretically divided. But the upper classes claim to be Kshattriyas or Rajputs. They probably are aborigines fundamentally, with a mixture of what are now called the Scythian tribes, which at a very early time overran India. The ordinary Mahrattas, who form the backbone of the nation, have plain features, an uncouth manner, short stature, a small but wiry frame. Though not powerful physically as compared with the northern races of the Punjab and Oudh, they have much activity and an unsurpassed endurance. Born and bred in or near the Western Ghāt mountains and the numerous tributary ranges, they have all the qualities of mountaineers. In recent times they enter military service less and less, betaking themselves mainly to cultivation and to the carrying business connected with agriculture. As husbandmen they are not remarkable; but as graziers, as cartmen, as labourers, they are excellent. As artisans they have seldom signalized themselves, save as armourers and clothweavers.In the Konkan there are some superior proprietors termed Khots. With this and perhaps some other exceptions, there are not in the Mahratta country many large landlords, nor many of the superior tenure-holders whose position relatively to that of the peasantry has caused much discussion in other parts of India. There are indeed many Mahratta chiefs still resident in the country, members of the aristocracy which formerly enjoyed much wealth and power. They are sometimes in the position of landlords, but often they are the assignees of the land revenue, which they are entitled under special grants to collect for themselves instead of for government, paying merely a small sum to Government by way of quit-rent. Under them the cultivators are by British arrangements placed in the position of peasant proprietors. The village community has always existed as the social unit in the Mahratta territories, though with less cohesion among its members than in the village communities of Hindustan and the Punjab. The ancient offices pertaining to the village, as those of the headmen (patel), the village accountant, &c., are in working order throughout the Mahratta country.The Mahratta peasantry possess manly fortitude under suffering and misfortune. Though patient and good-tempered in the main, they have a latent warmth of temper, and if oppressed beyond a certain limit they would fiercely turn upon their tormentors. As a rule they are orderly and law-abiding, but traditions of plunder have been handed down to them from early times, and many of them retain the predatory instincts of their forefathers. The neighbourhood of dense forests, steep hill-sides, and fastnesses hard of access offers extraordinary facilities to plunderers for screening themselves and their booty. Thus gang robbery is apt to break out, gains head with rapidity, and is suppressed with difficulty. In times of peace it is kept under, but during war, or whenever the bands of civil order are loosened, it becomes a cause of anxiety and a source of danger. The women have frankness and strength of character; they work hard in the fields, and as a rule evince domestic virtue.The peasantry preserve a grave and quiet demeanour, but they have their humble ideas of gaiety, and hold their gatherings on occasions of births or marriages. They frequently beguile their toil with carols. They like the gossiping and bartering at the rural markets and in the larger fairs, which are sometimes held in strikingly picturesque localities. They are superstitious, and worship with hearty veneration any being or thing whose destructive agency they fear. They even speak of the tiger with honorific titles. They are Hindus, but their Hinduism is held to be of a non-Aryan type. They are sincerely devout in religion, and feel an awe regarding “the holy Brahmans,” holding the life and the person of a Brahman sacred, even though he be a criminal of the deepest dye. They of course regard the cow as equally sacred. There are two principal sects among modern Hindus—those who follow Vishnu, and those who follow Siva. The Mahrattas generally follow Siva and his wife, a dread goddess known under many names. The Mahratta war-cry, “Har, Har, Mahadeo,” referred to Siva. All classes high and low are fond of the religious festivals, the principal of which, the Dasahra, occurs in October, when the first harvest of the year has been secured and the second crops sown. This has always been held with the utmost pomp and magnificence at every centre of Mahratta wealth and power. The people frequently assemble in bowers and arbours constructed of leafy boughs to hear kathas recited. These recitations are partly religious, partly also romantic and quasi-historical. After them national resolves of just resistance or of aggressive ambition have often been formed.Apart from the Mahratta Brahmans, as already mentioned, the Mahratta nobles and princes are not generally fine-looking men. There is general truth in what was once said by a high authority to the effect that, while there will be something dignified in the humblest Rājpūt, there will be something mean in the highest Mahratta. Bluff good-nature, a certain jocoseness, a humour pungent and ready, though somewhat coarse, a hot or even violent disposition, are characteristics of Mahratta chieftains. They usually show little aptitude for business or for sedentary pursuits; but, on the other hand, they are born equestrians and sportsmen. Mahratta ladies and princesses have often taken a prominent part, for good or evil, in public affairs and dynastic intrigues.Though they have produced some poetry, the Mahrattas have never done much for literature. Nor have they been distinguished in industrial art. Their architecture in wood, however, was excellent; and the teak forests of their country afforded the finest timber for building and for carving. They had also much skill in the construction of works for the supply of drinking water on a large scale and for irrigation.
