Читать книгу A Dictionary of Islam - Thomas Patrick Hughes - Страница 18

CHURCHES. Arabic Bīaʾh and Kanīsah, which terms include equally churches and synagogues. The construction of churches or synagogues in Muslim territory is unlawful, this being forbidden in the Traditions; but as for places of worship which belonged to the Jews or Christians before the country was conquered by the Muḥammadan power, they are at liberty to repair them, because the buildings cannot endure for ever, and, as the Imām of the Muslim army has left these people to the exercise of their own religion, it is a necessary inference that he has engaged not to prevent them from building or repairing their churches or synagogues. If, however, they attempt to remove these, and to build them in a place different from their former situation, the Imām must prevent them, since this is an actual construction. Monasteries and hermitages are under the same law. Places of prayer within their dwellings are allowed to be constructed, because they are merely an appurtenance to a private habitation. What is here said is held to be the rule with regard to cities, but not with respect to villages, because as the “tokens of Islām” (i.e. prayer, festivals, &c.) appear in cities, ẕimmīs (i.e. those paying tax for protection) should not be permitted to exhibit the tokens of their infidelity in the face of Islām. But as the tokens of Islām do not appear in villages, the erection of churches and synagogues is not prohibited there. But the Imām Abū Ḥanīfah held that this exemption merely applied to the village of Kusa, where the greater part of the inhabitants were ẕimmīs. He adds that in the country of Arabia, Jews and Christians are prohibited from constructing synagogues and churches, either in cities or villages, according to the saying of the Prophet, “Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia.” (Hidāyah, book ix. c. viii.)

If a Jew or a Christian, being in sound health, build a church or a synagogue and then die, such building is an inheritance, and descends to the heirs of the founder. According to Abū Ḥanīfah, it is a pious appropriation; but his two disciples hold such erections to be sinful, and only to be considered as ordinary property. If a Jew or a Christian will that his house after his death shall be converted into either a synagogue or church, the bequest is valid. (Hidāyah, book lii. c. vi.)

The following tradition related by T̤alāq ibn ʿAlī (Mishkāt, iv. c. viii. 2) exhibits Muḥammad’s determination to destroy Christian churches: “We told the Prophet that there was a church on our ground; and we requested the favour of his giving us the water which remained after he had performed waẓū. And the Prophet called for water, performed waẓū and washed out his mouth; after which he poured the water for us into a vessel and ordered us to return, saying, ‘When you arrive, destroy your church (Arabic bīʿah), and pour this water on the spot, and build a mosque there.’”

CIRCUMCISION. Arabic K͟hitān, k͟hitānah, or k͟hatnah. Circumcision is not once alluded to in the Qurʾān. The omission is remarkable, and Muslim writers do not attempt any explanation of it. It is held to be sunnah, or founded upon the customs of the Prophet (Fatāwa ʿĀlamgīrī, vol. iv. p. 237), and dating its institution from the time of Abraham. There is no authentic account of the circumcision of Muḥammad, but it is asserted by some writers that he was born circumcised. This, however, is denied by the most eminent scholars. (Radduʾl-Muk͟htār, vol. v. p. 835.)

In the Ṣaḥīḥu ʾl-Buk͟hārī, p. 931, a short chapter is devoted to the subject of k͟hitān, or “circumcision,” in which there are three traditions:—

Abū Hurairah relates that the Prophet said one of the observances of Fit̤rah is circumcision.

Abū Hurairah relates that the Prophet said that Abraham was circumcised when he was eighty years old.

Said ibn Jubair relates that it was asked of Ibn ʿAbbās, “How old were you when the Prophet died?” He said, “I was circumcised in the days when it occurred.” And Jubair says they did not circumcise in those days until men were full grown.

It is recommended to be performed upon a boy between the ages of seven and twelve, but it is lawful to circumcise a child seven days after his birth. In the case of a convert to Islām from some other creed, to whom the operation may be an occasion of great suffering, it can be dispensed with, although it is considered expedient and proper for all new converts to be circumcised. In all cases an adult is expected to circumcise himself, as it is a shame for an adult person to uncover himself to another.

