DICTIONARY OF ISLĀM. (continued 26)

Sūrah iv. 169: “Ye people of the book! commit not extravagance in your religion; and say not of God other than the truth. For verily the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, is an apostle of God, and His word which he placed in Mary, and a spirit from Him. Wherefore believe in God, and in His apostle; and say not,—“the Trinity”;—refrain; it will be better for you. For verily God is one God;—far exalted is He above the possibility that there should be unto Him progeny! to Him belongeth whatever is in the heavens and in the earth, and He sufficeth as a guardian.”

Sūrah iii. 2: “God! there is no God but He, the living, the eternal. He hath caused to descend upon thee the Scripture in truth, attesting that which is before it: and He sent down the Tourât and the Gospel from before for the guidance of mankind; and He sent down the Furqān. Verily they that reject the signs of God, to them shall be a fearful punishment. And God is mighty, a God of vengeance.”

Sūrah iii. 19: “And those to whom the book was given, did not fall to variance until after that the knowledge came unto them, wickedly among themselves.”

Sūrah iii. 23: “Seest thou not those to whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given? They were called unto the book of God, that it might decide between them. Then a party of them turned away, and went aside. That was because they say,—the fire shall not touch us, but for a limited number of days. And that which they have devised hath deceived them in their religion.”

Sūrah iii. 48: “And (God) shall teach Him (Jesus) the Scripture, and wisdom, and the Tourât, and the Gospel;—and (shall send Him as) an Apostle unto the Children of Israel. (Jesus shall say) Verily I have come unto you— … attesting the truth of that which (Scripture revealed) before me in the Tourât, and that I may make lawful unto you a part of that which is forbidden unto you.”

Sūrah iii. 64: “O ye people of the Book! why do ye dispute concerning Abraham?—seeing that neither the Tourât nor the Gospel was revealed until after him; do ye not understand? Ah! ye are they which dispute concerning that of which ye have knowledge: why, therefore, do ye dispute concerning that of which ye have no knowledge? and God knoweth, but ye know not.”

Sūrah iii. 68: “A party of the People of the Book desire to cause thee to go astray: but they shall not cause (any) to go astray, excepting their own souls, and they perceive it not. Oh People of the Book! why do ye reject the signs of God, while ye bear testimony (thereto)? O people of the Book! why do ye clothe the truth with that which is false, and hide the truth, while ye know (it)? and a party of the people of the book say,—Believe in that which is sent down unto those that believe, in the early part of the day; and reject (it, in) the latter part thereof; if haply they may turn back: and, believe not (any) excepting him that followeth your religion. Say,—Verily the direction is the direction of God, that there should be given unto one (i.e. to Muḥammad, a revelation) like unto that which hath been given unto you. Or, will they dispute with you before your Lord? say,—Verily favour is in the hand of God: He giveth it unto whomsoever He pleaseth; and God is widely comprehensive (in His mercy) and wise.”

Sūrah iii. 77: “And verily amongst them is a party that twist their tongues in (reading) the book, that ye may think it is out of the book, though it is not out of the book; and they say,—‘it is from God,’ and it is not from God; and they speak a falsehood concerning God, knowingly.”

Sūrah iii. 78: “It becometh not a man that God should give him a book, and wisdom, and prophecy, and that he should then say to mankind, Be worshippers of me besides God; but rather, Be ye perfect, inasmuch as ye know the book, and inasmuch as ye study it.”

Sūrah iii. 80: “And (call to mind) when God made a covenant with the prophets, (saying) This verily is the book and the wisdom which I have given unto you; thereafter shall come an Apostle attesting the truth of that (Scripture) which is with you; ye shall surely believe in him, and assist him.”

Sūrah iii. 93: “All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, excepting that which Israel made unlawful to himself, before the Tourât was revealed. Say,—Bring hither the Tourât, and read it, if ye be true. And whoever contriveth a lie concerning God after that, surely they are the transgressors.”

Sūrah iii. 99: “Say, O ye People of the Book! why do ye disbelieve in the signs of God, and God is witness of that which ye do? Say, O ye People of the Book! why do ye hinder from the way of God him that believeth, desiring to make it (the way of God) crooked, while ye are witnesses?”

Sūrah iii. 113: “They are not all alike. Amongst the People of the Book there is an upright race that read the signs (or revelations) of God in the night season, and they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day, and command that which is just and dissuade from that which is wicked, and they make haste in doing good works. These are the virtuous ones.”

Sūrah iii. 119: “Behold, ye are they that love them (the Jews) and they do not love you, and ye believe in the entire Scripture.”

Sūrah iii. 184: “They who say that God hath made a covenant with us, to the effect that we should not believe on an apostle until he cometh unto us with a sacrifice to be consumed by fire;—say,—Verily apostles have come unto you before me, with evident demonstrations, and with that of which ye speak. Why, therefore, have ye slain them, if ye be true? and if they accuse thee of imposture, verily the apostles before thee have been accused of imposture, who came with evident demonstrations, and the Scriptures, and the enlightening book.”

Sūrah iii. 188: “And when God took a covenant from those to whom the book was given,—that they should unfold the same to mankind, and that they should not conceal it, and they threw it (the covenant) behind their backs, and sold it for a small price, and woeful is that which they have sold it for; think not that they who rejoice in that which they have done, and desire to be praised for that which they have not done, shall escape from punishment. To them shall be a grievous punishment.”

Sūrah iii. 199: “And verily of the People of the Book there are those who believe in God, and in that which hath been revealed to you, and in that which hath been revealed to them, submissive unto God; they sell not the signs of God for a small price. These are they who have their reward with their Lord; for God is swift in taking account.”

Sūrah v. 14–16: “And for that they have broken their covenant, We have cursed them, and We have made their hearts hard; they dislocate the word from its place, and they have forgotten a part of that whereby they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover deceit in them, excepting a few of them. But pardon them, and forgive, for God loveth the beneficent. And of those that say, We are Christians, we have taken a covenant from them, and they have forgotten a part of that whereby they were admonished. Wherefore We have placed enmity and hatred between them, until the Day of Judgment; and God will surely then declare unto them that which they have wrought. O people of the Book! verily your apostle hath come unto you; he shall make manifest unto you much of that which ye have hidden of the book, and he shall pass over much.”

Sūrah v. 47: “O thou apostle! let not those grieve thee who make haste after infidelity from amongst them that say, ‘We believe,’ with their mouths, but their hearts believe not. And from amongst the Jews there are that spy out in order to tell a falsehood; they spy out for another people that come not unto thee. They dislocate the word from out of its place. They say, ‘If this be given you, then receive it—but if it be not given you, then beware.’ ”

Sūrah v. 50: “And how will they make thee their judge, since they have beside them the Tourât, in which is the command of God? Then they will turn their back after that, and these are not believers. Verily We have revealed the Tourât; therein is guidance and light. The prophets that submitted themselves to God judged thereby those that were Jews; and the doctors and priests (did the same), in accordance with that which was confided to their charge of the book of God, and they were witnesses thereof. Wherefore fear not man, but fear Me, and sell not thou the signs of God for a small price. And he that doth not judge by that which God hath revealed, verily they are the unbelievers. And We have written for them,—verily life for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth; and for wounding retaliation; and he that remitteth the same as alms it shall be an atonement unto him. And he that judgeth not by that which God hath sent down, they are the transgressors. And We caused Jesus, the Son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, attesting the Scripture of the Tourât which preceded it; and We gave Him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, which attests the Tourât that preceded it, and a direction and an admonition to the pious;—that the people of the Gospel might judge according to that which God hath revealed therein, and he that doth not judge according to that which God hath revealed, verily they are the flagitious ones. And We have revealed unto thee the book in truth, attesting that (Scripture) which precedeth it, and a custodian (or a witness) thereof. Wherefore judge between them in accordance with that which God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires (by swerving) away from that which hath come unto thee. To every one of you have We given a law and a way; and if God had pleased, He had made you all of one faith;—but (He hath not done so, in order) that He might try you in that which He hath given you.”

Sūrah v. 68: “Say,—O people of the Book! is there any other cause of your enmity against us, but that we believe in God, and in that which hath been revealed unto us, and in that which hath been revealed from before?—but the most of you are evil doers.”

Sūrah v. 77: “Say,—O ye people of the Book! ye are not grounded upon anything, until ye set up (or observe) the Tourât and the Gospel, and that which hath been revealed unto you from your Lord.”

Sūrah v. 91: “Thou wilt surely find the most bitter amongst mankind in their hatred towards those that believe to be the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt surely find the most friendly inclined amongst them towards the believers, to be those who say, We are Christians. That is because there are amongst them clergy and monks, and they are not arrogant. When they hear that which hath been revealed to the prophet, thou wilt see their eyes flowing with tears because of that which they recognise of the truth. They say, O our Lord! we believe; write us down with the witnesses; and what should hinder us that we should not believe in God, and in that which hath come unto us of the truth? and we desire that our Lord should introduce us amongst the righteous. God hath rewarded them for that which they have said, with gardens through which flow rivulets. They shall be for ever therein and that is the reward of the virtuous.”

Sūrah v. 119: “And (call to mind) when God said,—O Jesus, Son of Mary! remember My favour towards thee, and towards thy Mother, when I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit, that thou shouldest speak unto man, in the cradle, and also in mature age; and I taught thee the Scriptures, and wisdom, and the Tourât, and the Gospel; and when thou madest of clay in the form of a bird by My command, and thou blewest thereupon, and it became a bird by My command; and thou healedst the blind and the leper by My command; and when thou didst raise the dead by My command.… And when I spake by inspiration unto the apostles, saying,—Believe in Me, and in My apostle (i.e. Jesus;) they said,—We believe; bear witness that we are true believers.”

Sūrah lxvi. 13: “And Mary the daughter of Imrān, who preserved her virginity; and We breathed into her of Our spirit, and she attested the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was amongst the pious.”

Sūrah ix. 113: “Verily, God hath bought from the believers their selves and their wealth, on the condition of paradise for them if they fight in the ways of God:—and whether they slay or be slain, the promise of God thereupon is true in the Tourât, and in the Gospel, and in the Qurʾān.” [CHRISTIANITY, JEWS, JUDAISM.]

OMER. [ʿUMAR.]

