and similar tales put Mohammed in the place of a mediator without an
incarnation, without an atonement, without holiness. Our Analysis of
the Moslem creed shows how all the later teaching which so exalted
Mohammed was present in the germ. “_La ilaha illa Allah_” is the
theology, “_Mohammed er rasool Allah_,” the complete Soteriology of
Islam. The logical necessity of a perfect mediator was at the basis of
the _doctrine of Tradition_. Islam has, it claims, a perfect revelation
in the letter of the Koran; and a perfect example in the life of
Mohammed. The stream has not risen higher than its sources.
THE BOOK OF ISLAM. When Mohammed Webb the latest American champion of
Islam spoke at the Chicago Parliament of religions in praise of the
Koran and its teaching, Rev. George E. Post, M. D., of Beirut deemed
it a sufficient reply to let the book speak for itself. He said: “I
hold in my hand a book which is never touched by 200,000,000 of the
human race with unwashen hands, a book which is never carried below
the waist, a book which is never laid upon the floor, a book every
word of which to these 200,000,000 of the human race is considered the
direct word of God which came down from heaven. I propose without note
or comment to read to you a few words from the sacred book and you may
make your own comments upon them afterward.” After quoting several
verses to show that Mohammed preached a religion of the sword and of
polygamy, he added: “There is one chapter which I dare not stand before
you, my sisters, mothers and daughters, and read to you. I have not the
face to read it; nor would I like to read it even in a congregation of
men. It is the sixty-fourth chapter of the Koran.”
What sort of a book is this revelation of Mohammed of which parts are
unfit to read before a Christian audience and which yet is too holy to
be touched by other than Moslem hands? A book which the orthodox Moslem
believes to be uncreated and eternal, all-embracing and all-surpassing,
miraculous in its origin and contents. A book concerning which Mohammed
himself has said, “If the Koran were wrapped in a skin and thrown
into the fire it would not burn.” Goethe described it thus: “However
often we turn to it, at first disgusting us each time afresh it soon
attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence. Its style in
accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible—and ever
and anon truly sublime. Thus this book will go on exercising through
all ages a most potent influence.” And Nöldeke writes, “if it were not
for the exquisite flexibility and vigor of the Arabic language itself,
which, however is to be attributed more to the age in which the author
lived than to his individuality, it would scarcely be bearable to read
the later portions of the Koran a second time.” Goethe read only the
translation; and Nöldeke was master of the original. It is as hopeless
to arrive at a unanimous verdict regarding the Koran as it is to reach
an agreement regarding Mohammed.
The book has fifty-five noble titles on the lips of its people but is
generally called _the Koran_ or “The Reading.” It has one hundred and
fourteen chapters, some of which are as long as the book of Genesis and
others consisting of two or three sentences only. The whole book is
smaller than the New Testament, has no chronological order whatever and
is without logical sequence or climax. What strikes the reader first
of all is its jumbled character; every sort of fact and fancy, law and
legend is thrown together piecemeal. The four proposed chronological
arrangements, by Jorlal-ud-Din, Muir, Rodwell and Nöldeke are in utter
disagreement. Only two of Mohammed’s contemporaries are mentioned in
the entire book and his own name occurs only five times. The book
is unintelligible to the average Moslem without a commentary, and I
defy any one else to lead it through, without the aid of notes, and
understand a single chapter or even section.
We will not stop to consider the fabulous account which Moslems give
of the origin of the Koran and how the various chapters were revealed.
Although Moslems claim that the book was eternally perfect in form
and preserved in heaven, they are compelled to admit that it was
revealed piecemeal and at various times and places by Mohammed to his
followers. It was recorded in writing, after the rude Arab fashion,
“on palm-leaves and sheep-bones and white stones” to some extent; but
for the most part was preserved orally by constant repetition. Omar
suggested to Abu-Bekr after the battle of Yemama that since many of
the Koran reciters were slain, it would be the part of wisdom to put
the book of God in permanent form. The task was committed to Zaid, the
chief amanuensis of Mohammed and the resulting volume was entrusted to
the care of Hafsa, one of the widows of the prophet. Ten years later
a recension of the Koran was ordered by the Caliph Othman and all
previous copies were called in and burned. This recension of Othman,
sent to all the chief cities of the Moslem world, has been faithfully
handed down to the present. “No other book in the world has remained
twelve centuries with so pure a text.” (Hughes.) The present variations
in editions of the Arabic Koran are numerous but none of them are, in
any sense important. The present Koran is the same book that Mohammed
professed to have received from God. Out of its own mouth will we judge
the book; and we cannot judge the book without judging the prophet.
