Читать книгу The Koran (Al-Qur'an) - Anonymous - Страница 29

BEFORE we take a view of the sects of the Mohammedans, it will be necessary to say something of the two sciences by which all disputed questions among them are determined, viz., their Scholastic and Practical Divinity. Their scholastic divinity is a mongrel science, consisting of logical, metaphysical, theological, and philosophical disquisitions, and built on

6 Cap. 63, ubi supra. 7 Al Ghazâli, ubi sup. p. 318. 8 The word Beirâm is Turkish, and properly signifies a feast-day or holiday. 9 See c. 9, and before, Sect. IV. p. 94. 1 Vide Reland. de Relig. Moh. p. 109, and D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art. Beirâm. 2 Hyde, in notis ad Bobov. p. 16; Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom. ii. p. 450; Ricaut's State of the Ottoman Empire, l. 2. c. 24, &c. 3 Vide Chardin and Ricaut, ubi supra.

principles and methods of reasoning very different from what are used by those who pass among the Mohammedans themselves for the sounder divines or more able philosophers,1 and, therefore, in the partition of the sciences this is generally left out, as unworthy a place among them.2 The learned Maimonides3 has laboured to expose the principles and systems of the scholastic divines, as frequently repugnant to the nature of the world and the order of the creation, and intolerably absurd. This art of handling religious disputes was not known in the infancy of Mohammedism, but was brought in when sects sprang up, and articles of religion began to be called in question, and was at first made use of to defend the truth o those articles against innovators;1 and while it keeps within those bounds is allowed to be a commendable study, being necessary for the defence of the faith: but when it proceeds farther, out of an itch of disputation, it is judged worthy of censure. This is the opinion of al Ghazâli,2 who observes a medium between those who have too high a value for this science, and those who absolutely reject it. Among the latter was al Shâfeï, who declared that, in his judgment, if any man employed his time that way, he deserved to be fixed to a stake, and carried about through all the Arab tribes, with the following proclamation to be made before him: 'This is the reward of him who, leaving the Korân and the Sonna, applied himself to the study of scholastic divinity."3 Al Ghazâli, on the other hand, thinks that as it was introduced by the invasion of heresies, it is necessary to be retained in order to quell them: but then in the person who studies this science he requires three things, diligence, acuteness of judgment, and probity of manners; and is by no means for suffering the same to be publicly explained.4 This science, therefore, among the Mohammedans, is the art of controversy, by which they discuss points of faith concerning the essence and attributes of GOD, and the conditions of all possible things, either in respect to their creation, or final restoration, according to the rules of the religion of Islâm.5 The other science is practical divinity or jurisprudence, and is the knowledge of the decisions of the law which regard practice, gathered from distinct proofs. Al Ghazâli declares that he had much the same opinion of this science as of the former, its original being owing to the corruption of religion and morality; and therefore judged both sciences to be necessary, not in themselves, but by accident only, to curb the irregular imaginations and passions of mankind (as guards become necessary in the highways by reason of robbers), the end of the first being the suppressing of heresies, and of the other the decision of legal controversies, for the quiet and peaceable living of mankind in this world, and for the preserving the rule by which the magistrate may prevent one man from injuring another, by declaring what is lawful and what is unlawful, by determining the satisfaction to be given, or punishment to be

1 Poc. Spec. p. 196. 2 Apud Ebn Sina, in Libello de Divisione Scientiar, et Nasiro'ddin al Tûsi, in Præfat. ad Ethic. 3 More Nevoch. l. I, c. 71 and 73. 1 Al Ghazâli, apud Poc. ubi supra. 2 Ibid. 3 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 197. 4 Al Ghazâli, ibid. 5 Ebn al Kossá apud eund. ibid. p. 198.

inflicted, and by regulating other outward actions; and not only so, but to decide of religion itself, and its conditions, so far as relates to the profession made by the mouth, it not being the business of the civilian to inquire into the heart:1 the depravity of men's manners, however, has made this knowledge of the laws so very requisite, that it is usually called the Science, by way of excellence, nor is any man reckoned learned who has not applied himself thereto.2 The points of faith, subject to the examination and discussion of the scholastic divines, are reduced to four general heads, which they call the four bases, or great fundamental articles.3 The first basis relates to the attributes of GOD, and his unity consistent therewith. Under this head are comprehended the questions concerning the eternal attributes, which are asserted by some, and denied by others; and also the explication of the essential attributes, and attributes of action; what is proper for GOD to do, and what may be affirmed of him, and what it is impossible for him to do. These things are controverted between the Ashárians, the Kerâmians, the Mojassemians or Corporalists, and the Mótazalites.4 The second basis regards predestination, and the justice thereof: which comprises the questions concerning GOD'S purpose and decree, man's compulsion or necessity to act, and his co-operation in producing actions, by which he may gain to himself good or evil; and also those which concern GOD'S willing good and evil, and what things are subject to his power, and what to his knowledge; some maintaining the affirmative, and others the negative. These points are disputed among the Kadarians, the Najarians, the Jabarians, the Ashárians, and the Kerâmians.5 The third basis concerns the promises and threats, the precise acceptation of names used in divinity, and the divine decisions; and comprehends questions relating to faith, repentance, promises, threats, forbearance, infidelity, and error. The controversies under this head are on foot between the Morgians, the Waïdians, the Mótazalites, the Ashárians, and the Kerâmians.1 The fourth basis regards history and reason, that is, the just weight they ought to have in matters belonging to faith and religion; and also the mission of prophets, and the office of Imâm, or chief pontiff. Under this head are comprised all casuistical questions relating to the moral beauty or turpitude of actions; inquiring whether things are allowed or forbidden by reason of their own nature, or by the positive law; and also questions concerning the preference of actions, the favour or grace of GOD, the innocence which ought to attend the prophetical office, and the conditions requisite in the office of Imâm; some asserting it depends on right of succession, others on the consent of the faithful; and also the method of transferring it with the former, and of confirming it with the latter. These matters are the subjects of dispute between the Shiites, the Mótazalites, the Kerâmians, and the Ashárians.2 The different sects of Mohammedans may be distinguished into two

