3 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 298. Prid. Life of Mahomet, p. 51, &c. Reland. de Rel. Moh. p. 68, &c. Millium, de Mohammedismo ante Moh. p. 368, 369. 4 See before, p. 90. 1 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 293. 2 Ebn Khalecân. 3 This was the true cause of his imprisonment and death, and not his refusing to subscribe to the opinion of absolute predestination, as D'Herbelot writes (Bibl. Orient. p. 21), misled by the dubious acceptation of the word "kadâ," which signifies not only GOD'S decree in particular, but also the giving sentence as a judge in general; nor could Abu Hanîfa have been reckoned orthodox had he denied one of the principal articles of faith. 4 Poc. Spec. p. 297, 298. 5 Al Shahrestani, ibid. 6 Idem. 7 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. p. 21 and 22.
The second orthodox sect is that of Mâlec Ebn Ans, who was born at Medina, in the year of the Hejra 90, 93, 94,8 or 95,9 and died there in 177,10 178,11 or 17912 (for so much do authors differ). This doctor is said to have paid great regard to the traditions of Mohammed.13 In his last illness, a friend going to visit him found him in tears, and asking him the reason of it, he answered, "How should I not weep? and who has more reason to weep than I? Would to GOD that for every question decided by me according to my own opinion, I had received so many stripes! then would my accounts be easier. Would to GOD I had never given any decision of my own!"1 Al Ghazâli thinks it a sufficient proof of Malec's directing his knowledge to the glory of GOD, that being once asked his opinion as to forty-eight questions, his answer to thirty-two of them was, that he did not know; it being no easy matter for one who has any other view than God's glory to make so frank a confession of his ignorance.2 The doctrine of Malec is chiefly followed in Barbary and other parts of Africa. The author of the third orthodox sect was Mohammed Ebn Edrîs al Shâfeï, born either at Gaza or Ascalon, in Palestine, in the year of the Hejra 150, the same day (as some will have it) that Abu Hanîfa died, and was carried to Mecca at two years of age, and there educated.3 He died in 204,4 in Egypt, whither he went about five years before.5 This doctor is celebrated for his excellency in all parts of learning, and was much esteemed by Ebn Hanbal his contemporary, who used to say that "he was as the sun to the world, and as health to the body." Ebn Hanbal, however, had so ill an opinion of al Shâfeï at first, that he forbad his scholars to go near him; but some time after one of them, meeting his master trudging on foot after al Shâfeï, who rode on a mule, asked him how it came about that he forbad them to follow him, and did it himself? to which Ebn Hanbal replied, "Hold thy peace; if thou but attend his mule thou wilt profit thereby."6 Al Shâfeï is said to have been the first who discoursed of jurisprudence, and reduced that science into a method;7 one wittily saying, that the relators of the traditions of Mohammed were asleep till al Shâfeï came and waked them.8 He was a great enemy to the scholastic divines, as has been already observed.9 Al Ghazâli tells us that al Shâfeï used to divide the night into three parts, one for study, another for prayer, and the third for sleep. It is also related of him that he never so much as once swore by GOD, either to confirm a truth, or to affirm a falsehood; and that being once asked his opinion, he remained silent for some time, and when the reason of his silence was demanded, he answered, "I am considering first whether it be better to speak or to hold my tongue." The following saying is also recorded of him, viz., "Whoever pretends to love the world and its Creator at the same time, is a liar."1 The followers of this doctor are from him called Shâfeïtes, and were formerly spread into Mâwara'lnahr and other parts eastward, but are now chiefly of Arabia and Persia.
8 Abulfeda. 9 Ebn Khalecân. 10 Idem. 11 Abulfeda. 12 Elmacinus, p. 114. 13 Ebn Khalec. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 294. 1 Idem, apud eund. ibid. 2 Al Ghazâli, ibid. 3 Ebn Khalecân. 4 Yet Abulfeda says he lived fifty-eight years. 5 Ebn Khalecân. 6 Idem. 7 Idem. 8 Al Záfarâni, apud Poc. Spec. p. 296. 9 See before, p. 118. 1 Vide Poc. Spec. 295-297.
Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, the founder of the fourth sect, was born in the year of the Hejra 164; but as to the place of his birth there are two traditions: some say he was born at Merû in Khorasân, of which city his parents were, and that his mother brought him from thence to Baghdâd at her breast; while others assure us that she was with child of him when she came to Baghdâd, and that he was born there.2 Ebn Hanbal in process of time attained a great reputation on account of his virtue and knowledge; being so well versed in the traditions of Mohammed, in particular, that it is said he could repeat no less than a million of them.3 He was very intimate with al Shâfeï, from whom he received most of his traditionary knowledge, being his constant attendant till his departure for Egypt.4 Refusing to acknowledge the Korân to be created,5 he was, by order of the Khalîf al Mótasem, severely scourged and imprisoned.6 Ebn Hanbal died at Baghdâd, in the year 241, and was followed to his grave by eight hundred thousand men, and sixty thousand women. It is relate, as something very extraordinary, if not miraculous, that on the day of his death no less than twenty thousand Christians, Jews, and Magians, embraced the Mohammedan faith.7 This sect increased so fast, and became so powerful and bold, that in the year 323, in the Khalîfat of al Râdi, they raised a great commotion in Baghdâd, entering people's houses, and spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating the singing-women they met with, and breaking their instruments; and a severe edict was published against them, before they could be reduced to their duty:8 but the Hanbalites at present are not very numerous, few of them being to be met with out of the limits of Arabia. The heretical sects among the Mohammedans are those which hold heterodox opinions in fundamental, or matters of faith. The first controversies relating to fundamentals began when most of the companions of Mohammed were dead:9 for in their days was no dispute, unless about things of small moment, if we except only the dissensions concerning the Imâms, or rightful successors of their prophet, which were stirred up and fomented by interest and ambition; the Arabs' continual employment in the wars, during that time, allowing them little or no leisure to enter into nice inquiries and subtle distinctions: but no sooner was the ardour of conquest a little abated than they began to examine the Korân more nearly; whereupon differences in opinion became unavoidable, and at length so greatly multiplied, that the number of their sects, according to the common opinion, are seventy-three. For the Mohammedans seem ambitious that their religion should exceed others even in this respect; saying, that the Magians are divided into seventy sects, the Jews into seventy-one, the Christians into seventy-two, and the Moslems into seventy-three, as Mohammed had foretold;1 of which sects they reckon one to be always orthodox, and entitled to salvation.2 The first heresy was that of the Khârejites, who revolted from Ali in the thirty-seventh year of the Hejra; and not long after, Mábad a.
2 Ebn Khalecân. 3 Idem. 4 Idem. 5 See before, Sect. III. p. 53, &c. 6 Ebn Khalecân, Abulfarag, Hist. Dyn. p. 252, &c. 7 Ebn Khalecân. 8 Abulfar. ubi sup. p. 301, &c. 9 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. Spec. p. 194. Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, apud eund. p. 210. 1 Vide Poc. ibid. 2 Al Shahrestani, apud eund. p. 211.
Johni, Ghailân of Damascus, and Jonas al Aswâri broached heterodox opinions concerning predestination, and the ascribing of good and evil unto GOD; whose opinions were followed by Wâsel Ebn Atâ.3 This latter was the scholar of Hasan of Basra, in whose school a question being proposed, whether he who had committed a grievous sin was to be deemed an infidel or not, the Khârejites (who used to come and dispute there) maintaining the affirmative, and the orthodox the negative, Wâsel, without waiting his master's decision, withdrew abruptly, and began to publish among his fellow-scholars a new opinion of his own, to wit, that such a sinner was in a middle state; and he was thereupon expelled the school; he and his followers being thenceforth called Mótazalites, or Separatists.4 The several sects which have arisen since this time are variously compounded and decompounded of the opinions of four chief sects, the Mótazalites, the Sefâtians, the Khârejites, and the Shiites.5 I. The Mótazalites were the followers of the before-mentioned Wâsel Ebn Atâ. As to their chief and general tenets, I. They entirely rejected all eternal attributes of GOD, to avoid the distinction of persons made by the Christians; saying that eternity is the proper or formal attribute of his essence; that GOD knows by his essence, and not by his knowledge;1 and the same they affirmed of his other attributes2 (though all the Mótazalites do not understand these words in one sense); and hence this sect were also named Moattatlites, from their divesting GOD of his attributes:3 and they went so far as to say, that to affirm these attributes is the same thing as to make more eternals than one, and that the unity of GOD is inconsistent with such an opinion;4 and this was the true doctrine of Wâsel their master, who declared that whoever asserted an eternal attribute, asserted there were two GODS.5 This point of speculation concerning the divine attributes was not ripe at first, but was at length brought to maturity by Wâsel's followers, after they had read the books of the philosophers.6 2. They believed the word of GOD to have been created in subjecto (as the schoolmen term it), and to consist of letters and sound; copies thereof being written in books to express or imitate the original. They also went farther, and affirmed that whatever is created in subjecto is also an accident, and liable to perish.7 3. They denied absolute predestination, holding that GOD was not the author of evil, but of good only; and that man was a free agent:8 which being properly the opinion of the Kadarians, we defer what may be farther said thereof till we come to speak of that sect. On account of this tenet and the first, the Móta-
3 Idem, and Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, ubi sup. 4 Idem, ibid. p. 211, 212, and Ebu Khalecân, in Vita Waseli. 5 Al Shahrestani, who also reduces them to four chief sects, puts the Kadarians in the place of the Mótazalites. Abulfaragius (Hist. Dyn. p. 166) reckons six principal sects, adding the Jabarians and the Morgians; and the author of Sharh al Mawâkef eight, viz., the Mótazalites, the Shiites, the Khârejites, the Morgians, the Najarians, the Jabarians, the Moshabbehites, and the sect which he calls al Nâjia, because that alone will be saved, being according to him the sect of the Asharians. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 209. 1 Maimonides teaches the same, not as the doctrine of the Mótazalites, but his own. Vide More Nev. l. I, c. 57. 2 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. Spec. p. 214. Abulfarag, p. 167. 3 Vide Poc. Spec. 224. 4 Sharh al Mawâkef, and al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 216. Maimonides (in Proleg ad Pirke Aboth. § 8) asserts the same thing. 5 Vide Poc. ibid. 6 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 215. 7 Abulfarag, and al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 217. See before, Sect. III, p. 112 8 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 240.
