DICTIONARY OF ISLĀM. (continued 33)

“(h) There is difference between the two schools as to the person who is entitled to claim a right of shufʿah, or pre-emption. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the right may be claimed, firstly, by a partner in the thing itself; secondly, by a partner in its rights of water and way; and thirdly, by a neighbour. According to the Shīʿahs, the right belongs only to the first of these, with some slight exception in favour of the second. The claim of the third they reject altogether. In gift the principal difference between the schools is, that a gift of an undivided share of a thing, which is rejected by the Ḥanafīyah, is quite lawful according to the Shīʿahs.

“(i) In appropriation and alms there do not seem to be any differences of importance between the two schools. And in wills the leading difference seems to be that, while, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, a bequest in favour of an heir is positively illegal, it is quite unobjectionable according to the Shīʿahs.

“(j) In respect of inheritance, there are many and important differences between the two sects, but they admit of being reduced to a few leading principles, which I now proceed to notice, following the order in which the different branches of the subject are treated of in this volume. The impediments to inheritance are four in number, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, viz. slavery, homicide, difference of religion, and difference of dār, or country. Of these the Shīʿahs recognize the first; the second also with some modification, that is, they require that the homicide be intentional, in other words, murder, while with the Ḥanafīyahs it operates equally as an impediment to inheritance, though accidental. For difference of religion the Shīʿahs substitute infidelity, and difference of country they reject entirely. Exclusion from the whole inheritance, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, is founded upon and regulated by two principles. The one is that a person who is related to the deceased through another has no interest in the succession during the life of that other, with the exception of half-brothers and sisters by the mother, who are not excluded by her. The other principle is, that the nearer relative excludes the more remote. The former of these principles is not expressly mentioned by the Shīʿahs, but it is included without the exception in the second, which is adopted by them, and extended, so as to postpone a more remote residuary to a nearer sharer—an effect which is not given to it by the Ḥanafīyahs.

“With regard to partial exclusion or the diminution of a share, there is also some difference between the sects. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child, or the child of a son, how low soever, reduces the shares of a husband, a wife, and a mother, from the highest to the lowest appointed for them; while, according to the Shīʿahs, the reduction is effected by any child, whether male or female, in any stage of descent from the deceased. Further, when the deceased has left a husband or wife, and both parents, the share of the mother is reduced, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, from a third of the whole estate to a third of the remainder, in order that the male may have double the share of the female; but, according to the Shīʿahs, there is no reduction of the mother’s third in these circumstances, though, when the deceased has left a husband, the share of the father can only be a sixth. The shares and the person for whom they are appointed being expressly mentioned in the Qurʾān, there is no difference in respect of them between the two schools. But they differ materially as to the relatives who are not sharers. They are divided by the Ḥanafīyahs into residuaries and distant kindred. The residuaries in their own right they define as every male in whose line of relation to the deceased no female enters; and the ‘distant kindred,’ as ‘all relatives who are neither sharers nor residuaries.’ The residuaries not only take any surplus that may remain after the sharers have been satisfied, but also the whole estate when there is no sharer, to the entire exclusion of the distant kindred, though these may, in fact, be much nearer in blood to the deceased. This preference of the residuary is rejected with peculiar abhorrence by the Shīʿahs, who found their objection to it, certainly with some appearance of reason, on two passages of the Qurʾān cited below. Instead of the triple division of the Ḥanafīyahs, they mix up the rights of all the relatives together, and then separate them into three classes, according to their proximity to the deceased, each of which in its order is preferred to that which follows; so that while there is a single individual, even a female, of a prior class, there is no room for the succession of any of the others.

“Within the classes operation is given to the doctrine of the return by the Shīʿahs, nearly in the same way as by the Ḥanafīyahs: that is, if there is a surplus over the shares, it reverts to the sharers, with the exception of the husband or wife, and is proportionately divided among them. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, this surplus is always intercepted by the residuary, and it is only when there is no residuary that there is with them any room for the doctrine of the return. When the shares exceed the whole estate, the deficiency is distributed by the Ḥanafīyahs over all the shares by raising the extractor of the case—a process which is termed the ʿaul, or increase. This is also rejected by the Shīʿahs, who make the deficiency to fall exclusively upon those among them whose relationship to the deceased is on the father’s side. With regard to the computation of shares, there does not appear to be any difference between the schools.” A Digest of Moohummudan Law. Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie, London (1869).

Mr. Wilfrid S. Blunt, in his Future of Islam, has the following remarks on the present position of the Shīʿah sect:—

“In theory, I believe the Shias still hold that there is an Imam and Caliph, but they will not tolerate the pretension of any one now in authority to the title, and leave it in abeyance until the advent of the Mohady (Mahdī), or guide, who is to reunite Islam and restore its fortunes. So much is this the case that, sovereign though he be and absolute master in Persia, the Shah is to the present day looked upon by the Persians as a usurper, and he himself acknowledges the fact in a rather curious ceremony. It is a maxim with Mussulmans of all sects that prayer is not valid if made in another man’s house without his permission, and this being so, and the Shah admitting that his palaces of right belong not to himself but to the Mohady, he is obliged to lease them according to legal form from an alem (ʿālim) or mujtahed, acting for the supposed Mohady, before he can pray in them to his spiritual profit.

“It will be readily understood that, with such an organization and with such tendencies to deductive reasoning, a wide basis is given for divergence of opinion among the Shiites, and that while the more highly educated of their mollahs occasionally preach absolute pantheism, others consult the grosser inclinations of the vulgar, and indulge their hearers with the most extravagant tales of miracle and superstition. These are a constant source of mockery to the Sunites. Among the more respectable Shiite beliefs, however, there seems to be a general conviction in Persia that a reform of Islam is at hand, and that a new leader may be expected at any moment and from any quarter, so that enthusiasts are constantly found simulating the gifts of inspiration and affecting a divine mission. The history of the Babites, so well described by M. de Gobineau in his Religions of Asia, is a case in point, and similar occurrences are by no means rare in Persia. I met at Jeddah a highly educated Persian gentleman, who informed me that he had himself been witness, when a boy, to a religious prodigy, notorious, if I remember rightly, at Tabriz. On that occasion, one of these prophets, being condemned to death by the supreme government, was bound to a cross with two of his companions, and, after remaining suspended thus for several hours, was fired at by the royal troops. It then happened that, while the companions were dispatched at the first volley, the prophet himself remained unhurt, and, incredible to relate, the cords which bound him were cut by the bullets, and he fell to the ground on his feet. ‘You Christians,’ said another Persian gentleman once to me, ‘talk of your Christ as the Son of God and think it strange, but with us the occurrence is a common one. Believe me, we have “sons of God” in nearly all our villages.’ [SUFI.]

“Thus, with the Shiites, extremes meet. No Moslems more readily adapt themselves to the superficial atheisms of Europe than do the Persians, and none are more ardently devout, as all who have witnessed the miracle play of the two Imams will be obliged to admit. Extremes, too, of morality are seen, fierce asceticisms and gross licentiousnesses. By no sect of Islam is the duty of pilgrimage more religiously observed, or the prayers and ablutions required by their rule performed with a stricter ritual. But the very pilgrims who go on foot to Mecca scruple not to drink wine there, and Persian morality is everywhere a by-word. In all these circumstances there is much to fear as well as to hope on the side of the Shiite sect; but their future only indirectly involves that of Islam proper. Their whole census does not probably exceed fifteen millions, and it shows no tendency to increase. Outside Persia we find about one million Irâki Arabs, a few in Syria and Afghanistan, and at most five millions in India. One small group still maintains itself in the neighbourhood of Medina, where it is tolerated rather than acknowledged, and a few Shiites are to be found in most of the large cities of the west, but everywhere the sect of Ali stands apart from and almost in a hostile attitude to the rest of Islam. It is noticeable, however, that within the last fifty years the religious bitterness of Shiite and Sunite is sensibly in decline.”

For information on the History of the Shīʿahs, the English reader can refer to Malcolm’s History of Persia, 2 vols. (A.D. 1815); Morier’s Travels, 2 vols. (A.D. 1812); Markham’s History of Persia (A.D. 1874). A translation of their traditions is found in the Life and Religion of Mohammad, by the Rev. James L. Merrick, Boston (1850). For Shīʿah Law, consult Tagore Lectures, 1874; A Digest of Moohummudan Law. The Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie (1869). [MUHARRAM.]

SHIRB (شرب‎). The share of water used for tillage. [RIVER.]

SHIRK (شرك‎). “Idolatry; paganism; polytheism.” Ascribing plurality to the Deity. Associating anything with God.

According to Wahhābī writers, Shirk is defined to be of four kinds: Shirku ʾl-ʿilm, ascribing knowledge to others than God; Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf, ascribing power to others than God; Shirku ʾl-ʿibādah, offering worship to created things; Shirku ʾl-ʿādah, the performance of ceremonies which imply reliance on others than God.

(1) Shirku ʾl-ʿilm is illustrated by the statement that prophets and holy men have no knowledge of secret things unless as revealed to them by God. Thus some wicked persons made a charge against ʿĀyishah. The Prophet was troubled in mind, but knew not the truth of the matter till God made it known to him. To ascribe, then, power to soothsayers, astrologers, and saints is Polytheism. “All who pretend to have a knowledge of hidden things, such as fortune-tellers, soothsayers, and interpreters of dreams, as well as those who profess to be inspired, are all liars.” Again, “should anyone take the name of any saint, or invoke his aid in the time of need, instead of calling on God, or use his name in attacking an enemy, or read passages to propitiate him, or make him the object of contemplation—it is Shirku ʾl-ʿilm.”