1 Al Ghazâli. Vide ibid. p. 198–204. 2 Vide ibid. p. 204. 3 Vide Abulfarag, Hist. Dynast. p. 166. 4 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. ubi. sup. p. 204, &c. 5 Idem, ibid. p.205. 1 Idem, ibid. p. 206. 2 Idem, ibid.

sorts; those generally esteemed orthodox, and those which are esteemed heretical. The former, by a general name, are called Sonnites or Traditionists; because they acknowledge the authority of the Sonna, or collection of moral traditions of the sayings and actions of their prophet, which is a sort of supplement to the Korân, directing the observance of several things omitted in that book, and in name, as well as design, answering to the Mishna of the Jews.3 The Sonnites are subdivided into four chief sects, which, notwithstanding some differences as to legal conclusions in their interpretation of the Korân, and matters of practice, are generally acknowledge to be orthodox in radicals, or matters of faith, and capable of salvation, and have each of them their several stations or oratories in the temple of Mecca.4 The founders of these sects are looked upon as the great masters of jurisprudence, and are said to have been men of great devotion and self-denial, well versed in the knowledge of those things which belong to the next life and to man's right conduct here, and directing all their knowledge to the glory of GOD. This is al Ghazâli's encomium of them, who thinks it derogatory to their honour that their names should be used by those who, neglecting to imitate the other virtues which make up their character, apply themselves only to attain their skill, and follow their opinions in matters of legal practice.1 The first of the four orthodox sects is that of the Hanefites, so named from their founder, Abu Hanîfa al Nómân Ebn Thâbet, who was born at Cufa, in the 80th year of the Hejra, and died in the 150th, according to the more preferable opinion as to the time.2 He ended his life in prison at Baghdâd, where he had been confined because he refused to be made Kâdi or judge;3 on which account he was very hardly dealt with by his superiors, yet could not be prevailed on, either by threats or ill-treatment, to undertake the charge, "choosing rather to be punished by them than by GOD," says Al Ghazâli; who adds, that when he excused himself from accepting the office by alleging that he was unfit for it, being asked the reason, he replied, "If I speak the truth, I am unfit; but if I tell a lie, a liar is not fit to be a judge." It is said that he read the Korân in the prison where he died, no less than 7,000 times.4 The Hanefites are called by an Arabian writer5 the followers of reason, and those of the three other sects, followers of tradition; the former being principally guided by their own judgment in their decisions, and the latter adhering more tenaciously to the traditions of Mohammed. The sect of Abu Hanîfa heretofore obtained chiefly in Irâk,6 but now generally prevails among the Turks and Tartars: his doctrine was brought into great credit by Abu Yûsof, chief justice under the Khalîfs al Hâdi and Harûn al Rashîd.7

3 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 298. Prid. Life of Mahomet, p. 51, &c. Reland. de Rel. Moh. p. 68, &c. Millium, de Mohammedismo ante Moh. p. 368, 369. 4 See before, p. 90. 1 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 293. 2 Ebn Khalecân. 3 This was the true cause of his imprisonment and death, and not his refusing to subscribe to the opinion of absolute predestination, as D'Herbelot writes (Bibl. Orient. p. 21), misled by the dubious acceptation of the word "kadâ," which signifies not only GOD'S decree in particular, but also the giving sentence as a judge in general; nor could Abu Hanîfa have been reckoned orthodox had he denied one of the principal articles of faith. 4 Poc. Spec. p. 297, 298. 5 Al Shahrestani, ibid. 6 Idem. 7 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. p. 21 and 22.

The second orthodox sect is that of Mâlec Ebn Ans, who was born at Medina, in the year of the Hejra 90, 93, 94,8 or 95,9 and died there in 177,10 178,11 or 17912 (for so much do authors differ). This doctor is said to have paid great regard to the traditions of Mohammed.13 In his last illness, a friend going to visit him found him in tears, and asking him the reason of it, he answered, "How should I not weep? and who has more reason to weep than I? Would to GOD that for every question decided by me according to my own opinion, I had received so many stripes! then would my accounts be easier. Would to GOD I had never given any decision of my own!"1 Al Ghazâli thinks it a sufficient proof of Malec's directing his knowledge to the glory of GOD, that being once asked his opinion as to forty-eight questions, his answer to thirty-two of them was, that he did not know; it being no easy matter for one who has any other view than God's glory to make so frank a confession of his ignorance.2 The doctrine of Malec is chiefly followed in Barbary and other parts of Africa. The author of the third orthodox sect was Mohammed Ebn Edrîs al Shâfeï, born either at Gaza or Ascalon, in Palestine, in the year of the Hejra 150, the same day (as some will have it) that Abu Hanîfa died, and was carried to Mecca at two years of age, and there educated.3 He died in 204,4 in Egypt, whither he went about five years before.5 This doctor is celebrated for his excellency in all parts of learning, and was much esteemed by Ebn Hanbal his contemporary, who used to say that "he was as the sun to the world, and as health to the body." Ebn Hanbal, however, had so ill an opinion of al Shâfeï at first, that he forbad his scholars to go near him; but some time after one of them, meeting his master trudging on foot after al Shâfeï, who rode on a mule, asked him how it came about that he forbad them to follow him, and did it himself? to which Ebn Hanbal replied, "Hold thy peace; if thou but attend his mule thou wilt profit thereby."6 Al Shâfeï is said to have been the first who discoursed of jurisprudence, and reduced that science into a method;7 one wittily saying, that the relators of the traditions of Mohammed were asleep till al Shâfeï came and waked them.8 He was a great enemy to the scholastic divines, as has been already observed.9 Al Ghazâli tells us that al Shâfeï used to divide the night into three parts, one for study, another for prayer, and the third for sleep. It is also related of him that he never so much as once swore by GOD, either to confirm a truth, or to affirm a falsehood; and that being once asked his opinion, he remained silent for some time, and when the reason of his silence was demanded, he answered, "I am considering first whether it be better to speak or to hold my tongue." The following saying is also recorded of him, viz., "Whoever pretends to love the world and its Creator at the same time, is a liar."1 The followers of this doctor are from him called Shâfeïtes, and were formerly spread into Mâwara'lnahr and other parts eastward, but are now chiefly of Arabia and Persia.