The circumcision of females is also allowed, and is commonly practised in Arabia. (Fatāwa ʿĀlamgīrī, vol. iv. p. 237.)

The barber is generally the person employed for the circumcision of boys, and the operation as practised by Muḥammadans in India is performed in the following manner. A bit of stick is used as a probe, and carried round and round between the glans and prepuce, to ascertain the exact extent of the frænum, and that no unnatural adhesions exist. The foreskin is then drawn forwards and a pair of forceps, consisting of a couple of pieces of split bamboo, five or six inches long and a quarter of an inch thick, tied firmly together at one end with a string to the extent of an inch, applied from above in an oblique direction, so as to exclude about an inch and a half of the prepuce above and three-quarters of an inch below. The forceps severely grasping it, causes a good deal of pain, but this state of suffering does not continue long, since the next thing to be done is the removal, which is done by one stroke of the razor drawn directly downwards. The hæmorrhage which follows is inconsiderable and easily stopped by the application of burnt rags and ashes.

According to several Muḥammadan doctors, there were seventeen of the prophets born in a circumcised state, namely, Zakarīyā, Shīs, Idrīs, Yūsuf, Ḥanz̤alah, ʿĪsā, Mūsā, Ādam, Nūḥ, Shuʿaib, Sām, Lūt̤, Ṣāliḥ, Sulaimān, Yaḥyā, Hūd, and Muḥammad. (Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār, p. 619.)

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. All quadrupeds that seize their prey with their teeth, and all birds which seize it with their talons, are unlawful (ḥarām), the Prophet having prohibited mankind from eating them.

Hyenas and foxes, being both included under the class of animals of prey, are unlawful. (This is the doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfah, but ash-Shāfiʿī holds that they are lawful.) Elephants and weasels are also animals of prey. Pelicans and kites are abominable (makrūh), because they devour dead bodies.

Crows which feed on grain are mubāḥ, or indifferent, but carrion crows and ravens are unlawful. Abū Ḥanīfah says the magpie is indifferent (mubāḥ), but the Imām Yūsuf says it is abominable (makrūh).

Crocodiles and otters and wasps, and, in general, all insects are makrūh, or abominable. The ass and the mule are both unlawful. According to Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik, horse-flesh is unlawful, but ash-Shāfiʿī says it is indifferent. The flesh of hares is also indifferent.

No animal that lives in the water, except fish, is lawful. But Mālik allows them.

Fishes dying of themselves are unlawful, and so are all animals who are not slain by ẕabāḥ. (Hidāyah, vol. iv. p. 74.) [ZABIHAH.]

It must be observed that in Muḥammadan law animals are either ḥalāl, “lawful,” or mubāḥ, “indifferent,” or makrūh, “abominable” (i.e. which is condemned but still is lawful), or ḥarām, “unlawful.”

CLERGY. The Christian clergy are mentioned in the Qurʾān with expressions of comparative praise. Sūrah v. 85: “Thou wilt surely find that the strongest in enmity against those who believe are the Jews, and the idolaters; and thou wilt find those to be nearest in affection to them who say ‘We are Christians’; that is because there are amongst them priests (qissīsūn) and monks, and because they are not proud.”

The Muḥammadans have no class of people occupying the precise position of priests or clergy, although the Imāms, or leaders of prayers in the public assembly, are persons of learning appointed by the congregation. In Central Asia, it is usual to set apart a learned man (well skilled in theology) by binding the turban round his head, the act being performed by a leading maulawī or scholar.

In Turkey and the western portion of Islām, those who are qualified to give an opinion in religious matters, and to take the lead in guiding the people in spiritual affairs, are called ʿulamāʾ (pl. of ʿālim), a term which has, in Hindustān and Central Asia, assumed the form of maulawī, a word derived from maulā, “lord.”

The recognised offices in Islām corresponding to that of a priest or religious teacher, are, Imām, Muftī, and Qāẓī. Imām (in addition to its being used for the K͟halīfah, or Caliph, in the Traditions), is the person who leads the public prayers, an office answering to the Latin Antistes. This official is appointed either by the congregation, or by the parish or section of the town or village, who frequent the mosque in which he leads the prayers. Muftī is the legal adviser, who decides difficult religious questions, and assists the Qāẓī, or judge. Qāẓī is the judge and the administrator of the law. The appointments of Muftī and Qāẓī are in the hands of the Muslim government of the place. It is usual for the Qāẓī to take the lead in prayers at funerals, whilst the Imām of the parish generally performs the nikāḥ, or religious service at marriages. [MARRIAGE.]