(2) Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf is to suppose that anyone has power with God. He who looks up to anyone as an intercessor with God commits Shirk. Thus: “But they who take others beside Him as lords, saying, ‘We only serve them that they may bring us near God,’—God will judge between them (and the Faithful) concerning that wherein they are at variance.” (Sūrah xxxix. 4.) Intercession may be of three kinds. For example, a criminal is placed before the King. The Vizier intercedes. The King, having regard to the rank of the Vizier, pardons the offender. This is called Shafāʿat-i-Wajāhah, or “intercession from regard.” But to suppose that God so esteems the rank of anyone as to pardon a sinner merely on account of it is Shirk. Again, the Queen or the Princes intercede for the criminal. The King, from love to them, pardons him. This is called Shafāʿat-i-maḥabbah, or “intercession from affection.” But to consider that God so loves anyone as to pardon a criminal on his account is to give that loved one power, and this is Shirk, for such power is not possible in the Court of God. “God may out of His bounty confer on His favourite servants the epithets of Ḥabīb, ‘favourite,’ or K͟halīl, ‘friend,’ &c.; but a servant is but a servant, no one can put his foot outside the limits of servitude, or rise beyond the rank of a servant.” Again, the King may himself wish to pardon the offender, but he fears lest the majesty of the law should be lowered. The Vizier perceives the King’s wish, and intercedes. This intercession is lawful. It is called Shafāʿat-i-ba-ʾiẕn, “intercession by permission,” and such power Muḥammad will have at the Day of Judgment. Wahhābīs hold that he has not that power now, though all other Musalmāns consider that he has, and in consequence (in Wahhābī opinion) commit the sin of Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf. The Wahhābīs quote the following passages in support of their view. “Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission.” (Sūrah ii. 256) “Say: Intercession is wholly with God! His the kingdoms of the heavens and of the earth.” (Sūrah xxxix. 45.) They also say: “Whenever an allusion is made in the Qurʾān, or the Traditions to the intercession of certain prophets or apostles, it is this kind of intercession and no other that is meant.”

(3) Shirku ʾl-ʿIbādah is prostration before any created being, with the idea of worshipping it; perambulating the shrines of departed saints. “Prostration, bowing down, standing with folded arms, spending money in the name of an individual, fasting out of respect to his memory, proceeding to a distant shrine in a pilgrim’s garb and calling out the name of the saint.” It is wrong “to cover the grave with a sheet, to say prayers at the shrine, to kiss any particular stone, to rub the mouth and breast against the walls of the shrine, &c.” This is a stern condemnation of the very common practice of visiting the tombs of saints and of some of the special practices of the pilgrimage to Makkah. All such practices as are here condemned are called Ishrāk fī ʾl-ʿIbādah, “association in worship.”

(4) Shirku ʾl-ʿādah is the keeping up of superstitious customs, such as the Istik͟hārah, seeking guidance from beads, &c., trusting to omens, good or bad, believing in lucky and unlucky days, adopting such names as ʿAbdu ʾn-Nabī (Slave of the Prophet), and so on. In fact, the denouncing of such practices and calling them Shirk brings Wahhābīism into daily contact with the other sects, for scarcely any people in the world are such profound believers in the virtue of charms and the power of astrologers as Musalmāns. The difference between the first and fourth Shirk, the Shirku ʾl-ʿilm and the Shirku ʾl-ʿādah, seems to be that the first is the belief, say in the knowledge of a soothsayer, and the second the habit of consulting him.

To swear by the name of the Prophet, of ʿAlī, of the Imāms, or of Pīrs (Leaders) is to give them the honour due to God alone. It is Ishrāk fī ʾl-adab, “Shirk in association.” [WAHHABI.]

SHIRKAH (شركة‎). “Partnership.” The term signifies the union of two or more persons in one concern. It is applied in Muslim law to contracts as well as to partnerships. Shirkah, or association, with regard to the essence and person of God, is forbidden in Islām.

SHĪS̤ (شيث‎). [SETH.]

THE SHOES OF THE FAITHFUL. (A. F. Hole.)

SHOES. The removal of the sandals, shoes, or boots, from the feet upon entering either a mosque or house, or during worship, is not enjoined in Muḥammadan law, although it has become a common custom in all Eastern countries, for the modern Muslim uncovers his feet upon entering the Kaʿbah at Makkah (Burckhardt’s Arabia, vol. i. p. 270), the Muḥammadans of Palestine remove the shoes upon entering their places of worship (Robinson’s Researches, vol. ii. p 36) and it is also the practice to take off the shoes in Egypt (Lane, vol. i. pp. 16, 105; vol. ii. p. 11), and in Hindūstān.

The number of traditions which prove that Muḥammad allowed his followers to worship with their feet covered, is very numerous, and they are held to be Aḥādīs̤ of good authority, and supported by the fatwās of eminent doctors of law.

Shaddād ibn Aus relates that the Prophet said, “Act the reverse of the Jews in your prayers, for they do not pray in boots or shoes.”

Abū Saʿīd al-K͟hudrī says “the Prophet said his prayers with the Companions, and suddenly took off his shoes, and put them down on his left side; and when the people observed it, they took off theirs also, and when prayers were finished, the Prophet asked why they took their shoes off. The Companions replied, ‘We followed your example.’ The Prophet then said, ‘Verily Gabriel came to me and told me there was a little filth on my shoes. Therefore, when any of you enter a mosque, look well at your shoes, and if you perceive any dirt on them, wipe it off, and then say your prayer in them.’ ”

ʿAmr ibn Shuʿaib relates that he saw the Prophet saying his prayers sometimes with his shoes and sometimes without. (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. 9.)

In the Hidāyah it is enjoined that when there is any uncleanness on the shoes, such as dung, blood, &c., they must be rubbed with earth, and then they become legally clean and fit for worship. (Arabic edition, vol. i. p. 26.)

This is confirmed by the Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār (vol. i. pp. 30, 65), and by numerous traditions. (Mishkāt, book iii. ch. ii.)

If the dirt cannot be removed from the shoes by rubbing them with earth, the law permits the Muslim to make them ceremonially clean by wetting his three fingers and drawing them once over the upper part of the shoes or boots. [MASAH.]

According to the Traditions, when a Muslim sits down on the floor, he should take off his shoes and place them on one side, and he should take off the right shoe first and then the left. (Mishkāt, book xx. ch. iii.)

SHROUD. Arabic kafan (كفن‎). The act of shrouding is called takfīn. A wooden coffin is called tābūt, the use of which is generally held to be forbidden by Sunnīs, but it is used by the Shīʿahs.

Muḥammad is related to have said:—

“Do not be expensive in your shrouds, for they soon rot.”

“Plain white is the best for the shrouds of your dead.”

“The best cloth for a shroud is ḥullah” (i.e. a white striped cloth used in Arabia).

ʿĀyishah says: “The Prophet was shrouded in three garments, but there was neither a coat nor a turban.”

These three garments are still used as shrouds in all parts of Islām.

(1) Izār, a piece of cloth which covers from the waist to the feet.

(2) Ridāʾ, covering from the feet to the shoulders.

(3) Lifāfah, a large sheet covering the whole body from head to feet, and closed at the ends.

The bodies of martyrs are not shrouded, but are buried in the garments in which they fell, for it is related that Muḥammad so ordered the men who fell in the battle of Uḥud to be buried; their weapons being first removed from their bodies, they were buried in their blood-stained clothes. [BURIAL.]

SHUʿAIB (شعيب‎). The Muslim commentators generally suppose Shuʿaib to be the same person with the father-in-law of Moses, who is named in scripture Reuel or Rageul and Jethro. But Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdi ʾl-Ḥalīm charges those who entertain this opinion with ignorance. They say (after the Jews) that he gave his son-in-law [MOSES] that wonder-working rod with which he performed all those miracles in Egypt and the desert, and also gave excellent advice and instruction; whence he had the surname of K͟hat̤ību ʾl-Ambiyāʾ (خطيب الانبياء‎), the “Preacher to the Prophets.”

The account given of him in the Qurʾān, Sūrah vii. 83–91, is as follows:—

“And unto Midian did we send their brother Shuʿaib, who said, ‘O my people! serve God, ye have no god save Him. There has come to you a manifest sign from your Lord: then give good weight and measure, and be not niggardly of your gifts to men, and do not evil in the earth after it has been righted. That is better for you if ye are believers; and sit not down in every path, threatening and turning from the path of God those who believe in Him, and craving to make it crooked. Remember when ye were few and He multiplied you; and see what was the end of the evil-doers! And if there be a party of you who believe in what I am sent with, and a party who believe not, then wait patiently until God judges between us, for He is the best of judges!’ Said the crowd of those who were big with pride amongst his people, ‘We will of a surety turn thee out, O Shuʿaib, and those who believe with thee, from our village; or else thou shalt return unto our faith.’ Said he, ‘What even if we be averse therefrom? We shall have devised a lie against God if we return unto your faith after God has saved us from it; and what should ail us that we should return thereto, unless that God our Lord should please? Our Lord embraces everything in His knowledge; on God do we rely. O our Lord! open between us and between our people in truth, for Thou art the best of those who open.’ And the chiefs of those who disbelieved amongst his people said, ‘If ye follow Shuʿaib, verily, ye shall be the losers.’ Then there took them the earthquake, and in the morning they lay in their dwellings prone. Those who called Shuʿaib a liar, (were) as though they had not dwelt therein. Those who called Shuʿaib a liar, they were the losers then! And he turned away from them and said, ‘O my people! I preached to you the messages of my Lord, and I gave you good advice; how should I be vexed for a people who do misbelieve?’ ”

ASH-SHUʿARĀʾ (الشعراء‎). “The Poets.” The title of the XXVIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, so called because at the conclusion of the chapter the Arabian poets are severely censured. [POETS.]

SHUFʿAH (شفعة‎). [PREEMPTION.]

ASH-SHŪRĀ (الشورى‎). “The Consultation.” The title of the XLIInd Sūrah of the Qurʾān. Taken from the 36th verse, in which the believers are commended for taking consultation together.

SHURB (شرب‎). Lit. “Drinking.” A term used for wine-drinking, which is forbidden by the Muslim law. [DRUNKENNESS.]

ṢIBG͟HAH (صبغة‎). Lit. “A dye.” A word which occurs in the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 132: “The dye of God! And who is better than God at dyeing? And we are worshippers of Him”; which both Mr. Sale and Mr. Rodwell translate baptism, but which Professor Palmer says must be rendered “dye.” According to al-Baiẓāwī, it stands in the text for the Islām of God, but refers to Christian baptism. [BAPTISM.]

ṢIDDĪQ (صديق‎). “One who speaks the truth.” It occurs in the Qurʾān for Idrīs (generally identified with Enoch), who is described as a man of eminent truthfulness. Professor Palmer translates the word “confessor” (see Sūrah xix. 57.)

Aṣ-Ṣiddīq is a title said to have been given to the first K͟halīfah Abū Bakr by Muḥammad himself.