8 Abulfeda. 9 Ebn Khalecân. 10 Idem. 11 Abulfeda. 12 Elmacinus, p. 114. 13 Ebn Khalec. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 294. 1 Idem, apud eund. ibid. 2 Al Ghazâli, ibid. 3 Ebn Khalecân. 4 Yet Abulfeda says he lived fifty-eight years. 5 Ebn Khalecân. 6 Idem. 7 Idem. 8 Al Záfarâni, apud Poc. Spec. p. 296. 9 See before, p. 118. 1 Vide Poc. Spec. 295–297.

Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, the founder of the fourth sect, was born in the year of the Hejra 164; but as to the place of his birth there are two traditions: some say he was born at Merû in Khorasân, of which city his parents were, and that his mother brought him from thence to Baghdâd at her breast; while others assure us that she was with child of him when she came to Baghdâd, and that he was born there.2 Ebn Hanbal in process of time attained a great reputation on account of his virtue and knowledge; being so well versed in the traditions of Mohammed, in particular, that it is said he could repeat no less than a million of them.3 He was very intimate with al Shâfeï, from whom he received most of his traditionary knowledge, being his constant attendant till his departure for Egypt.4 Refusing to acknowledge the Korân to be created,5 he was, by order of the Khalîf al Mótasem, severely scourged and imprisoned.6 Ebn Hanbal died at Baghdâd, in the year 241, and was followed to his grave by eight hundred thousand men, and sixty thousand women. It is relate, as something very extraordinary, if not miraculous, that on the day of his death no less than twenty thousand Christians, Jews, and Magians, embraced the Mohammedan faith.7 This sect increased so fast, and became so powerful and bold, that in the year 323, in the Khalîfat of al Râdi, they raised a great commotion in Baghdâd, entering people's houses, and spilling their wine, if they found any, and beating the singing-women they met with, and breaking their instruments; and a severe edict was published against them, before they could be reduced to their duty:8 but the Hanbalites at present are not very numerous, few of them being to be met with out of the limits of Arabia. The heretical sects among the Mohammedans are those which hold heterodox opinions in fundamental, or matters of faith. The first controversies relating to fundamentals began when most of the companions of Mohammed were dead:9 for in their days was no dispute, unless about things of small moment, if we except only the dissensions concerning the Imâms, or rightful successors of their prophet, which were stirred up and fomented by interest and ambition; the Arabs' continual employment in the wars, during that time, allowing them little or no leisure to enter into nice inquiries and subtle distinctions: but no sooner was the ardour of conquest a little abated than they began to examine the Korân more nearly; whereupon differences in opinion became unavoidable, and at length so greatly multiplied, that the number of their sects, according to the common opinion, are seventy-three. For the Mohammedans seem ambitious that their religion should exceed others even in this respect; saying, that the Magians are divided into seventy sects, the Jews into seventy-one, the Christians into seventy-two, and the Moslems into seventy-three, as Mohammed had foretold;1 of which sects they reckon one to be always orthodox, and entitled to salvation.2 The first heresy was that of the Khârejites, who revolted from Ali in the thirty-seventh year of the Hejra; and not long after, Mábad a.

2 Ebn Khalecân. 3 Idem. 4 Idem. 5 See before, Sect. III. p. 53, &c. 6 Ebn Khalecân, Abulfarag, Hist. Dyn. p. 252, &c. 7 Ebn Khalecân. 8 Abulfar. ubi sup. p. 301, &c. 9 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. Spec. p. 194. Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, apud eund. p. 210. 1 Vide Poc. ibid. 2 Al Shahrestani, apud eund. p. 211.

Johni, Ghailân of Damascus, and Jonas al Aswâri broached heterodox opinions concerning predestination, and the ascribing of good and evil unto GOD; whose opinions were followed by Wâsel Ebn Atâ.3 This latter was the scholar of Hasan of Basra, in whose school a question being proposed, whether he who had committed a grievous sin was to be deemed an infidel or not, the Khârejites (who used to come and dispute there) maintaining the affirmative, and the orthodox the negative, Wâsel, without waiting his master's decision, withdrew abruptly, and began to publish among his fellow-scholars a new opinion of his own, to wit, that such a sinner was in a middle state; and he was thereupon expelled the school; he and his followers being thenceforth called Mótazalites, or Separatists.4 The several sects which have arisen since this time are variously compounded and decompounded of the opinions of four chief sects, the Mótazalites, the Sefâtians, the Khârejites, and the Shiites.5 I. The Mótazalites were the followers of the before-mentioned Wâsel Ebn Atâ. As to their chief and general tenets, I. They entirely rejected all eternal attributes of GOD, to avoid the distinction of persons made by the Christians; saying that eternity is the proper or formal attribute of his essence; that GOD knows by his essence, and not by his knowledge;1 and the same they affirmed of his other attributes2 (though all the Mótazalites do not understand these words in one sense); and hence this sect were also named Moattatlites, from their divesting GOD of his attributes:3 and they went so far as to say, that to affirm these attributes is the same thing as to make more eternals than one, and that the unity of GOD is inconsistent with such an opinion;4 and this was the true doctrine of Wâsel their master, who declared that whoever asserted an eternal attribute, asserted there were two GODS.5 This point of speculation concerning the divine attributes was not ripe at first, but was at length brought to maturity by Wâsel's followers, after they had read the books of the philosophers.6 2. They believed the word of GOD to have been created in subjecto (as the schoolmen term it), and to consist of letters and sound; copies thereof being written in books to express or imitate the original. They also went farther, and affirmed that whatever is created in subjecto is also an accident, and liable to perish.7 3. They denied absolute predestination, holding that GOD was not the author of evil, but of good only; and that man was a free agent:8 which being properly the opinion of the Kadarians, we defer what may be farther said thereof till we come to speak of that sect. On account of this tenet and the first, the Móta-