We will speak later of the poetical beauties of the Koran and of its
literary character. We do not deny also that there are in the Koran
certain moral beauties, such as its deep and fervent trust in the one
God, its lofty descriptions of His Almighty power and omnipresence, and
its sententious wisdom. The first chapter and the verse of the throne
are examples.
“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds!
The Compassionate, the Merciful!
King on the Day of Judgment!
Thee do we worship, and to Thee do we cry for help!
Guide Thou us on the right path!
The path of those to whom Thou art gracious!
Not of those with whom Thou art angered, nor of those who go astray.”
“God! there is no God but He; the living, the Eternal
Slumber doth not overtake Him, neither sleep.
To Him belongeth whatsoever is in heaven and on the earth.
The preservation of both is no weariness unto Him.
He is the high, the mighty.”
The great bulk of the Koran is either legislative or legendary; the
book consists of laws and stories. The former relate entirely to
subjects which engrossed the Arabs of Mohammed’s day—the laws of
inheritance, the relation of the sexes, the law of retaliation, etc—and
this part of the book has a local character. The stories on the other
hand go back to Adam and the patriarchs, take in several unknown
Arabian prophets or leaders, centre around Jesus Christ, Moses and
Solomon and do not venture beyond Jewish territory except to mention
Alexander the Great and Lukman (Æsop).
From the analytical tables it is not very difficult to see whence the
material for the Koran was selected. Rabbi Geiger’s book, recently
translated into English, will satisfy any reader that Hughes is
nearly right when he says, “Mohammedanism is simply Talmudic Judaism
adapted to Arabia plus the apostleship of Jesus and Mohammed.” But it
is _Talmudic_ Judaism and not the Judaism of the Old Testament. For
the Koran is remarkable most of all not because of its contents but
because of its omissions. Not because of what it reveals but for what
it _conceals_ of “former revelations.” The defects of its teaching are
many. It is full of historical errors and blunders. It has monstrous
fables. It teaches a false cosmogony. It is full of superstitions. It
perpetuates slavery, polygamy, religious intolerance, the seclusion
and degradation of woman and petrifies social life. But all this is of
minor importance compared with the fact that the Koran professing to
be a _revelation_ from God does not teach the way to reconciliation
with God and seems to ignore the first and great barrier to such
reconciliation, viz: SIN. Of this the Old and New Testaments are always
speaking. Sin and salvation are the subject of which the _Torah_ and
the _Zaboor_ and the _Injil_ (Law Prophets and Psalms) are full. The
Koran is silent or if not absolutely silent, keeps this great question
ever in the background.[62]
It is a commonplace of theology that “to form erroneous conceptions
of sin is to fall into still graver errors regarding the way of
salvation.” Mohammed, as is evident from his whole life, had no deep
conviction of sin in himself; he was full of self-righteousness. His
ideas, too, of God, were _physical_, not _moral_; he saw God’s power,
but never had a glimpse of His holiness. And so we find that there is
an inward unity binding together the prophet and his book as to their
real character in the light of the gospel. With _such_ ideas of God,
_such_ a prophet and _such_ a book, it is easy to understand why the
Mohammedan world became what it is to-day. These bare outlines of the
system of Islam are all that are necessary to indicate its nature and
genus. Allah’s character as the revealer, Mohammed’s character as the
channel of the revelation, and the revelation itself, show us Islam in
its cradle.
XIX
THE WAHABI RULERS AND REFORMERS
“Nothing is so easy to appreciate as true Christian commerce. It
is a speaking argument, even to the lowest savage, for a gospel of
truth and love, and yet more to the races sophisticated by a false
civilization.”—_Principal Cairns._
The history of the Arabian Peninsula has never yet been written.