SIDRATU ʾL-MUNTAHĀ (سدرة المنتهى‎). Lit. “The Lote-tree of the extremity.” A tree in the seventh heaven, having its roots in the sixth. Its fruits were like water-pots, and its leaves like elephant’s ears. (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. vii. pt. 1.)

It is mentioned twice in the Qurʾān, Sūrah liii. 8–18:—

“Then came he (Gabriel or the angel) nearer and approached,

And was at the distance of two bows, or even closer,—

And he revealed to his servant what he revealed.

His heart falsified not what he saw.

What! will ye then dispute with him as to what he saw?

He had seen him also another time,

Near the Sidrah-tree, which marks the boundary.

Near which is the garden of repose.

When the Sidrah-tree was covered with what covered it,

His eye turned not aside, nor did it wander:

For he saw the greatest of the signs of his Lord.”

The Sidrah-tree is the Zizyphus jujuba of Linnæus, the prickly plum, which is called Ber in India. A decoction of its leaves is used in India to wash the dead, on account of the sacredness of the tree.

ṢIFAH (صفة‎), pl. Ṣifāt. An attribute. Used for the attributes of God. The Qurʾān is also said to be a Ṣifah of the Almighty.

Ismu ʾṣ-Ṣifah, the name of an attribute, is a term applied to any of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. [GOD.]

ṢIFĀTĪYAH (صفاتية‎). From Ṣifāt, “attributes.” A school of thought rather than a sect of Islām, although it is given by Mr. Sale as one of the Muḥammadan sects. The orthodox Sunnī claims to be a Ṣifātī, or Attributist (as opposed to the Muʿtazilahs, who reject the idea of God’s attributes being eternal), and maintains that the attributes of God are eternally inherent in His essence without separation or change; every attribute being conjoined with Him as life with knowledge, or knowledge with power. With regard to the verses of the Qurʾān which are held to be Mutashābih, and assign some resemblance between God and His creatures, the Ṣifātīyahs say the expressions “hands,” “face,” “sitting,” &c., must simply be accepted as they stand, without any attempt at explanation. [MUʿTAZILAH, WAHHABI.]

AṢ-ṢIḤĀḤU ʾS-SITTAH (الصحاح الستة‎), also called al-Kutubu ʾs-Sittah (الكتب الستة‎). “The six correct (books).” The title given to the six most trustworthy collections of traditions received by Sunnī Muslims, namely, those by:—

(1) Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Buk͟hārī, born A.H. 194; died A.H. 256.

(2) Abū ʾl-Ḥusain Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushairī, born A.H. 204, died A.H. 261.

(3) Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ʾl-Tirmiẕī, born A.H. 209, died A.H. 279.

(4) Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān ibn Ashʿas̤ as-Sajastānī, born A.H. 202, died A.H. 275.

(5) Abū ʿAbdi ʾr-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿaib an-Nasāʾī, born A.H. 215, died A.H. 303.

(6) Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, ibn Mājah, al-Qazwīnī, born A.H. 209, died A.H. 273.

The above are generally esteemed the six authentic collections, but some substitute for the Sunan Ibn Mājah the Muwat̤t̤aʾ of Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Mālik ibn Anas ibn Mālik ibn Abī ʿĀmir ibn ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥāris̤ al-Aṣbaḥī al-Ḥimyarī, born A.H. 95, died A.H. 179.

(The above words in italics denote the popular title of the collection.)

Al-Buk͟hārī and Muslim are held in highest reputation, and are called aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥān, or “the two authentics.”

The collection by Mālik, the founder of the second orthodox sect of the Sunnīs, is the most ancient collection of traditions, and is held in high reputation, but it is sometimes omitted from the list by the Ḥanafīs, because he is the founder of a certain school of jurisprudence. [TRADITIONS.]

SIJDAH. [SAJDAH.]

SIJILL (سجل‎). A register. The record of a court of justice. The decree of a judge. In the Qurʾān, the word occurs when it is used for the angel which has charge of the register of the fate of mankind, or, according to others, it may mean the roll itself.

Sūrah xxi. 104: “The day when we will roll up the heavens as as-Sijill rolls up his books; as We produced it at the first creation, will we bring it back again.”

SIJJĪN (سجين‎). A deep pit in which is kept the register of the actions of the wicked, and hence this register itself. Qurʾān, Sūrah lxxxiii. 7, 8: “The book of the wicked is in Sijjīn, and what shall make thee know what Sijjīn is?—It is an inscribed book.” (See also Mishkāt, book v. ch. iii. pt. 3.)

SIKANDAR (سكندر‎). The Persian for Alexander, by which is meant Alexander the Great. [ZU ʾL-QARNAIN.]

SIKHISM (from the Panjābī word sikh or sikhā = Sanskrit śishya, “a disciple” or “pupil”). The religion of the Sikhs in the Panjāb. Founded by Nānak, who was born in the village of Talvandī (now known as Nankānā), on the banks of the river Rāvī, near Lahore, in A.D. 1469.

The history of the Sikh religion has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny necessary to warrant strong dogmatism as to the ultimate source, or sources, whence the system of Nānak and his followers took its rise. The literature and traditions of Sikhism present a strange intermingling of Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas; and this is so palpably apparent that even superficial inquirers have been led to conclude that Nānak purposely intended his creed to be a compromise between those two great religions. Dr. Trumpp, the able translator of the Ādi Granth (the sacred book of the Sikhs), who is the only author that has written with knowledge on the subject, is, however, distinctly of opinion that Sikhism has only an accidental relationship with Muḥammadanism. In the Introduction to his Translation of the Ādi Granth (p. ci.), he says:—

“It is a mistake, if Nānak is represented as having endeavoured to unite the Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas about God. Nānak remained a thorough Hindū, according to all his views; and if he had communionship with Musalmāns, and many of these even became his disciples, it was owing to the fact that Sūfism, which all these Muḥammadans were professing, was in reality nothing but a Pantheism, derived directly from Hindū sources, and only outwardly adapted to the forms of the Islām. Hindū and Muslim Pantheists could well unite together, as they entertained essentially the same ideas about the Supreme.”

If the foregoing opinion accurately represents the real truth, then Sikhism hardly deserves mention in the present work; but it will soon be seen that the balance of evidence is heavily on the other side. A careful investigation of early Sikh traditions points strongly to the conclusion that the religion of Nānak was really intended as a compromise between Hindūism and Muḥammadanism, if it may not even be spoken of as the religion of a Muḥammadan sect. The very little that seems to be known as to the views of the early Sikh teachers, coupled with the decided opinion put forth by Dr. Trumpp, has made it necessary to give here a longer article on Sikhism than its importance with respect to Islām would have otherwise warranted; because it was necessary to establish the relationship which actually existed between the two faiths. It will be seen that the information given in this article is chiefly taken from original Panjābī books, and from manuscripts in the India Office Library; and it is supported by the authority of the Ādi Granth, which is the sacred canon of the Sikhs.

The Janam-Sākhīs, or biographical sketches of Nānak and his associates, contain a profusion of curious traditions, which throw considerable light on the origin and development of the Sikh religion. From these old books we learn that, in early life, Nānak, although a Hindū by birth, came under Ṣūfī influence, and was strangely attracted by the saintly demeanour of the faqīrs who were thickly scattered over Northern India and swarmed in the Panjāb. Now, Ṣūfīism is not, as Dr. Trumpp supposes, due to Hindū pantheism; for it arose in the very earliest days of Muḥammadanism, and is almost certainly due to the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism on the rude faith of Arab Islāmism. Persia has ever been the stronghold of Ṣūfīistic doctrine; and the leading writers who have illustrated that form of Muḥammadanism have been the Persian poets Firdūsī, Niz̤āmī, Saʿdī, Jalālu ʾd-Dīn, Ḥāfiz̤, and Jāmī.

Ḥāfiz̤, the prince of Ṣūfī poets, boldly declares: “I am a disciple of the old Magian: be not angry with me, O Shaik͟h! For thou gavest me a promise; he hath brought me the reality.” Although this stanza alludes directly to two persons known to Ḥāfiz̤, its almost obvious meaning is: “I, a Persian, adhere to the faith of my ancestors. Do not blame me, O Arab conqueror! that my faith is more sublime than thine.” That Ḥāfiz̤ meant his readers to take his words in a general sense, may be inferred from the stanza in which he says: “I am the servant of the old man of the tavern (i.e. the Magian); because his beneficence is lasting: on the other hand, the beneficence of the Shaik͟h and of the Saiyid at times is, and at times is not.” Indeed, Ḥāfiz̤ was fully conscious of the fact that Ṣūfīism was due to the influence of the faith of his ancestors; for, in another ode, he plainly says: “Make fresh again the essence of the creed of Zoroaster, now that the tulip has kindled the fire of Nimrod.” And Niz̤āmī, also, was aware that his ideas were perilously akin to heterodoxy; for, he says in his K͟husrū wa Shīrīn: “See not in me the guide to the temple of the Fire-worshippers; see only the hidden meaning which cleaveth to the allegory.” These citations, which could be indefinitely multiplied, sufficiently indicate the Zoroastrian origin of the refined spirituality of the Ṣūfīs. The sublimity of the Persian faith lay in its conception of the unity of Eternal Spirit, and the intimate association of the Divine with all that is manifest. Arab Muḥammadans believe in the unity of a personal God; but mankind and the world were, to them, mere objects upon which the will of God was exercised. The Ṣūfīs approached nearer to the Christian sentiment embodied in the phrase, “Christ in us.”