zalites look on themselves as the defenders of the unity and justice of GOD.9 4. They held that if a professor of the true religion be guilty of a grievous sin, and die without repentance, he will be eternally damned, though his punishment will be lighter than that of the infidels.10 5. They denied all vision of GOD in paradise by the corporeal eye, and rejected all comparisons or similitudes applied to GOD.11 This sect are said to have been the first inventors of scholastic divinity,11 and are subdivided into several inferior sects, amounting, as some reckon, to twenty, which mutually brand one another with infidelity:13 the most remarkable of them are:- I. The Hodeilians, or followers of Hamdân Abu Hodeil, a Mótazalite doctor, who differed something from the common form of expression used by this sect, saying that GOD knew by his knowledge, but that his knowledge was his essence; and so of the other attributes: which opinion he took from the philosophers, who affirm the essence of GOD to be simple and without multiplicity, and that his attributes are not posterior or accessory to his essence, or subsisting therein, but are his essence itself: and this the more orthodox take to be next kin to making distinctions in the deity, which is the thing they so much abhor in the Christians.1 As to the Korân's being created, he made some distinction; holding the word of GOD to be partly not in subjecto (and therefore uncreated), as when he spake the word Kûn, i.e., Fiat, at the creation, and partly in subjecto, as the precepts, prohibitions, &c.2 Marracci3 mentions an opinion of Abu Hodeil's concerning predestination, from an Arab writer,4 which being by him expressed in a manner not very intelligible, I choose to omit. 2. The Jobbâïans, or followers of Abu Ali Mohammed Ebn Abd al Wahhâb, surnamed al Jobbâï, whose meaning when he made use of the common expression of the Mótazalites, that "GOD knows by his essence," &c., was, that GOD'S being knowing is not an attribute, the same with knowledge, nor such a state as rendered his being knowing necessary.5 He held GOD'S word to be created in subjecto, as in the preserved table, for example, the memory of Gabriel, Mohammed, &c.6 This sect, if Marracci has given the true sense of his author, denied that GOD could be seen in paradise without the assistance of corporeal eyes; and held that man produced his acts by a power superadded to health of body and soundness of limbs; that he who was guilty of a mortal sin was neither a believer nor an infidel, but a transgressor (which was the original opinion of Wâsel), and if he died in his sins, would be doomed to hell for eternity; and that GOD conceals nothing of whatever he knows from his servants.7 3. The Hashemians, who were so named from their master Abu Hâshem Abd al Salâm, the son of Abu Ali al Jabbâï, and whose tenets nearly agreed with those of the preceding sect.8 Abu Hâshem took the Mótazalite form of expression, that "GOD knows by his essence," in a different sense from others, supposing it to mean that GOD hath or
9 Al Shahrest. and Sharh al Mawâkef. apud Poc, ubi sup. p. 214. 10 Marracc. Prodr. ad ref. Alcor. part iii. p. 74. 11 Idem, ibid. 12 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 213, and D'Herbel. Art. Motazelah. 13 Auctor al Mawâkef, apud Poc. ibid. 1 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. p. 215, 216, 217. 2 Idem, apud eund. p. 217, &c. 3 In Prodr. part iii. p. 74. 4 Al Shahrest. 5 Idem, apud Poc. Spec. p. 215. 6 Idem, and Auctor al Mawâkef, ibid. p. 218. 7 Marracci, ubi sup. p. 75, ex al Shahrest. 8 Vide eund. ibid.
is endued with a disposition, which is a known property, or quality, posterior or accessory to his existence.1 His followers were so much afraid of making GOD the author of evil that they would not allow him to be said to create an infidel; because, according to their way of arguing, an infidel is a compound of infidelity and man, and GOD is not the creator of infidelity.2 Abu Hâshem, and his father Abu Ali al Jobbâï, were both celebrated for their skill in scholastic divinity.3 4. The Nodhâmians, or followers of Ibrahim al Nodhâm, who having read books of philosophy, set up a new sect, and imagining he could not sufficiently remove GOD from being the author of evil, without divesting him of his power in respect thereto, taught that no power ought to be ascribed to GOD concerning evil and rebellious actions: but this he affirmed against the opinion of his own disciples, who allowed that GOD could do evil, but did not, because of its turpitude.4 Of his opinion as to the Korân's being created we have spoken elsewhere.5 5. The Hâyetians, so named from Ahmed Ebn Hâyet, who had been of the sect of the Nodhâmians, but broached some new notions on reading the philosophers. His peculiar opinions were-I. That Christ was the eternal Word incarnate, and took a true and real body, and will judge all creatures in the life to come:6 he also farther asserted that there are two GODS or Creators-the one eternal, viz., the most high GOD, and the other not eternal, viz., Christ7-which opinion, though Dr. Pocock urges the same as an argument that he did not rightly understand the Christian mysteries8 is not much different from that of the Arians and Socinians. 2. That there is successive transmigration of the soul from one body into another; and that the last body will enjoy the reward or suffer the punishment due to each soul:9 and, 3. That GOD will be seen at the resurrection, not with the bodily eyes, but those of the understanding.10 6. The Jâhedhians, or followers of Amru Ebn Bahr, surnamed al Jâhedh, a great doctor of the Mótazalites, and very much admired for the elegance of his composures;11 who differed from his brethren in that he imagined the damned would not be eternally tormented in hell, but would be changed into the nature of fire, and that the fire would of itself attract them, without any necessity of their going into it.1 He also taught that if a man believed GOD to be his Lord, and Mohammed the apostle of GOD, he became one of the faithful, and was obliged to nothing farther.2 His peculiar opinion as to the Korân has been taken notice of before.3 7. The Mozdârians, who embraced the opinions of Isa Ebn Sobeih al Mozdâr, and those very absurd ones: for, besides his notions relating to the Korân,4 he went so directly counter to the opinion of those who abridged GOD of the power to do evil, that he affirmed it possible for GOD to be a liar and unjust.5 He also pronounced him to
1 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 215. 2 Idem, ibid. p. 242. 3 Ebn Khalecân, in Vitis Eorum. 4 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 241, 242. Vide Marracc. Prod. part iii. p. 74. 5 See before, Sect. III. p. 53. 6 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 218. Abulfarag, p. 167. 7 Al Shahrest. al Mawâkef, et Ebn Kossá, apud Poc. ubi sub. p. 219. 8 Vide Poc. ibid 9 Marracc. et al Shahrest. ubi sup. 10 Marracc. ibid. p. 75. 11 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art. Giahedh. 1 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 260. 2 Marracc. ubi sup. 3 Sect. III. p. 53. 4 Vide ibid. and p. 52. 5 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 241.