OMMIADES. Arabic Banū Umaiyah (بنو امية‎), or ad-Daulatu ʾl-Umawīyah (الدولة الاموية‎). The dynasty of K͟halīfahs who reigned from A.H. 41 (A.D. 661) to A.H. 132 (A.D. 750), descended from Muʿāwiyah, who was the great grandson of Umaiyah of the Quraish tribe. Muʿāwiyah, the son of Abū Sufyān, took possession of the K͟halīfate on the death of al-Ḥasan, and established his capital at Damascus. The dynasty includes the names of fourteen K͟halīfahs.

1. Muʿāwiyah, A.H. 41.

2. Yazīd (son of Muʿāwiyah), A.H. 60.

3. Muʿāwiyah II. (son of Yazīd), A.H. 64.

4. Marwān I. (son of al-Ḥakam), A.H. 64.

5. ʿAbdu ʾl Malik (son of Marwān), A.H. 65.

6. Al-Walīd (son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik), A.H. 86.

7. Sulaimān (son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik), A.H. 96.

8. ʿUmar II. (son of ʿAbdu ʾl-ʿAzīz, son of Marwān), A.H. 99.

9. Yazīd II. (son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik), A.H. 101.

10. Hishām (son of ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik), A.H. 105.

11. Al-Walīd II. (son of Yazīd), A.H. 125.

12. Yazīd III. (son of al-Walīd), A.H. 126.

13. Ibrāhīm (son of al-Walīd), A.H. 126.

14. Marwān II. (son of Muḥammad, son of Marwān), A.H. 127–132.

The Abbasides conquered K͟horasan under the brothers Ibrāhīm and Abū ʾl-ʿAbbās, and refused to acknowledge Marwān. Marwān was afterwards defeated on the banks of the Zab, and fled to Egypt, where he was again defeated and slain, A.H. 132 (A.D. 750), and Abū ʾl-ʿAbbās was proclaimed K͟halīfah. [KHALIFAH.]

OPTION. [KHIYAR.]

ORDINATION. There is no ceremony in Islām corresponding to the Christian ordination. Sometimes the Imām of a mosque is appointed by the chief man of position binding a turban round his head. In Central Asia, Maulawīs of reputation certify as to the learning and ability of their disciples by binding a turban on their heads and authorizing them to teach. But it is not a custom of the Muslim religion.

ORNAMENTS. Men are prohibited from the use of ornaments of gold, such as rings and the like, because they are expressly forbidden by the Prophet. Ornaments of silver are likewise unlawful, but exceptions are made with respect to signet rings, girdles, or swords, which may be ornamented with silver. (Hidāyah, vol. iv. p. 92). Ibn Zubair says the Prophet condemned the use of little bells as ornaments for children, for he said there was a devil in every bell. Ibn Mālik says the Prophet forbade the wearing of gold rings, and he considered it just as bad to use gold ornaments. (Mishkāt, book xx. ch. ii.)

The Wahhābīs condemn the use of ornaments and silk dresses.

ORPHANS. Arabic yatīm (يتيم‎), pl. yatāmā. In Muḥammadan law, the term is used for a child whose father is dead.

Muḥammad gave very special instructions in the Qurʾān as to the treatment of orphans. See Sūrah iv. 2–7:—

“And give to the orphans their property and substitute not worthless things of your own for their valuable ones, and enjoy not their property in addition to your own; verily this is a great crime: and if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans, then, of other women who seem good in your eyes, marry but two, or three, or four; and if ye still fear that ye shall not act equitably, then one only, or the slaves whom ye have acquired; this will make justice on your part easier. And give women their dowry as a free gift; but if of their own free will they kindly give up aught thereof to you, then enjoy it as convenient and profitable. And entrust not to the incapable the substance which God hath placed with you as a means of support, but maintain them therewith; and clothe them, and speak to them with kindly speech. And make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; and if ye perceive in them a sound judgment, then hand over their substance to them; but consume ye it not profusely and hastily. Only because they have attained their majority. And let the rich guardian not even touch it; and let him who is poor, then use it for his support with discretion. And when ye make over their substance to them, then take witnesses in their presence. God also taketh a sufficient account.”

According to al-Baiẓāwī and the Jalālān, the Muslim commentators understand these verses differently. Mr. Sale says the true meaning seems to be: Muḥammad, advising his followers that if they found they should wrong the female orphans under their care, either by marrying them against their inclinations, for the sake of their riches or beauty, or by not using or maintaining them so well as they ought by reason of their having already several wives, they should rather choose to marry other women, to avoid all occasion of sin. Others say that when this passage was revealed, many of the Arabians, fearing trouble and temptation, refused to take upon them the charge of orphans, and yet multiplied wives to a great excess and used them ill or, as others write, gave themselves up to fornication, which occasioned the passage. And according to these, its meaning must be either that if they feared they could not act justly towards orphans, they had as great reason to apprehend they could not deal equitably with so many wives, and therefore are commanded to marry but a certain number; or else, that since fornication was a crime as well as a wronging of orphans, they ought to avoid that also by marrying according to their abilities.

OTHMAN. [ʿUSMAN.]

OUTLAWS. (1) An Apostate, if he escapes to another country, is an outlaw. (2) A fornicator should be expelled from his country and be an outlaw for a whole year.

P.

PAIG͟HĀMBAR (پيغامبر‎). The Persian and Hindustānī translation of the Arabic Rasūl (رسول‎), and Nabī (نبى‎). [PROPHET.]

PARACLETE. [FARAQLIT.]

PARADISE. The Muḥammadan Paradise is called al-Jannah (الجنة‎), “the garden,” pl. jannāt, in Arabic; and Bihisht (بهشت‎), in Persian; the word al-Firdaus (الفردوس‎), or Paradise, being restricted to one region in the celestial abodes of bliss. There are eight heavens or paradises mentioned in the Qurʾān, and although they appear to be but eight different names for the place of bliss, Muḥammadan divines have held them to be eight different stages.

They are as follows (see G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah):—

1. Jannatu ʾl-K͟huld (Sūratu ʾl-Furqān, xxv. 16), The Garden of Eternity.

2. Dāru ʾs-Salām (Sūratu ʾl-Anʿām, vi. 127), The Dwelling of Peace.

3. Dāru ʾl-Qarār (Sūratu ʾl-Muʾmin, xl. 42), The Dwelling which abideth.

4. Jannātu ʾl-ʿAdn (Sūratu ʾl-Barāʾah, ix. 73), The Gardens of Eden.

5. Jannātu ʾl-Maʾwā (Sūratu ʾs-Sajdah, xxxii. 19), The Gardens of Refuge.

6. Jannātu ʾn-Naʿīm (Sūratu ʾl-Māʾidah, v. 70), The Gardens of Delight.

7. ʿIllīyūn (Sūratu ʾt-Tat̤fīf, lxxxiii. 18).

8. Jannātu ʾl-Firdaus (Sūratu ʾl-Kahf, xviii. 107), The Gardens of Paradise.

These eight stages are spoken of as eight doors in the Mishkāt, book ii. ch. i.

The sensual delights of Muḥammad’s Paradise are proverbial, and they must have exercised a considerable influence upon the minds of the people to whom he made known his mission. There are frequent allusions to them in the Qurʾān. The following are specimen passages:—

Sūratu ʾl-Insān (lxxvi.), 12–22:—“God hath rewarded their constancy, with Paradise, and silken robes, reclining therein on bridal couches; nought shall they know of sun or piercing cold: its shades shall close over them, and low shall its fruits hang down: and vessels of silver and goblets like flagons shall be borne round among them: flagons of silver whose measure themselves shall mete. And there shall they be given to drink of the cup tempered with zanjabīl (ginger) from the fount therein whose name is Salsabīl (i.e. the softly flowing). Blooming youths go round among them. When thou lookest at them, thou wouldst deem them scattered pearls; and when thou seest this, thou wilt see delights and a vast kingdom; their clothing green silk robes and rich brocade: with silver bracelets shall they be adorned; and drink of a pure beverage shall their Lord give them. This shall be your recompense.”

Sūratu ʾl-Wāqiʿah (lvi.), 12–39: “In gardens of delight, a crowd of the former and a few of the later generations; on inwrought couches reclining on them face to face, blooming youths go round about them with goblets and ewers and a cup of flowing wine; their brows ache not from it, nor fails the sense: and with such fruits as shall please them best, and with flesh of such birds as they shall long for; and theirs shall be the Houris (Arabic ḥūr), with large dark eyes, like pearls hidden in their shells, in recompense for their labours past. No vain discourse shall they hear therein, nor charge of sin, but only cry ‘Peace! Peace!’… Unfailing, unforbidden, and on lofty couches and of a rare creation have we made the Houris, and we have made them ever virgins, dear to their spouses and of equal age, for the people of the right hand, a crowd of the former, and a crowd of the later generations.”

Sūratu ʾr-Raḥmān (lv.), 54–56: “On couches with linings of brocade shall they recline, and the fruit of the two gardens shall be within their easy reach.… Therein shall be the damsels with retiring glances, whom neither man nor jinn hath touched before them.”

Sūratu ʾl-Muḥammad (xlvii.), 16, 17: “Therein are rivers of water which corrupt not: rivers of milk, whose taste changeth not: and rivers of wine, delicious to those who quaff it; and rivers of clarified honey: and therein are all kinds of fruit for them from their Lord.”

The descriptions of the celestial regions and the enjoyments promised to the faithful are still more minutely given in the traditional sayings of the Prophet; see the Mishkāt, book xxiii. ch. xiii.

Abū Mūsā relates that “the Apostle of God said, Verily there is a tent for every Muslim in Paradise, it is made of one pearl, its interior empty, its breadth 60 kos, and in every corner of it will be his wives: and they shall not see one another. The Muslim shall love them alternately,” &c.

Abū Saʿīd relates that “the Apostle of God said, ‘He who is least amongst the people of Paradise, shall have eighty thousand slaves, and seventy-two women, and has a tent pitched for him of pearls, rubies, and emeralds.… Those who die in the world, young or old, are made of thirty years of age, and not more, when they enter Paradise.’ ”

Abū Saʿīd also relates that “the Apostle of God said, ‘Verily a man in Paradise reclines upon seventy cushions, before he turns on his other side. Then a woman of Paradise comes to him and pats him on the shoulder, and the man sees his face in her cheek, which is brighter than a looking-glass, and verily her most inferior pearl brightens the east and west. Then the woman makes a salām to him, which he returns; and the man says, “Who are you?” and she replies, “I am of the number promised of God for the virtuous.” And verily she will have seventy garments, and the man’s eyes will be fixed on them, till he will see the marrow of the bones of her legs through the calves of them, and she will have crowns on her head, the meanest pearl of which would give light between the east and west.’ ”

One of the attractions of Paradise is the river Kaus̤ar. [KAUSAR.] According to Anas, “the Apostle of God said, it is a river which God has given me in Paradise, its water is whiter than milk, and sweeter than honey, and on its waters are birds whose necks are like the necks of camel.”