3 Idem, and Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, ubi sup. 4 Idem, ibid. p. 211, 212, and Ebu Khalecân, in Vita Waseli. 5 Al Shahrestani, who also reduces them to four chief sects, puts the Kadarians in the place of the Mótazalites. Abulfaragius (Hist. Dyn. p. 166) reckons six principal sects, adding the Jabarians and the Morgians; and the author of Sharh al Mawâkef eight, viz., the Mótazalites, the Shiites, the Khârejites, the Morgians, the Najarians, the Jabarians, the Moshabbehites, and the sect which he calls al Nâjia, because that alone will be saved, being according to him the sect of the Asharians. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 209. 1 Maimonides teaches the same, not as the doctrine of the Mótazalites, but his own. Vide More Nev. l. I, c. 57. 2 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. Spec. p. 214. Abulfarag, p. 167. 3 Vide Poc. Spec. 224. 4 Sharh al Mawâkef, and al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 216. Maimonides (in Proleg ad Pirke Aboth. § 8) asserts the same thing. 5 Vide Poc. ibid. 6 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 215. 7 Abulfarag, and al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 217. See before, Sect. III, p. 112 8 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 240.

zalites look on themselves as the defenders of the unity and justice of GOD.9 4. They held that if a professor of the true religion be guilty of a grievous sin, and die without repentance, he will be eternally damned, though his punishment will be lighter than that of the infidels.10 5. They denied all vision of GOD in paradise by the corporeal eye, and rejected all comparisons or similitudes applied to GOD.11 This sect are said to have been the first inventors of scholastic divinity,11 and are subdivided into several inferior sects, amounting, as some reckon, to twenty, which mutually brand one another with infidelity:13 the most remarkable of them are:- I. The Hodeilians, or followers of Hamdân Abu Hodeil, a Mótazalite doctor, who differed something from the common form of expression used by this sect, saying that GOD knew by his knowledge, but that his knowledge was his essence; and so of the other attributes: which opinion he took from the philosophers, who affirm the essence of GOD to be simple and without multiplicity, and that his attributes are not posterior or accessory to his essence, or subsisting therein, but are his essence itself: and this the more orthodox take to be next kin to making distinctions in the deity, which is the thing they so much abhor in the Christians.1 As to the Korân's being created, he made some distinction; holding the word of GOD to be partly not in subjecto (and therefore uncreated), as when he spake the word Kûn, i.e., Fiat, at the creation, and partly in subjecto, as the precepts, prohibitions, &c.2 Marracci3 mentions an opinion of Abu Hodeil's concerning predestination, from an Arab writer,4 which being by him expressed in a manner not very intelligible, I choose to omit. 2. The Jobbâïans, or followers of Abu Ali Mohammed Ebn Abd al Wahhâb, surnamed al Jobbâï, whose meaning when he made use of the common expression of the Mótazalites, that "GOD knows by his essence," &c., was, that GOD'S being knowing is not an attribute, the same with knowledge, nor such a state as rendered his being knowing necessary.5 He held GOD'S word to be created in subjecto, as in the preserved table, for example, the memory of Gabriel, Mohammed, &c.6 This sect, if Marracci has given the true sense of his author, denied that GOD could be seen in paradise without the assistance of corporeal eyes; and held that man produced his acts by a power superadded to health of body and soundness of limbs; that he who was guilty of a mortal sin was neither a believer nor an infidel, but a transgressor (which was the original opinion of Wâsel), and if he died in his sins, would be doomed to hell for eternity; and that GOD conceals nothing of whatever he knows from his servants.7 3. The Hashemians, who were so named from their master Abu Hâshem Abd al Salâm, the son of Abu Ali al Jabbâï, and whose tenets nearly agreed with those of the preceding sect.8 Abu Hâshem took the Mótazalite form of expression, that "GOD knows by his essence," in a different sense from others, supposing it to mean that GOD hath or

9 Al Shahrest. and Sharh al Mawâkef. apud Poc, ubi sup. p. 214. 10 Marracc. Prodr. ad ref. Alcor. part iii. p. 74. 11 Idem, ibid. 12 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 213, and D'Herbel. Art. Motazelah. 13 Auctor al Mawâkef, apud Poc. ibid. 1 Al Shahrestani, apud Poc. p. 215, 216, 217. 2 Idem, apud eund. p. 217, &c. 3 In Prodr. part iii. p. 74. 4 Al Shahrest. 5 Idem, apud Poc. Spec. p. 215. 6 Idem, and Auctor al Mawâkef, ibid. p. 218. 7 Marracci, ubi sup. p. 75, ex al Shahrest. 8 Vide eund. ibid.