be an infidel who thrust himself into the supreme government:6 nay, he went so far as to assert men to be infidels while they said "There is no GOD but GOD," and even condemned all the rest of mankind as guilty of infidelity; upon which Ibrahim Ebn al Sendi asked him whether paradise, whose breadth equals that of heaven and earth, was created only for him and two or three more who thought as he did? to which it is said he could return no answer.7 8. The Basharians, who maintained the tenets of Bashar Ebn Mótamer, the master of al Mozdâr,8 and a principal man among the Mótazalites. He differed in some things from the general opinion of that sect, carrying man's free agency to a great excess, making it even independent: and yet he thought God might doom an infant to eternal punishment, but granted he would be unjust in so doing. He taught that God is not always obliged to do that which is best, for, if he pleased, he could make all men true believers. These sectaries also held that if a man repent of a mortal sin, and afterwards return to it, he will be liable to suffer the punishment due to the former transgression.9 9. The Thamamians, who follow Thamâma Ebn Bashar, a chief Mótazalite. Their peculiar opinions were-I. That sinners should remain in hell for ever. 2. That free actions have no producing author. 3. That at the resurrection all infidels, idolaters, atheists, Jews, Christians, Magians, and heretics shall be reduced to dust.10 10. The Kadarians, which is really a more ancient name than that of Mótazalites, Mábad al Johni and his adherents being so called, who disputed the doctrine of predestination before Wâsel quitted his master:1 for which reason some use the denomination of Kadarians as more extensive than the other, and comprehend all the Mótazalites under it.2 This sect deny absolute predestination, saying that evil and injustice ought not to be attributed to GOD, but to man, who is a free agent, and may therefore be rewarded or punished for his actions, which GOD has granted him power either to do or to be let alone.3 And hence it is said they are called Kadarians, because they deny al Kadr, or GOD'S absolute decree; though others, thinking it not so proper to come from Kadr, or Kodrat, i.e., power, because they assert man's power to act freely.4 Those, however, who give the name of Kadarians to the Mótazalites are their enemies, for they disclaim it, and give it to their antagonists the Jabarians, who likewise refuse it as an infamous appellation,5 because Mohammed is said to have declared the Kadarians to be the Magians of his followers.6 But what the opinion of these Kadarians in Mohammed's time was, is very uncertain: the Mótazalites say the name belongs to those who assert predestination, and make GOD the author of good and evil,7 viz., the Jabarians; but all the other Mohammedan sects agree to fix it on the Mótazalites, who, they say, are like the Magians in establishing two principles, light, or GOD, the author of good; and darkness, or the devil, the author of evil: but this cannot absolutely be said of the Mótazalites,
6 Marracc. ubi sup. p. 75. 7 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 220. 8 Poc. Spec. p. 221 9 Marracc. ubi sup. 10 Idem, ibid. 1 Al Shahrest. 2 Al Firauzab. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 231, 232, and 214. 3 Al Shahrest. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 235 and 240, &c. 4 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 238. 5 Al Motarrezi, al Shahrest. Vide ibid. p. 232. 6 Idem, &c. ibid. 7 Idem, ibid.
for they (at least the generality of them) ascribe men's good deeds to GOD, but their evil deeds to themselves; meaning thereby that man has a free liberty and power to do either good or evil, and is master of his actions; and for this reason it is that the other Mohammedans call them Magians, because they assert another author of actions besides GOD.8 And, indeed, it is a difficult matter to say what Mohammed's own opinion was in this matter; for on the one side the Korân itself is pretty plain for absolute predestination, and many sayings of Mohammed are recorded to that purpose,9 and one in particular, wherein he introduces Adam and Moses disputing before GOD in this manner: "Thou," says Moses, "art Adam; whom GOD created, and animated with the breath of life, and caused to be worshipped by the angels, and placed in paradise, from whence mankind have been expelled for thy fault:" whereto Adam answered, "Thou art Moses; whom GOD chose for his apostle, and entrusted with his word, by giving thee the tables of the law, and whom he vouchsafed to admit to discourse with himself: how many years dost thou find the law was written before I was created?" Says Moses, "Forty." "And dost thou not find," replied Adam, "these words therein: 'And Adam rebelled against his Lord and transgressed'?" which Moses confessing, "Dost thou therefore blame me," continued he, "for doing that which GOD wrote of me that I should do forty years before I was created? nay, for what was decreed concerning me fifty thousand years before the creation of heaven and earth?" In the conclusion of which dispute Mohammed declared that Adam had the better of Moses.1 On the other side, it is urged in the behalf of the Mótazalites, that Mohammed declaring that the Kadarians and Morgians had been cursed by the tongues of seventy prophets, and being asked who the Kadarians were, answered, "Those who assert that GOD predestinated them to be guilty of rebellion, and yet punishes them for it:" al Hasan is also said to have declared, that GOD sent Mohammed to the Arabs while they were Kadarians, or Jabarians, and laid their sins upon GOD: and to confirm the matter, this sentence of the Korân is quoted:2 "When they commit a filthy action, they say, We found our fathers practising the same, and GOD hath commanded us so to do: Say, Verily GOD commandeth not filthy actions."3 11. The Sefâtians held the opposite opinion to the Mótazalites in respect to the eternal attributes of GOD, which they affirmed; making no distinction between the essential attributes and those of operation: and hence they were named Sefâtians, or Attributists. Their doctrine was that of the first Mohammedans, who were not yet acquainted with these nice distinctions: but this sect afterwards introduced another species of declarative attributes, or such as were necessarily used in historical narration, as hands, face, eyes, &c., which they did not offer to explain, but contented themselves with saying they were in the law, and that they called them declarative attributes.4 However, at length, by giving various explications and interpretations of these attributes they divided into many different opinions: some, by taking the words
8 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 233, &c. 9 Vide ibid. p. 237. 1 Ebnal Athîr, al Bokhari, apud Poc. p. 236.2 Cap. 7, p. 107. 3 Al Motarrezi, apud eund. p. 237, 238.4 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 223.
in the literal sense, fell into the notion of a likeness or similitude between GOD and created beings; to which it is said the karaïtes among the Jews, who are for the literal interpretation of Moses's law, had shown them the way:5 others explained them in another manner, saying that no creature was like GOD, but that they neither understood nor thought i necessary to explain the precise signification of the words which seem to affirm the same of both; it being sufficient to believe that GOD hath no companion or similitude. Of this opinion was Malec Ebn Ans, who declared as to the expression of GOD'S sitting on his throne, in particular, that though the meaning is known, yet the manner is unknown; and that it is necessary to believe it, but heresy to make any questions about it.1 The sects of the Sefâtians are: I. The Ashárians, the followers of Abu'l Hasan al Ashári, who was first a Mótazalite, and the scholar of Abu Ali al Jobbâï, but disagreeing from his master in opinion as to GOD'S being bound (as the Mótazalites assert) to do always that which is best or most expedient, left him, and set up a new sect of himself. The occasion of this difference was the putting a case concerning three brothers, the first of whom lived in obedience to GOD, the second in rebellion against him, and the third died an infant. Al Jobbâi being asked what he thought would become of them, answered, that the first would be rewarded in paradise, the second punished in hell, and the third neither rewarded nor punished: "But what," objected al Ashári, "if the third say, O LORD, if thou hadst given me longer life, that I might have entered paradise with my believing brother, it would have been better for me?" to which al Jobbâï replied, "That GOD would answer, I knew that if thou hadst lived longer, thou wouldst have been a wicked person, and therefore cast into hell." "Then," retorted al Ashári, "the second will say, O LORD, why didst thou not take me away while I was an infant, as thou didst my brother, that I might not have deserved to be punished for my sins, nor to be cast into hell?" To which al Jobbâï could return no other answer than that GOD prolonged his life to give him an opportunity of obtaining the highest degree of perfection, which was best for him: but al Ashári demanding farther, why he did not for the same reason grant the other a longer life, to whom it would have been equally advantageous, al Jobbâï was so put to it, that he asked whether the devil possessed him? "No," says al Ashári, "but the master's ass will not pass the bridge;"2 i.e., he is posed. The opinions of the Ashárians were-I. That they allowed the attributes of GOD to be distinct from his essence, yet so as to forbid any comparison to be made between GOD and his creatures.3 This was also the opinion of Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, and David al Ispahâni, and others, who herein followed Malec Ebn Ans, and were so cautious of any assimilation of GOD to created beings, that they declared whoever moved his hand while he read these words, "I have created with my hand," or "stretched forth his finger," in repeating this saying of Mohammed, "The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the
5 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 224. 1 Vide eund. ibid. 2 Auctor al Mawâkef, et al Safadi, apud Poc. ubi sup. p. 230, &c. Ebn Khalec. in Vita al Jabbâï. 3 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 230.