The following is an instance of the way in which the Prophet endeavoured to suit his paradise to the tastes of the people:—

Abū Aiyūb says, “An Arab came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Apostle of God! I am fond of horses; are there any in Paradise?’ The Prophet replied, ‘If you are taken into Paradise, you will get a ruby horse, with two wings, and you will mount him, and he will carry you wherever you wish.’ ”

Abū Hurairah said, “Verily the Apostle of God said, when an Arab was sitting near him, that a man of the people of Paradise will ask permission of his Lord to cultivate land, and God will say, ‘Have you not everything you could wish for? What will you cultivate?’ The man will say, ‘Yes, everything is present, but I am fond of cultivating.’ Then he will be permitted to cultivate, and he will sow, and, quicker than the twinkling of an eye, it will grow, become ripe, and be reaped, and it will stand in sheaves like mountains.”

The apologists for Islām, Carlyle for example, have suggested that the sensual delights of Muḥammad’s paradise may, after all, be taken in a figurative sense, as the Revelation of St. John or the Song of Solomon. It is quite true that such an interpretation is hinted at in the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī (Thompson’s translation, p. 102), and Mr. Lane in his Egyptians (vol. i. p. 84) says that a Muslim of some learning considered the descriptions of Paradise figurative, but such is not the view held by Muḥammadan doctors, whether Sunnī, Shīʿah, or Wahhābī. They are all agreed as to the literal interpretation of the sensual enjoyments of the Muslim paradise, and very many are the books written giving minute particulars of the joys in store for the faithful.

Islām, true to its anti-Christian character, preaches a sensual abode of bliss, in opposition to the express teaching of our Lord in Matt. xxii. 30: “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Were proof needed, to show that the Prophet taught a real and literal interpretation of the sensual delights of the abodes of bliss, a tradition of high authority is found in the Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim (p. 379), vide also Mishkāt, book xxiii. ch. 13, in which the Prophet goes to some trouble to explain the sanitary laws of the heavenly kingdom, in the most literal manner possible.

Sir William Muir says: “It is remarkable that the notices in the Corân of this voluptuous Paradise are almost entirely confined to a time when, whatever the tendency of his desires, Mahomet was living chaste and temperate with a single wife of threescore years of age. Gibbon characteristically observes that ‘Mahomet has not specified the male companions of the female elect, lest he should either alarm the jealousy of the former husbands, or disturb their felicity by the suspicion of an everlasting marriage.’ The remark, made in raillery, is pregnant with reason, and aims a fatal blow at the Paradise of Islām. Faithful women will renew their youth in heaven as well as faithful men: why should not their good works merit an equal and analogous reward? But Mahomet shrank from this legitimate conclusion. It is noteworthy that in the Medîna Suras—that is in all the voluminous revelations of the ten years following the Hegira—women are only twice referred to as one of the delights of Paradise; and on both occasions in these simple words:—‘and to them (believers) there shall be therein pure wives.’ (Sūrah ii. 23, Sūrah iv. 60.) Was it that satiety had then left no longings unfulfilled; or that a closer contact with Judaism had repressed the budding pruriency of his revelation, and covered with confusion the picture of a sensual Paradise which had been drawn at Mecca?” (Life of Mahomet, new ed. p. 82 and note.)

Sir W. Muir has omitted a third passage, Sūrah iii. 13, where “women of stainless purity” are spoken of, but it is remarkable how much more restrained are the Prophet’s descriptions of Paradise in his later revelations. For example, Sūrah xiii. 23, 24, 35:—“Gardens of Eden—into which they shall enter together with the just of their fathers, and their wives and their descendants, and the angels shall go in unto them at every portal: Peace be with you, say they, because ye have endured all things.… The rivers flow beneath its bowers; its food and its shades are perpetual.”

PARDON FOR SIN. The words used to express pardon for sins on the part of the Almighty, are ʿAfw (عفو‎), Mag͟hfirah (مغفرة‎), and G͟hufrān (غفران‎). The act of seeking pardon is Istig͟hfār (استغفار‎).

The following is the teaching of the Qurʾān on the subject:—

Sūrah liii. 32, 33: “God’s is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, that He may reward those who do evil with evil, and those who do good with good. Those who shun great sins and iniquities—all but venial sins,—verily thy Lord is of ample forgiveness.

Sūrah lxvii. 12: “Verily those who fear their Lord in secret, for them is forgiveness and a great reward.”

Sūrah xxxiii. 71: “He (God) will correct you for your works and pardon you for your sins; for he who obeys God and His Apostle has attained a mighty happiness.”

Sūrah xxxv. 8: “Those who believe and do right, for them is forgiveness.”

Sūrah viii. 29: “O ye who believe! if ye fear God, He will make for you a discrimination, and will cover your offences and will forgive you; for God is the Lord of mighty grace.”

Repentance is expressed in the Qurʾān by the word Taubah (توبة‎), which the Imām an-Nawawī says means “turning the heart from sin.” (Commentary on Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, vol. ii. p. 354.) The word frequently occurs in the Qurʾān. For example:—

Sūrah iv. 20: “If they repent and amend, then let them be. Verily God relenteth. He is merciful.”

Sūrah xxv. 71: “Whoso hath repented and hath done what is right, verily it is he who turneth to God with a true conversion” (matāb).

The teaching of the traditions on the subject of repentance and pardon for sin is in some places exceedingly wild, as will be seen from the following selections taken from the sayings of the Prophet given in the Mishkāt, book x. ch. iii:—

“There was a man of the children of Israel, who killed ninety-nine people, after which he came out, asking if his repentance would be accepted; and having met a monk, he asked him, ‘Is there acceptance for my repentance?’ The monk said, ‘No.’ Then the man killed the monk, and stood asking people about the approval of his repentance. And a man said to him, ‘Come to such a village.’ Then the signs of immediate death were upon him, and he tried to reach the village upon his knees, and died on the way. Then the angels of mercy and punishment disputed about him. Then God ordered the village towards which the man had attempted to go to be near to the corpse; and the village which he had fled from to be far away from him. Then God said to the angels, ‘Compute, and measure the distance between the two villages.’ And it was found that the village towards which he was going was nearer to him by one span. And he was pardoned.”

“An incessant sinner has not sinned that has asked pardon, although he may have sinned seventy times a day, because asking pardon is the coverer of sin.”

“God has said, ‘Verily if you come before Me with sins equal to the dust of the earth, and then come before Me without associating anything with Me, verily I will come before you with the pardon equal to the dust of the earth.’”

“Verily God accepts of the repentance of His servant as long as his soul does not come into his throat.”

“I swear by God that verily I ask pardon of God and repent before Him more than seventy times daily.”

“Verily my heart is veiled with melancholy, and verily I ask pardon of God one hundred times a day.”

“Verily, when a true believer commits a sin, a black spot is created in his heart; and if he repents and asks pardon of God, the black spot is rubbed off his heart; but if he increases his sins, the black spot increases, so that it takes hold of the whole heart. Then this spot is a rust which God has mentioned in the Qurʾān, ‘their hearts became rusty from their works.’ ”

“Verily there were two men of the children of Israel who had a friendship for each other. One of them was a worshipper of God, and the other a sinner. The worshipper of God said to the sinner, ‘Give up sinning.’ He said, ‘Leave me to my Lord.’ At length he found him committing a very great sin, and said, ‘Give up sinning.’ The sinner said, ‘Leave me to my Lord. Were you sent as a guard over me?’ The worshipper said, ‘I swear by God He will not always forgive your sins, nor will He bring you into Paradise.’ Then God sent an angel to them, who took both their souls, and they both appeared before God together. And God said to the sinner, ‘Come into Paradise.’ And he said to the other: ‘What, can you prevent My compassion on my servant?’ He said, ‘I cannot, O my Lord.’ And God said to the angels, ‘Carry him to the fire.’ ”

PARENTAGE. The periods of six months and of two years are fixed as the shortest and longest periods of pregnancy, and consequently any child born within those periods is assumed to be the child of the woman’s husband, even though she be either a widow or divorced. This strange ruling of Muslim law is founded on a declaration of ʿĀyishah, who is related to have said, “The child does not remain in the womb of the mother beyond two years.”

The Imām ash-Shāfiʿī has said the longest period of pregnancy extends to four years. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. i. p. 383.)

If a person acknowledge the parentage of a child who is able to give an account of himself, and the ages of the parties are such as to admit of the one being the child of the other, and the parentage of the child be not well known to any person, and the child himself verify the statement, the parentage is established. (Ibid., vol. iii. p. 169.)

PARENTS, Duty to, is frequently enjoined in the Qurʾān; for example, Sūrah xvii. 24, 25: “Thy Lord hath decreed that ye shall not serve other than Him, and that ye shall be kind to your parents, whether one or both of them reach old age with thee; and ye must not say, ‘Fie!’ (Uff) nor grumble at them, but speak to them a generous speech. And lower to them the wing of humility out of compassion, and say, ‘O Lord! have compassion on them, as they brought me up when I was little!’ ”

PARISH. In connection with the mosques of cities and villages there are appointed districts not unlike English parishes. Within these districts the Imām of the mosque is hold responsible for the marriages and burials of the people, and his services can be claimed for these ceremonies, for which he receives customary fees. Any other Maulawī performing marriages or burials, is expected to obtain the permission of the Imām of the parish. In fact, the position of the Imām of a mosque is similar to that of a beneficed clergyman. He receives the marriage and burial fees, fees at the ceremony of circumcision, thank offerings on the birth of a child, or on recovery from sickness, presents on the festival days, &c., as well as the waqf, or endowment, of the mosque.

PARSĪ. [MAJUS.]

PARTURITION. [NIFAS.]

PATIENCE. Arabic ṣabr (صبر‎), is frequently enjoined in the Qurʾān, e.g. Sūrah ii. 148: “O ye who believe! seek help through patience and prayer; verily God is with the patient.”

PAWNING. [RAHN.]

PEN, The, of Fate. [QALAM.]

PENTATEUCH. [TAURAT.]