The Persian conquerors of Hindūstān carried with them the mysticism and spirituality of the Islāmo-Magian creed. It was through Persia that India received its flood of Muḥammadanism; and the mysticism and asceticism of the Persian form of Islām found congenial soil for development among the speculative ascetics of northern India. It is, therefore, only reasonable to suppose that any Hindū affected by Muḥammadanism would show some traces of Ṣūfī influence. As a fact we find that the doctrines preached by the Sikh Gurus were distinctly Ṣūfīistic; and, indeed, the early Gurus openly assumed the manners and dress of faqīrs, thus plainly announcing their connection with the Ṣūfīistic side of Muḥammadanism. In pictures they are represented with small rosaries in their hands, quite in Muḥammadan fashion, as though ready to perform ẕikr. Guru Arjun, who was fifth in succession from Nānak, was the first to lay aside the dress of a faqīr. The doctrines, however, still held their position; for we find the last Guru dying while making an open confession of Ṣūfīism. His words are: “The Smritis, the Śāstras, and the Vedas, all speak in various ways: I do not acknowledge one (of them). O possessor of happiness, bestow thy mercy (on me). I do not say, ‘I,’ I recognise all as ‘Thee.’ ”—(Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 81.) Here we have not only the ideas, but the very language of Ṣūfīs, implying a pantheistic denial of all else than Deity. The same manner of expression is found in the Ādi Granth itself, e.g. “Thou art I; I am thou. Of what kind is the difference?” (Translation, p. 130); and again, “In all the One dwells, the One is contained” (p. 41). Indeed, throughout the whole Ādi Granth, a favourite name for Deity is the “True One,” that is, that which is truly one—the Absolute Unity. It is hardly possible to find a more complete correspondence of ideas than that furnished by the following sentences, one taken from the Yūsuf wa Zulaik͟ha of Jāmī, the Persian Ṣūfī; and the others, from the Jap-jī and the Ādi Granth. Jāmī says:—

“Dismiss every vain fancy, and abandon every doubt;

Blend into one every spirit, and form, and place;

See One—know One—speak of One—

Desire One—chant of One—and seek One.”

In the Jap-jī, a formula familiar to every Sikh household, we find:—

“The Guru is Īsar (Siva), the Guru is Gorakh (Vishnu), Brahmā, the Guru is the mother Pārbatī.

If I should know, would I not tell? The story cannot be told.

O Guru, let me know the One; that the One liberal patron of all living beings may not be forgotten by me.”

In the Ādi Granth, we read:—

“Thou recitest the One; thou placest the One in (thy) mind; thou recognizest the One.

The One (is) in eye, in word, in mouth; thou knowest the One in both places (i.e. worlds).

In sleeping, the One; in waking, the One; in the One thou art absorbed.”

(India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 568.)

It is not only with respect to the idea of the unity of God that this identity of expression is discernible; for other technical terms of Ṣūfīism are, also, reproduced in Sikhism. Thus the Ṣūfī Farīdu ʾd-Dīn Shakrganj calls Deity “the light of life,” and Jalālu ʾd-Dīn speaks of “flashes of His love,” while Jāmī represents the “light” of the Lord of Angels as animating all parts of the universe; and Niz̤āmī exclaims, “Then fell a light, as of a lamp, into the garden (of my heart),” when he feels that a ray of the Divine has entered into his soul. It is not difficult to collect many such instances from the works of Persian Ṣūfīs. Turning to Sikhism, we find that the Ādi Granth is full of similar expressions. It is enough to cite the following exclamation of Nānak himself: “In all (is) light. He (is) light. From His light, there is light in all.” (India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 35.) And in another place he says: “The Luminous One is the mingler of light (with himself).” (fol. 186.) On fol. 51 we find: “There death enters not; light is absorbed in the Luminous One.”

Another favourite metaphor of Ṣūfīs for the Deity is “the Beloved”; for example, when Ḥāfiz̤ says: “Be thankful that the Assembly is lighted up by the presence of the Beloved.” This term is well recognized in Sikhism; thus in the Ādi Granth, “If thou call thyself the servant of the Beloved, do not speak despitefully (of Him).” (India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 564.) “Love to the Beloved naturally puts joy into the heart. I long to meet the Lord (Prabhu); therefore why should I be slothful.” (India Office MS., 2484, fol. 177.) Also, “In my soul and body are excessive pangs of separation, how shall the Beloved come to my house and meet (with me)?” And again: “The Beloved has become my physician.” (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 87.) The words used in the Panjābī texts are pirīˏā, prītam, and pirī, “a lover,” or “beloved one.”

Another remarkable proof of Persian influence is found in the form of the Ādi Granth itself. It consists of a collection of short poems, in many of which all the verses composing the poem rhyme together, in singular conformity with the principle regulating the construction of the Persian g͟hazal. This resemblance is rendered more striking by the fact that the name of Nānak is worked into the composition of the last line of each of the poems. This last characteristic is too persistent to be considered the result of accident; and while it is altogether foreign to the practice of Hindū verse, it is in precise accord with the rule for the correct composition of the g͟hazal.

The foregoing facts seem conclusive as to the influence of Persian Ṣūfīism on the origin of the Sikh religion. Dr. Trumpp, when discussing the philosophy of the Ādi Granth, admits the intimate connection between Sikhism and Ṣūfīism in the following words:—

“We can distinguish in the Granth a grosser and a finer kind of Pantheism.… In this finer shade of Pantheism, creation assumes the form of emanation from the Supreme (as in the system of the Sūfīs); the atomic matter is either likewise considered co-eternal with the Absolute and immanent in it, becoming moulded into various, distinct forms by the energizing vigour of the absolute joti (light); or, the reality of matter is more or less denied (as by the Sūfīs, who call it the عَدَم‎, τὸ μὴ ὄν) so that the Divine joti is the only real essence in all.”—(Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, pp. c.–ci.)

Any doubt that may remain on the question seems to be set at rest by the express statement in the life of Guru Arjun, who was urged by his followers to reduce to writing the genuine utterances of Nānak, because “by reciting the numerous verses and speeches uttered by other Ṣūfīs, which have received the name of Bābā Nānak, pride and worldly wisdom are springing up in the hearts of men.” (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 29.) And in the Ādi Granth itself, we find the following remarkable verses ascribed to Nānak:—

“A ball of intoxication, of delusion, is given by the Giver.

The intoxicated forget death, they enjoy themselves four days.

The True One is found by the Ṣofīs, who keep fast his Court.”

(Translation, p. 23.)

Here we have not only a plain claim of kinship with the Ṣūfīs, but the incorporation of several of their favourite terms.

The traditions of Nānak preserved in the Janam-Sākhī, are full of evidences of his alliance with Muḥammadanism. He was a Hindū by birth, of the Vedī Khattrī caste; and was the son of the patwārī, or village-accountant, of the place now called Nankānā, in the neighbourhood of Lahore. In his very early days, he sought the society of faqīrs; and used both fair and unfair means of doing them service, more especially in the bestowal of alms. At fifteen years of age, he misappropriated the money which his father had given him for trade; and this induced his parents to send him to a relative at Sultānpur, in order that he might be weaned from his affection for faqīrs (India Office MS. No. 1728, fol. 29). His first act in his new home was to join the service of a Muḥammadan Nawāb, named Daulat K͟hān Loḍī; and, while serving him, he continued to give to faqīrs all his salary, except the bare maintenance he reserved for himself. While in the service of this Muḥammadan, Nānak received the ecstatic exaltation which he felt to be Divine inspiration. It is stated in the tradition of his life, that Nānak went to the river to perform his ablutions, and that whilst so engaged, he was translated bodily to the gates of Paradise. “Then a goblet of amrita (the water of life) was given (to him) by command (of God). The command was: ‘This amrita is the goblet of my name; drink thou it.’ Then the Guru Nānak made salutation, and drank the goblet. The Lord (Ṣāḥib) had mercy (and said): ‘Nānak, I am with thee; I have made thee happy, and whoever shall take thy name they all shall be rendered happy by me. Go thou, repeat my name, and cause other people to repeat it. Remain uncontaminated from the world. Continue (steadfast) in the name, in alms-giving, in ablutions, in service, and in the remembrance (of me). I have given to thee my own name: do thou this work.’ ” (fol. 33.) Here we have notions closely akin to those of the Ṣūfīs, who lay much stress on the repetition of the name of God, which they term ZIKR [q.v.], on religious ablutions [WAZUʾ, q.v.], and on meditating on the unity of God [WAHDANIYAH, q.v.]. No sooner had Nānak recovered from his trance than he uttered the key-note of his future system in the celebrated phrase, “There is no Hindū, and there is no Musalmān.” (fol. 36.) The Janam-Sākhī then goes on to say that, “The people went to the K͟hān (his former employer) and said, ‘Bābā Nānak is saying, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān.’ The K͟hān replied, ‘Do not regard his statement; he is a faqīr.’ A Qāẓī sitting near said: ‘O K͟hān! it is surprising that he is saying there is no Hindū and no Musalmān.’ The K͟hān then told an attendant to call Nānak; but the Guru Nānak said: ‘What have I to do with thy K͟hān?’ Then the people said: ‘This stupid is become mad.’… Then the Bābā (Nānak) was silent. When he said anything, he repeated only this statement: ‘There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān.’ The Qāẓī then said: ‘K͟hān, is it right that he should say, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān?’ Then the K͟hān said: ‘Go, fetch him.’ The attendant went, and said: ‘Sir, the K͟hān is calling (you). The K͟hān says: For God’s sake give me an interview [Panj. aj barā Khudāˏī de tānˏī = Persian az barāˏī K͟hudā]; I want to see thee.’ The Guru Nānak arose and went, saying: ‘Now the summons of my Lord (Ṣāḥib) is come, I will go.’ He placed a staff upon his neck and went. The K͟hān said: ‘Nānak, for God’s sake take the staff from off thy neck, gird up thy waist; thou art a good faqīr.’ Then Guru Nānak took the staff from off (his) neck, and girded up his loins. The K͟hān said: ‘O Nānak, it is a misfortune to me that a steward such as thou shouldst become a faqīr.’ Then the K͟hān seated the Guru Nānak near himself and said: ‘Qāẓī, if thou desirest to ask anything, ask now; otherwise this one will not again utter a word.’ The Qāẓī becoming friendly, smiled and said: ‘Nānak, what dost thou mean by saying, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān?’ Nānak replied: … ‘To be called a Musalmān is difficult; when one (becomes it) then he may be called a Musalmān. First of all, having made religion (dīn) sweet, he clears away Musalmān wealth. Having become firm (مُسَلَّم‎), religion (dīn) in this way brings to an end the revolution of dying and living.’—(I. O. MS., 2484, fol. 84.) When Nānak had uttered this verse, the Qāẓī became amazed. The K͟hān said: ‘O Qāẓī, is not the questioning of him a mistake?’ The time of the afternoon prayer had come. All arose and went (to the mosque) to prayers, and the Bābā (Nānak) also went with them.” Nānak then demonstrated his supernatural power by reading the thoughts of the Qāẓī. “Then the Qāẓī came and fell down at his feet, exclaiming, ‘Wonderful, wonderful! on this one is the favour of God.’ Then the Qāẓī believed; and Nānak uttered this stanza: ‘A (real) Musalmān clears away self; (he possesses) sincerity, patience, purity of speech: (what is) erect he does not annoy: (what) lies (dead) he does not eat. O Nānak! that Musalmān goes to heaven (bihisht).’ When the Bābā had uttered this stanza, the Saiyids, the sons of the Shaik͟hs, the Qāẓī, the Muftī, the K͟hān, the chiefs and leaders were amazed. The K͟hān said: ‘Qāẓī, Nānak has reached the truth; the additional questioning is a mistake.’ Wherever the Bābā looked, there all were saluting him. After the Bābā had recited a few stanzas, the K͟hān came and fell down at his feet. Then the people, Hindūs and Musalmāns, began to say to the K͟hān that God (K͟hudā) was speaking in Nānak.” (India Office MS. 1728, fol. 36–41.)