In general terms the Mahrattas, in the wider sense, may be described under two main heads: first the Brahmans, and secondly the low-caste men. The Mahratta Brahmans possess, in an intense degree, the qualities of that famous caste, physical, intellectual and moral. They have generally the lofty brow, the regular features, the spare upright figure, and the calm aspect which might be expected in a race maintained in great purity yet upon a broad basis. In modern times they have proved themselves the most able and ambitious of all the Brahmans in the Indian Empire. They are notably divided into two sections: the Konkanast, coming from the Konkan or littoral tract on the west coast below the Western Ghāt mountains; and the Deshast, coming from the uplands or Deccan, on the east of the mountains. Though there have been many distinguished Deshasts, yet the most remarkable of all have been Konkanasts. For instance, the pēshwas, or heads of the Mahratta confederation which at one time dominated nearly all India, were Konkanast Brahmans. The birthplaces of these persons are still known, and to this day there are sequestered villages, nestling near the western base of the Ghāts, which are pointed to as being the ancestral homes of men who two centuries ago had political control over half India.
Apart from the Brahmans, the Mahrattas may be generally designated as Sūdras, the humblest of the four great castes into which the Hindu race is theoretically divided. But the upper classes claim to be Kshattriyas or Rajputs. They probably are aborigines fundamentally, with a mixture of what are now called the Scythian tribes, which at a very early time overran India. The ordinary Mahrattas, who form the backbone of the nation, have plain features, an uncouth manner, short stature, a small but wiry frame. Though not powerful physically as compared with the northern races of the Punjab and Oudh, they have much activity and an unsurpassed endurance. Born and bred in or near the Western Ghāt mountains and the numerous tributary ranges, they have all the qualities of mountaineers. In recent times they enter military service less and less, betaking themselves mainly to cultivation and to the carrying business connected with agriculture. As husbandmen they are not remarkable; but as graziers, as cartmen, as labourers, they are excellent. As artisans they have seldom signalized themselves, save as armourers and clothweavers.
In the Konkan there are some superior proprietors termed Khots. With this and perhaps some other exceptions, there are not in the Mahratta country many large landlords, nor many of the superior tenure-holders whose position relatively to that of the peasantry has caused much discussion in other parts of India. There are indeed many Mahratta chiefs still resident in the country, members of the aristocracy which formerly enjoyed much wealth and power. They are sometimes in the position of landlords, but often they are the assignees of the land revenue, which they are entitled under special grants to collect for themselves instead of for government, paying merely a small sum to Government by way of quit-rent. Under them the cultivators are by British arrangements placed in the position of peasant proprietors. The village community has always existed as the social unit in the Mahratta territories, though with less cohesion among its members than in the village communities of Hindustan and the Punjab. The ancient offices pertaining to the village, as those of the headmen (patel), the village accountant, &c., are in working order throughout the Mahratta country.
The Mahratta peasantry possess manly fortitude under suffering and misfortune. Though patient and good-tempered in the main, they have a latent warmth of temper, and if oppressed beyond a certain limit they would fiercely turn upon their tormentors. As a rule they are orderly and law-abiding, but traditions of plunder have been handed down to them from early times, and many of them retain the predatory instincts of their forefathers. The neighbourhood of dense forests, steep hill-sides, and fastnesses hard of access offers extraordinary facilities to plunderers for screening themselves and their booty. Thus gang robbery is apt to break out, gains head with rapidity, and is suppressed with difficulty. In times of peace it is kept under, but during war, or whenever the bands of civil order are loosened, it becomes a cause of anxiety and a source of danger. The women have frankness and strength of character; they work hard in the fields, and as a rule evince domestic virtue.