Merciful," ought to have his hand and finger cut off;1 and the reasons they gave for not explaining any such words were, that it is forbidden in the Korân, and that such explications were necessarily founded on conjecture and opinion, from which no man ought to speak of the attributes of GOD, because the words of the Korân might by that means come to be understood differently form the author's meaning: nay, some have been so superstitiously scrupulous in this matter as not to allow the words hand, face, and the like, when they occur in the Korân, to be rendered into Persian or any other language, but require them to be read in the very original words, and this they call the safe way.2 2. As to predestination, they held that GOD hath one eternal will which is applied to whatsoever he willeth, both of his own actions and, those of men, so far as they are created by him, but not as they are acquired or gained by them; that he willeth both their good and their evil, their profit and their hurt, and as he willeth and knoweth, he willeth concerning men that which he knoweth, and hath commanded the pen to write the same in the preserved table: and this is his decree, and eternal immutable counsel and purpose.3 They also went so far as to say, that it may be agreeable to the way of GOD that man should be commanded what he is not able to perform.4 But while they allow man some power, they seem to restrain it to such a power as cannot produce anything new; only GOD, say they, so orders his providence that he creates, after, or under, and together with every created or new power, an action which is ready whenever a man will sit, and sets about it: and this action is called Casb, i.e., Acquisition, being in respect to its creation, from GOD, but in respect to its being produced, employed, and acquired, from man.5 And this being generally esteemed the orthodox opinion, it may not be improper farther to explain the same in the words of some other writers. The elective actions of men, says one, fall under the power of GOD alone; nor is their own power effectual thereto; but GOD causeth to exist in man power and choice; and if there be no impediment, he causeth his action to exist also, subject to his power, and joined with that and his choice; which action, as created, is to be ascribed to GOD, but as produced, employed, or acquired, to man. So that by the acquisition of an action is properly meant a man's joining or connecting the same with his power and will, yet allowing herein no impression or influence on the existence thereof, save only that it is subject to his power.1 Others, however, who are also on the side of al Ashári, and reputed orthodox, explain the matter in a different manner, and grant the impression or influence of the created power of man on his action, and that this power is what is called Acquisition.2 But the point will be still clearer if we hear a third author, who rehearses the various opinions, or explications of the opinion of this sect, in the following words, viz.: Abu'l Hasan al Ashári asserts all the actions of men to be subject to the power of GOD, being created by him, and that the power of man hath no influence at all on that which he is empowered to do; but that both the power, and what is subject thereto, fall under the power of GOD:
1 Idem, apud eund. p. 228, &c. 2 Vide Poc. ibid.3 Al Shahrest. apud eund. p. 245, &c.4 Idem, ibid. p. 246. 5 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 245, &c.1 Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, apud eund. p. 247.2 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 248.
al Kâdi Abu Becr says that the essence or substance of the action is the effect of the power of GOD, but its being either an action of obedience, as prayer, or an action of disobedience, as fornication, are qualities of the action, which proceed from the power of man: Abd'almalec, known by the title of Imâm al Haramein, Abu'l Hosein of Basra, and other learned men, held that the actions of men are effected by the power which GOD hath created in man, and that GOD causeth to exist in man both power and will, and that this power and will do necessarily produce that which man is empowered to do: and Abu Ishâk al Isfarâyeni taught that that which maketh impression, or hath influence on an action, is a compound of the power of GOD and the power of man.3 The same author observes that their ancestors, perceiving a manifest difference between those things which are the effects of the election of man and those things which are the necessary effects of inanimate agents, destitute both of knowledge and choice, and being at the same time pressed by the arguments which prove that GOD is the Creator of all things, and consequently of those things which are done by men, to conciliate the matter, chose the middle way, asserting actions to proceed from the power of GOD, and the acquisition of man; GOD'S way of dealing with his servants being, that when man intendeth obedience, GOD createth in him an action of obedience, and when he intendeth disobedience, he createth in him an action of disobedience; so that man seemeth to be the effective producer of his action, though he really be not.1 But this, proceeds the same writer, is again pressed with its difficulties, because the very intention of the mind is the work of GOD, so that no oman hath any share in the production of his own actions; for which reason the ancients disapproved of too nice an inquiry into this point, the end of the dispute concerning the same being, for the most part, either the taking away of all precepts positive as well as negative, or else the associating of a companion with GOD, by introducing some other independent agent besides him. Those, therefore, who would speak more accurately, use this form: there is neither compulsion nor free liberty, but the way lies between the two; the power and will in man being both created by GOD, though the merit or guilt be imputed unto man. Yet, after all, it is judged the safest way to follow the steps of the primitive Moslems, and, avoiding subtle disputations and too curious inquiries, to leave the knowledge of this matter wholly unto GOD.2 3. As to mortal sin, the Ashárians
3 Auctor Sharh al Tawâlea, apud eund. ibid. p. 248, &c. 1 Idem, ibid. p. 249, 250. 2 Idem, ibid. p. 250, 251. I trust the reader will not be offended if, as a farther illustration of what has been said on this subject (in producing of which I have purposely kept to the original Mohammedan expressions) I transcribe a passage or two from a postscript subjoined to the epistle I have quoted above (§4, p. 85), in which the point of free will is treated ex professo. Therein the Moorish author, having mentioned the two opposite opinions of the Kadarians, who allow free will, and the Jabarians, who make man a necessary agent (the former of which opinions, he says, seems to approach nearest to that of the greater part of Christians and of the Jews), declares the true opinion to be that of the Sonnites, who assert that man hath power and will to choose good and evil, and can moreover know he shall be rewarded if he do well, and shall be punished if he do ill; but that he depends, notwithstanding, on GOD'S power, and shall be punished if he do ill; but that he depends, notwithstanding, on GOD'S power, and willeth, if GOD willeth, but not otherwise. Then he proceeds briefly to refute the two extreme opinions, and first to prove that of the Kadarians, though it be agreeable to GOD'S justice, inconsistent with his attributes of wisdom and power: "Sapientia enim Dei," says he, "comprehendit quicquid fuit et futurum est ab æternitate in finem usque mundi et postea. Et ita novit ab æterno omnia opera creaturarum, sive bona, sive mala, quæ fuerint creata cum potentia Dei, et ejus libera et determinate voluntate, sicut ipsi visum fuit. Denique novit eum qui futurus
taught, that if a believer guilty of such sin die without repentance, his sentence is to be left with GOD, whether he pardon him out of mercy, or whether the prophet intercede for him (according to that saying recorded of him, "My intercession shall be employed for those among my people who shall have been guilty of grievous crimes"), or whether he punish him in proportion to his demerit, and afterwards, through his mercy, admit him into paradise: but that it is not to be supposed he will remain for ever in hell with the infidels, seeing it is declared that whoever shall have faith in his heart but of the weight of an ant, shall be delivered from hell fire.1 And this is generally received for the orthodox doctrine in this point, and is diametrically opposite to that of the Mótazalites. These were the more rational Sefâtians, but the ignorant part of them, not knowing how otherwise to explain the expressions of the Korân relating to the declarative attributes, fell into most gross and
erat malus, et tamen creavit: neque negari potest quin, si ipsi libuisset, potuisset omnes creare bonos: placuit tamen Deo creare bonos et malos, cùm Deo soli sit absoluta et libera voluntas, et perfecta electio, et non homini. Ita enim Salomon in suis proverbiis dixit. Vitam et mortem, bonum et malum, divitias et paupertatem, esse et venire à Deo. Christiani etiam dicunt S. Paulum dixisse in suis epistolis; Dicet etiam lutum figulo, quare facis unum vas ad honorem, et aliud vas ad contumeliam? Cum igitur miser homo fuerit creatus à voluntate Dei et potentia, nihil aliud potest tribui ipsi quàm ipse sensus cognoscendi et sentiendi an bene vel male faciat. Quæ unica causa (id est, sensus cognoscendi) erit ejus gloriæ vel ponæ causa: per talem enim sensum novit quid boni vel mali adversus Dei præcepta fecerit." The opinion of the Jabarians, on the other hand, he rejects as contrary to man's consciousness of his own power and choice, and inconsistent with GOD'S justice, and his having given mankind laws, to the observing or transgressing of which he was annexed rewards and punishments. After this he proceeds to explain the third opinion in the following words: "Tertia opinio Zunis (i.e., Sonnitarum) quæ vera est, affirmat homini potesttatem esse, sed limitatem à sua causa, id est, dependentem à Dei potentia et voluntate, et proper illam cognitionem qua deliberat benè vel malè facere, esse dignum pona vel præmio. Manifestum est in æternitate non fuisse aliam potentiam præter Dei nostri omnipotentis, e cujus potentia pendebant omnia possibilia, id est, quæ poterant esse, cum ab ipso fuerint creata. Sapientia verò Dei novit etiam quæ non sunt futura; et potentia ejus, etsi non creaverit ea, potuit tamen, si ita Deo placuisset. Ita novit sapientia Dei quæ erant impossibilia, id est, quæ non poterant esse; quæ tamen nullo pacto pendent ab ejus potentia: ab ejus enim potentia mulla pendent nisi possibilia.-Dicimus enim à Dei potentia non pendere creare Deum alium ipsi similem, nec creare aliquid quod moveatur et quiescat simul eodem tempore, cùm hæc sint ex impossibilibus: comprehendit tamen suâ sapientiâ tale aliquid non pendere ab ejus potentiâ.-A potentiâ igitur Dei pendet solùm quod potest esse, et possibile est esse; quæ semper parata est dare esse possibilibus. Et si hoc penitus cognoscamus,cognoscemus pariter omne quod est, seu futurum est, sive sint opera nostra, sive quidvis aliud, pendere à sola potentia Dei. Et hoc non privatim intelligitur, sed in genere de omni eo quod est et movetur, sive in colis sive in terrâ; et nec aliquâ potentiâ potest impediri Dei potentia, cùm nulla alia potentia absoluta sit, præter Dei; potentia verò nostra non est à se, nisi à Dei potentia: et cum potentia nostra dicitur esse a causa sua, ideo dicimus potentiam nostram esse straminis comparatam cum potentia Dei: eo enim modo quo stramen movetur à motu maris, ita nostra potentia et voluntas à Dei potentia. Itaque Dei potentia semper est parata etiam ad occidendum aliquem; ut si quis hominem occidat, non dicimus potentiâ hominis id factum, sed æterna potentia Dei: error enim est id tribuere potentiæ hominis. Potentia enim Dei, cùm semper sit parata, et ante ipsum hominem, ad occidendum; si solâ hominis potentiâ id factum esse diceremus, et moreretur, potentia sanè Dei (quæ antè erat) jam ibi esset frustra: quia post mortem non potest potentia Dei eum iterum occidere; ex quo sequeretur potentiam Dei impediri à potentia hominis, et potentiam hominis anteire et antecellere potentiam Dei; quod est absurdum et impossibile. Igitur Deus est qui operatur æternâ suâ potentiâ: si verò homini injiciatur culpa, sive in tali homicidio, sive in aliis, hoc est quantùm ad præcepta et legem. Homini tribuitur solùm opus externè, et ejus electio, quæ est a voluntate ejus et potentia; non verò internè.-Hoc est punctum illud indivisibile et secretum, quod à paucissimis capitur, ut sapientissimus Sidi Abo Hamet Elgaceli (i.e., Dominus Abu Hâmed al Ghazâli) affirmat (cujus spiritui Deus concedat gloriam, Amen!) Sequentibus verbis: Ita abditum et profundum et abstrusum est intelligere punctum illud Liberi Arbitrii, ut neque characteres ad scribendum, neque ullæ rationes ad exprimendum sufficiant, et omnes, quotquot de hac re locuti sunt, hæserunt confusi in ripa tanti et tam spaciosi maris." 1 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 258.