PESTILENCE. Arabic t̤āʿūn (طاعون‎), wabāʾ (وباء‎). According to the teaching of Muḥammad in the traditions, a pestilence is a punishment sent by God, it is also an occasion of martyrdom, and that Muslim who abides in the place where he is at the time of a pestilence, and dies of it, is admitted to the rank of a martyr. It is also enjoined that Musalmāns shall not enter a place where there is a pestilence raging, but remain where they are until it is passed. (Mishkāt, book v. ch. 1.)

PHARAOH. Arabic Firʿaun (فرعون‎). Heb. ‏פַּרְעֹה‎. The King of Egypt in the time of Moses. Considered by all Muḥammadans to be the very personification of wickedness.

Al-Baiẓāwī says Firʿaun was the common title of the kings of Egypt, just as Cæsar was that of the Roman Emperors, and that the name of Pharaoh, according to some, was al-Walīd ibn Muṣʿab, and according to others Muṣʿab ibn Raiyām, and according to others Qābūs, and that he lived 620 years. Abū ʾl-Fidāʾ says that Muṣʿab being 170 years old, and having no child, whilst he kept his herds, he saw a cow calf, and heard her say at the same time, “O Muṣʿab, be not grieved, thou shalt have a son, a wicked son, who shall be cast into hell,” and that this son was the wicked Firʿaun of the time of Moses.

In the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxviii. 11, he is surnamed Firʿaun Ẕū ʾl-Autād, or “Pharaoh the master of the Stakes, who called the Apostles liars.” Some say the stakes refer to the strength of his kingdom, others that they were instruments of torture and death which he used.

Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea, and the commentators say that Gabriel would not let his body sink, but that it floated as a sign and a warning to the children of Israel. (See Qurʾān, Sūrah x. 90–92.)

A further account of Pharaoh, as given in the Qurʾān, will be found in the article on Moses. The Pharaoh of Joseph’s time is said to be Raiyān ibn al-Walīd al-ʿAmlīqī, the ancestor of the renowned Pharaoh in the time of Moses. [MOSES.]

PHILOSOPHY, MUSLIM. Arabic falsafah (فلسفة‎), or ʿilmu ʾl-ḥikmah (علم الحكمة‎). The following account of Arabian philosophy is taken with permission from Professor Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy, translated by G. S. Morris, M.A. (Hodder and Stoughton), vol. i. p. 405:—

“The whole philosophy of the Arabians was only a form of Aristotelianism, tempered more or less with Neo-Platonic conceptions. The medical and physical science of the Greeks and Greek philosophy became known to the Arabs especially under the rule of the Abassidæ (from A.D. 750 on), when medical, and afterwards (from the time of the reign of Almamun, in the first half of the ninth century) philosophical works were translated from Greek into Syriac and Arabic by Syriac Christians. The tradition of Greek philosophy was associated with that combination of Platonism and Aristotelianism which prevailed among the last philosophers of antiquity, and with the study by Christian theologians of the Aristotelian logic as a formal organon of dogmatics; but in view of the rigid monotheism of the Mohammedan religion, it was necessary that the Aristotelian metaphysics, and especially the Aristotelian theology, should be more fully adopted among the Arabs than among the Neo-Platonists and Christians, and that in consequence of the union among the former of philosophical with medical studies, the works of Aristotle on natural science should be studied by them with especial zeal.

“Of the Arabian philosophers in the East, the most important were Alkendi (al-Kindī), who was still more renowned as a mathematician and astrologer; Alfarabi (al-Fārābī), who adopted the Neo-Platonic doctrine of emanation; Avicenna (Abū Sīnā), the representative of a purer Aristotelianism and a man who for centuries, even among the Christian scholars of the later mediæval centuries, stood in the highest consideration as a philosopher, and, still more, as a teacher of medicine; and, finally, Algazel (al-G͟hazzālī), who maintained a philosophical skepticism in the interest of theological orthodoxy.

“The most important Arabian philosophers in the West were Avempace (Ibn Badja), Abubacer (Abū Bakr Ibn T̤ufail), and Averroës (Ibn Rashīd). Avempace and Abubacer dwell in their works on the idea of the independent and gradual development of man. Abubacer (in his ‘Natural Man’) develops this idea in a spirit of opposition to positive religion, although he affirms that positive religion and philosophical doctrine pursue the same end, namely, the union of the human intellect with the divine. Averroës, the celebrated commentator of Aristotle, interprets the doctrine of the latter respecting the active and the passive intellect in a sense which is nearly pantheistic and which excludes the idea of individual immortality. He admits the existence of only one active intellect, and affirms that this belongs in common to the whole human race, that it becomes temporarily particularized in individuals, but that each of its emanations becomes finally reabsorbed in the original whole, in which alone, therefore, they possess immortality.

“The acquaintance of the Mohammedan Arabs with the writings of Aristotle was brought about through the agency of Syrian Christians. Before the time of Mohammed, many Nestorian Syrians lived among the Arabs as physicians. Mohammed also had intercourse with Nestorian monks. Hareth Ibn Calda, the friend and physician of the Prophet, was a Nestorian. It was not, however, until after the extension of the Mohammedan rule over Syria and Persia, and chiefly after the Abassidæ had commenced to reign (A.D. 750), that foreign learning, especially in medicine and philosophy, became generally known among the Arabs. Philosophy had already been cultivated in those countries during the last days of Neo-Platonism, by David the Armenian (about 500 A.D.; his Prolog. to Philos. and to the Isagoge, and his commentary on the Categ, in Brandis’ Collection of Scholia to Arist.; his works, Venice, 1823; on him cf. C. F. Neumann, Paris, 1829) and afterwards by the Syrians, especially Christian Syrians, translated Greek authors, particularly medical, but afterward philosophical authors also, first into Syriac, and then from Syriac into Arabic (or they, perhaps, made use also of earlier Syriac translations some of which are to-day extant).

“During the reign and at the instance of Almamun (A.D. 813–833), the first translations of works of Aristotle into Arabic were made, under the direction of Johannes Ibn-al-Batrik (i.e. the son of the Patriarch, who, according to Renan [l.l., p. 57], is to be distinguished from Johannes Mesue, the physician), these translations, in part still extant, were regarded (according to Abulfaragius, Histor. Dynast., p. 153 et al.) as faithful but inelegant.

“A man more worthy of mention is Honein Ibn Ishak (Johannitius), a Nestorian, who flourished under Motewakkel, and died in 876. Acquainted with the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek languages, he was at the head of a school of interpreters at Bagdad, to which his son Ishak Ben Honein and his nephew Hobeisch-el-Asam also belonged. The works not only of Aristotle himself, but also of several ancient Aristotelians (Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Themistius, and also Neo-Platonic exegetes, such as Porphyry and Ammonius), and of Galenus and others, were translated into (Syriac and) Arabic. Of these translations, also, some of those in Arabic are still existing, but the Syriac translations are all lost. (Honein’s Arabic translation of the Categories has been edited by Jul. Theod. Zenker, Leips. 1846.) In the tenth century new translations, not only of the works of Aristotle, but also of Theophrastus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Theomistius, Syrianus, Ammonius, etc., were produced by Syrian Christians, of whom the most important were the Nestorians, Abu Baschar Mata and Jahja ben Adi, the Tagritan, as also Isa Ben Zaraa. The Syriac translations (or revisions of earlier translations) by these men have been lost, but the Arabic translations were widely circulated and have in large measure been preserved; they were used by Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroës, and the other Arabian philosophers. The Republic, Timæus, and Laws of Plato, were also translated into Arabic. Averroës (in Spain, about 1150) possessed and paraphrased the Rep., but he did not the Politics of Aristotle; the book existing in MS. at Paris, entitled Siaset (Siyāsah), i.e. Politica, is the spurious work De Regimine Principum s. Secretum Secretorum; the Politics of Aristotle is not known to exist in Arabic. Farther, extracts from the Neo-Platonists, especially from Proclus, were translated into Arabic. The Syrians were led, especially in consequence of their contact with the Arabs, to extend their studies beyond the Organon; they began to cultivate in the Arabic language all the branches of philosophy on the basis of Aristotle’s works, and in this they were afterwards followed by the Arabs themselves, who soon surpassed their Syrian teachers. Alfarabi and Avicenna were the scholars of Syrian and Christian physicians. The later Syrian philosophy bears the type of the Arabian philosophy. The most important representative of the former was Gregorius Barhebræus or Abulfaragius, the Jacobite, who lived in the thirteenth century, and was descended from Jewish parents, and whose compendium of the Peripatetic philosophy (Butyrum Sapientiæ) is still of great authority among the Syrians.

“Alkendi (Abu Jusuf Jacub Ibn Eshak al Kendi, i.e. the father of Joseph, Jacob, son of Isaac, the Kendæan, of the district of Kendah) was born at Busra on the Persian Gulf, where later, in the tenth century, the ‘Brothers of Purity’ or the ‘Sincere Brethren,’ who collected in an Encyclopedia the learning then acceptable to the Arabians, were located. He lived during and after the first half of the ninth century, dying about 870. He was renowned as a mathematician, astrologer, physician, and philosopher. He composed commentaries on the logical writings of Aristotle, and wrote also on metaphysical problems. In theology he was a rationalist. His astrology was founded on the hypothesis that all things are so bound together by harmonious causal relations, that each, when completely conceived, must represent as in a mirror the whole universe.