These offices are not necessarily hereditary, but it is usual in Muḥammadan countries for them to pass from father to son. In India at the present time there are families who retain the titles of Muftī and Qāẓī, although the duties connected with these offices are no longer performed by them.

CAUTION (Arabic Ḥaẕar) is enjoined by Muḥammad, who is related to have said, “A Muslim is not bitten twice at the same hole.” “He is no perfect man who has not fallen into trouble, for there is no skilful physician but experience.” “When a man has spoken, and has then looked first to his right and then to his left, what he has said is sacred to those present, and they must not disclose it to others.” (Mishkāt, xxii. c. xviii.)

COINAGE. [MONEY.]

COLLECTOR OF TAXES. Arabic ʿĀshir, a collector of the tenths; and ʿĀmil mutaṣaddiq, a collector of alms.

The K͟halīfah is to allow the officer employed in the collection of the zakāt as much out of it as is in proportion to his labour, and will remunerate himself and his assistants. (Hidāyah, vol. i. p. 54.)

COMMANDMENTS, The Ten. In the Qurʾān it is stated that God gave Moses certain monitions on tables (of stone), and also that he gave him nine clear signs. (See Sūrah vii. 142, and Sūrah xvii. 103.) These two statements have perplexed the commentators very much, and every effort is made by them to reconcile the nine signs with the Ten Commandments, although it is evident from the Qurʾān itself, that the nine clear signs refer to the miracles of Moses. [PLAGUES OF EGYPT.]

According to the Traditions, the Prophet himself was a little confused in the matter, and may to some extent be responsible for the mistakes of the commentators on his book, for it is related (Mishkāt, book i. c. ii. pt. 2) that a Jew came to the Prophet and asked him about the nine (sic) wonders which appeared by the hands of Moses. The Prophet said, “Do not associate anything with God, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not take an innocent before the king to be killed, do not practise magic, do not take interest, do not accuse an innocent woman of adultery, do not run away in battle, and especially for you, O Jews, not to work on the Sabbath.” ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq remarks on this tradition that the Jew asked about the nine (sic) miracles (or plagues) of Egypt, and the Prophet gave him the Ten Commandments.

A comparison of the Ten Commandments given by the great Jewish law-giver with those recorded in the above tradition and in the VIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, verse 152, will show how imperfectly the Arabian Prophet was acquainted with the Old Testament scriptures.

The commentator Ḥusain, who wrote four hundred years ago, says the following verses in the Sūratu ʾl-Anʿām (vi.) are those Ten Commandments which in every dispensation are incumbent on mankind, and cannot be abrogated (meaning undoubtedly the Ten Commandments given to Moses).

“Say: Come, I will rehearse what your Lord hath made binding on you—(1) that ye assign not aught to Him as partner: (2) and that ye be good to your parents: (3) and that ye slay not your children, because of poverty; for them and for you will we provide: (4) and that ye come not near to pollutions, outward or inward: (5) and that ye slay not anyone whom God hath forbidden you, unless for a just cause. This hath he enjoined on you, to the intent that ye may understand. (6) And come not nigh to the substance of the orphan, but to improve it, until he come of age: (7) and use a full measure, and a just balance: We will not task a soul beyond its ability. (8) And when ye give judgment, observe justice, even though it be the affair of a kinsman, (9) and fulfil the covenant of God. This hath God enjoined you for your monition—And, ‘this is my right way.’ Follow it then: (10) and follow not other paths lest ye be scattered from His path. This hath He enjoined you, that ye may fear Him.” (Sūrah vi. 152.)

COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL. Arabic Amīru ʾl-Muʾminīn (امير المومنين‎). A title given by the Muslims in the first instance to the first K͟halīfah, Abū Bakr, and afterwards retained by succeeding K͟halīfahs. It is assumed by almost any Muḥammadan ruler in the present day.