is endued with a disposition, which is a known property, or quality, posterior or accessory to his existence.1 His followers were so much afraid of making GOD the author of evil that they would not allow him to be said to create an infidel; because, according to their way of arguing, an infidel is a compound of infidelity and man, and GOD is not the creator of infidelity.2 Abu Hâshem, and his father Abu Ali al Jobbâï, were both celebrated for their skill in scholastic divinity.3 4. The Nodhâmians, or followers of Ibrahim al Nodhâm, who having read books of philosophy, set up a new sect, and imagining he could not sufficiently remove GOD from being the author of evil, without divesting him of his power in respect thereto, taught that no power ought to be ascribed to GOD concerning evil and rebellious actions: but this he affirmed against the opinion of his own disciples, who allowed that GOD could do evil, but did not, because of its turpitude.4 Of his opinion as to the Korân's being created we have spoken elsewhere.5 5. The Hâyetians, so named from Ahmed Ebn Hâyet, who had been of the sect of the Nodhâmians, but broached some new notions on reading the philosophers. His peculiar opinions were-I. That Christ was the eternal Word incarnate, and took a true and real body, and will judge all creatures in the life to come:6 he also farther asserted that there are two GODS or Creators-the one eternal, viz., the most high GOD, and the other not eternal, viz., Christ7-which opinion, though Dr. Pocock urges the same as an argument that he did not rightly understand the Christian mysteries8 is not much different from that of the Arians and Socinians. 2. That there is successive transmigration of the soul from one body into another; and that the last body will enjoy the reward or suffer the punishment due to each soul:9 and, 3. That GOD will be seen at the resurrection, not with the bodily eyes, but those of the understanding.10 6. The Jâhedhians, or followers of Amru Ebn Bahr, surnamed al Jâhedh, a great doctor of the Mótazalites, and very much admired for the elegance of his composures;11 who differed from his brethren in that he imagined the damned would not be eternally tormented in hell, but would be changed into the nature of fire, and that the fire would of itself attract them, without any necessity of their going into it.1 He also taught that if a man believed GOD to be his Lord, and Mohammed the apostle of GOD, he became one of the faithful, and was obliged to nothing farther.2 His peculiar opinion as to the Korân has been taken notice of before.3 7. The Mozdârians, who embraced the opinions of Isa Ebn Sobeih al Mozdâr, and those very absurd ones: for, besides his notions relating to the Korân,4 he went so directly counter to the opinion of those who abridged GOD of the power to do evil, that he affirmed it possible for GOD to be a liar and unjust.5 He also pronounced him to

1 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 215. 2 Idem, ibid. p. 242. 3 Ebn Khalecân, in Vitis Eorum. 4 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 241, 242. Vide Marracc. Prod. part iii. p. 74. 5 See before, Sect. III. p. 53. 6 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 218. Abulfarag, p. 167. 7 Al Shahrest. al Mawâkef, et Ebn Kossá, apud Poc. ubi sub. p. 219. 8 Vide Poc. ibid 9 Marracc. et al Shahrest. ubi sup. 10 Marracc. ibid. p. 75. 11 Vide D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art. Giahedh. 1 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 260. 2 Marracc. ubi sup. 3 Sect. III. p. 53. 4 Vide ibid. and p. 52. 5 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 241.

be an infidel who thrust himself into the supreme government:6 nay, he went so far as to assert men to be infidels while they said "There is no GOD but GOD," and even condemned all the rest of mankind as guilty of infidelity; upon which Ibrahim Ebn al Sendi asked him whether paradise, whose breadth equals that of heaven and earth, was created only for him and two or three more who thought as he did? to which it is said he could return no answer.7 8. The Basharians, who maintained the tenets of Bashar Ebn Mótamer, the master of al Mozdâr,8 and a principal man among the Mótazalites. He differed in some things from the general opinion of that sect, carrying man's free agency to a great excess, making it even independent: and yet he thought God might doom an infant to eternal punishment, but granted he would be unjust in so doing. He taught that God is not always obliged to do that which is best, for, if he pleased, he could make all men true believers. These sectaries also held that if a man repent of a mortal sin, and afterwards return to it, he will be liable to suffer the punishment due to the former transgression.9 9. The Thamamians, who follow Thamâma Ebn Bashar, a chief Mótazalite. Their peculiar opinions were-I. That sinners should remain in hell for ever. 2. That free actions have no producing author. 3. That at the resurrection all infidels, idolaters, atheists, Jews, Christians, Magians, and heretics shall be reduced to dust.10 10. The Kadarians, which is really a more ancient name than that of Mótazalites, Mábad al Johni and his adherents being so called, who disputed the doctrine of predestination before Wâsel quitted his master:1 for which reason some use the denomination of Kadarians as more extensive than the other, and comprehend all the Mótazalites under it.2 This sect deny absolute predestination, saying that evil and injustice ought not to be attributed to GOD, but to man, who is a free agent, and may therefore be rewarded or punished for his actions, which GOD has granted him power either to do or to be let alone.3 And hence it is said they are called Kadarians, because they deny al Kadr, or GOD'S absolute decree; though others, thinking it not so proper to come from Kadr, or Kodrat, i.e., power, because they assert man's power to act freely.4 Those, however, who give the name of Kadarians to the Mótazalites are their enemies, for they disclaim it, and give it to their antagonists the Jabarians, who likewise refuse it as an infamous appellation,5 because Mohammed is said to have declared the Kadarians to be the Magians of his followers.6 But what the opinion of these Kadarians in Mohammed's time was, is very uncertain: the Mótazalites say the name belongs to those who assert predestination, and make GOD the author of good and evil,7 viz., the Jabarians; but all the other Mohammedan sects agree to fix it on the Mótazalites, who, they say, are like the Magians in establishing two principles, light, or GOD, the author of good; and darkness, or the devil, the author of evil: but this cannot absolutely be said of the Mótazalites,

6 Marracc. ubi sup. p. 75. 7 Al Shahrest. ubi sup. p. 220. 8 Poc. Spec. p. 221 9 Marracc. ubi sup. 10 Idem, ibid. 1 Al Shahrest. 2 Al Firauzab. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 231, 232, and 214. 3 Al Shahrest. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 235 and 240, &c. 4 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 238. 5 Al Motarrezi, al Shahrest. Vide ibid. p. 232. 6 Idem, &c. ibid. 7 Idem, ibid.