The peasantry preserve a grave and quiet demeanour, but they have their humble ideas of gaiety, and hold their gatherings on occasions of births or marriages. They frequently beguile their toil with carols. They like the gossiping and bartering at the rural markets and in the larger fairs, which are sometimes held in strikingly picturesque localities. They are superstitious, and worship with hearty veneration any being or thing whose destructive agency they fear. They even speak of the tiger with honorific titles. They are Hindus, but their Hinduism is held to be of a non-Aryan type. They are sincerely devout in religion, and feel an awe regarding “the holy Brahmans,” holding the life and the person of a Brahman sacred, even though he be a criminal of the deepest dye. They of course regard the cow as equally sacred. There are two principal sects among modern Hindus—those who follow Vishnu, and those who follow Siva. The Mahrattas generally follow Siva and his wife, a dread goddess known under many names. The Mahratta war-cry, “Har, Har, Mahadeo,” referred to Siva. All classes high and low are fond of the religious festivals, the principal of which, the Dasahra, occurs in October, when the first harvest of the year has been secured and the second crops sown. This has always been held with the utmost pomp and magnificence at every centre of Mahratta wealth and power. The people frequently assemble in bowers and arbours constructed of leafy boughs to hear kathas recited. These recitations are partly religious, partly also romantic and quasi-historical. After them national resolves of just resistance or of aggressive ambition have often been formed.
Apart from the Mahratta Brahmans, as already mentioned, the Mahratta nobles and princes are not generally fine-looking men. There is general truth in what was once said by a high authority to the effect that, while there will be something dignified in the humblest Rājpūt, there will be something mean in the highest Mahratta. Bluff good-nature, a certain jocoseness, a humour pungent and ready, though somewhat coarse, a hot or even violent disposition, are characteristics of Mahratta chieftains. They usually show little aptitude for business or for sedentary pursuits; but, on the other hand, they are born equestrians and sportsmen. Mahratta ladies and princesses have often taken a prominent part, for good or evil, in public affairs and dynastic intrigues.
Though they have produced some poetry, the Mahrattas have never done much for literature. Nor have they been distinguished in industrial art. Their architecture in wood, however, was excellent; and the teak forests of their country afforded the finest timber for building and for carving. They had also much skill in the construction of works for the supply of drinking water on a large scale and for irrigation.
The range of the Western Ghāts enabled the Mahrattas to rise against their Mahommedan conquerors, to reassert their Hindu nationality against the whole power of the Mogul Empire, and to establish in its place an empire of their own. It is often stated that in India British conquest or annexation succeeded Mahommedan rule; and to a considerable extent this was the case. But, on the other hand, the principal power, the widest sovereignty, which the British overthrew in India was that of the Mahrattas.
During the earlier Moslem invasions in 1100 and in subsequent years, the Mahrattas do not seem to have made much resistance. They submitted to several Mahommedan kings under the changing circumstances of those times. It was against the Mahommedan king of Bijapur in the Deccan that Sivaji, the hero of Mahratta history, first rebelled in 1657. Sivaji and his fighting officers were Mahrattas of humble caste, but his ministers were Brahmans. When the Mogul Empire absorbed the Bijapur kingdom he defied the emperor. He imparted a self-reliant enthusiasm to his countrymen, formed them into an army, and organized them as a political community; his mountaineer infantry, though limited in numbers, proved desperately courageous; his cavalry was daring and ubiquitous. The Moslems, having once overcome the Hindus in almost all parts of India, had not for centuries met with any noteworthy uprising. Sivaji, however, planned their expulsion, and before the end of his restless life made much progress in the execution of that design. The new state which he founded was maintained under various vicissitudes after his death. Mahratta resistance, once aroused by him, was never extinguished, and the imperial resources were worn out by ceaseless though vain efforts to quell it. The great Mogul emperor’s impoverished and enfeebled successor was fain to recognize the Mahratta state by a formal instrument. The Mahratta king, a descendant of Sivaji, had become aroi fainéant, and the arrangement was negotiated by his Brahman minister, whose official designation was the pēshwa. The office of pēshwa then became hereditary in the minister’s family,and grew in importance as the Mahratta kingdom rose, while the king sunk into the condition of a puppet. Thus the Mahratta power was consolidated throughout nearly the whole of Maharashtra under the Brahman pēshwa as virtual sovereign, with his capital at Poona, while the titular Mahratta raja or king had his court at the neighbouring city of Satara. Despite his political importance, however, the raja was still venerated as the descendant of Sivaji.