The foregoing anecdotes are taken from the India Office MS., No. 1728; but the ordinary Janam-Sākhīs current in the Panjāb vary the account somewhat by saying that when the K͟hān reproved Nānak for not coming to him when sent for, the latter replied: “ ‘Hear, O Nawāb, when I was thy servant I came before thee; now I am not thy servant; now I am become the servant of K͟hudā (God).’ The Nawāb said: ‘Sir, (if) you have become such, then come with me and say prayers (niwāj = nimāz, see PRAYER). It is Friday.’ Nānak said: ‘Go, Sir.’ The Nawāb, with the Qāẓī and Nānak, and a great concourse of people, went into the Jāmiʿ Masjid and stood there. All the people who came into the Masjid began to say, ‘To-day Nānak has entered this sect.’ There was a commotion among the respectable Hindūs in Sultānpur; and Jairām, being much grieved, returned home. Nānakī perceiving that her husband came home dejected, rose up and said, ‘Why is it that you are to-day so grieved?’ Jairām replied, ‘Listen, O servant of Paramesur (God), what has thy brother Nānak done! He has gone, with the Nawāb, into the Jāmiʿ Masjid to pray; and, in the city, there is an outcry among the Hindūs and Musalmāns that Nānak has become a Turk (Muslim) to-day.’ ” (India Office MS., No. 2885, fol. 39.)

From the foregoing it is perfectly clear that the immediate successors of Nānak believed that he went very close to Muḥammadanism; and we can scarcely doubt the accuracy of their view of the matter, when we consider the almost contemporaneous character of the record, from which extracts have been given, and the numerous confirmatory evidences contained in the religion itself. It is particularly worthy of remark that a “cup of amrita” (i.e. immortality) is considered the symbol of inspiration; just as Ḥāfiz̤ exclaims, “Art thou searching, O Ḥāfiz̤, to find the waters of eternal life?” And the same poet expresses his own ecstasy in a way almost identical with the reception accorded to Nānak at the gate of Paradise. His words are: “Then he gave into my hand a cup which flashed back the splendour of Heaven so gloriously, that Zuhrah broke out into dancing and the lute-player exclaimed, ‘Drink!’ ” The staff (muttakā) that is mentioned is, also, that of a faqīr, on which a devotee supports himself while in meditation. Another significant fact is that when Nānak speaks of himself as the servant of God, he employs the word K͟hudā, a Persian Muḥammadan term; but when his brother-in-law Jairām speaks of God, he uses the Hindū word Paramesur. It will, also, be noticed that Muḥammadans are affected by the logic and piety of Nānak; and to them he shows himself so partial that he openly accompanies them to the mosque, and thereby causes his Hindū neighbours and friends to believe that he is actually converted to the faith of Islām. But, of course, the most remarkable expression of all is the emphatic and repeated announcement that “There is no Hindū; there is no Musalmān.” This can mean nothing else than that it was Nānak’s settled intention to do away with the differences between those two forms of belief, by instituting a third course which should supersede both of them.

Nānak’s whilom employer, in consequence of the foregoing manifestations of wisdom, became his devoted admirer. After this, Nānak undertook a missionary tour; and it is noticeable that the first person he went to and converted was Shaik͟h Sajan (? ساجن‎), who showed himself to be a pious Muḥammadan. Nānak then proceeded to Pānīpat, and was met by a certain Shaik͟h Tatīhar, who accosted him with the Muḥammadan greeting, “Peace be on thee, O Darvesh!” (Salām-āleka Darves); to which Nānak immediately replied, “And upon you be peace, O servant of the Pīr! (āleka us-salāmu, ho Pīr ke dasta-pes).” (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 48.) Here we find Nānak both receiving and giving the Muḥammadan salutation; and also the acknowledgment that he was recognized as a darvesh. The Panjābī form of the Arabic salutation is given lest it might be thought that the special character of the words is due to the translation. The disciple then called his master, the Pīr Shaik͟h Sharaf, who repeated the salutation of peace, and after a long conversation acknowledged the Divine mission of Nānak, kissed his hands and feet, and left him. (fol. 52.) After the departure of this Pīr, the Guru Nānak wandered on to Delhi, where he was introduced to Sultān Ibrahīm Loḍī, who also called him a darvesh. The previous conversations and acts are found to have awakened the curiosity of Nānak’s attendant Mardānā, who asked in surprise: “Is God, then, one?” To which Nānak firmly replied: “God (K͟hudā) is one.” (fol. 55.) This was intended to satisfy Mardānā that there is no difference between the Muḥammadan and the Hindū God.

Nānak is next said to have proceeded to the holy city of Benares, and there he met with a Pandit named Satrudās. The MS. 1728 (fol. 56) says: “He came to this Nānak, and cried, ‘Rām! Rām!’ Seeing his (Nānak’s) disguise (bhekhu), he sat down, and said to him, ‘O devotee (bhagat), thou hast no sāligrām; no necklace of tulsī; no rosary; no tikā of white clay; and thou callest (thyself) a devotee! What devotion hast thou obtained?’ ” In other words, the Pandit is made to challenge his piety; because he has none of the marks of a Hindū upon him. Nānak explains his peculiar position and views; and is reported to have converted the Hindū Pandit to his own way of thinking. This anecdote, also, shows that the immediate successors of Nānak were aware that their great Guru occupied an intermediate position between Muḥammadanism and Hindūism; for we see that he is made to convert Muḥammadans on the one hand, and Hindūs on the other. After this primary attack on Hindūism, Nānak is said to have converted some Jogīs, Khattrīs, Thags, necromancers, witches, and even the personified Kaliyug, or present age of the world. These conquests over imaginary Hindūs are obviously allegorical; though they clearly point to a well recognized distinction between the teaching of Nānak and that of orthodox Hindūism.

The most significant associate which Nānak found was, undoubtedly, Shaik͟h Farīd. He was a famous Muḥammadan Pīr, and a strict Ṣūfī, who attracted much attention by his piety, and formed a school of devotees of his own. Shaik͟h Farīd must have gained considerable notoriety in his day; for his special disciples are still to be found in the Panjāb, who go by the name of Shaik͟h Farīd’s faqīrs. This strict Muḥammadan became the confidential friend and companion of Nānak; and if all other traditions had failed, this alone would have been enough to establish the eclectic character of early Sikhism. The first greeting of these famous men is significant enough. Shaik͟h Farīd exclaimed, “Allah, Allah, O Darvesh”; to which Nānak replied, “Allah is the object of my efforts, O Farīd! Come, Shaik͟h Farīd! Allah, Allah (only) is ever my object.” The words in the original being Allah, Farīd, juhdī; hamesa āˏu, Sekh Farīd, juhdī Allah Allah. (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 86.) The use of the Arabic term juhd implies the energy of the purpose with which he sought for Allah; and the whole phrase is forcibly Muḥammadan in tone.

An intimacy at once sprang up between these two remarkable men; and Shaik͟h Farīd accompanied Nānak in all his wanderings for the next twelve years. The intended compromise between Hindūism and Islām is shown not only in the fact of this friendship, but in the important circumstance that no less than 142 stanzas composed by Shaik͟h Farīd are admitted into the Ādi Granth itself. An examination of these verses still further proves the mingling of the two religions which Nānak effected. They are distinctly Ṣūfīistic in tone, containing such lines as, “Youth is passing, I am not afraid, if love to the Beloved does not pass”; and still more pointedly, “Full of sins I wander about; the world calls me a Darvesh”; while, between these declarations of steady adherence to Islām, comes the remarkable Hindū line, “As by fire the metal becomes purified, so the fear of Hari removes the filth of folly.” The fact that the compositions of a genuine Ṣūfī should have been admitted into the canonical book of the Sikhs, and that they should contain such a clear admixture of Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas, is conclusive evidence that Nānak, and his immediate successors, saw no incongruity in the mixture.

As soon as Nānak and his friend Shaik͟h Farīd begin to travel in company, it is related that they reached a place called Bisīˏār, where the people applied cow-dung to every spot on which they had stood, as soon as they departed. (I. O. MS., No. 1728, fol. 94.) The obvious meaning of this is, that orthodox Hindūs considered every spot polluted which Nānak and his companion had visited. This could never have been related of Nānak had he remained a Hindū by religion.

In his next journey Nānak is said to have visited Patan, and there he met with Shaik͟h Ibrahīm, who saluted him as a Muslim, and had a conversation with him on the Unity of God. Nānak expressed his views in the following openly Ṣūfīistic manner: “Thou thyself (art) the wooden tablet; thou (art) the pen; thou (art) also the writing upon (it). O Nānak, why should the One be called a second?” (India Office MS. 1728, fol. 117.) The Pīr asks an explanation of this verse in these words: “Thou sayest, ‘There is One, why a second?’ but there is one Lord (Ṣāḥib), and two traditions. Which shall I accept, and which reject? Thou sayest, ‘The only One, he alone is one’; but the Hindūs are saying that in (their) faith there is certainty; and the Musalmāns are saying that only in (their) faith is there certainty. Tell me, in which of them is the truth, and in which is there falsity?” Nānak replied, “There is only one Lord (Ṣāḥib), and only one tradition.” (fol. 119.) This anecdote serves still further to illustrate the intermediate position between the two religions ascribed to Nānak by his immediate followers.