absurd opinions, making GOD corporeal, and like created beings.2 Such were- 2. The Moshabbehites, or Assimilators; who allowed a resemblance between GOD and his creatures,3 supposing him to be a figure composed of members or parts, either spiritual or corporeal, and capable of local motion, of ascent and descent, &c.1 Some of this sect inclined to the opinion of the Holûlians, who believed that the divine nature might be united with the human in the same person; for they granted it possible that GOD might appear in a human form, as Gabriel did: and to confirm their opinion they allege Mohammed's words, that he saw his LORD in a most beautiful form, and Moses talking with GOD face to face.2 And 3. The Kerâmians, or followers of Mohammed Ebn Kerâm, called also Mojassemians, or Corporalists; who not only admitted a resemblance between GOD and created beings, but declared GOD to be corporeal.3 The more sober among them, indeed, when they applied the word body to GOD, would be understood to mean, that he is a self-subsisting being, which with them is the definition of body: but yet some of them affirmed him to be finite, and circumscribed, either on all sides, or on some only (as beneath, for example), according to different opinions;4 and others allowed that he might be felt by the hand, and seen by the eye. Nay, one David al Jawâri went so far as to say, that his deity was body composed of flesh and blood, and that he had members, as hands, feet, a head, a tongue, eyes, and ears; but that he was a body, however, not like other bodies, neither was he like to any created being: he is also said farther to have affirmed that from the crown of the head to the breast he was hollow, and from the breast downward solid, and that he had black curled hair.5 These most blasphemous and monstrous notions were the consequence of the literal acceptation of those passages in the Korân which figuratively attribute corporeal actions to GOD, and of the words of Mohammed, when he said, that GOD created man in his own image, and that himself had felt the fingers of GOD, which he laid on his back, to be cold: besides which, this sect are charged with fathering on their prophet a great number of spurious and forged traditions to support their opinion, the greater part whereof they borrowed from the Jews, who are accused as naturally prone to assimilate GOD to men, so that they describe him as weeping for Noah's flood till his eyes were sore.6 and, indeed, though we grant the Jews may have imposed on Mohammed and his followers in many instances, and told them as solemn truths things which themselves believed not or had invented, yet many expressions of this kind are to be found in their writings; as when they introduce GOD roaring like a lion at every watch of the night, and crying, "Alas! that I have laid waste my house, and suffered my temple to be burnt, and sent my children into banishment among the heathen," &c.1 4. The jabarians-who are the direct opponents of the Kadarians-denying free agency in man, and ascribing his actions wholly unto
2 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 255, &c. Abulfar. p. 167, &c. 3 AlMawâkef, apud Poc. ibid. 1 Al Shahrest. apud eund. ibid. p. 226.2 Vide Marracc. Prodr. part iii. p. 76. 3 Al Shahrest. ubi sup.4 Idem, ibid. p. 225.5 Idem, ibid. p. 226, 227. 6 Idem, ibid. p. 227, 228. 1 Talm.Berachoth, c. I. Vide Poc. ubi supra, p 228.
GOD.2 They take their denomination from al Jabr, which signifies necessity, or compulsion; because they hold man to be necessarily and inevitably constrained to act as he does, by force of GOD'S eternal and immutable decree.3 This sect is distinguished into several species; some being more rigid and extreme in their opinion, who are thence called pure Jabarians, and others more moderate, who are therefore called middle Jabarians. The former will not allow men to be said either to act, or to have any power at all, either operative or acquiring; asserting that man can do nothing, but produces all his actions by necessity, having neither power, nor will, nor choice, any more than an inanimate agent: they also declare that rewarding and punishing are also the effects of necessity; and the same they say of the imposing of commands. This was the doctrine of the Jahmians, the followers of Jahm Ebn Safwân, who likewise held that paradise and hell will vanish, or be annihilated, after those who are destined thereto respectively shall have entered them, so that at last there will remain no existing being besides GOD;4 supposing those words of the Korân which declare that the inhabitants of paradise and of hell shall remain therein for ever, to be hyperbolical only, and intended for corroboration, and not to denote an eternal duration in reality.5 The moderate Jabarians are those who ascribe some power to man, but such a power as hath no influence on the action: for as to those who grant the power of man to have a certain influence on the action, which influence is called Acquisition, some6 will not admit them to be called Jabarians; though others reckon those also to be called middle Jabarians, and to contend for the middle opinion between absolute necessity and absolute liberty, who attribute to man acquisition, or concurrence in producing the action, whereby he gaineth commendation or blame (yet without admitting it to have any influence on the action), and, therefore, make the Ashárians a branch of this sect.7 Having again mentioned the term Acquisition, we may, perhaps, have a clearer idea of what the Mohammedans mean thereby, when told, that it is defined to be an action directed to the obtaining of profit, or the removing of hurt, and for that reason never applied to any action of GOD, who acquireth to himself neither profit nor hurt.1 Of the middle or moderate Jabarians were the Najârians and the Derârians. The Najârians were the adherents of al Hasan Ebn Mohammed al Najâr, who taught that GOD was he who created the actions of men, both good and bad, and that man acquired them, and also that man's power had an influence on the action, or a certain co-operation, which he called acquisition; and herein he agreed with al Ashári.2 The Derârians were the disciples of Derâr Ebn Amru, who held also that men's actions are really created by GOD, and that man really acquired them.3 The Jabarians also say, that GOD is absolute Lord of his creatures, and may deal with them according to his own pleasure, without rendering account to any, and that if he should admit all men, without distinction, into paradise, it would be no impartiality, or if he should cast them all into hell it would
2 Vide Abulfarag, p. 168. 3 Al Shahrest. al Mawâkef, et Ebn al Kossá, apud Poc. ibid. p. 238, &c. 4 Al Shahrest. al Motarezzi, et Ebn al Kossá, apud eund. p. 239, 243, &c. 5 Idem, ibid. p. 260. 6 Al Shahrest. 7 Ebn al Kossá, et al Mawâkef. 1 Ebn al Kossá apud Poc. ubi sup. p. 240. 2 Al Shahrest. apud eund. p. 245. 3 Idem, ibid.