Then several chiefs carved out principalities of their own from among the ruins of the Mogul Empire. Thus Raghoji Bhonsla established himself in the tracts lying underneath the southern base of the Satpura range (namely, Nagpur and Berar), overran Orissa and entered Bengal. Damaji Gaekwar descended from the Western Ghāts upon the alluvial plains of Gujarat around Baroda; Tukoji Holkar subdued the uplands of Malwa beyond the Vindhya range on the north bank of the Nerbudda; and Mahadji Sindhia obtained possession of large tracts immediately south of Agra and Delhi, marched into Hindustan and became virtually the master of the Mogul emperor himself (seeGwalior). Sivaji’s own father had founded a dominion at Tanjore in the extreme south, which, however, never had relations with the central power at Poona. The same may be said of the state of Kolhapur, allotted to a younger branch of Sivaji’s family.
But these principalities, though independent respecting internal administration, and making war or peace with their neighbours according to opportunity, owned allegiance to the pēshwa at Poona as the head of the Mahratta race. On state occasions heads of principalities would visit Poona by way of acknowledging the superior position of the pēshwa. On the other hand, the pēshwa was careful to obtain the sanction of his nominal sovereign at Satara to every important act of state. Thus a confederation was formed of which the Brahman pēshwa or head was at Poona, governing the adjacent territories, while the members, belonging to the lower castes, were scattered throughout the continent of India. Such was the Mahratta Empire which supplanted the Mogul Empire. The Mahratta power grew and prospered till it embraced all western and most of central India. Its culminating point was reached about 1750, or about a century after Sivaji first rebelled against his Mahommedan sovereign.
Its armies drew soldiers from all parts of India. The infantry was not of good quality; but its cavalry was really an enormous force, numbering fully a hundred thousand in all. The horsemen were splendidly audacious in riding for long distances into the heart of a hostile country, without support, striking some terrific blows, and then returning rapidly beyond reach of pursuit. They could truly boast of having watered their horses in every Indian river from the Cauvery to the Indus. If attacked, however, in a competent manner, they would not stand; and afterwards, in conflict with the British, whole masses of them behaved in a dastardly manner. As their ambition grew the chiefs began to organize their troops after the system learnt from the English and French. In this way several Frenchmen—Benoit de Boigne, Perron and others—rose in the Mahratta service to a position dangerous to the British. But the new system was unsuited to the Mahratta genius; it hampered the meteoric movements of the cavalry, which was obliged to manœuvre in combination with the new artillery and the disciplined battalions. Mahratta elders hence uttered predictions of military disaster which were in the end more than fulfilled.
The rapid and amazing success of the Mahratta confederation rendered it the largest Hindu power that ever existed in India. But it lacked the elements of true greatness. It was founded by plundering expeditions, and its subsequent existence was tainted by the baseness of this predatory origin. With the exception of the pēshwas, its chiefs were little more than free-booting warriors, for the most part rude, violent and unlettered. Their custom was to offer their neighbours or victims the alternative of payingchouth, that is, one-fourth of the revenue, or being plundered and ravaged. Thus the Mahrattachouthcame to have an ominous significance in Indian history. Desultory efforts were made to establish a civil government, but in the main there was no administration formed on statesmanlike principles. The pēshwas, on the other hand, as Brahmans, were men of the highest education then possible in India. But they were absorbed by the direction of military and political combinations, and by intrigues for the preservation of their own power; and, even allowing for all this, they failed to evince the civil capacity which might have been anticipated. While several displayed commanding abilities, and some possessed many virtues, one alone attempted to conduct an administration in an enlightened manner, and he died prematurely.