Shortly after the foregoing episode, Nānak was captured among the prisoners taken by the Emperor Bābar, who seems to have been attracted by the Guru’s piety, and to have shown him some attentions. The chronicler informs us that “all the people, both Hindūs and Musalmāns, began to salute (Nānak).” (fol. 137.) After his release, Nānak recommenced his missionary work, and is described as meeting a Muḥammadan named Miyān Mithā, who called upon him for the Kalimah [see KALIMAH], or Muḥammadan confession of faith (fol. 143); which leads to a long conversation, in which Nānak lays emphasis on the Ṣūfī doctrine of the Unity of God. In this conversation Nānak is made to say, “The book of the Qurʾān should be practised.” (fol. 144.) He also acknowledged that “justice is the Qurʾān.” (fol. 148.) When the Miyān asked him what is the one great name, Nānak took him aside and whispered in his ear, “Allāh” [GOD]. Immediately the great name is uttered, Miyān Mithā is consumed to ashes; but a celestial voice again utters the word “Allāh!” and the Miyān regains life, and falls at the feet of Nānak. (fol. 147.)

Nānak then proceeded to convert some Jainas, and even a Rākshasas, or Hindū demon; and next went to Multān, where he converted the famous Pīr, Mak͟hdūm Bahāʾu ʾd-Dīn. In Kashmīr he met with a Hindū Pandit who recognized him as a sādhu, or virtuous person; but asked him why he had abandoned caste usages, why he wore skins, and ate meat and fish. The Pandit’s scruples having been satisfied, he flung away his idols, and became a devoted believer in Nānak’s doctrines. This anecdote again furnishes us with distinct evidence that Nānak took up an intermediate position between Islām and Hindūism, and sought to bring both under one common system.

In precise conformity with this deduction is the tradition of Nānak’s pilgrimage to Makkah. The particulars of his visit to that holy place are fully given, in all accounts of Nānak’s life; and although, as Dr. Trumpp reasonably concludes, the whole story is a fabrication, yet the mere invention of the tale is enough to prove that those who most intimately knew Nānak considered his relationship to Muḥammadanism sufficiently close to warrant the belief in such a pilgrimage. In the course of his teaching in Makkah, Nānak is made to say: “Though men, they are like women, who do not obey the Sunnat, and Divine commandment, nor the order of the book (i.e. the Qurʾān).” (I. O. MS. No. 1728, fol. 212.) He also admitted the intercession of Muḥammad, denounced the drinking of bhang, wine, &c., acknowledged the existence of hell, the punishment of the wicked, and the resurrection of mankind; in fact, the words here ascribed to Nānak contain a full confession of Islām. These tenets are, of course, due to the narrator of the tale; and are only useful as showing how far Nānak’s followers thought it possible for him to go.

A curious incident is next related to the effect that Mak͟hdūm Bahāʾu ʾd-Dīn, the Pīr of Multān, feeling his end approaching, said to his disciples, “O friends, from this time the faith of no one will remain firm; all will become faithless (be-īmān).” His disciples asked for an explanation; and in reply he delivered himself of an oracular statement: “O friends, when one Hindū shall come to Heaven (bihisht), there will be brilliancy (ujālā) in Heaven.” To this strange announcement his disciples replied: “Learned people say that Heaven is not decreed for the Hindū; what is this that you have said?” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 224.) The Pīr told them that he was alluding to Nānak; and sent one of his disciples to ask Nānak if he, also, had received an intimation of his approaching death.

In this anecdote we have the extraordinary admission from a Muḥammadan that Nānak would succeed in breaking up the faith of Islām. It is in consequence of a Hindū’s having conquered Heaven itself, and vindicated his right to a place in the paradise of Muḥammad, that those who were then in the faith of the Prophet would lose confidence in his teaching. Here again the words employed are useful; for the Pīr is made to say that Muslims will become be-īmān, the Arabic term specially applicable to the “faith” of Islām; and Heaven is called in the Panjābī story bhisat, that is bihisht, the Paradise of Muḥammadans [see PARADISE]; for had the Hindū heaven been intended, some such word as swarg, or paralok, or Brahmalok would have been used.

The final incident in the life of this enlightened teacher is in precise accord with all that has been said of his former career. Nānak came to the bank of the Rāvī to die—in conformity with Hindū custom—by the side of a natural stream of water. It is expressly said that both Hindūs and Muslims accompanied him. He then seated himself at the foot of a Sarīh tree, and his Assembly of the faithful (Sangat) stood around him. His sons asked him what their position was to be; and he told them to subordinate themselves to the Guru Angad whom he had appointed as his successor. They were to succeed to no power or dignity merely on the ground of relationship; no hereditary claim was to be recognized; on the contrary, the sons were frankly told to consider themselves non-entities. The words are: “Sons, even the dogs of the Guru are not in want; bread and clothes will be plentiful; and should you mutter ‘Guru! Guru!’ (your) life will be (properly) adjusted.” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 238.) The anecdote then proceeds in the following remarkable manner: “Then the Hindūs and Musalmāns who were firm in the name (of God), began to express themselves (thus): the Musalmāns said, ‘We will bury (him)’; and the Hindūs said, ‘We will burn (him).’ Then the Bābā said, ‘Place flowers on both sides; on the right side those of the Hindūs, on the left side those of the Musalmāns, (that we may perceive) whose will continue green to-morrow. If those of the Hindūs keep green, then burn (me); and if those of the Musalmāns keep green, then bury (me).’ Then the Bābā ordered the Assembly to repeat the praises (of God); and the Assembly began to repeat the praises accordingly. [After a few verses had been recited] he laid down his head. When the sheet (which had been stretched over him) was raised, there was nothing (under it); and the flowers of both (sides) remained green. The Hindūs took away theirs; and the Musalmāns took away theirs. The entire Assembly fell to their feet.” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 239, 240.)

The mixture of Hindūism and Muḥammadanism is evident in this tradition. It is obviously intended to summarize the life of Nānak and the object of his teaching. He is not represented as an outcaste and a failure; on the other hand, his purposes are held to have been fully accomplished. The great triumph was the establishment of a common basis of religious truth for both Muḥammadan and Hindū; and this he is shown to have accomplished with such dexterity that at his death no one could say whether he was more inclined to Hindūism or to Muḥammadanism. His friends stood around him at the last moment quite uncertain as to whether they should dispose of his remains as those of a Muḥammadan, or as those of a Hindū. And Nānak is represented as taking care that the matter should ever remain a moot point. The final miraculous disappearance of the corpse is obviously intended to convey the idea that Nānak belonged specially neither to one party nor to the other; while the green and flourishing appearance of the flowers of both parties conveys the lesson that it was his wish that both should live together in harmony and union. The narrator of the life clearly wishes his history to substantiate the prophetic statement recorded at the commencement of his book (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 7) that, at Nānak’s birth, “The Hindūs said, ‘The manifestation of some God (Devatā) has been produced’; and the Musalmāns said, ‘Some holy man (ṣādiq) of God (K͟hudā) has been born.’ ”

The most potent cause of the uncertainty as to Nānak’s true position in the religious world, arises from the initial fact that he was born a Hindū, and necessarily brought up in that form of belief. He was a perfectly uneducated man, there being no reason to suppose that he could either read or write, or perform any other literary feat, beyond the composition of extemporaneous verses in his mother tongue. Guru Arjun, the fourth successor of Nānak, appears to have been the first chieftain of the fraternity who could read and write. The necessary result of Nānak’s early associations was that all his ideas throughout life were substantially Hindū, his mode of thought and expression was Hindū, his illustrations were taken from Hindū sources, and his system was based on Hindū models. It must be borne in mind that Nānak never openly seceded from the pale of Hindūism, or ever contemplated doing so. Thus in the Sākhī of Miyān Mithā it is related that towards the end of Nānak’s life a Muḥammadan named Shāh ʿAbdu ʾr-Raḥmān acknowledged the great advantages he had derived from the teaching of Nānak, and sent his friend Miyān Mithā to the Guru so that he might derive similar benefit. “Then Miyān Mithā said, ‘What is his name? Is he a Hindū, or is he a Musalmān?’ Shāh ʿAbdu ʾr-Raḥmān replied, ‘He is a Hindū; and his name is Nānak.’”—(Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 258.) He struck a heavy blow at Hindūism by his rejection of caste distinctions; and on this point there can be no doubt, for his very words, preserved in the Ādi Granth, are: “Thou (O Lord) acknowledgest the Light (the ray of the Divine in man), and dost not ask after caste. In the other world there is no caste.”—(Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. 494.) In consequence of this opinion Nānak admitted to his fraternity men of all castes; his constant companions being spoken of as Saiyids and Sikhs, that is, Muḥammadan and Hindū pupils. Sikhs have ever before them the intermediate character of their religion by the stanza (21) of the Jap-Jī, which says, “Pandits do not know that time, though written in a Purāna; Qāẓīs do not know that time, though written in the Qurʾān.” Hindū scholars are told in the Ādi Granth that they miss the true meaning of their religion through delusion. “Reading and reading the Pandit explains the Veda, (but) the infatuation of Māyā (delusion personified) lulls him to sleep. By reason of dual affection the name of Hari (i.e. God) is forgotten.” (Translation, p. 117.) In the same way Nānak turns to the Musalmān and says,—

“Thou must die, O Mullā! thou must die! remain in the fear of the Creator!

Then thou art a Mullā, then thou art a Qāẓī, if thou knowest the name of God (K͟hudā).

None, though he be very learned, will remain, he hurries onwards.

He is a Qāẓī by whom his own self is abandoned, and the One Name is made his support.

He is, and will be, He will not be destroyed, true is the Creator.

Five times he prays (niwāj gujarhi), he reads the book of the Qurʾān.”

(Translation, p. 37.)

Nānak does not seem to have been fastidious as to the name under which he recognized the Deity; he was more concerned with impressing on his companions a correct understanding of what Deity was. The names Hari, Rām, Govind, Brahma, Parameśwar, K͟hudā, Allāh, &c., are used with perfect freedom, and are even mixed up in the same poem. The most common name for God in the Ādi Granth is certainly Hari; but that does not seem to have shocked the Muslim friends of Nānak. Thus, in a poem addressed to Hari as “the invisible, inaccessible, and infinite,” we are told that, “Pīrs, prophets, sāliks, ṣādiqs, martyrs, shaik͟hs, mullās, and darveshes; a great blessing has come upon them, who continually recite his salvation.”—(Translation, p. 75.)