COMMENTARIES. [QURʾAN.]

COMMERCE. Arabic Tijārah (تجارة‎). Commerce and merchandise are said in the Qurʾān to be of God. Sūrah xvii. 68: “It is your Lord who drives the ships for you in the sea that ye may seek after plenty from Him; verily He is ever merciful to you. And when distress touches you in the sea, those whom ye call upon, except Him, stray away from you; but when He has brought you safe to shore, ye also turn away (from God); for man is ever ungrateful.”

Zakāt is due on merchandise of every description, in proportion to 5 per cent.

COMPANIONS, The. [ASHAB.]

COMPULSION. Arabic Ikrāh (اكراه‎). Muḥammadan law makes provision for persons acting under compulsion, when the person who compels has it in his power to execute what he orders, be he a king or a thief. (Hidāyah, vol. iii. p. 452.) E.g. a person forced into a contract may dissolve it. A Muslim may lawfully eat food which is prohibited if he be compelled to do so, being threatened with loss of life or limb. Nor is a Muslim guilty of sin who declares himself an unbeliever when the loss of a limb or of life is threatened. According to the Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, if a Muslim be compelled to divorce his wife, the divorce is valid; but with him the other three Imāms are not agreed in this ruling.

CONCUBINE. Arabic Surrīyah (سرية‎), pl. sarārī. The Muḥammadan religion appears to give almost unlimited license to concubinage, provided the woman be a slave, and not a free Muslim woman.

These female slaves must be either (1) taken captive in war, (2) or purchased by money, (3) or the descendants of slaves. Even married women, if taken in war, are, according to an injunction of the Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 28, entirely at the disposal of the Muslim conqueror. “(Unlawful) to you are married women, except such as your right hand possess (i.e. taken in war, or purchased slaves).” This institution of concubinage is founded upon the example of Muḥammad himself, who took Rīḥānah the Jewess as his concubine after the battle with the Banū Quraiz̤ah (A.H. 5), and also Maria the Copt, who was sent him as a slave by the Governor of Egypt.

Should a concubine bear her master a child, the Muḥammadan law rules that she and her offspring are ipso facto free. For a further treatment of this subject, see article on SLAVES.

Amongst the Shīʿahs, the temporary marriage called Mutʿah exhibits the worst form of concubinage. [MUTʿAH.]

It is interesting to compare the condition of the concubine under Muslim law and under the Mosaic. Under the law of Moses, a concubine would generally be either a Hebrew girl bought of her father, or a Gentile captive taken in war. So that whilst the Muḥammadan law forbids concubinage with a free woman, the Mosaic law permitted it and legislated for it. See Exodus xxi.: “If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as men-servants do. If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

With regard to female slaves taken in war, the Mosaic law ruled. Deut. xxi. 10: “When thou goest to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her to thine home, &c.… And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her,” &c.

CONGREGATION. The Assembly of people in a mosque is called Jamʿah (جمعة‎), the term also being used in Afghanistan for the mosque itself.

There are special rewards for those Muḥammadans who assemble together for the stated prayers; for Muḥammad has said, “The prayers which are said in a congregation increase the rewards of the worshipper twenty-seven degrees.” “Say your prayers in a congregation, for a wolf does not eat the sheep except one has strayed from the flock.” (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xxiv.)

The Sunnī style themselves Ahlu Sunnah wa Jamʿah, i.e. “the people of the traditions and of the congregation,” in contradistinction to the Shīʿahs, who do not worship in a congregation unless the Imām, or leader, be a man entirely free from sin. [IMAM.]

The word jamʿah is also used for an assembly of people collected to decide a question of law or theology, the ijmāʿ being their decision, more frequently called ijmāʿu ʾl-ummah.

CONSCIENCE. There is no word in the Qurʾān which exactly expresses the Christian conception of conscience. The word nafs (نفس‎), which, according to Arabic lexicons, expresses very much the same idea as the Hebrew ‏נֶפֶשׁ‎ nephesh, “life, animal spirit, breath” (Job xli. 21), seems to be used in the Qurʾān to convey the meaning of conscience, although English translators render it “soul.” Muslim theologians say there are four kinds of consciences spoken of in the Qurʾān: (1) Nafs lawwāmah, the “self-accusing soul or conscience” (Sūrah lxxv. 3). (2) Nafs ammārah, the “soul or conscience prone to evil” (Sūrah xii. 53). (3) Nafs mut̤maʾinnah, the “peaceful soul or conscience” (Sūrah lxxxix. 12). (4) Nafs mulhammah, the “soul or conscience in which is breathed both bad and good” (Sūrah lxxxiv. 27).