be no injustice.4 And in this particular, likewise, they agree with the Ashárians, who assert the same,5 and say that reward is a favour from GOD, and punishment a piece of justice; obedience being by them considered as a sign only of future reward, and transgression as a sign of future punishment.6 5. The Morgians; who are said to be derived from the Jabarians.7 These teach that the judgment of every true believer, who hath been guilty of a grievous sin, will be deferred till the resurrection; for which reason they pass no sentence on him in this world, either of absolution or condemnation. They also hold that disobedience with faith hurteth not; and that, on the other hand, obedience with infidelity profiteth not.1 As to the reason of their name the learned differ, because of the different significations of its root, each of which they accommodate to some opinion of the sect. Some think them so called because they postpone works to intention, that is, esteem works to be inferior in degree to intention and profession of the faith;2 others, because they allow hope, by asserting that disobedience with faith hurteth not, &c.; others take the reason of the name to be, their deferring the sentence of the heinous sinner till the resurrection;3 and others, their degrading of Ali, or removing him from the first degree to the fourth:4 for the Morgians, in some points relating to the office of Imâm, agree with the Khârejites, the Kadarians, or the Jabarians, are distinguished as Morgians of those sects, and the fourth is that of the pure Morgians; which last species is again subdivided into five others.5 The opinions of Mokâtel and Bashar, both of a sect of the Morgians called Thaubanians, should not be omitted. The former asserted that disobedience hurts not him who professes the unity of GOD, and is endued with faith; and that no true believer shall be cast into hell: he also taught that GOD will surely forgive all crimes besides infidelity; and that a disobedient believer will be punished, at the day of resurrection, on the bridge6 laid over the midst of hell, where the flames of hell fire shall catch hold on him, and torment him in proportion to his disobedience, and that he shall then be admitted into paradise.7 The latter held that if GOD do cast the believers guilty of grievous sins into hell, yet they will be delivered thence after they shall have been sufficiently punished; but that it is neither possible nor consistent with justice that
4 Abulfarag, p. 168, &c. 5 Al Shahrestani, ubi sup. p. 252, &c. 6 Sharh al Tawâlea, ibid. To the same effect writes the Moorish author quotes above, from whom I will venture to transcribe the following passage, with which he concludes his Discourse on Freewill. "Intellectus ferè lumine naturali novit Deum esse rectum judicem et justum, qui non aliter afficit creaturam quàm juste: etiam Deum esse absolutum Dominum, et hanc orbis machinam esse ejus, et ab eo creatam; Deum mullis debere rationem reddere, cùm quicquid agat, agat jure proprio sibi: et ita absolute poterit afficere præmio vel pona quem vult, cùm omnis creatura sit ejus, nec facit cuiquam injuriam, etsi eam tormentis et ponis æternis afficiat: plus enim boni et commodi accepit creatura quando accepit esse a suo creatore, quàm incommodi et damni quando ab eo damnata est et affecta tormentis et ponis. Hoc autem intelligitur si Deus absolute id faceret. Quando enim Deus, pietate et misericordia motus, eligit aliquos ut ipsi serviant, Dominus Deus gratiâ suâ id facit ex infinitâ bonitate; et quando aliquos derelingquit, et ponis et tormentis afficit, ex justitia et rectitudine. Et tandem dicimù omnes ponas esse justas quæ a Deo Veniunt, et nostrâ tantùm culpâ, et omnia bona esse à pietate et misericordia ejus infinita." 7 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 256. 1 Abulfar. p. 169. 2 Al Firauz. 3 Ebn al Athîr, al Motarrezi. 4 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 254, &c. 5 Idem, ibid. 6 See before, Sect. IV. p. 71. 7 al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 257.
they should remain therein for ever; which, as has been observed, was the opinion of al Ashári. III. The Khârejites are they who depart or revolt from the lawful prince established by public consent; and thence comes their name, which signifies revolters or rebels.8 The first who were so called were twelve thousand men who revolted from Ali, after they had fought under him at the battle of Seffein, taking offence at his submitting the decision of his right to the Khalîfat, which Moâwiyah disputed with him, to arbitration, though they themselves had first obliged him to it.1 These were also called Mohakkemites, or Judiciarians; because the reason which they gave for their revolt was, that Ali had referred a matter concerning the religion of GOD to the judgment of men, whereas the judgment, in such case, belonged only unto GOD.2 The heresy of the Khârejites consisted chiefly in two things. I. In that they affirmed a man might be promoted to the dignity of the Imâm, or prince, though he was not of the tribe of Koreish, nor even a freeman, provided he was a just and pious person, and endued with the other requisite qualifications; and also held that if the Imâm turned aside from the truth, he might be put to death or deposed; and that there was no absolute necessity for any Imâm at all in the world. 2. In that they charged Ali with sin, for having left an affair to the judgment of men, which ought to have been determined by GOD alone; and went so far as to declare him guilty of infidelity, and to curse him on that account.3 In the 38th year of the Hejra, which was the year following the revolt, all these Khârejites who persisted in their rebellion, to the number of four thousand, were cut to pieces by Ali, and, as several historians4 write, even to a man: but others say nine of them escaped, and that two fled into Omân, two into Kermân, two into Sejestân, two into Mesopotamia, and one to Tel Mawrûn; and that these propagated their heresy in those places, the same remaining there to this day.5 The principal sects of the Khârejites, besides the Mohakkemites above mentioned, are six; which, though they greatly differ among themselves in other matters, yet agree in these, viz., that they absolutely reject Othmân and Ali, preferring the doing of this to the greatest obedience, and allowing marriages to be contracted on no other terms; that they account those who are guilty of grievous sins to be infidels; and that they hold it necessary to resist the Imâm when he transgresses the law. One sect of them deserves more particular notice, viz.- The Waïdians, so called from al Waïd, which signifies the threats denounced by GOD against the wicked. These are the antagonists of the Morgians, and assert that he who is guilty of a grievous sin ought to be declared an infidel or apostate, and will be eternally punished in hell, though he were a true believer:6 which opinion of theirs, as has been observed, occasioned the first rise of the Mótazalites. One Jaafar Ebn Mobashshar, of the sect of the Nodhâmians, was yet more severe than the Waïdians, pronouncing him to be a reprobate and an apostate who steals but a grain of corn.1
8 Idem, ibid. p. 269. 1 See Ockley's Hist. of the Sarac. vol.i. p. 60, &c. 2 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 270.3 Idem, ibid. 4 Abulfeda, al Jannâbi, Elmacinus, p. 40.5 Al Shahrestani. See Ockley's Hist. of the Saracens, ubi sup. p. 63.6 Abulfar. p. 169. Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 256. 1Vide Poc. ibid. p. 257
IV. The Shiites are the opponents of the Khârejites: their name properly signifies sectaries or adherents in general, but is peculiarly used to denote those of Ali Ebn Tâleb; who maintain him to be lawful Khalîf and Imâm, and that the supreme authority, both in spirituals and temporals, of right belongs to his descendants, notwithstanding they may be deprived of it by the injustice of others, or their own fear. They also teach that the office of Imâm is not a common thing, depending on the will of the vulgar, so that they may set up whom they please; but a fundamental affair of religion, and an article which the prophet could not have neglected, or left to the fancy of the common people:2 nay, some, thence called Imâmians, go so far as to assert, that religion consists solely in the knowledge of the true Imâm.3 The principal sects of the Shiites are five, which are subdivided into an almost innumerable number; so that some understand Mohammed's prophecy of the seventy odd sects, of the Shiites only. Their general opinions are-I. That the peculiar designation of the Imâm, and the testimonies of the Korân and Mohammed concerning him, are necessary points. 2. That the Imâms ought necessarily to keep themselves free from light sins as well as more grievous. 3. That every one ought publicly to declare who it is that he adheres to, and from whom he separates himself, by word, deed, and engagement; and that herein there should be no dissimulation. But in this last point some of the Zeidians, a sect so named from Zeid, the son of Ali surnamed Zein al âbedîn, and great-grandson of Ali, dissented from the rest of the Shiites.4 As to other articles, wherein they agreed not, some of them came pretty near to the notions of the Mótazalites, others to those of the Moshabbehites, and others to those of the Sonnites.5 Among the latter of these Mohammed al Bâker, another son of Zein al âbedîn's, seems to claim a place: for his opinion as to the will of GOD was, that GOD willeth something in us, and something from us, and that what he willeth from us he hath revealed to us; for which reason he thought it preposterous that we should employ our thoughts about those things which GOD willeth in us, and neglect those which he willeth from us: and as to GOD'S decree, he held that the way lay in the middle, and that there was neither compulsion nor free liberty.1 A tenet of the Khattâbians, or disciples of one Abu'l Khattab, is too peculiar to be omitted. These maintained paradise to be no other than the pleasures of this world, and hell fire to be the pains thereof, and that the world will never decay: which proposition being first laid down, it is no wonder they went farther, and declared it lawful to indulge themselves in drinking wine and whoring, and to do other things forbidden by the law, and also to omit doing the things commanded by the law.2 Many of the Shiites carried their veneration for Ali and his descendants so far, that they transgressed all bounds of reason and decency; though some of them were less extravagant than others. The Gholâïtes, who had their name from their excessive zeal for their Imâms, were so highly transported therewith, that they raised them above the degree of created beings, and attributed divine properties to them; trans-
2 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 261. Abulfar. p. 169. 3 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 262. 4 Idem, ibid. Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art. Schiah. 5 Vide Poc. ibid. 1 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 263. 2 Idem. et Ebn al Kossá, ibid. p. 260, &c.