The chief point of Nānak’s teaching was unquestionably the Unity of God. He set himself firmly against the idea of associating any other being with the Absolute Supreme. This exalted idea of Divine Majesty enabled Nānak to treat with indifference the crowd of Hindū deities. To such a mind as that of Nānak it would have been sheer waste of time to argue, with any earnestness, about the attributes, powers, or jurisdictions, of a class of beings, the whole of whom were subordinate to one great, almighty, and incomprehensible Ruler. Without any overt attack on the Hindū pantheon, he caused the whole cluster of deities to subside into a condition similar to that of angels in modern Christianity; whose existence and operations may be the subject of conversation, but the whole of whom sink into utter insignificance compared with the central idea of the Divine Majesty. The One God, in Nānak’s opinion (and, it may be added, in the opinion of all Ṣūfīs), was the creator of plurality of form, not the creator of matter out of nothing. The phenomenal world is the manifestation of Deity, and it is owing to pure deception that the idea of severalty exists. In the Ādi Granth we read:—

“The cause of causes is the Creator.

In His hand are the order and reflection.

As He looks upon, so it becomes.

He Himself, Himself is the Lord.

Whatever is made, (is) according to His own pleasure.

He is far from all, and with all.

He comprehends, sees, and makes discrimination.

He Himself is One, and He Himself is many.

He does not die nor perish, He neither comes nor goes.

Nānak says: He is always contained (in all).”—(Translation, p. 400.)

Notwithstanding this conception that the Supreme One comprehends both spirit and matter, and therefore is what is; He is nevertheless spoken of as in some way different from the creatures He has formed, and has been endowed with moral and intellectual qualities. Thus we find in the Ādi Granth—

“Whose body the universe is, He is not in it, the Creator is not in it.

Who is putting (the things) together, He is always aloof (from them), in what can He be said (to be contained)?”

(Translation, p. 474.)

The soul of man is held to be a ray of light from the Light Divine; and it necessarily follows that, in its natural state, the soul of man is sinless. The impurity, which is only too apparent in man, is accounted for by the operation of what is called Māyā, or Delusion; and it is this Māyā which deludes creatures into egotism and duality, that is, into self-consciousness or conceit, and into the idea that there can be existence apart from the Divine. This delusion prevents the pure soul from freeing itself from matter, and hence the spirit passes from one combination of matter to another, in a long chain of births and deaths, until the delusion is removed, and the entrammelled ray returns to the Divine Light whence it originally emanated. The belief in metempsychosis is thus seen to be the necessary complement of pantheism; and it is essential to the creed of a Hindū, a Buddhist, and a Ṣūfī.

In Sikhism, as in Buddhism, the prime object of attainment is not Paradise, but the total cessation of individual existence. The method by which this release from transmigration is to be accomplished is by the perfect recognition of identity with the Supreme. When the soul fully realizes what is summed up in the formula so ham, “I am that,” i.e. “I am one with that which was, and is, and will be,” then emancipation from the bondage of existence is secured. This is declared by Nānak himself in the Ādi Granth in these words:—

“Should one know his own self as the so ham, he believes in the esoteric mystery.

Should the disciple (Gur-mukhi) know his own self, what more can he do, or cause to be done?”—(I. O. MS. 2484, fol. 53.)

The principles of early Sikhism given above are obviously too recondite for acceptance among masses of men; accordingly we find that the pantheistic idea of Absolute Substance became gradually changed into the more readily apprehended notion of a self-conscious Supreme Being, the Creator and Governor of the universe. Here Dr. Trumpp himself admits the influence of Muḥammadanism, when he says: “It is not improbable that the Islām had a great share in working silently these changes, which are directly opposed to the teaching of the Gurus.”—(Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. cxii.) The teaching of Nānak was, however, very practical. His followers are daily reminded in the Jap-Jī that, “Without the practice of virtue there can be no worship.”

In all that has preceded we have confined ourselves strictly to the intimate relationship subsisting between early Sikhism and the Muḥammadan religion. It is, however, needful to allude to the fact that certain surviving relics of Buddhism had no small share in moulding the thoughts of the Founder of the Sikh religion. A full examination of this part of the subject would be out of place in the present work. It must suffice to say that Buddhism held its position in the Panjāb long after it had disappeared from other parts of Northern India; and the abundance of Buddhistic relics, which are continually being unearthed in the district, prove the wide-spread and long-continued influence of the tenets of the gentle-hearted Buddha. Indications of this influence on early Sikhism are seen in its freedom from caste, in the respect for animal life, the special form of metempsychosis accepted, the importance ascribed to meditation, the profuse charity, the reverence paid to the seat of the Guru (like the Buddhistic worship of the throne), Nānak’s respect for the lotos, his missionary tours, and the curious union subsisting between the Guru and his Sangat. In the Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, translated from the original Gurmukhī by an excellent scholar, Sirdār Atar Singh, we find the following remarkable sentence: “The Guru and his Sangat are like the warp and woof in cloth,—there is no difference between them” (p. 37). In the Ādi Granth there is an entire Sukhmanī, or poem, by Guru Arjun, wholly devoted to a recitation of the advantages of “the society of the pious,” the term employed being, however, in this case, sādh kai sang. (I. O. MS. 2484, fol. 134.) In addition to these points of resemblance, there is found in early Sikhism a curious veneration for trees, offerings to which were sometimes made, as will be seen by reference to pp. 67, 70, and 83, of the Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, just cited. In precise conformity with the tradition that Buddha died under a Sāl tree, we have seen that Nānak purposely breathed his last under a Sarīh tree. Anyone familiar with Buddhism will readily recognize the remarkable coincidences stated above; but the most conclusive of all is the positive inculcation of views identical with the crowning doctrine of Buddhism—the Nirvāna itself. The following is what Dr. Trumpp says on the subject:—

“If there could be any doubt on the pantheistic character of the tenets of the Sikh Gurus regarding the Supreme, it would be dissolved by their doctrine of the Nirbān. Where no personal God is taught or believed in, man cannot aspire to a final personal communion with him, his aim can only be absorption in the Absolute Substance, i.e. individual annihilation. We find, therefore, no allusion to the joys of a future life in the Granth, as heaven or paradise, though supposed to exist, is not considered a desirable object. The immortality of the soul is only taught so far as the doctrine of transmigration requires it; but when the soul has reached its highest object, it is no more mentioned, because it no longer exists as individual soul.

“The Nirbān, as is well known, is the grand object which Buddha in his preaching held out to the poor people. From his atheistic point of view, he could look out for nothing else; personal existence, with all the concomitant evils of this life, which are not counterbalanced by corresponding pleasures, necessarily appeared to him as the greatest evil. His whole aim was, therefore, to counteract the troubles and pain of this existence by a stoical indifference to pleasure and pain, and to stop individual consciousness to its utmost limit, in order to escape at the point of death from the dreaded transmigration, which he also, even on his atheistic ground, had not ventured to reject. Buddhism is, therefore, in reality, like Sikhism, nothing but unrestricted Pessimism, unable to hold out to man any solace, except that of annihilation.

“In progress of time, Buddhism has been expelled from India, but the restored Brahmanism, with its confused cosmological legends, and gorgeous mythology of the Purānas, was equally unable to satisfy the thinking minds. It is, therefore, very remarkable, that Buddhism in its highest object, the Nirbān, soon emerges again in the popular teachings of the mediæval reformatory movements. Nāmdev, Trilochan, Kabīr, Ravidās, &c., and after these Nānak, take upon themselves to show the way to the Nirbān, as Buddha in his time had promised, and find eager listeners; the difference is only in the means which these Bhagats [saints] propose for obtaining the desired end.” (Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. cvi.)

Such, then, was the Sikh religion as founded by Guru Nānak. It is based on Hindūism, modified by Buddhism, and stirred into new life by Ṣūfīism. There seems to be superabundant evidence that Nānak laboured earnestly to reconcile Hindūism with Muḥammadanism, by insisting strongly on the tenets on which both parties could agree, and by subordinating the points of difference. It is impossible to deny that Nānak in his life-time actually did effect a large amount of reconciliation, and left behind him a system designed to carry on the good work. The circumstances which led to the entire reversal of the project, and produced between Muḥammadans and Sikhs the deadliest of feuds, does not come within the purview of the present article. It is enough to state that the process was gradual, and was as much due to political causes as to a steady departure from the teachings of the Founder of Sikhism.

The Sikhs acknowledge ten Gurus, whose names, with the year in which each died, are given in the following list:—

Name. Date of Death. Duration of Guru-ship.

A.D. Years.

Guru Nānak 1538 34

Guru Angad 1552 14

Guru Amar-Dās 1574 22

Guru Rām-Dās 1581 7

Guru Arjun 1606 25

Guru Har-Govind 1638 32

Guru Har-Rāˏī 1660 22

Guru Har-Krishan 1664 4

Guru Tegh-Bahādur 1675 11

Guru Govind Singh 1708 33

It is thus seen that the Sikh fraternity was under the guidance of personal Gurus from A.D. 1504, when Nānak received the spiritual impulse which gave birth to the new sect, until A.D. 1708, a total period of 204 years. After the death of Guru Govind Singh, the Ādi Granth itself was taken to be the ever-existing impersonal guide.

The first successor of Nānak was appointed on account of his devotion to the cause. Shortly after the supposed visit to Makkah, Nānak met with a devotee named Lahanā, whose faith and earnestness were so fully demonstrated that Nānak named him, in preference to either of his sons, as his successor in the leadership of the new sect. His name was also changed from Lahanā to Angad (= anga-da, “body-giving”), implying that he was willing to give his very body to the cause of God. He was a poor and ignorant man, and maintained himself by rope-making. He is said to have heard the whole account of Nānak’s life from Bhāˏī Bālā, who had long been with the Founder. It is related that all the counsel which Nānak had given to the Sikhs was sedulously inculcated by him. (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 19.) Like his predecessor, the Founder, he also named as his successor a devoted servant; although he had sons whom he might have appointed.