It occurs also in the sense of conscience in the Traditions (Mishkāt, book i. ch. i. pt. 3): “When anything pricks your soul (nafs) forsake it.” ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, in his Persian commentary on the Mishkāt, renders it by zāt, but the English word conscience would seem to express the precise idea. In Persian Muḥammadan works, as well as in common conversation, the word nafs is now used in its evil sense, of desire or passion, but it must be evident that this is not its Qurʾānic meaning. The word ذمة‎ ẕimmah, which in later Arabic, together with ضمير‎ ẓamīr, is used to express conscience, has in the only passage where it occurs in the Qurʾān a decidedly different meaning, e.g. Sūrah ix. 8, 10, where it means clientship. Sale and Rodwell both translate it “faith,” but Palmer more accurately renders it “ties of clientship.”

CONVERSATION. The following instructions are given in the Qurʾān regarding talking and conversation. Sūrah xxxi. 17, “Be moderate in thy walk, and lower thy voice; verily the most disagreeable of voices is the voice of asses.” Sūrah ii. 77, “Speak to men kindly.” In the Traditions, Ibn Masʿūd relates that Muḥammad said, “May those people go to the fire of hell who speak much.”

On the subject of conversation, Faqīr Jani Muḥammad Asʿad, the author of the celebrated ethical work entitled the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī, p. 288, says:—

“He should not talk much, for it is a sign of levity in feeling and weakness in judgment, and tends to lower him in point of consideration and position. We are told that the Prophet used to observe the strictest medium in his language; so much so, that, in the most protracted interviews, you might have counted the words he uttered. Buzurg Jamihr used to say, ‘When you see a person talking much without occasion, be sure he is out of his senses.’ Let him not give vent to expressions till he has determined in his own mind what he is going to say. When anyone is relating a story, however well known to the listener, the latter is not to intimate his acquaintance with it till the narrative is concluded. A question put to others he must not himself reply to; if put to a body of which he is a member, let him not prevent the others; and if another is engaged in answering what himself could answer better, let him keep silence till the other’s statement is completed, and then give his own, but in such sort as not to annoy the former speaker. Let him not commence his reply till the querist’s sentence is concluded. Conversations and discussions which do not concern him, although held in his presence, he is not to interfere in; and if people conceal what they are saying, he must not attempt furtively to overhear. To his elders he should speak with judgment, pitching his voice at a medium between high and low. Should any abstruse topic present itself, he should give it perspicuity by comparison. Prolixity he should never aim at, when not absolutely required; on the contrary, let it be his endeavour to compress all he has to say. Neither should he employ unusual terms or far-fetched figures. He should beware of obscenity and bad language; or if he must needs refer to an indecent subject, let him be content with allusion by metaphor. Of all things, let him keep clear of a taste for indelicacy, which tends to lower his breeding, degrade his respectability, and bring him into general disagreement and dislike. Let his language upon every occasion correspond with the exigency of his position; and if accompanied by gesticulation of the hand or eye or eyebrow, let it be only of that graceful sort which his situation calls for. Let him never, for right or wrong, engage in disputes with others of the company; least of all with the elders or the triflers of it: and when embarked in such dispute, let him be rigidly observant of the rules of candour.

“Let him not deal in profound observation beyond the intellect of those he is addressing, but adapt his discourse to the judgment of his hearers. Thus even the Prophet has declared—‘We of the prophetic order are enjoined to address men in the measure of their understandings’: and Jesus (blessed be he) said, ‘Use not wisdom with the unwise to their annoyance’ (St. Matthew vii. 6?). In all his conversation let him adhere to the ways of courtesy. Never let him mimic anyone’s gestures, actions, or words, nor give utterance to the language of menace.