“Alfarabi (Abu Nasr Mohammed ben Mohammed ben Tarkhan of Farab), born near the end of the ninth century, received his philosophical training mainly at Bagdad, where he also began to teach. Attached to the mystical sect of the Sûfi, which Said Abul Chair had founded about A.D. 820 (under the unmistakable influence of Buddhism, although Tholuck [“Ssufismus.” Berlin, 1821, and Blüthensammlung aus der Morgenländ. Mystik, Berlin, 1825] assigns to it a purely Mohammedan origin), Alfarabi went at a later epoch to Aleppo and Damascus, where he died A.D. 950. In logic Alfarabi follows Aristotle almost without exception. Whether logic is to be regarded as a part of philosophy or not, depends, according to Alfarabi, on the greater or less extension given to the conception of philosophy, and is therefore a useless question. Argumentation is the instrument by which to develop the unknown from the known; it is employed by the utens logicus; logica docens is the theory which relates to this instrument, argumentation, or which treats of it as its subject (subjectum). Yet logic also treats of single concepts (incomplexa) as elements of judgments and argumentations (according to Alfarabi, as reported by Albertus M., De Prædicabil. i. 2 seq., cf. Prantl, Gesch. der Log., ii. p. 302 seq.). Alfarabi defines the universal (see Alb. M., De Praed., ii. 5) as the unum de multis et in multis, which definition is followed immediately by the inference that the universal has no existence apart from the individual (non habet esse separatum a multis). It is worthy of notice that Alfarabi does not admit in its absolute sense the aphorism: singulare sentitur, universale intelligitur, but teaches that the singular, although in its material aspect an object of sensible perception, exists in its formal aspect in the intellect, and, on the other hand, that the universal, although as such belonging to the intellect, exists also in sensu, in so far as it exists blended with the individual (Alb., An. post. i. l, 3). Among the contents of the Metaphysics of Alfarabi, mention should be made of his proof of the existence of God, which was employed by Albertus Magnus and later philosophers. This proof is founded on Plat., Tim., p. 28: τῷ γενομένῳ φαμὲν ὑπ’ αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνάγκην εἶναι γενέσθαι, and Arist., Metaph., xii. 7: ἐστι τοίνυν τι καὶ ὁ κινεῖ, etc., or on the principle that all change and all development must have a cause. Alfarabi distinguishes (Fontes Quæstionum, ch. 3 seq., in Schmölders’ Doc. Phil. Ar., p. 44), between that which has a possible and that which has a necessary existence, just as Plato and Aristotle distinguish between the changeable and the eternal. If the possible is to exist in reality, a cause is necessary thereto. The world is composite, hence it had a beginning or was caused (ch. 2). But the series of causes and effects can neither recede in infinitum, nor return like a circle into itself: it must, therefore, depend upon some necessary link, and this link is the first being (ens primum). This first being exists necessarily; the supposition of its non-existence involves a contradiction. It is uncaused, and needs in order to its existence no cause external to itself. It is the cause of all that exists. Its eternity implies its perfection. It is free from all accidents. It is simple and unchangeable. As the absolutely Good it is at once absolute thought, absolute object of thought, and absolute thinking being (intelligentia, intelligible, intelligens). It has wisdom, life, insight, might, and will, beauty, excellence, brightness; it enjoys the highest happiness, is the first willing being and the first object of will (desire). In the knowledge of this being, Alfarabi (De rebus studio Arist. phil. præmitt. Comm., ch. 4, ap. Schmölders, Doc. ph. Arab., p. 22), sees the end of philosophy, and he defines the practical duty of man as consisting in rising, so far as human force permits it, into likeness with God. In his teachings respecting that which is caused by or derived from God (Fontes Quæst., ch. 6 seq.), Alfarabi follows the Neo-Platonists. His fundamental conception is expressed by the word emanation. The first created thing was the Intellect, which came forth from the first being (the Νοῦς of Plotinus; this doctrine was logically consistent only for Plotinus, not for Alfarabi, since the former represented his One as superior to all predicates, while Alfarabi, in agreement with Aristotle and with religious dogmatics, recognized in his first being intelligence). From this intellect flowed forth, as a new emanation, the Cosmical Soul, in the complication and combination of whose ideas the basis of corporeality is to be found. Emanation proceeds from the higher or outer spheres to the lower or inner ones. In bodies, matter and form are necessarily combined with each other. Terrestrial bodies are composed of the four elements. The lower physical powers, up to the potential intellect, are dependent on matter. The potential intellect, through the operation (in-beaming) of the active divine intellect, is made actual (intellectus in actu or in effectu), and this actual intellect, as resulting from development, may be called acquired intellect (intellectus acquisitus, after the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias, concerning the νοῦς ἐπίκτητος). The actual human intellect is free from matter, and is a simple substance, which alone survives the death of the body and remains indestructible. Evil is a necessary condition of good in a finite world. All things are under divine guidance and are good, since all was created by God. Between the human understanding and the things which it seeks to know there exists (as Alfarabi teaches, De Intellecto et Intellectu, p. 48 seq.) a similarity of form, which arises from their having both been formed by the same first being, and which makes knowledge possible.

“Avicenna (Abu Ali Al Hosain Abdallah Ibn Sina) was born at Afsenna, in the province of Bokhara, in the year 980. His mind was early developed by the study of theology, philosophy, and medicine, and in his youth he had already written a scientific encyclopedia. He taught medicine and philosophy in Ispahan. He died at Hamadan in the fifty-eighth year of his life. His medical Canon was employed for centuries as the basis of instruction. In philosophy he set out from the doctrines of Alfarabi, but modified them by omitting many Neo-Platonic theorems and approximating more nearly to the real doctrine of Aristotle. The principle on which his logic was founded, and which Averroës adopted and Albertus Magnus often cites, was destined to exert a great influence. It was worded thus: Intellectus in formis agit universalitatem (Alb., De Prædicab., ii. 3 and 6). The genus, as also the species, the differentia, the accidens, and the proprium, are in themselves neither universal nor singular. But the thinking mind, by comparing the similar forms, forms the genus logicum, which answers to the definition of the genus, viz.: that it is predicated of many objects specifically different, and answers the question, ‘What is it?’ (tells the quidditas). It is the genus naturale which furnishes the basis of comparison. When the mind adds to the generic and specific the individual accidents, the singular is formed (Avic., Log., Venice edition, 1508, f. 12, ap. Prantl, Geschichte der Logik, ii. 347 seq.). Only figuratively, according to Avicenna, can the genus be called matter and the specific difference form; such phraseology (frequent in Aristotle) is not strictly correct. Avicenna distinguishes several modes of generic existence, viz.: ante res, in rebus, and post res. Genera are ante res in the mind of God; for all that exists is related to God as a work of art is related to an artist; it existed in his wisdom and will before its entrance into the world of manifold existence; in this sense, and only in this sense, is the universal before the individual. Realized with its accidents in matter, the genus constitutes the natural thing, res naturalis, in which the universal essence is immanent. The third mode of the existence of the genus is that which it has in being conceived by the human intellect; when the latter abstracts the form and then compares it again with the individual objects to which by one and the same definition it belongs, in this comparison (respectus) is contained the universal (Avic., Log., f. 12; Metaph., v. 1, 2, f. 87, in Prantl, ii. p. 349). Our thought, which is directed to things, contains nevertheless dispositions which are peculiar to itself; when things are thought, there is added in thought something which does not exist outside of thought. Thus universality as such, the generic concept and the specific difference, the subject and predicate, and other similar elements, belong only to thought. Now it is possible to direct the attention, not merely to things, but also to the dispositions which are peculiar to thought, and this takes place in logic (Metaph., i. 2; iii. 10, in Prantl, ii. p. 320 seq.). On this is based the distinction of ‘first’ and ‘second intentions.’ The direction of attention to things is the first intention (intentio prima); the second intention (intentio secunda) is directed to the dispositions which are peculiar to our thinking concerning things. Since the universal as such belongs not to things, but to thought, it belongs to the second intention. The principle of individual plurality, according to Avicenna, is matter, which he regards, not with Alfarabi as an emanation from the Cosmical Soul, but with Aristotle as eternal and uncreated; all potentiality is grounded in it, as actuality is in God. Nothing changeable can come forth directly from the unchangeable first cause. His first and only direct product is the intelligentia prima (the νοῦς of Plotinus, as with Alfarabi); from it the chain of emanations extends through the various celestial spheres down to our earth. But the issuing of the lower from the higher is to be conceived, not as a single, temporal act, but as an eternal act, in which cause and effect are synchronous. The cause which gave to things their existence must continually maintain them in existence; it is an error to imagine that things once brought into existence continue therein of themselves. Notwithstanding its dependence on God, the world has existed from eternity. Time and motion always were (Avic. Metaph., vi. 2, et al.; cf. the account in the Tractatus de Erroribus, ap. Hauréau, Ph. Sc., i. p. 368). Avicenna distinguishes a two-fold development of our potential understanding into actuality, the one common, depending on instruction, the other rare, and dependent on immediate divine illumination. According to a report transmitted to us by Averroës, Avicenna, in his Philosophia Orientalis, which has not come down to us, contradicted his Aristotelian principles, and conceived God as a heavenly body.

“Algazel (Abu Hamed Mohammed Ibn Achmed Al-Ghazzâli), born A.D. 1059 at Ghazzâlah in Khorasan, taught first at Bagdad, and afterwards, having become a Sûfi, resided in Syria. He died A.D. 1111 at Tus. He was a sceptic in philosophy, but only that his faith might be all the stronger in the doctrines of theology. His course in this respect marked a reaction of the exclusively religious principle of Mohammedanism against philosophical speculation—which in spite of all accommodation had not made itself fully orthodox—and particularly against Aristotelianism; between the mysticism of the Neo-Platonists, on the contrary, and the Sûfism of Algazel, there existed an essential affinity. In his Makacid al filasifa (Maqāṣidu ʾl-Falāsifah), ‘The Aims of the Philosophers,’ Algazel sets forth the doctrines of philosophy following essentially Alfarabi and particularly Avicenna. These doctrines are then subjected by him to a hostile criticism in his Tehafot al filasifa (Tahāfutu ʾl-Falāsifah), ‘Against the Philosophers,’ while in his ‘Fundamental Principles of Faith,’ he presents positively his own views. Averroës wrote by way of rejoinder his Destructio Destructionis Philosophorum. Algazel exerted himself especially to excite a fear of the chastisements of God, since in his opinion the men of his times were living in too great assurance. Against the philosophers he defended particularly the religious dogmas of the creation of the world in time and out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the resurrection of the body, as also the power of God to work miracles, in opposition to the supposed law of cause and effect. In the Middle Ages, his exposition of logic, metaphysics, and physics, as given in the Makacid, was much read.

“The result of the scepticism of Algazel was in the East the triumph of an unphilosophical orthodoxy; after him there arose in that quarter no philosopher worthy of mention. On the other hand, the Arabian philosophy began to flourish in Spain, where a succession of thinkers cultivated its various branches.