Amar-Dās, the third Guru, was a simple-minded and inoffensive man, who was as unlearned as his two predecessors; nevertheless, he composed several verses incorporated in the Ādi Granth. It was in his time that we hear of the first differences between the Sikhs and the Muḥammadans. The gentle disposition of Amar-Dās was unsuited to the position of ruler among the strong-willed people of the Panjāb; accordingly, when a difference occurred, he was quite incapable of settling the matter. It is related that Amar-Dās was completely absorbed in the service of Paramesur (God). (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 25.) The use of this word indicates a marked inclination towards the Hindū side of Sikhism; and we may suppose that such an inclination would be resented by the firmer adherents to Islām; for we find that the Muslims began to annoy this Guru’s disciples by trivial acts of aggression. The disciples asked their Guru what they had better do; and he suggested various temporising expedients, which only emboldened the aggressors. When again appealed to, he desired his disciples to endure the wrong, as it was more meritorious to submit than to resent an insult. The weak conduct of this Guru left a legacy of ill-will for his successors to deal with. Amar-Dās nominated his son-in-law as his successor; an example which initiated the hereditary Guru-ship which followed.

Rām-Dās was a poor lad, who got a scanty living by selling boiled grain. He was taken into the family of Amar-Dās, and married his daughter. He had acquired the elements of education, and was a peaceful and non-aggressive man. On attaining the Guru-ship, he set himself industriously to the acquisition of disciples; and took large contributions from them in the shape of voluntary offerings. This wealth placed him above his brothers in the faith; and conferred upon him the elements of a royal state. He restored an old tank in magnificent style, for the purpose of religious ablution, and called it Amritsar, or the lake of the water of life. This tank enabled the Sikhs to perform their ablutions in a luxurious manner, and necessarily attracted many to the spot. In the course of time, a town grew up round the tank, which gradually increased in importance, and is now one of the most important places in the Punjāb. This assumption of dignity and increasing wealth in all probability awakened the anxiety of the Muḥammadan governors of the country; and the gradual drifting into common Hindūism accentuated the feeling. It is clear that the Muḥammadans who had fought so desperately to overturn the ancient Hindū kingdoms, could not view with indifference the up-growth of a Hindū sovereignty in their very midst. Rām-Dās named his son as his successor in the Guru-ship—an act which sealed the fate of the Sikh attempt at compromise in religious matters; for every Muḥammadan felt his position as a citizen threatened by the establishment of a rallying-point for disaffected Hindūs.

Guru Arjun, the fifth Guru, was an active and ambitious man. He laid aside the dress of a faqīr, which had been worn by all his predecessors, and converted the voluntary offerings of his disciples into a tax. This raised him to some importance, and enabled him to take men into his pay, a proceeding which conferred additional dignity upon him, and, at the same time, intensified the jealousy of his Muḥammadan neighbours. As an additional means of uniting his community into one compact body, he collected the words of Nānak, and those of other saintly personages, into a book, which he called Granth, i.e. “the book”; and strictly enjoined his followers to accept no speech as authoritative which was not contained in “the book.” The spark which lit the torch was, however, a distinct interference in political affairs, which provoked the resentment of the Muḥammadan ruler at Delhi, and occasioned the arrest and, ultimately, the death of the Guru. It is not clear whether the Emperor actually executed him, or whether the Guru committed suicide; but his death was brought about by the ruler of Delhi; and this was enough to inflame the passions of the Sikhs, who were eager to revenge his death.

Har-Govind succeeded his father in the Guru-ship; and at once proceeded to arm his followers, and slay those who had been personally concerned in procuring the death of the late Guru. This did not, however, prevent him from entering the service of the Emperors Jahāngīr and Shāh-Jahān in a military capacity; but his turbulence got him into much trouble, and he spent a predatory, rather than a religious, life. Under his Guru-ship the Sikhs were changed from faqīrs into soldiers; and were freely recruited from the warlike Jat population, who eagerly availed themselves of any opportunity for securing plunder. It is evident that the actions of this Guru must have led him into frequent contests with the Muḥammadan authorities; and provoked the efforts afterwards made to break up what the rulers must have felt to be a dangerous confederation.

Har-Rāˏī was the grandson of the last Guru; and was chosen as successor because Har-Govind distrusted the fitness of his sons for the office. Har-Rāˏī fought against Aurangzīb in the interest of Dārā-Shikoh; and when the latter was defeated he made his submission to the Emperor, and was pardoned.

Har-Krishan was the younger son of the preceding. Nothing eventful occurred during his short tenure of power. He was called to Delhi by the Emperor Aurangzīb, and was there attacked by small-pox, of which disease he died. The succession to the Guru-ship was broken by his death; for he was too weak to appoint a successor, and merely indicated that the next Guru would be found in Bakālā, a village near Anand-pur.

Tegh-Bahādur, who happened to be residing in Bakālā, was the son of Har-Govind, and had been passed over by his father in favour of Har-Rāˏī. He was by nature contemplative, and not particularly anxious to assume the delicate position of leader among the bellicose Sikhs. Aurangzīb was in the full fury of his Islāmizing mania, and was accordingly specially solicitous to suppress the ambitious projects of the Sikhs. The Panjāb appears to have been too carefully guarded to be pleasant to Tegh-Bahādur, and he, therefore, began a wandering life over the north of India. An account of his travels has been translated from Panjābī into English by the learned Sirdār Atar Singh; and the story is singularly interesting to the student of Sikh history. We learn from one anecdote that, even in the time of this ninth Guru, Muḥammadans could feel a certain respect for the Sikhs. The tale relates that a small party of Hindūs and Muḥammadans went to rob the Guru; but at the last moment the Muḥammadans felt remorse, for they said, “he was undoubtedly a prophet.”—(Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, p. 24.) On reaching Śivarām the Guru met a Saiyid seated under a Sarīh tree (the same kind of tree, be it remarked, as that under which Nānak breathed his last); and the Saiyid saluted the Guru with reverence, saying: “I am really happy now, having seen your divine countenance.”—(Travels, &c., p. 46.) Still more marked is the friendly feeling shown by the courteous reception which Tegh-Bahādur received from Sharafu ʾd-Dīn, a Muḥammadan gentleman residing near Patiālā. This Muslim sent him presents, and then went out to meet him. He conducted him with much ceremony to his own palace, where he entertained him. It is specially mentioned that “the Guru’s eyes fell upon a mosque, and Sharafu ʾd-Dīn immediately said that that was the house of God.”—(Travels, &c., p. 2.) Notwithstanding this reverential treatment by pious Muḥammadans, it is certain that Tegh-Bahādur spent his life in violent antagonism to the Muslim rulers of the country. The book of Travels, from which we are quoting, gives numerous instances of this, as may be seen by those who care to study the details, in pp. 45, 49, 57, 58, 69, 126, 130, 131. Some desperate fights took place, and after a specially severe engagement it is said on p. 58 that “from that day the Muḥammadans never ventured to fight with the Guru.” However, the Guru appears to have been hunted from place to place, and on many occasions he narrowly escaped capture. The apparent contradiction involved in the reverential attitude of pious Muḥammadans, and the skirmishes with Muḥammadan soldiery, finds its explanation in the supposition that the religious aspect of Sikhism was not antagonistic to Muḥammadan ideas, while its political aspect provoked the violence of the Court of Delhi. In the present day much the same state of things is recognizable with respect to the Wahhābīs. The English Government would never dream of interfering with the religions opinions of that, or any other, sect; but when their doctrines find expression in the subversion of civil authority, the leaders soon find themselves in the Andaman islands. Tegh-Bahādur was at length arrested, and the Emperor is stated to have endeavoured earnestly to bring him over to the pure Muslim faith; but when he proved obdurate he was thrown into prison, where long-continued cruelty induced him to command a Sikh, who was with him, to cut off his head.

Govind Singh was the tenth and last Guru, and he succeeded his father Tegh-Bahādur when only 15 years of age. He was brought up under Hindū guidance, and became a staunch devotee of the goddess Durgā; and, by his pronounced preference for Hindūism, he caused a division in the Sikh community. He introduced several important changes into the constitution of Sikh society. The chief among these was the establishment of the Khālsā, by which he bound his disciples into an army, and conferred upon each of them the name Singh, or lion. He freely admitted all castes to the ranks of his army; and laboured more earnestly over their military than over their religious discipline. The nature of the changes which Govind Singh effected in the fraternity is best shown by the fact that the special followers of Nānak personally, separated themselves from him, and formed a community of their own, rejecting the title of Singh. In other words, they preferred the religious to the military idea. This Guru fought against the Muḥammadans with determination; and was so incensed against them that he instituted a fine of 25 rupees for saluting a Muḥammadan tomb, however saintly. Towards the end of his Guru-ship an attempt was made to raise this fine to 5,000 rupees; but it was ultimately fixed at 125 rupees (Travels, &c., pp. 69 and 130.) The spirit of toleration so marked during the life of Nānak was clearly gone; and in yet later times this hostility gave birth to the maxim that “a true Sikh should always be engaged in war with the Muḥammadans and slay them, fighting them face to face.” After a turbulent reign, Guru Govind Singh was treacherously slain by the dagger of a Pathān follower. He refused to name a successor, telling his followers that after his death the Granth Ṣāḥib, or “the Lord the Book,” was to be their guide in every respect. (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 79.)

The foregoing sketch of the relation of the Sikhs to the Muḥammadans is sufficient to show that the religion of Nānak began in large-hearted tolerance; and that political causes operated to convert its adherents into a narrow-minded sect. The Hindūism which Nānak had disciplined, reasserted its superiority under his successors, and ultimately became predominant. While this change was in progress the religious aspect of the movement became gradually converted into a military and political propaganda. No contrast, indeed, could well be greater than that between the inoffensive and gentle-minded Nānak, and the warlike and ambitious Gurus of later times. But while we cannot help being painfully impressed with the apparently undying feud which still subsists between the Sikhs and the Muḥammadans, it seems perfectly clear that the intention of the Founder was to reconcile the differences between those creeds; and that in this excellent work he attained a large measure of success. His pious object was defeated by political causes, and by the warlike nature of the people of the Panjāb. The name “Muḥammadan,” in the various countries in which it exists, is allowed to cover differences in religious belief quite as great as those between the views of Nānak and those of Muḥammad; and in all probability would have done so in this instance also, but for the reasons pointed out. We cannot, however, concern ourselves with probabilities; it is enough for the purposes of this article to have established the fact that Sikhism, in its inception, was intimately associated with Muḥammadanism; and that it was intended as a means of bridging the gulf which separated the Hindūs from the believers in the Prophet.