There were at the same time powers existing in India to keep the Mahrattas in check, and some parts of India were excepted from their depredations. The English power was rising at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The nascent Sikh power prevented Mahratta incursions from being permanently successful in the Punjab. As the Mogul Empire broke up, some separate Mahommedan powers rose upon its ruins. The nizam of the Deccan established himself at Hyderabad, comparatively near the headquarters of the pēshwa. Hyder Ali was proclaimed sultan of Mysore in the south. Ahmed Shah Abdali burst upon India from Afghanistan. The Mahrattas bravely encountered him at Panipat near Delhi in 1761, and were decisively defeated. The defeat, however, did not essentially shake the Mahratta confederation. It was collision with the English that broke that wonderful fabric to pieces.
The first collision with the English occurred in 1775, arising from a disputed succession to the pēshwaship. The English government at Bombay supported one of the claimants, and the affair became critical for the English as well as for the Mahrattas. It was at this conjuncture that Warren Hastings displayed his political genius and rendered signal service to his country, by succouring from Bengal the defeated Bombay army and negotiating a peace (in 1782) that restored thestatus quo.
The next collision happened in 1803. The pēshwa had fallen into grave difficulties with some of the principal members of the Mahratta confederation. He therefore placed himself under British protection, and this led to the great Mahratta War, in which the Marquis Wellesley displayed those talents for military and political combination which rendered him illustrious. It was during the campaigns which ensued that General Arthur Wellesley defeated Sindhia and the Bhonsla raja at Assaye, and General Lake won the victories of Farrukhabad, Dīg and Laswari over Sindhia and Holkar. The three confederates, Sindhia, Holkar and the Bhonsla, concluded peace with the British government, after making large sacrifices of territory in favour of the victor, and submitting to British control politically. It was during these events that the British won the province of Orissa, the old Hindustan afterwards part of the North-Western Provinces, and a part of the western coast in Gujarat.
The third collision came to pass between 1816 and 1818, through the conduct, not only of the confederates, but also of the pēshwa (Baji Bao) himself. During the previous war the pēshwa had been the protégé and ally of the British; and since the war he had fallen more completely than before under British protection—British political officers and British troops being stationed at his capital. He apparently felt encouraged by circumstances to rebel. Holkar and the Bhonsla committed hostile acts. The predatory Pindaris offered a formidable resistance to the British troops. So the pēshwa ventured to take part in the combination against the British power, which even yet the Mahrattas did not despair of overthrowing. After long-protracted menaces, he attacked the British at Kirkee, but failed utterly, and fled a ruined man. Ultimately he surrendered to Sir John Malcolm, and was sent as a state pensioner to Bithūr, near Cawnpore. The British, however, released the raja of Satara from the captivity in which he had been kept during the pēshwa’s time, and reinstated him on the throne, with a limited territory. Owing to these events the British government became possessed of the Konkan and of the greater part of the Deccan.
It remains to mention briefly the fortunes of each remaining member of the once imperial confederation. The principality of Satara was held to have lapsed in 1848 by the death of theraja without lineal heirs, and was annexed by the British government. The Bhonsla raja of Nagpur died without lineal heirs in 1853, and his territory was likewise annexed. The house of Holkar remained faithful to its engagements with the British government, and its position as a feudatory of the empire was maintained. In Sindhia’s territory, by reason of internal feuds, the British had to undertake measures which were successfully terminated after the battles of Maharajpur and Panniar in 1843. But on the whole the house of Sindhia remained faithful. Sindhia himself was actively loyal during the Mutiny. The gaekwar gradually fell under British control towards the close of the 18th century, and his house never engaged in hostilities with the British government. The ex-pēshwa lived to old age at Bithur, and died in 1857. His adopted son grew up to be the Nana Sahib, of infamous memory, who took a leading part in the Mutiny.