“Avempace (Abu Bekr Mohammed ben Jahja Ibn Badja), born at Saragossa near the end of the eleventh century, was celebrated as a physician, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. About 1118 he wrote, at Seville, a number of logical treatises. At a later period he lived in Granada, and afterwards also in Africa. He died at a not very advanced age in 1138, without having completed any extensive works; yet he wrote several smaller (mostly lost) treatises, among which, according to Munk (Mélanges, p. 386), were Logical Tractates (still existing, according to Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hisp. Escurialensis, i. p. 179, in the library of the Escurial), a work on the soul, another on the conduct of the solitary (régime du solitaire), also on the union of the universal intellect with man, and a farewell letter; to these may be added commentaries on the Physics, Meteorology, and other works of Aristotle relating to physical science. Munk gives the substance of the ‘Conduct of the Solitary,’ as reported by a Jewish philosopher of the fourteenth century, Moses of Narbonne (Mél., pp. 389–409). This work treats of the degrees by which the soul rises from that instinctive life which it shares with the lower animals, through gradual emancipation from materiality and potentiality to the acquired intellect (intellectus acquisitus) which is an emanation from the active intellect or Deity. Avempace seems (according to Averroës, De Anima, fol. 168A) to have identified the intellectus materialis with the imaginative faculty. In the highest grade of knowledge (in self-consciousness) thought is identical with its object.

“Abubacer (Abu Bakr Mohammed ben Abd al Malic Ibn Tophail al Keisi) was born in about the year 1100, at Wadi-Asch (Guadix), in Andalusia, and died in 1185, in Morocco. He was celebrated as a physician, mathematician, philosopher, and poet, and pursued still further the path of speculation opened up by Ibn Badja. His chief work, that has come down to us, is entitled Haji Ibn Jakdhan (Ḥaiyu bnu Yaqz̤ān), i.e. the Living One, the Son of the Waking One. The fundamental idea is the same as in Ibn Badja’s ‘Conduct of the Solitary’; it is an exposition of the gradual development of the capacities of man to the point where his intellect becomes one with the Divine. But Ibn Tophail goes considerably farther than his predecessor in maintaining the independence of man in opposition to the institutions and opinions of human society. In his theory he represents the individual as developing himself without external aid. That independence of thought and will, which man now owes to the whole course of the previous history of the human race, is regarded by him as existing in the natural man, out of whom he makes an extra historical ideal (like Rousseau in the eighteenth century). Ibn Tophail regards positive religion, with its law founded on reward and punishment, as only a necessary means of discipline for the multitude; religious conceptions are in his view only types or envelopes of that truth to the logical comprehension of which the philosopher gradually approaches.

“Averroës (Abul Walid Mohammed Ibn Achmed Ibn Roschd), born A.D. 1126, at Cordova, where his grandfather and father filled high judicial offices, studied first positive theology and jurisprudence, and then medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. He obtained subsequently the office of judge at Seville, and afterwards at Cordova. He was a junior contemporary and friend of Ibn Tophail, who presented him to Calif Abu Jacub Jusuf, soon after the latter’s ascent of the throne (1163), and recommended him, in place of himself, for the work of preparing an analysis of the works of Aristotle. Ibn Roschd won the favour of this prince, who was quite familiar with the problems of philosophy, and at a later epoch he became his physician in ordinary (1182). For a time also he was in favour with a son of the prince, Jacub Almansur, who succeeded to his father’s rule in 1184, and he was still honoured by him in 1195. But soon after this date he was accused of cultivating the philosophy and science of antiquity to the prejudice of the Mohammedan religion, and was robbed by Almansur of his dignities and banished to Elisana (Lucena) near Cordova; he was afterwards tolerated in Morocco. A strict prohibition was issued against the study of Greek philosophy, and whatever works on logic and metaphysics were discovered were delivered to the flames. Averroës died in 1198, in his seventy-third year. Soon after, the rule of the Moors in Spain came to an end. The Arabian philosophy was extinguished, and liberal culture sunk under the exclusive rule of the Koran and of dogmatics.

“Averroës shows for Aristotle the most unconditional reverence, going in this respect much farther than Avicenna; he considers him, as the founders of religion are wont to be considered, as the man whom alone, among all men, God permitted to reach the highest summit of perfection. Aristotle was, in his opinion, the founder and perfecter of scientific knowledge. In logic, Averroës everywhere limits himself to merely annotating Aristotle. The principle of Avicenna: intellectus in formis agit universalitatem, is also his (Averr., De An., i. 8., cf. Alb. M., De Prædicab., ii. ch. 6). Science treats not of universal things, but of individuals under their universal aspect, which the understanding recognises after making abstraction of their common nature. (Destr. destr. fol. 17: Scientia autem non est scientia rei universalis, sed est scientia particularium modo universali, quem facit intellectus in particularibus, quum abstrahit ab iis naturam unam communem, quæ divisa est in materiis.) The forms, which are developed through the influence of higher forms, and in the last resort through the influence of Deity, are contained embryonically in matter.

“The most noticeable thing in his psychology is the explanation which he gives of the Aristotelian distinction between the active and the passive intellect (νοῦς παθητικός and ποιητικός). Thomas Aquinas, who opposes the explanation, gives it in these words: Intellectum substantiam esse omnino ab anima separatam, esseque unum in omnibus hominibus;—nec Deum facere posse quod sint plures intellectus; but, he says, Averroës added: per rationem concludo de necessitate quod intellectus est unus numero, firmiter tamen teneo oppositum per fidem. In his commentary to the twelfth book of the Metaphysics, Averroës compares the relation of the active reason to man with that of the sun to vision; as the sun, by its light, brings about the act of seeing, so the active reason enables us to know; hereby the rational capacity in man is developed into actual reason, which is one with the active reason. Averroës attempts to recognise two opinions, the one of which he ascribes to Alexander of Aphrodisias, and the other to Themistius and the other commentators. Alexander, he says, had held the passive intellect (νοῦς παθητικός) to be a mere ‘disposition’ connected with the animal faculties, and, in order that it might be able perfectly to receive all forms, absolutely formless; this disposition was in us, but the active intellect (νοῦς ποιητικός), was without us; after our death our individual intellects no longer existed. Themistius, on the contrary, and the other commentators, had regarded the passive intellect not as a mere disposition connected with the lower psychical powers, but as inhering in the same substratum to which the active intellect belonged; this substratum, according to them, was distinct from those animal powers of the soul which depend on material organs, and as it was immaterial, immortality was to be predicated of the individual intellect inhering in it. Averroës, on the other hand, held that the passive intellect (νοῦς παθητικός) was, indeed, more than a mere disposition, and assumed (with Themistius and most of the other Commentators, except Alexander) that the same substance was passive and active intellect (namely, the former in so far as it received forms, the latter in so far as it constructed forms); but he denied that the same substance in itself and in its individual existence was both passive and active, assuming (with Alexander) that there existed only one active intellect in the world, and that man had only the ‘disposition’ in virtue of which he could be affected by the active intellect; when the active intellect came in contact with this disposition there arose in us the passive or material intellect, the one active intellect becoming on its entrance into the plurality of souls particularized in them, just as light is decomposed into the different colours in bodies. The passive intellect was (according to Munk’s translation): ‘Une chose composée de la disposition qui existe en nous et d’un intellect qui se joint à cette disposition, et qui, en tant qu’il y est joint, est un intellect prédisposé (en puissance) et non pas un intellect en acte, mais qui est intellect en acte en tant qu’il n’est plus joint à la disposition’ (from the Commentaire moyen sur le traité de l’Âme, in Munk’s Mél., p. 447); the active intellect worked first upon the passive, so as to develop it into actual and acquired intellect, and then on this latter, which it absorbed into itself, so that after our death it could be said that our νοῦς, mind, continued to exist—though not as an individual substance, but only as an element of the universal mind. But Averroës did not identify this universal mind (as Alexander of Aphrodisias identified the νοῦς ποιητικός) with the Deity himself, but conceived it (following in this the earlier Arabian commentators and directly the Neo-Platonists) as an emanation from the Deity, and as the mover of the lowest of the celestial circles, i.e. the sphere of the moon. This doctrine was developed by Averroës, particularly in his commentaries on the De Anima, whereas, in the Paraphrase (written earlier) he had expressed himself in a more individualistic sense (Averr., ap. Munk, Mélanges, p. 442 seq.). The psychological teaching of Averroës resembled, therefore, in the character of its definitions, that of Themistius, but in its real content that of Alexander Aphrodisiensis, since both Averroës and Alexander limited the individual existence of the human intellect (νοῦς) to the period preceding death, and recognized the eternity only of the one universal active intellect (νοῦς ποιητικός). For this reason the doctrine of the Alexandrists and of the Averroists were both condemned by the Catholic Church.

“Averroës professed himself in no sense hostile to religion, least of all to Mohammedanism, which he regarded as the most perfect of all religions. He demanded in the philosopher a grateful adherence to the religion of his people, the religion in which he was educated. But by this ‘adherence’ he meant only a skilful accommodation of his views and life to the requirements of positive religion—a course which could not but fail to satisfy the real defenders of the religious principle. Averroës considered religion as containing philosophical truth under the veil of figurative representation; by allegorical interpretation one might advance to purer knowledge, while the masses held to the literal sense. The highest grade of intelligence was philosophical knowledge; the peculiar religion of the philosopher consisted in the deepening of his knowledge; for man could offer to God no worthier cultus than that of the knowledge of his works, through which we attain to the knowledge of God himself in the fulness of His essence. (Averroës in the larger Commentary on the Metaph., ap. Munk, Mélanges, p. 455 seq.)”