“When addressing a great person, let him begin with something ominous of good, as the permanence of his fortune, felicity, and so forth.

“From all back-biting, carping, slander, and falsehood, whether heard or spoken, let him hold it essential to keep clear; nay, even from any partnership with those addicted to such practices. Let him listen more than he speaks. It was the answer of a wise man to those who asked him why he did so, ‘Because,’ said he, ‘God has given me two ears and only one tongue’; which was as much as to say, ‘Hear twice as much as you speak.’”

CONVERTS TO THE MUḤAMMADAN RELIGION. According to the author of the Hidāyah (vol. ii. 170), if a hostile infidel embrace Islām in a hostile country, his person is his own, and he is not made a slave, nor can his children be enslaved. His property is also his own. But it is not so in the case of one who has been first conquered and then embraces Islām, for his own person and his children become slaves, and his wives are at the mercy of the victorious Muslim, whilst his lands also become the property of the State.

COVENANT. The word in the Qurʾān and the Traditions for God’s Covenant with His people is Mīs̤āq. Muḥammad taught, both in the Qurʾān and in the Traditions, that in the beginning God called all the souls of mankind together and took a promise (waʿdah) and a covenant (mīs̤āq) from them.

The account of this transaction is given as follows in the Qurʾān, Sūrah vii. 171:—

“Thy Lord brought forth their descendants from the reins of the sons of Adam and took them to witness against themselves, ‘Am I not,’ said He, ‘your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we witness it.’ This we did, lest ye should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Truly, of this were we heedless, because uninformed.’

“Or lest ye should say, ‘Our fathers, indeed, aforetime joined other gods with our God, and we are their seed after them: wilt thou destroy us for the doings of vain men?’”

But the story as told in the Traditions is more graphic:—

“Ubai ibn Kaʿb relates, in explanation of the verse in the Sūratu ʾl-Aʿrāf (verse 171): When God created (the spirits of) the sons of Adam, he collected them together and made them of different tribes, and of different appearances, and gave them powers of speech. Then they began to speak, and God took from them a promise (waʿdah), and a covenant (mīs̤āq), and said, ‘Am I not thy Lord?’ They all answered and said, ‘Thou art.’ Then God said, ‘Swear by the seven heavens and the seven earths, and by Adam your father, that you will not say in the resurrection, We did not understand this. Know ye therefore that there is no Deity but Me, and there is no God but Me. Do not associate anything with Me. I will verily send to you your own apostles who shall remind you of this Promise and of this Covenant, and I will send to you your own books.’ The sons of Adam then replied, ‘We are witnesses that Thou art our Lord (Rabb), and our God (Allah). There is no Lord but Thee and no God but Thee.’ Then they confessed this and made it known to Adam. Then Adam looked at them and beheld that there were amongst them those that were rich and poor, handsome and ugly, and he said, ‘O Lord, why didst Thou not make them all alike?’ And the Lord said, ‘Truly I willed it thus in order that some of my servants may be thankful.’ Then Adam saw amongst his posterity, prophets, like unto lamps, and upon these lamps there were lights, and they were appointed by special covenants of prophecy (nabūwah) and of apostleship (rasālah). And thus it is written in the Qurʾān (Sūrah xxxiii. 7), ‘Remember we have entered into covenant with the Prophets, with thee Muḥammad, and with Noah, and with Abraham, and with Mūsā, and with Jesus the Son of Mary, and we made with them a covenant.’ And (continues Ubai) Jesus was amongst the spirits.” (Mishkāt, Arabic Ed. Bābu ʾl-Qadr.)

COVERING THE HEAD. There is no injunction in either the Qurʾān or Traditions as to a man covering his head during prayers, although it is generally held to be more modest and correct for him to do so.

With reference to women, the law is imperative, for ʿĀyishah relates that Muḥammad said, “God accepts not the prayer of an adult woman unless she cover her head.” (Mishkāt, iv. c. ix.)

CORRUPTION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Muḥammadans charge the Jews and Christians with having altered their sacred books. The word used by Muḥammadan writers for this supposed corruption of the sacred Scriptures of the Jews and Christians is Taḥrīf.