gressing on either hand, by deifying of mortal men, and by making GOD corporeal: for one while they liken one of their Imâms to GOD, and another while they liken GOD to a creature.3 The sects of these are various, and have various appellations in different countries. Abd'allah Ebn Saba (who had been a Jew, and had asserted the same thing of Joshua the son of Nun) was the ringleader of one of them. This man gave the following salutation to Ali, viz., "Thou art Thou," i.e., Thou art GOD: and hereupon the Gholâïtes became divided into several species; some maintaining the same thing, or something like it, of Ali, and others of some of one of his descendants; affirming that he was not dead, but would return again in the clouds, and fill the earth with justice.4 But howmuchsoever they disagreed in other things, they unanimously held a metempsychosis, and what they call al Holûl, or the descent of GOD on his creatures; meaning thereby that GOD is present in every place, and speaks with every tongue, and appears in some individual person:5 and hence some of them asserted their Imâms to be prophets, and at length gods.6 The Nosairians and the Ishâkians taught that spiritual substances appear in grosser bodies; and that the angels and the devil have appeared in this manner. They also assert that GOD hath appeared in this manner. They also assert that GOD hath appeared in the form of certain men; and since, after Mohammed, there hath been no man more excellent than Ali, and, after him, his sons have excelled all other men, that GOD hath appeared in their form, spoken with their tongue, and made use of their hands; for which reason, say they, we attribute divinity to them.1 And to support these blasphemies, they tell several miraculous things of Ali, as his moving the gates of Khaibar,2 which they urge as a plain proof that he was endued with a particle of divinity and with sovereign power, and that he was the person in whose form GOD appeared, with whose hands he created all things, and with whose tongue he published his commands; and therefore they say he was in being before the creation of heaven and earth.3 In so impious a manner do they seem to wrest those things which are said in scripture of CHRIST by applying them to Ali. These extravagant fancies of the Shiites, however, in making their Imâms in laying claim thereto, are so far from being peculiar to this sect, that most of the other Mohammedan sects are tainted with the same madness; there being many found among them, and among the Sûfis especially, who pretend to be nearly related to heaven, and who boast of strange revelations before the credulous people.4 It may not be amiss to hear what al Ghazâli has written on this occasion. "Matters are come to that pass," says he, "that some boast of an union with GOD, and of discoursing familiarly with him, without the interposition of a veil, saying, 'It hath been thus said to us,' and 'We have thus spoken;' affecting to imitate Hosein al Hallâj, who was put to death for some words of this kind uttered by him, he having said (as was proved by credible witnesses), 'I am the Truth,'5 or Abu Yazîd al Bastâmi, of whom it is related that he often used the expression,
3 Idem, ibid. 4 Idem, ibid. p. 264. Vide Marracc. Prodr. part iii. p. 80, &c. 5 Idem, ibid. p. 265. 6 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Or. Art. Hakem Beamrillah. 1 Idem, ibid. Abulfar. p. 169. 2 See Prid. Life of Mah. p. 93. 3 Al Shah. ubi sup. p. 266. 4 Poc. Spec. p. 267. 5 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art. Hallage.
'Sobhâni,' i.e., 'Praise be unto me!'6 But this way of talking is the cause of great mischief among the common people; insomuch that husbandmen, neglecting the tillage of their land, have pretended to the like privileges; nature being tickled with discourses of this kind, which furnish men with an excuse for leaving their occupations, under pretence of purifying their souls, and attaining I know not what degrees and conditions. Nor is there anything to hinder the most stupid fellows from forming the like pretensions and catching at such vain expressions: for whenever what they say is denied to be true, they fail not to reply that our unbelief proceeds from learning and logic; affirming learning to be a veil, and logic the work of the mind; wherein what they tell us appears only within, being discovered by the light of truth. But this is that truth the sparks whereof have flown into several countries and occasioned great mischiefs; so that it is more for the advantage of GOD'S true religion to put to death one of those who utter such things than to bestow life on ten others."1 Thus far have we treated of the chief sects among the Mohammedans of the first ages, omitting to say anything of the more modern sects, because the same are taken little or no notice of by their own writers, and would be of no use to our present design.2 It may be proper, however, to mention a word or two of the great schism at this day subsisting between the Sonnites and the Shiites, or partisans of Ali, and maintained on either side with implacable hatred and furious zeal. Though the difference arose at first on a political occasion, it has, notwithstanding, been so well improved by additional circumstances and the spirit of contradiction, that each party detest and anathematize the other as abominable heretics, and farther from the truth than either the Christians or the Jews.3 The chief points wherein they differ are- I. That the Shiites reject Abu Becr, Omar, and Othmân, the three first Khalîfs, as usurpers and intruders; whereas the Sonnites acknowledge and respect them as rightful Imâms. 2. The Shiites prefer Ali to Mohammed, or, at least, esteem them both equal; but the Sonnites admit neither Ali nor any of the prophets to be equal to Mohammed. 3. The Sonnites charge the Shiites with corrupting the Korân and neglecting its precepts, and the Shiites retort the same charge on the Sonnites. 4. The Sonnites receive the Sonna, or book of traditions of their prophet, as of canonical authority; whereas the Shiites reject it as apocryphal and unworthy of credit. And to these disputes, and some others of less moment, is principally owing to the antipathy which has long reigned between the Turks, who are Sunnites, and the Persians, who are of the sect of Ali. It seems strange that Spinosa, had he known of no other schism among the Mohammedans, should yet never have heard of one so publicly notorious as this between the Turks and Persians; but it is plain he did not, or he would never have assigned it as the reason of his preferring the order of the Mohammedan church to that of the Roman, that there have arisen no schisms in the former since its birth.4
6 Vide Ibid. Art. Bastham. 1 Al Ghazâli, apud Poc. ubi sup. 2 The reader may meet with some account of them in Ricaut's State of the Ottom. Empire, l. 2, c. 12. 3 Vide ibid. c. 10, and Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. ii. p. 169, 170, &c. 4 The words of the Spinosa are: "Ordinem Romanæ ecclesiæ-politicum et plurimis lucrosum esse fateor; nec ad decipiendam plebem, et hominum animos coercendrum commo-
As success in any project seldom fails to draw in imitators, Mohammed's having raised himself to such a degree of power and reputation by acting the prophet, induced others to imagine they might arrive at the same height by the same means. His most considerable competitors in the prophetic office were Moseilama and al Aswad, whom the Mohammedans usually call the two liars. The former was of the tribe of Honeifa, who inhabited the province of Yamâma, and a principal man among them. He headed an embassy sent by his tribe to Mohammed in the ninth year of the Hejra, and professed himself a Moslem:1 but on his return home, considering that he might possibly share with Mohammed in his power, the next year he set up for a prophet also, pretending to be joined with him the commission to recall mankind from idolatry to the worship of the true GOD;2 and he published written revelations, in imitation of the Korân, of which Abulfargius3 has preserved the following passage, viz.: "now hath GOD been gracious unto her that was with child, and hath brought forth from her the soul, which runneth between the peritonæum and the bowels." Moseilama, having formed a considerable party among those of Honeifa, began to think himself upon equal terms with Mohammed, and sent him a letter, offering to go halves with him,4 in these words: "From Moseilama the apostle of GOD, to Mohammed the apostle of GOD. Now let the earth be half mine, and half thine." But Mohammed, thinking himself too well established to need a partner, wrote him this answer: "From Mohammed the apostle of GOD, to Moseilama the liar. The earth is GOD'S: he giveth the same for inheritance unto such of his servants as he pleaseth; and the happy issue shall attend those who fear him."5 During the few months which Mohammed lived after this revolt, Moseilama rather gained than lost ground, and grew very formidable; but Abu Becr, his successor, in the eleventh year of the Hejra, sent a great army against him, under the command of that consummate general, Khâled Ebn al Walîd, who engaged Moseilama in a bloody battle, wherein the false prophet, happening to be slain by Wahsha, the negro slave who had killed Hamza at Ohod, and by the same lance,6 the Moslems gained an entire victory, ten thousand of the apostates being left dead on the spot, and the rest returning to Mohammedism.7 Al Aswad, whose name was Aihala, was of the tribe of Ans, and governed that and the other tribes of Arabs descended from Madhhaj.1 This man was likewise an apostate from Mohammedism, and set up for himself the very year that Mohammed died.2 He was surnamed Dhu'lhemâr, or the master of the ass, because he used frequently to say, "The master of the ass is coming unto me;"3 and pretended to receive his revelations from two angels, named Sohaik and Shoraik.4 Having a good hand at legerdemain, and a smooth tongue, he gained mightily on the multitude by the strange feats which he showed them,
diorem isto crederem, ni ordo Mahumedanæ ecclesiæ esset, qui longè eundem antecellit. Nam à quo tempore hæc superstitio incepit, nulla in eorum ecclesia schismata orta sunt." Opera Posth. p. 613. 1 Abulfed. p. 160. 2 Idem, Elmac. p. 9. 3 Hist. Dynast. p. 164. 4 Abulfed. ubi sup. 5 Al Beidâwi, in Kor. c. 5. 6 Abulfed. ubi sup. 7 Idem, ibid. Abulfarag, p. 173. Elmac. p. 16, &c. See Ockley's Hist. of the Saracens, vol. i. p. 15, &c. 1 Al Soheili, apud Gagnier. in not. ad Abulf. Vit. Moh. p. 158. 2 Elmac. p. 9. 3 Abulfed ubi sup. 4 Al Soheili, ubi sup.