for they (at least the generality of them) ascribe men's good deeds to GOD, but their evil deeds to themselves; meaning thereby that man has a free liberty and power to do either good or evil, and is master of his actions; and for this reason it is that the other Mohammedans call them Magians, because they assert another author of actions besides GOD.8 And, indeed, it is a difficult matter to say what Mohammed's own opinion was in this matter; for on the one side the Korân itself is pretty plain for absolute predestination, and many sayings of Mohammed are recorded to that purpose,9 and one in particular, wherein he introduces Adam and Moses disputing before GOD in this manner: "Thou," says Moses, "art Adam; whom GOD created, and animated with the breath of life, and caused to be worshipped by the angels, and placed in paradise, from whence mankind have been expelled for thy fault:" whereto Adam answered, "Thou art Moses; whom GOD chose for his apostle, and entrusted with his word, by giving thee the tables of the law, and whom he vouchsafed to admit to discourse with himself: how many years dost thou find the law was written before I was created?" Says Moses, "Forty." "And dost thou not find," replied Adam, "these words therein: 'And Adam rebelled against his Lord and transgressed'?" which Moses confessing, "Dost thou therefore blame me," continued he, "for doing that which GOD wrote of me that I should do forty years before I was created? nay, for what was decreed concerning me fifty thousand years before the creation of heaven and earth?" In the conclusion of which dispute Mohammed declared that Adam had the better of Moses.1 On the other side, it is urged in the behalf of the Mótazalites, that Mohammed declaring that the Kadarians and Morgians had been cursed by the tongues of seventy prophets, and being asked who the Kadarians were, answered, "Those who assert that GOD predestinated them to be guilty of rebellion, and yet punishes them for it:" al Hasan is also said to have declared, that GOD sent Mohammed to the Arabs while they were Kadarians, or Jabarians, and laid their sins upon GOD: and to confirm the matter, this sentence of the Korân is quoted:2 "When they commit a filthy action, they say, We found our fathers practising the same, and GOD hath commanded us so to do: Say, Verily GOD commandeth not filthy actions."3 11. The Sefâtians held the opposite opinion to the Mótazalites in respect to the eternal attributes of GOD, which they affirmed; making no distinction between the essential attributes and those of operation: and hence they were named Sefâtians, or Attributists. Their doctrine was that of the first Mohammedans, who were not yet acquainted with these nice distinctions: but this sect afterwards introduced another species of declarative attributes, or such as were necessarily used in historical narration, as hands, face, eyes, &c., which they did not offer to explain, but contented themselves with saying they were in the law, and that they called them declarative attributes.4 However, at length, by giving various explications and interpretations of these attributes they divided into many different opinions: some, by taking the words

8 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 233, &c. 9 Vide ibid. p. 237. 1 Ebn

al Athîr, al Bokhari, apud Poc. p. 236.

2 Cap. 7, p. 107. 3 Al Motarrezi, apud eund. p. 237, 238.

4 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 223.

in the literal sense, fell into the notion of a likeness or similitude between GOD and created beings; to which it is said the karaïtes among the Jews, who are for the literal interpretation of Moses's law, had shown them the way:5 others explained them in another manner, saying that no creature was like GOD, but that they neither understood nor thought i necessary to explain the precise signification of the words which seem to affirm the same of both; it being sufficient to believe that GOD hath no companion or similitude. Of this opinion was Malec Ebn Ans, who declared as to the expression of GOD'S sitting on his throne, in particular, that though the meaning is known, yet the manner is unknown; and that it is necessary to believe it, but heresy to make any questions about it.1 The sects of the Sefâtians are: I. The Ashárians, the followers of Abu'l Hasan al Ashári, who was first a Mótazalite, and the scholar of Abu Ali al Jobbâï, but disagreeing from his master in opinion as to GOD'S being bound (as the Mótazalites assert) to do always that which is best or most expedient, left him, and set up a new sect of himself. The occasion of this difference was the putting a case concerning three brothers, the first of whom lived in obedience to GOD, the second in rebellion against him, and the third died an infant. Al Jobbâi being asked what he thought would become of them, answered, that the first would be rewarded in paradise, the second punished in hell, and the third neither rewarded nor punished: "But what," objected al Ashári, "if the third say, O LORD, if thou hadst given me longer life, that I might have entered paradise with my believing brother, it would have been better for me?" to which al Jobbâï replied, "That GOD would answer, I knew that if thou hadst lived longer, thou wouldst have been a wicked person, and therefore cast into hell." "Then," retorted al Ashári, "the second will say, O LORD, why didst thou not take me away while I was an infant, as thou didst my brother, that I might not have deserved to be punished for my sins, nor to be cast into hell?" To which al Jobbâï could return no other answer than that GOD prolonged his life to give him an opportunity of obtaining the highest degree of perfection, which was best for him: but al Ashári demanding farther, why he did not for the same reason grant the other a longer life, to whom it would have been equally advantageous, al Jobbâï was so put to it, that he asked whether the devil possessed him? "No," says al Ashári, "but the master's ass will not pass the bridge;"2 i.e., he is posed. The opinions of the Ashárians were-I. That they allowed the attributes of GOD to be distinct from his essence, yet so as to forbid any comparison to be made between GOD and his creatures.3 This was also the opinion of Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, and David al Ispahâni, and others, who herein followed Malec Ebn Ans, and were so cautious of any assimilation of GOD to created beings, that they declared whoever moved his hand while he read these words, "I have created with my hand," or "stretched forth his finger," in repeating this saying of Mohammed, "The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the

5 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 224. 1 Vide eund. ibid. 2 Auctor al Mawâkef, et al Safadi, apud Poc. ubi sup. p. 230, &c. Ebn Khalec. in Vita al Jabbâï. 3 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 230.