Dr. Marcus Dods remarks that “in philosophy the attainments of the Arabians have probably been overrated (see Lit. Hist. of Middle Ages, by Berrington, p. 445) rather than depreciated. As middle-men or transmitters, indeed, their importance can scarcely be too highly estimated. They were keen students of Aristotle when the very language in which he wrote was unknown in Roman Christendom: and the commentaries of Averroës on the most exact of Greek philosophers are said to be worthy of the text. It was at the Mohammedan university in his native city of Cordova, and from Arabian teachers, that this precursor of Spinoza derived those germs of thought whose fruit may be seen in the whole history of scholastic theology. And just before Averroës entered these learned halls, a young man passed from them, equipped with the same learning, and gifted with genius and penetration of judgment which have made his opinions final wherever the name of Memonides is known. Undoubtedly these two fellow-citizens—the Mohammedan Arab and the Arabic-speaking Jew—have left their mark deep on all subsequent Jewish and Christian learning. And even though it be doubted whether their influence has been wholly beneficial, they may well be claimed as instances of the intellectual ardour which Mohammedan learning could inspire or awaken. A recent writer of great promise in the philosophy of religion has assigned to the Arab thinkers the honourable function of creating modern philosophy. ‘Theology and philosophy became in the hands of the Moors fused and blended; the Greek scientific theory as to the origin of things interwound with the Hebrew faith in a Creator. And so speculation became in a new and higher sense theistic; and the interpretation of the universe, the explication of God’s relation to it and its relation to God.’ (Fairbairn’s Studies, p. 398.) But speculation had become theistic long before there was an Arab philosophy. The same questions which form the staple of modern philosophy were discussed at Alexandria three centuries before Mohammed; and there is scarcely a Christian thinker of the third or fourth century who does not write in presence of the great problem of God’s connection with the world, the relation of the Infinite to the finite, of the unseen intangible Spirit to the crass material universe. What we have here to do with, however, is not to ascertain whether modern philosophy be truly the offspring of the unexpected marriage of Aristotle and the Koran, but whether the religion promulgated in the latter is or is not obstructive of intellectual effort and enlightenment. And enough has been said to show that there is nothing in the religion which necessarily and directly tends to obstruct either philosophy or science; though when we consider the history and achievements of that race which has for six centuries been the leading representative of Islam, we are inclined to add that there is nothing in the religion which necessarily leads on the mind to the highest intellectual effort. Voltaire, in his own nervous way, exclaims, ‘I detest the Turks, as the tyrants of their wives and the enemies of the arts.’ And the religion has shown an affinity for such uncivilised races. It has not taken captive any race which possesses a rich literature, nor has it given birth to any work of which the world demands a translation; and precisely in so far as individuals have shown themselves possessed of great speculative and creative genius, have they departed from the rigid orthodoxy of the Koran. We should conclude, therefore, that the outburst of literary and scientific enthusiasm in the eighth century was due, not directly to the influence of the Mohammedan religion, but to the mental awakening and exultant consciousness of power and widened horizon that came to the conquering Saracens. At first their newly-awakened energy found scope in other fields than that of philosophy. ‘Marte undique obstrepenti, musis vix erat locus.’ But when the din of war died down, the voice of the Muses was heard, and the same fervour which had made the Saracen arms irresistible, was spent now in the acquirement of knowledge.”—Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, p. 113.

PICTURES. Muḥammad cursed the painter or drawer of men and animals (Mishkāt, book xii. ch. i. pt. 1), and consequently they are held to be unlawful.

PILGRIMAGES TO MAKKAH are of two kinds: the Ḥajj or special pilgrimage performed in the month of Ẕū ʾl-Ḥijjah, and the ʿUmrah, or visitation, which may be performed at any time of the year. [HAJJ, ʿUMRAH.]

PĪR (پير‎). The Persian word for an elder. A term used for a murshid, or religious leader. [SUFIISM.]

PLAGUES OF EGYPT. The following references occur to the ten plagues of Egypt in the Qurʾān.

Sūrah viii. 127–135: “Already had we chastised the people of Pharaoh with dearth and scarcity of fruits, that haply they might take warning: and when good fell to their lot they said, ‘This is our due.’ But if ill befell them, they regarded Moses and his partizans as (the birds) of ill omen. Yet, was not their evil omen from God? But most of them knew it not. And they said, ‘Whatever sign thou bring us for our enchantment, we will not believe on thee.’ And we sent upon them the flood and the locusts and the qummal (lice) and the frogs and the blood,—clear signs—but they behaved proudly, and were a sinful people. And when any plague fell upon them, they said, ‘O Moses! pray for us to thy Lord, according to that which he hath covenanted with thee: Truly if thou take off the plague from us, we will surely believe thee, and will surely send the children of Israel with thee.’ But when we had taken off the plague from them, and the time which God had granted them had expired, behold! they broke their promise. Therefore we took vengeance on them and drowned them in the sea, because they treated our signs as falsehoods and were heedless of them. And we gave to the people who had been brought so low, the eastern and the western lands, which we had blessed as an heritage: and the good word of thy Lord was fulfilled on the children of Israel because they had borne up with patience: and we destroyed the works and the structures of Pharaoh and his people: And we brought the children of Israel across the sea, and they came to a people who gave themselves up to their idols. They said, ‘O Moses! make us a god, as they have gods.’ He said, ‘Verily, ye are an ignorant people: for the worship they practice will be destroyed, and that which they do is vanity!’ ”

In the Sūrah xvii. 103–104, they are referred to as “nine clear signs,” which some commentators understand to be the commandments of Moses.

“We heretofore gave to Moses nine clear signs. Ask thou, therefore, the children of Israel how it was when he came unto them, and Pharaoh said to him, ‘Verily, I deem thee, O Moses, a man enchanted.’

“Said Moses, ‘Thou knowest that none hath sent down these clear signs but the Lord of the Heavens and of the Earth; and I surely deem thee, O Pharaoh, a person lost.’ ”

Mr. Sale, translating from the Jalālān and al-Baiẓāwī, says: “These were, the changing his rod into a serpent, the making his hand white and shining, the producing locusts, lice, frogs, and blood, the dividing of the Red Sea, the bringing water out of the rock, and the shaking of Mount Sinai over the children of Israel. In lieu of the three last, some reckon the inundation of the Nile, the blasting of the corn and scarcity of the fruits of the earth. These words, however, are interpreted by others not of nine miracles, but of nine commandments, which Moses gave his people, and were thus numbered up by Muhammad himself to a Jew, who asked him the question, viz. That they should not be guilty of idolatry, nor steal, nor commit adultery or murder, nor practise sorcery or usury, nor accuse an innocent man to take away his life, or a modest woman of whoredom, nor desert the army, to which he added the observing of the Sabbath as a tenth commandment, but which peculiarly regarded the Jews, upon which answer, it is said, the Jew kissed the Prophet’s hand and feet.”

PLANETS. Arabic as-sayyārah (السيارة‎). According to Arabic writers, there are seven planets, called an-Najūmu ʾs-Sayyārāt (النجوم السيارات‎), or, collectively, as-Sayyārah, the wandering stars, as distinguished from fixed stars, or an-Najūmu ʾs̤-s̤awābit (النجوم الثوابت‎). These planets are said to be situated in the seven firmaments in the following order: (1) Al-Qamar, Moon; (2) ʿUt̤ārid, Mercury; (3) Zuhrah, Venus; (4) ash-Shams, Sun; (5) al-Mirrīk͟h, Mars; (6) al-Mushtarī, Jupiter; (7) Zuḥal, Saturn. (Vide Kashshāf-i-Iṣt̤ilaḥāt, in loco.)

It will be seen that the Arabian arrangement of the planets is that of Ptolemy, who placed the earth in the centre of the universe, and nearest to it the moon, whose synodic revolution is the shortest of all, being performed in 29½ days. Next to the moon he placed Mercury, who returns to his conjunctions in 116 days. After Mercury followed Venus, whose periodic time is 584 days. Beyond Venus he placed the Sun, then Mars, next Jupiter, and lastly Saturn, beyond which are the fixed stars.

PLUNDER. Arabic g͟hanīmah (غنيمة‎), fayʾ (فىء‎). If the Imām, or leader of the Muslim army, conquer a country by force of arms, he is at liberty to leave the land in possession of the original proprietors, provided they pay tribute, or he may divide it amongst the Muslims; but with regard to movable property, it is unlawful for him to leave it in possession of the infidels, but he must bring it away with the army and divide it amongst the soldiers. Four-fifths of the spoils belong to the troops, and the remaining one-fifth must be divided into three equal portions for the relief of orphans, the feeding of the poor, and the entertainment of travellers. Captives form part of the plunder. All cattle and baggage which cannot be carried away upon a retreat, must be destroyed. (Hidāyah, vol. ii. p.159; Mishkāt, book xvii. ch. viii. pt. 1.)

POETS. Arabic shāʿir (شاعر‎), pl. shuʿarāʾ. Poetry, shiʿr (شعر‎). Muḥammad repudiated the idea of being a poet. See Qurʾān.

Sūrah xxxvi. 69: “We have not taught him poetry, nor was it proper for him; it is but a reminder and a plain Qurʾān.”

Sūrah lxix. 40, 41: “Verily it is the speech of a noble apostle; and it is not the speech of a poet.”

The Qurʾān being in manifest rhythm, and in some places actual poetry, the declaration of the Prophet, that he was not a poet has much perplexed the commentators. But the Imām Fak͟hru ʾd Dīn ar-Rāzī, has hit upon the following clever explanation of the difficulty. He says, that in order to be a poet it is absolutely necessary that the poems should not be impromptu verses, but deliberately framed, and that, therefore, although the Qurʾān contains poetry (for example, in Sūrah xciv., which begins thus:—

الم نشرح لك صدرك‎

و وضعنا عنك وزرك‎

Alam nashraḥ laka ṣadraka

Wa waẓaʿnā ʿanka wizraka.

“Have we not opened thy breast for thee?

And taken off from thee thy burden?”)

it is not really poetry, because the writer did not deliberately intend to produce the rhythm!

The same excuse is urged for the lines which Muḥammad is related to have uttered impromptu when his toe was wounded in battle:—

هل انت الا اصبع دميت‎

و فى سبيل الله ما لقيت‎

Hal anti illā iṣbaʿun damīti?

Wa fī sabīli ʾllāhi mā laqīti.

“Art thou anything but a toe covered with blood?

“What has happened to thee has been in the road of God.”

Arabic scholars (see Kashfu Īṣt̤ilāḥāti ʾl-Funūn, in loco) divide the Arabic poets into six periods:—

(1) Al-Jāhilīyūn, those in the time of ignorance, or before Islām, such as the ancient Arabic poets Zuhair, T̤arafah, Imru ʾl-Qais, ʿAmr ibn Kuls̤ūm, al-Ḥāris̤, and ʿAntarah.

(2) Al-Muk͟hzaramūn (lit. “spurious”), those born in the time of ignorance, but who embraced Islām, as Labīd and Ḥassān, whose names occur in the traditions.

(3) Al-Mutaqaddimūn (lit. “first”), those who were born in the time of Islām, of parents who were converts to Islām, as Jarīr and Farazdaq.

(4) Al-Muwalladūn, those who were born of true-born Muslims, as Bashār.

(5) Al-Muḥdis̤ūn, the third generation of Muslim poets, as Abū Tammām, and Buk͟htari.

(6) Al-Mutaʾak͟hk͟hirūn (lit. “the last”), all succeeding poets.

The Mutaqadimūn, the Muwalladūn, and the Muḥdis̤ūn, correspond with the Aṣhāb, the Tābiʿūn, and the Tābiʿ Tābiʿūn, or the three first generations of Muslims.