and the eloquence of his discourse:5 by these means he greatly increased his power, and having made himself master of Najrân, and the territory of al Tâyef,6 on the death of Badhân, the governor of Yaman for Mohammed, he seized that province also, killing Shahr, the son of Badhân, and taking to wife his widow, whose father, the uncle of Firûz the Deilamite, he had also slain.7 These news being brought to Mohammed, he sent to his friends, and to those of Hamdân, a party of whom, conspiring with Kais Ebn Abd'al Yaghûth, who bore Al Aswad a grudge, and with Firûz, and al Aswad's wife, broke by night into his house, where Firûz surprised him and cut off his head. While he was dispatching he roared like a bull; at which his guards came to the chamber door, but were sent away by his wife, who told them the prophet was only agitated by the divine inspiration. This was done the very night before Mohammed died. The next morning the conspirators caused the following proclamation to be made, viz.: "I bear witness that Mohammed is the apostle of GOD, and that Aihala is a liar;" and letters were immediately sent away to Mohammed, with an account of what had been done: but a messenger from heaven outstripped them, and acquainted the prophet with the news, which he imparted to his companions but a little before his death; the letters themselves not arriving till Abu Becr was chosen Khalîf. It is said that Mohammed, on this occasion, told those who attended him that before the day of judgment thirty more impostors, besides Moseilama and al Aswad, should appear, and every one of them set up for a prophet. The whole time, from the beginning of al Aswad's rebellion to his death, was about four months.8 In the same eleventh year of the Hejra, but after the death of Mohammed, as seems most probable, Toleiha Ebn Khowailed set up for a prophet, and Sejâj Bint al Mondar1 for a prophetess. Toleiha was of the tribe of Asad, which adhered to him, together with great numbers of the tribes of Ghatfân and Tay. Against them likewise was Khâled sent, who engaged and put them to flight, obliging Toleiha, with his shattered troops, to retire into Syria, where he stayed till the death of Abu Becr: then he went to Omar and embraced Mohammedism in his presence, and, having taken the oath of fidelity to him, returned to his own country and people.2 Sejâj, surnamed Omm Sâder, was of the tribe of Tamîm, and the wife of Abu Cahdala, a soothsayer of Yamâma. She was followed not only by those of her own tribe, but by several others. Thinking a prophet the most proper husband for her, she went to Moseilama, and married him; but after she had stayed with him three days, she left him and returned home.3 What became of her afterwards I do not find. Ebn Shohnah has given us part of the conversation which passed at the interview between those two pretenders to inspiration; but the same is a little too immodest to be translated. In succeeding ages several impostors from time to time started up most of whom quickly came to nothing: but some made a considerable figure, and propagated sects which continued long after their decease.
5 Abulfed. ubi sup. 6 Idem, et Elmac. ubi sup. 7Idem, al Jannâbi, ubi sup. 8 Idem, ibid. 1 Ebn Shohnah andElmacinus call her the daughter of al Hareth. 2 Elmac, p. 16, alBeidâwi, in Kor. c. 5. 3 Ebn Shohnah. Vide Elmac. p. 16.
I shall give a brief account of the most remarkable of them, in order of time. In the reign of al Mohdi, the third Khalîf of the race of al Abbâs, one Hakem Ebn Hâshem4, originally of Merû, in Khorasân, who had been an under- secretary to Abu Moslem, the governor of that province, and afterwards turned soldier, passed thence into Mawarâlnahr, where he gave himself out for a prophet. He is generally named by the Arab writers al Mokanna, and sometimes al Borkaí, that is, "the veiled," because he used to cover his face with a veil, or a gilded mask, to conceal his deformity, having lost an eye in the ward, and being otherwise of a despicable appearance; though his followers pretended he did it for the same reasons as Moses did, viz., lest the splendour of his countenance should dazzle the eyes of the beholders. He made a great many proselytes at Nakhshab and Kash, deluding the people with several juggling performances, which they swallowed for miracles, and particularly by causing the appearance of a moon to rise out of a well, for many nights together; whence he was also called, in the Persian tongue, Sâzendeh mah, or the moonmaker. This impious impostor, not content with being reputed a prophet, arrogated divine honours to himself, pretending that the deity resided in his person: and the doctrine whereon he built this was the same with that of the Gholâïtes above mentioned, who affirmed a transmigration or successive manifestation of the divinity through and in certain prophets and holy men, from Adam to these latter days (of which opinion was also Abu Moslem himself);1 but the particular doctrine of al Mokanna was, that the person in whom the deity had last resided was the aforesaid Abu Moslem, and that the same had, since his death, passed into himself. The faction of al Mokanna, who had made himself master of several fortified places in the neighbourhood of the cities above mentioned, growing daily more and more powerful, the Khalîf was at length obliged to send an army to reduce him; at the approach whereof al Mokanna retired into one of his strongest fortresses, which he had well provided for a siege, and sent his emissaries abroad to pursuade people that he raised the dead to life, and knew future events. But, being straitly besieged by the Khalîf's forces, when he found there was no possibility for him to escape, he gave poison, in wine, to his whole family, and all that were with him in the castle; and when they were dead he burnt their bodies, together with their clothes, and all the provisions and cattle; and then, to prevent his own body's being found, he threw himself into the flames, or, as others say, into a tub of aqua fortis, or some other preparation, which consumed every part of him, except only his hair: so that when the besiegers entered the place, they found no creature in it, save one of al Mokanna's concubines, who, suspecting his design, had hid herself, and discovered the whole matter. This contrivance, however, failed not to produce the effect which the impostor designed among the remaining part of his followers; for he had promised them that his soul should transmigrate into the form of a grey- headed man riding on a greyish beast, and that after so many years he would return
4 Or Ebn Atâ, according to Ebn Shohnan. 1 This explain a doubt of Mr. Bayle concerning a passage of Elmacinus, as translated by Erpenius, and corrected by Bespier. Vide Bayle, Dic. Hist. Art. Abumuslimus, vers la fin, et Rem. B.
to them, and give them the earth for their possession: the expectation of which promise kept the sect in being for several ages after under the name of Mobeyyidites, or, as the Persians call them, Sefid jâmehghiân, i.e., the clothed in white, because they wore their garments of that colour, in opposition, as is supposed, to the Khalîfs of the family of Abbâs, whose banners and habits were black. The historians place the death of al Mokanna in the 162nd or 163rd year of the Hejra.2 In the year of the Hejra 201, Bâbec, surnamed al Khorremi, and Khorremdîn, either because he was of a certain district near Ardebîl in Adherbijân, called Khorrem, or because he instituted a merry religion, which is the signification of the word in Persian, began to take on him the title of a prophet. I do not find what doctrine he taught; but it is said he professed none of the religions then known in Asia. He gained a great number of devotees in Adherbijân and the Persian Irâk, and grew powerful enough to wage war with the Khalîf al Mámún, whose troops he often beat, killing several of his generals, and one of them with his own hand; and by these victories he became so formidable that al Mótasem, the successor of al Mámûn, was obliged to employ the forces of the whole empire against him. The general sent to reduce Bâbec was Afshîd, who having overthrown him in battle, took his castles one after another with invincible patience, notwithstanding the rebels gave him great annoyance, and at last shut up the impostor in his principal fortress; which being taken, Bâbec found means to escape thence in disguise, with some of his family and principal followers; but taking refuge in the territories of the Greeks, was betrayed in the following manner. Sahel, an Armenian officer, happening to know Bâbec, enticed him, by offers of service and respect, into his power, and treated him as a mighty prince, till, when he sat down to eat, Sahel clapped himself down by him; at which Bâbec being surprised, asked him how he dared to take that liberty unasked? "It is true, great king," replied Sahel, "I have committed a fault; for who am I, that I should sit at your majesty's table?" And immediately sending for a smith, he made use of this bitter sarcasm, "Stretch forth your legs, great king, that this man may put fetters on them." After this Sahel sent him to Afshîd, though he had offered a large sum for his liberty, having first served him in his own kind, by causing his mother, sister, and wife to be ravished before his face; for so Bâbec used to treat his prisoners. Afshîd, having the arch-rebel in his power, conducted him to al Mótasem, by whose order he was put to an ignominious and cruel death. This man had maintained his ground against the power of the Khalîfs for twenty years, and had cruelly put to death above two hundred and fifty thousand people; it being his custom never to spare man, woman, or child, either of the Mohammedans or their allies.3 The sectaries of Bâbec which remained after his death seem to have been entirely dispersed, there being little or no mention made of them by historians.