Merciful," ought to have his hand and finger cut off;1 and the reasons they gave for not explaining any such words were, that it is forbidden in the Korân, and that such explications were necessarily founded on conjecture and opinion, from which no man ought to speak of the attributes of GOD, because the words of the Korân might by that means come to be understood differently form the author's meaning: nay, some have been so superstitiously scrupulous in this matter as not to allow the words hand, face, and the like, when they occur in the Korân, to be rendered into Persian or any other language, but require them to be read in the very original words, and this they call the safe way.2 2. As to predestination, they held that GOD hath one eternal will which is applied to whatsoever he willeth, both of his own actions and, those of men, so far as they are created by him, but not as they are acquired or gained by them; that he willeth both their good and their evil, their profit and their hurt, and as he willeth and knoweth, he willeth concerning men that which he knoweth, and hath commanded the pen to write the same in the preserved table: and this is his decree, and eternal immutable counsel and purpose.3 They also went so far as to say, that it may be agreeable to the way of GOD that man should be commanded what he is not able to perform.4 But while they allow man some power, they seem to restrain it to such a power as cannot produce anything new; only GOD, say they, so orders his providence that he creates, after, or under, and together with every created or new power, an action which is ready whenever a man will sit, and sets about it: and this action is called Casb, i.e., Acquisition, being in respect to its creation, from GOD, but in respect to its being produced, employed, and acquired, from man.5 And this being generally esteemed the orthodox opinion, it may not be improper farther to explain the same in the words of some other writers. The elective actions of men, says one, fall under the power of GOD alone; nor is their own power effectual thereto; but GOD causeth to exist in man power and choice; and if there be no impediment, he causeth his action to exist also, subject to his power, and joined with that and his choice; which action, as created, is to be ascribed to GOD, but as produced, employed, or acquired, to man. So that by the acquisition of an action is properly meant a man's joining or connecting the same with his power and will, yet allowing herein no impression or influence on the existence thereof, save only that it is subject to his power.1 Others, however, who are also on the side of al Ashári, and reputed orthodox, explain the matter in a different manner, and grant the impression or influence of the created power of man on his action, and that this power is what is called Acquisition.2 But the point will be still clearer if we hear a third author, who rehearses the various opinions, or explications of the opinion of this sect, in the following words, viz.: Abu'l Hasan al Ashári asserts all the actions of men to be subject to the power of GOD, being created by him, and that the power of man hath no influence at all on that which he is empowered to do; but that both the power, and what is subject thereto, fall under the power of GOD:

1 Idem, apud eund. p. 228, &c. 2 Vide Poc. ibid.

3 Al Shahrest. apud eund. p. 245, &c.

4 Idem, ibid. p. 246. 5 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. p. 245, &c.

1 Auctor Sharh al Mawâkef, apud eund. p. 247.

2 Al Shahrest. ibid. p. 248.

al Kâdi Abu Becr says that the essence or substance of the action is the effect of the power of GOD, but its being either an action of obedience, as prayer, or an action of disobedience, as fornication, are qualities of the action, which proceed from the power of man: Abd'almalec, known by the title of Imâm al Haramein, Abu'l Hosein of Basra, and other learned men, held that the actions of men are effected by the power which GOD hath created in man, and that GOD causeth to exist in man both power and will, and that this power and will do necessarily produce that which man is empowered to do: and Abu Ishâk al Isfarâyeni taught that that which maketh impression, or hath influence on an action, is a compound of the power of GOD and the power of man.3 The same author observes that their ancestors, perceiving a manifest difference between those things which are the effects of the election of man and those things which are the necessary effects of inanimate agents, destitute both of knowledge and choice, and being at the same time pressed by the arguments which prove that GOD is the Creator of all things, and consequently of those things which are done by men, to conciliate the matter, chose the middle way, asserting actions to proceed from the power of GOD, and the acquisition of man; GOD'S way of dealing with his servants being, that when man intendeth obedience, GOD createth in him an action of obedience, and when he intendeth disobedience, he createth in him an action of disobedience; so that man seemeth to be the effective producer of his action, though he really be not.1 But this, proceeds the same writer, is again pressed with its difficulties, because the very intention of the mind is the work of GOD, so that no oman hath any share in the production of his own actions; for which reason the ancients disapproved of too nice an inquiry into this point, the end of the dispute concerning the same being, for the most part, either the taking away of all precepts positive as well as negative, or else the associating of a companion with GOD, by introducing some other independent agent besides him. Those, therefore, who would speak more accurately, use this form: there is neither compulsion nor free liberty, but the way lies between the two; the power and will in man being both created by GOD, though the merit or guilt be imputed unto man. Yet, after all, it is judged the safest way to follow the steps of the primitive Moslems, and, avoiding subtle disputations and too curious inquiries, to leave the knowledge of this matter wholly unto GOD.2 3. As to mortal sin, the Ashárians

3 Auctor Sharh al Tawâlea, apud eund. ibid. p. 248, &c. 1 Idem, ibid. p. 249, 250. 2 Idem, ibid. p. 250, 251. I trust the reader will not be offended if, as a farther illustration of what has been said on this subject (in producing of which I have purposely kept to the original Mohammedan expressions) I transcribe a passage or two from a postscript subjoined to the epistle I have quoted above (§4, p. 85), in which the point of free will is treated ex professo. Therein the Moorish author, having mentioned the two opposite opinions of the Kadarians, who allow free will, and the Jabarians, who make man a necessary agent (the former of which opinions, he says, seems to approach nearest to that of the greater part of Christians and of the Jews), declares the true opinion to be that of the Sonnites, who assert that man hath power and will to choose good and evil, and can moreover know he shall be rewarded if he do well, and shall be punished if he do ill; but that he depends, notwithstanding, on GOD'S power, and shall be punished if he do ill; but that he depends, notwithstanding, on GOD'S power, and willeth, if GOD willeth, but not otherwise. Then he proceeds briefly to refute the two extreme opinions, and first to prove that of the Kadarians, though it be agreeable to GOD'S justice, inconsistent with his attributes of wisdom and power: "Sapientia enim Dei," says he, "comprehendit quicquid fuit et futurum est ab æternitate in finem usque mundi et postea. Et ita novit ab æterno omnia opera creaturarum, sive bona, sive mala, quæ fuerint creata cum potentia Dei, et ejus libera et determinate voluntate, sicut ipsi visum fuit. Denique novit eum qui futurus