There are seven poems of ancient Arabia, who are known in history as the Muʿallaqāt, or “suspended,” because they had been in turn suspended on the walls of the Makkan temple. They are also known as Muẕahhabāt, or the “golden” poems, because they were written in gold. The names of their authors are Zuhair, T̤arafah, Imru ʾl-Qais, ʿAmru ibn Kuls̤ūm, al-Ḥāris̤, ʿAntarah, and Labīd. The last of the seven embraced Islām. It is related that Labīd had posted up in the Kaʿbah his poem, beginning:—

الا كل شىء ما خلا الله باطل‎

Alā kulla shaʾin mā k͟halā ʾllāha bāt̤ilu.

“Know that everything is vanity but God.”

But that when he saw the first verses of the Sūratu ʾl-Baqarah (ii.) of the Qurʾān posted up, he withdrew his verses and embraced Islām. Muḥammad repaid Labīd with the compliment that the words, “Know that everything is vanity but God,” were the truest words ever uttered by a poet. (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. x.)

In the earlier part of his mission, Muḥammad affected to despise the poets, and in the Qurʾān we find him saying (Sūrah xxvi. 224), “Those who go astray follow the poets”; and in the Traditions, Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. x.: “A belly full of purulent matter is better than a belly full of poetry.” But when Labīd and Ḥassān embraced Islām, the poets rise into favour, and the Prophet utters the wise but cautious saying, that “poetry is a kind of composition, which if it is good it is good, and if it is bad it is bad.” In the battle with the Banū Quraiz̤ah, the Prophet called out to Ḥassān the poet, “Abuse the infidels in your verse, for truly the Holy Spirit (in the Ḥadīs̤ it is Gabriel) will help you.” It is also related that the Prophet used to say, “O Lord! help Ḥassān the poet by the Holy Spirit (or Gabriel).”

It is generally admitted by Arabic scholars that the golden age of Arabic poetry was that immediately preceding or contemporaneous with Muḥammad, and that from the time of Muḥammad there was a gradual decline. This is not surprising, inasmuch as the Qurʾān is considered the most perfect model of composition ever revealed to mankind, and to be written in the language of Paradise.

Baron MacGuckin de Slane, in his Introduction to Ibn K͟hallikān’s Dictionary, says:—

“The oldest monuments of Arabic literature which we still possess were composed within the century which preceded the birth of Muḥammad. They consist in short pieces of verse uttered on the spur of the moment, narrations of combats between hostile tribes, passages in rhythmical prose and kasîdas (qaṣīdahs), or elegies. The study of these remains reveals the existence of a language perfect in its form and application, admirably suited to express the various ideas which the aspect of nature could suggest to a pastoral people, and as equally adapted to portray the fiercer passions of the mind. The variety of its inflections, the regularity of its syntax, and the harmony of its prosody, are not less striking, and they furnish in themselves a sufficient proof of the high degree of culture which the language of the Arabic nation had already attained. The superior merit of this early literature was ever afterwards acknowledged by the Arabs themselves. It furnished them not only with models, but ideas for their poetical productions, and its influence has always continued perceptible in the Kasîda, which still contains the same thoughts, the same allusions as of old, and drags its slow length along in monotonous dignity.… (p. xv.)

“The decline of Arabic poetry can be easily traced down from the accession of the Abbasides to the time of the Aiyubites: for many centuries the patrons of the belles-lettres were of foreign extraction, and writers who sought their favour were obliged to conform their own judgment to that of persons who were in general unable to appreciate the true beauties of literary compositions. Works which had obtained the patronage of the prince could not fail to fix the attention of other poets, who took them as models which they strove to imitate and to surpass. The opinion held in the schools that the ancient kasîdas were masterpieces of art, contributed also to the perversion of good taste, their plan and ideas were servilely copied, and it was by refinement of expression alone that writers could display their talent; verbal quibbles, far-fetched allusions, thoughts borrowed from the old writers, and strained so as to be hardly recognisable, such were the means by which they strove to attain originality; sense was sacrificed to sound, the most discordant ideas were linked together for the futile advantage of obtaining a recurrence of words having a similar written form or a similar pronunciation; poets wrote for the ear and the eye, not for the mind, and yet the high estimation in which their productions were held may be judged from the readiness of Ibn Khallikân to quote them. His taste was that of the age in which he lived, and the extracts which he gives enable the reader to form an idea of the Arab mind at the period of the Crusades. The same feeling of impartiality which induces me to express so severe a censure on the generality of the Islamic poets, obliges me also to make some exceptions. The kasîdas of al-Mutanabbi are full of fire, daring originality, and depth of thought; he often reaches the sublime, and his style, though blemished by occasional faults, is very fine; al-Bohtori is remarkable for grace and elegance; Abû-l-Alâ for dignity and beauty; but Ibn-al-Fârid seems superior to them all, his pieces teem with sentiment and poetry, in his mystic reveries he soars towards the confines of another world pervaded with spiritual beauty, and glides with the reader from one enchanting scene to another; the judgment is captivated by the genius of the poet, and can hardly perceive the traits of false taste which disfigure, from time to time, his admirable style. Having pointed out the influence of the kasîda, or elegy, it may not be amiss to sketch the plan generally followed in this species of composition. The poet, accompanied by two friends, approaches, after a long journey through the desert, to the place where he saw his mistress the year before, and where he hopes to meet her again. At his request, they direct the camels on which they are mounted towards the spot, but the ruins of the rustic dwellings, the withered moss, brushwood, and branches of trees, with which were formed the frail abodes where the tribe had passed the summer, the hearthstones blackened by the fire, the solitary raven hovering around in search of a scanty nourishment, every object he perceives strikes him with the conviction that his beloved and her family have removed to some other region in the desert. Overcome with grief, heedless of the consolations of his friends, who exhort him to be firm, he long remains plunged in silent affliction; at length he finds relief in a torrent of tears, and, raising up his head, he extemporizes a mournful elegy. He commences by mentioning the places which he had already visited in hopes of finding her whom he loved, and calls to mind the dangers which he had encountered in the desert. He describes the camel which, though fatigued, still full of ardour, had borne him into the depths of the wilderness, he vaunts his own courage and extols the glory of his tribe. An adventure which happened on the previous night then comes to his memory: a fire blazing on a lofty hill, had attracted their attention and guided them to the tent of a generous Arab, where they found shelter and hospitality. He then praises the charms of his mistress, and complains of the pains of love and absence, whilst his companions hurry him away. He casts a parting look towards the place where she had resided, and lo! a dark cloud, fringed with rain, and rent with lightnings, overhangs the spot. This sight fills his heart with joy! an abundant shower is about to shed new life upon the parched soil, and thus ensure a rich herbage for the flocks; the family of his beloved will then soon return, and settle again in their former habitation.

“Such may be considered as the outline of the pastoral kasîda. In these productions the same ideas almost constantly recur, and the same words frequently serve to express them. The eulogistic kasîda, or poem in praise of some great man, assumes also the same form, with the sole difference that in place of a mistress it is a generous patron whom the poet goes to visit, or else, after praising the object of his passion, he celebrates the noble qualities of the man who is always ready, with abundant gifts, to bestow consolation on the afflicted lover.

“It results from this that a person familiar with the mode of composition followed in the kasîda, can often, from a single word in a verse, perceive the drift of the poet, and discover, almost intuitively, the thoughts which are to follow. He has thus a means of determining the true readings amidst the mass of errors with which copyists usually disfigure Arabic poetry; knowing what the poet intends to say, he feels no longer any difficulty in disengaging the author’s words from the faults of a corrupted text. The same peculiarity is frequently perceptible in pieces of a few verses; these generally reproduce some of the ideas contained in the kasîda, and for this reason they are justly styled fragments by Arabic writers.

“There exist, also, some compositions of an original form: such are the dûbait, or distich, and the mawâlia, both borrowed from the Persians, and the muwashshaha, invented in Spain by Ibn Abd Rabbîh. Pieces of this kind became general favourites by the novelty of their form and matter; the mawâlia was adopted by the dervishes, and the muwashshaha was cultivated with passion and attained its perfection in Andalusia, whence it was transported to the East. It cannot be denied that the Moorish poets, with all their extravagance of thought and expression, were far superior in their perception of the beauties of nature and the delicacies of sentiment, to their brethren of the East, and the European reader will often discover in their poems, with some surprise, the same ideas, metaphors, and systems of versification, which characterise the works of the troubadours and the early Italian poets.

“An idea borrowed from the ante-Islamic poets, and of frequent recurrence in the kasîdas of later authors, is the taif al-khiâl (t̤āʾifu ʾl-k͟hiyāl), or phantom. The lover journeys with a caravan through the desert; for many nights his grief at being separated from his beloved prevents him from sleeping, but at length he yields to fatigue and closes his eyes. A phantom then approaches towards him, unseen by all but himself, and in it he recognises the image of his mistress, come to visit and console him. It was sent to him by the beloved, or rather it is herself in spirit, who has crossed the dreary waste and fleeted towards his couch; she, too, had slept, but it was to go and see her lover in her dreams. They thus meet in spite of the foes and spies who always surround the poet, ready to betray him if he obtain an interview with the beloved, and who are so jealous, that they hinder him from sleeping, lest he should see her image in his dream; it is only when they slumber that he dare close his eyes.

“The figurative language of the Muslim poets is often difficult to be understood. The narcissus is the eye; the feeble stem of that plant bends languidly under its flower, and thus recalls to mind the languor of the eyes. Pearls signify both tears and teeth, the latter are sometimes called hailstones, from their whiteness and moisture; the lips are cornelians or rubies; the gums a pomegranate flower; the dark foliage of the myrtle is synonymous with the black hair of the beloved, or with the first down which appears on the cheeks of youths at the period of puberty. The down itself is called the izâr or head-stall of the bridle, and the curve of the izâr is compared to the letters lâm and nûn. Ringlets trace on the cheek or neck the letter wâw; they are also called scorpions, either for their dark colour or their agitated movements; the eye is a sword; the eyelids, scabbards; the whiteness of the complexion, camphor; and a mole or beauty-spot, musk, which term denotes also dark hair. A mole is sometimes compared also to an ant creeping on the cheek towards the honey of the mouth; a handsome face is both a full-moon and day; black hair is night; the waist is a willow-branch, or a lance; the water of the face is self-respect; a poet sells the water of his face when he bestows mercenary praises on a rich patron devoid of every noble quality.