See J. Grant Duff,History of the Mahrattas(3 vols., 1826); T. D. Broughton,Letters written in a Mahratta Camp(1813); M. G. Ranade,Rise of the Maratha Power(Bombay, 1900).
See J. Grant Duff,History of the Mahrattas(3 vols., 1826); T. D. Broughton,Letters written in a Mahratta Camp(1813); M. G. Ranade,Rise of the Maratha Power(Bombay, 1900).
(R. T.; J. S. Co.)
MAHSEER,orMahaseer(Barbus mosal), a kind of barbel, abundant in the rivers of India, especially in pools of the upper and more rapid streams where they issue from the mountainous part of the country. It is one of the largest species of the Cyprinid family, attaining to a length of 3 to 5 ft., and sometimes exceeding a weight of 70 ℔. Its body is well-proportioned, rather elongate, and somewhat like that of the European barbel, but covered with very large scales, of which there are only twenty-five or twenty-seven placed along the lateral line; the dorsal fin is armed with a long and strong spine, and the mouth provided with four slender and short barbels. The lips are sometimes produced into fleshy lobes. To the fisherman in India the mahseer affords the same kind of sport as the salmon in the British Isles, and it rivals that fish as regards size, strength and activity. Its flesh is likewise much esteemed.
MAI, ANGELO(1782-1854), Italian cardinal and philologist, was born of humble parents at Schilpario in the province of Bergamo, Lombardy, on the 7th of March 1782. In 1799 he entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1804 he became a teacher of classics in the college of Naples. After completing his studies at the Collegium Romanum, he lived for some time at Orvieto, where he was engaged in teaching and palaeographical studies. The political events of 1808 necessitated his withdrawal from Rome (to which he had meanwhile returned) to Milan, where in 1813 he was made custodian of the Ambrosian library. He now threw himself with characteristic energy and zeal into the task of examining the numerous MSS. committed to his charge, and in the course of the next six years was able to restore to the world a considerable number of long-lost works. Having withdrawn from the Society of Jesus, he was invited to Rome in 1819 as chief keeper of the Vatican library. In 1833 he was transferred to the office of secretary of the congregation of the Propaganda; on the 12th of February 1838 he was raised to the dignity of cardinal. He died at Castelgandolfo, near Albano, on the 8th of September 1854.
It is on his skill as a reader of palimpsests that Mai’s fame chiefly rests. To the period of his residence at Milan belong: Fragments of Cicero’sPro Scauro, Pro Tullio, Pro Flacco, In Clodium et Curionem, De aere alieno Milonis, De rege(Alexandrino(1814);M. Corn. Frontonis opera inedita, cum epistolis item ineditis, Antonini Pii, Marci Aurelii, Lucii Veri et Appiani(1815; new ed., 1823, with more than 100 additional letters found in the Vatican library); portions of eight speeches of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus; fragments of Plautus; the oration of IsaeusDe hereditate Cleonymi; the last nine books of theAntiquitiesof Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and a number of other works.M. Tullii Ciceronis de republica quae supersuntappeared at Rome in 1822;Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, e vaticanis codicibus editain 1825-1838;Classici scriptores e vaticanis codicibus editiin 1828-1838;Spicilegium romanumin 1839-1844; andPatrum nova bibliothecain 1845-1853. His edition of the celebratedCodex vaticanus, completed in 1838, but not published (ostensibly on the ground of inaccuracies) till four years after his death (1858), is the least satisfactory of his labours and was superseded by the edition of Vercellone and Cozza (1868), which itself leaves much to be desired. Although Mai was not as successful in textual criticism as in the decipherment of manuscripts, he will always be remembered as a laborious and persevering pioneer, by whose efforts many ancient writings have been rescued from oblivion.