The Imām Fak͟hru ʾd-dīn Rāẓī, in his commentary, Tafsīr-i-Kabīr, explains Taḥrīf to mean “to change, alter, or turn aside anything from the truth.” Muslim divines say there are two kinds of taḥrīf, namely, taḥrīf-i-maʿnawī, a corruption of the meaning; and taḥrīf-i-lafz̤ī, a corruption of the words.

Muḥammadan controversialists, when they become acquainted with the nature of the contents of the sacred books of the Jews and Christians, and of the impossibility of reconciling the contents of the Qurʾān with those of the sacred Scriptures, charge the Christians with the taḥrīf-i-lafz̤ī. They say the Christians have expunged the word aḥmad from the prophecies, and have inserted the expression “Son of God,” and the story of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of our blessed Lord. This view, however, is not the one held by the most celebrated of the Muslim commentators.

The Imām Muḥammad Ismāʿīl al-Buk͟hārī (p. 1127, line 7), records that Ibn ʿAbbās said that “the word Taḥrīf (corruption) signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and that there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God.”

Ibn Mazar and Ibn Abī Hātim state, in the commentary known as the Tafsīr Durr-i-Manṣūr, that they have it on the authority of Ibn Munīyah, that the Taurāt (i.e. the books of Moses), and the Injīl (i.e. the Gospels), are in the same state of purity in which they were sent down from heaven, and that no alterations had been made in them, but that the Jews were wont to deceive the people by unsound arguments, and by wresting the sense of Scripture.

Shāh Walīyu ʾllāh, in his commentary, the Fauzu ʾl-Kabīr, and also Ibn ʿAbbās, support the same view.

This appears to be the correct interpretation of the various verses of the Qurʾān charging the Jews with having corrupted the meaning of the sacred Scriptures.

For example, Sūratu Āli ʿImrān (iii.), 72: “There are certainly some of them who read the Scriptures perversely, that ye may think what they read to be really in the Scriptures, yet it is not in the Scriptures; and they say this is from God, but it is not from God; and they speak that which is false concerning God against their own knowledge.”

The Imām Fak͟hru ʾd-dīn, in his commentary on this verse, and many others of the same character which occur in the Qurʾān, says it refers to a taḥrīf-i-maʿnawī, and that it does not mean that the Jews altered the text, but merely that they made alterations in the course of reading.

But whilst all the old commentators, who most probably had never seen a copy of the sacred books of the Jews and Christians, only charge them with a taḥrīf-i-maʿnawī, all modern controversialists amongst the Muḥammadans contend for a taḥrīf-i-lafz̤ī, as being the only solution of the difficulty.

In dealing with such opponents, the Christian divine will avail himself of the following arguments:—

1. The Qurʾān does not charge the Jews and Christians with corrupting the text of their sacred books; and many learned Muslim commentators admit that such is not the case.

2. The Qurʾān asserts that the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed in the days of Muḥammad, who invariably speaks of them with reverence and respect.

3. There now exist manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments of an earlier date than that of Muḥammad (A.D. 610–632).

4. There are versions of the Old and New Testaments now extant, which existed before Muḥammad; for example, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, the Coptic, and the Armenian versions.

5. The Hexapla, or Octapla of Origen, which dates four centuries before Muḥammad, gives various versions of the Old Testament Scriptures in parallel columns.

6. The Syrian Christians of St. Thomas, of Malabar and Travancore, in the south of India, who were separated from the western world for centuries, possess the same Scriptures.

7. In the works of Justin Martyr, who lived from A.D. 103 to 167, there are numerous quotations from our sacred books, which prove that they were exactly the same as those we have now. The same may be said of other early Christian writers.

Muḥammadan controversialists of the present day urge that the numerous readings which exist in the Christian books are a proof that they have been corrupted. But these do not affect, in the least, the main points at issue between the Christian and the Muslim. The Divine Sonship of Christ, the Fatherhood of God, the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and the Atonement, are all clearly stated in almost every book of the New Testament, whilst they are rejected by the Qurʾān.

The most plausible of modern objections urged by Muslim divines is, that the Christians have lost the Injīl which was sent down from heaven to Jesus; and that the New Testament contains merely the Ḥadīs̤, or Sunnah—the traditions handed down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others. It is, of course, a mere assertion, unsupported by any proof; but it appears to be a line of argument which commends itself to many modern Muslims.