taught, that if a believer guilty of such sin die without repentance, his sentence is to be left with GOD, whether he pardon him out of mercy, or whether the prophet intercede for him (according to that saying recorded of him, "My intercession shall be employed for those among my people who shall have been guilty of grievous crimes"), or whether he punish him in proportion to his demerit, and afterwards, through his mercy, admit him into paradise: but that it is not to be supposed he will remain for ever in hell with the infidels, seeing it is declared that whoever shall have faith in his heart but of the weight of an ant, shall be delivered from hell fire.1 And this is generally received for the orthodox doctrine in this point, and is diametrically opposite to that of the Mótazalites. These were the more rational Sefâtians, but the ignorant part of them, not knowing how otherwise to explain the expressions of the Korân relating to the declarative attributes, fell into most gross and

erat malus, et tamen creavit: neque negari potest quin, si ipsi libuisset, potuisset omnes creare bonos: placuit tamen Deo creare bonos et malos, cùm Deo soli sit absoluta et libera voluntas, et perfecta electio, et non homini. Ita enim Salomon in suis proverbiis dixit. Vitam et mortem, bonum et malum, divitias et paupertatem, esse et venire à Deo. Christiani etiam dicunt S. Paulum dixisse in suis epistolis; Dicet etiam lutum figulo, quare facis unum vas ad honorem, et aliud vas ad contumeliam? Cum igitur miser homo fuerit creatus à voluntate Dei et potentia, nihil aliud potest tribui ipsi quàm ipse sensus cognoscendi et sentiendi an bene vel male faciat. Quæ unica causa (id est, sensus cognoscendi) erit ejus gloriæ vel ponæ causa: per talem enim sensum novit quid boni vel mali adversus Dei præcepta fecerit." The opinion of the Jabarians, on the other hand, he rejects as contrary to man's consciousness of his own power and choice, and inconsistent with GOD'S justice, and his having given mankind laws, to the observing or transgressing of which he was annexed rewards and punishments. After this he proceeds to explain the third opinion in the following words: "Tertia opinio Zunis (i.e., Sonnitarum) quæ vera est, affirmat homini potesttatem esse, sed limitatem à sua causa, id est, dependentem à Dei potentia et voluntate, et proper illam cognitionem qua deliberat benè vel malè facere, esse dignum pona vel præmio. Manifestum est in æternitate non fuisse aliam potentiam præter Dei nostri omnipotentis, e cujus potentia pendebant omnia possibilia, id est, quæ poterant esse, cum ab ipso fuerint creata. Sapientia verò Dei novit etiam quæ non sunt futura; et potentia ejus, etsi non creaverit ea, potuit tamen, si ita Deo placuisset. Ita novit sapientia Dei quæ erant impossibilia, id est, quæ non poterant esse; quæ tamen nullo pacto pendent ab ejus potentia: ab ejus enim potentia mulla pendent nisi possibilia.-Dicimus enim à Dei potentia non pendere creare Deum alium ipsi similem, nec creare aliquid quod moveatur et quiescat simul eodem tempore, cùm hæc sint ex impossibilibus: comprehendit tamen suâ sapientiâ tale aliquid non pendere ab ejus potentiâ.-A potentiâ igitur Dei pendet solùm quod potest esse, et possibile est esse; quæ semper parata est dare esse possibilibus. Et si hoc penitus cognoscamus,cognoscemus pariter omne quod est, seu futurum est, sive sint opera nostra, sive quidvis aliud, pendere à sola potentia Dei. Et hoc non privatim intelligitur, sed in genere de omni eo quod est et movetur, sive in colis sive in terrâ; et nec aliquâ potentiâ potest impediri Dei potentia, cùm nulla alia potentia absoluta sit, præter Dei; potentia verò nostra non est à se, nisi à Dei potentia: et cum potentia nostra dicitur esse a causa sua, ideo dicimus potentiam nostram esse straminis comparatam cum potentia Dei: eo enim modo quo stramen movetur à motu maris, ita nostra potentia et voluntas à Dei potentia. Itaque Dei potentia semper est parata etiam ad occidendum aliquem; ut si quis hominem occidat, non dicimus potentiâ hominis id factum, sed æterna potentia Dei: error enim est id tribuere potentiæ hominis. Potentia enim Dei, cùm semper sit parata, et ante ipsum hominem, ad occidendum; si solâ hominis potentiâ id factum esse diceremus, et moreretur, potentia sanè Dei (quæ antè erat) jam ibi esset frustra: quia post mortem non potest potentia Dei eum iterum occidere; ex quo sequeretur potentiam Dei impediri à potentia hominis, et potentiam hominis anteire et antecellere potentiam Dei; quod est absurdum et impossibile. Igitur Deus est qui operatur æternâ suâ potentiâ: si verò homini injiciatur culpa, sive in tali homicidio, sive in aliis, hoc est quantùm ad præcepta et legem. Homini tribuitur solùm opus externè, et ejus electio, quæ est a voluntate ejus et potentia; non verò internè.-Hoc est punctum illud indivisibile et secretum, quod à paucissimis capitur, ut sapientissimus Sidi Abo Hamet Elgaceli (i.e., Dominus Abu Hâmed al Ghazâli) affirmat (cujus spiritui Deus concedat gloriam, Amen!) Sequentibus verbis: Ita abditum et profundum et abstrusum est intelligere punctum illud Liberi Arbitrii, ut neque characteres ad scribendum, neque ullæ rationes ad exprimendum sufficiant, et omnes, quotquot de hac re locuti sunt, hæserunt confusi in ripa tanti et tam spaciosi maris." 1 Al Shahrest. apud Poc. Spec. p. 258.