CREATION. Arabic K͟halqah. The following are the allusions to the Creation which occur in the Qurʾān, Sūrah l. 37: “Of old We (God) created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days, and no weariness touched Us.” Sūrah xli. 8: “Do ye indeed disbelieve in Him who in two days created the earth? Do ye assign Him equals? The Lord of the World is He. And He hath placed on the earth the firm mountains which tower above it, and He hath blessed it, and distributed its nourishments throughout it (for the cravings of all are alike), in four days. Then He applied Himself to the heaven, which was but smoke: and to it and to the earth He said, “Come ye, in obedience or against your will?” and they both said, “We come obedient.” And He completed them as seven heavens in two days, and in each heaven made known its office; and We furnished the lower heaven with lights and guardian angels. This is the disposition of the Almighty, the all-knowing one.” Sūrah xvi. 3: “He created the heavens and the earth to set forth his truth, high let Him be exalted above the gods they join with Him! Man hath He created out of a moist germ; yet lo! man is an open caviller. And the cattle! for you hath He created them, &c.… Shall He who hath created be as he who hath not created? Will ye not consider?” Sūrah xiii. 2: “It is God who hath reared the heavens without pillars, thou canst behold; then seated Himself upon His throne, and imposed laws on the sun and moon; each travelleth to its appointeth goal. He ordereth all things. He maketh His signs clear. Haply ye will have firm faith in a meeting with your Lord. And He it is who hath outstretched the earth, and placed on it the firm mountains, and rivers; and of every fruit He hath placed on it two kinds. He causeth the night to enshroud the day.” Sūrah xxxv. 12: “God created you of dust—then of the germs of life—then made you two sexes.”

According to the Traditions (Mishkāt, xxiv. c. i. pt. 3), God created the earth on Saturday, the hills on Sunday, the trees on Monday, all unpleasant things on Tuesday, the light on Wednesday, the beasts on Thursday, and Adam, who was the last of Creation, was created after the time of afternoon prayers on Friday.

CREED. The Muḥammadan Creed, or Kalimatu ʾsh-shahādah (shortly Kalimah) is the well-known formula:—

“I testify that there is no deity but God, and Muḥammad is the Apostle of God.”

It is the belief of Muḥammadans that the first part of this creed, which is called the nafī wa is̤bāt, namely, “There is no deity but God,” has been the expression of belief of every prophet since the days of Adam, and that the second portion has been changed according to the dispensation; for example, that in the days of Moses it would be: “There is no deity but God, and Moses is the Converser with God.” In the Christian dispensation it was: “There is no deity but God, and Jesus is the Spirit of God.”

Jābir relates that Muḥammad said “the keys of Paradise are bearing witness that there is no deity but God.”

The recital of the Kalimah, or Creed, is the first of five pillars of practical religion in Islām; and when anyone is converted to Islām he is required to repeat this formula, and the following are the conditions required of every Muslim with reference to it:—

1. That it shall be repeated aloud, at least once in a life-time.

2. That the meaning of it shall be fully understood.

3. That it shall be believed in “by the heart.”

4. That it shall be professed until death.

5. That it shall be recited correctly.

6. That it shall be always professed and declared without hesitation.

(Sharḥu ʾl-Wiqāyah.)

CREMATION. [BURNING THE DEAD.]

CRESCENT. The figure of the crescent is the Turkish symbol, and hence it has been regarded by Europeans as the special emblem of the Muḥammadan religion, although it is unknown to the Muḥammadans of the East. This figure, however, did not originate with the Turks, but it was the symbol of sovereignty in the city of Byzantium previous to the Muslim conquest, as may be seen from the medals struck in honour of Augustus Trajan and others. The crescent has been the symbol of three different orders of knighthood; the first of which was instituted by Charles I., King of Naples, A.D. 1268; the second in 1448 by René of Anjou; the third by Sultan Selim in 1801. It must have been adopted by Muḥammadans for the first time upon the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by Muḥammad II., and it is now generally used by the Turks as the insignia of their creed.