Many books describe certain periods of its history from the time of
the earlier Arabian rulers, but there is no volume that tells the
story from the beginning in a way worthy of the subject. It would be
interesting to search out the earliest records and trace the Himyarite
dynasties to their origin; to learn the story of the Jewish immigrants
who settled in Medina, Mecca and Yemen even before the Christian Era;
to follow the Arabs in their conquests under the banner of the prophet;
to watch the sudden rise of the Carmathians and follow them in their
career of destruction; to search the old libraries and rediscover the
romantic story of the Portuguese, the Dutch and the English in Arabian
waters;—but our space limits us to the story of the past century.[63]
To understand the present political conditions and recent history of
Arabia, we must go back to the year 1765, which marks the rise of
the remarkable Wahabi movement, which was at the bottom of all the
political changes that the Peninsula has seen since that time. This
movement was the renaissance of Islam, even though it ended in apparent
disaster, and was politically a splendid fiasco. The Wahabi reform
attracted the attention of Turkey to Arabia; its influence was felt in
India to the extent of declaring a _jihad_ or religious war against
the government, and compelled England to study the situation and send
representatives to the very heart of Arabia.
Beginning with the Wahabi dynasty, the history of the past century in
Arabia centres in the rulers of Nejd and Oman, the Turkish conquests
and the English influence and occupation. The strong independent
government of Nejd under Ibn Rashid and his successor, Abd-ul-Aziz,
would have been an impossibility except for the result of the Wahabi
movement, in demonstrating the weakness of Turkish rule. And it was for
fear of the Wahabi aggressions that Turkey strengthened her Arabian
possessions and invaded Hassa.
Mohammed bin Abd-ul-Wahab was born at Ayinah in Nejd, in 1691.
Carefully instructed by his father in the tenets of Islam according
to the school of Hambali, the strictest of the four great sects.[64]
Abd-ul-Wahab visited the schools of Mecca, Busrah and Bagdad, to
increase his learning. At Medina, too, he absorbed the deepest
learning of the Moslem divines and soaked himself in the “six correct
books” of traditions. In his travels he had observed the laxity of
faith and practice which had crept in, especially among the Turks
and the Arabs of the large cities. He tried to distinguish between
the essential elements of Islam and its later additions, some of
which seemed to him to savor of gross idolatry and worldliness. What
most offended the rigid monotheism of his philosophy was the almost
universal visitation of shrines, invocation of saints and honor paid
to the tomb of Mohammed. The use of the rosary, of jewels, silk, gold,
silver, wine and tobacco, were all abominations to be eschewed. These
were indications of the great need for reform. The earlier teaching
of the companions of the prophet had been set aside or overlaid by
later teaching. Even the four orthodox schools had departed from the
pure faith by allowing pilgrimage to Medina, by multiplying festivals
and philosophizing about the nature of Allah. Therefore it was that
Abd-ul-Wahab preached reform not only, but proclaimed himself the
leader of a new sect. His teaching was based on the Koran and the early
traditions.
This movement is chiefly distinguished from the orthodox system in the
following particulars:
1. The Wahabis reject _Ijma_ or the agreement of later interpreters.
2. They offer no prayers to prophet, wali, or saint, nor visit their
tombs for that purpose.
3. They say Mohammed is _not yet_ an intercessor; although at the last
day he will be.
4. They forbid women to visit the graves of the dead.
5. They allow only four festivals, _Fitr_, _Azha_, _’Ashura_ and
_Lailat El Mobarek_.
6. They do not celebrate Mohammed’s birth.
7. They use their knuckles for prayer-counting, and not rosaries.
8. They strictly forbid the use of silk, gold, silver ornaments,
tobacco, music, opium, and every luxury of the Orient, except perfume
and women.
9. They have anthropomorphic ideas of God by strictly literal
interpretation of the Koran texts about “His hand,” “sitting,” etc.
10. They believe _jihad_ or religious war, is not out of date, but
incumbent on the believer.
11. They condemn minarets, tombstones, and everything that was not in
use during the first years of Islam.
There is no doubt that Abd-ul-Wahab honestly tried to bring about
a reform and that in many of the points enumerated his reform was
strictly a return to primitive Islam. But it was too radical to last.
It took no count of modern civilization and the ten centuries that had
modified the very character of the Arabs of the towns not to speak
of those outside of Arabia. Yet the preaching of the Reformer found
willing ears in the isolation of the desert. As in the days of Omar,
the promise of reform in religion was made attractive by the promise
of rich booty to those who fought in the path of God and destroyed
creature-worshippers. Mohammed Abd-ul-Wahab was the preacher, but
to propagate his doctrine he needed a sword. Mohammed bin Saud, of
Deraiyah, supplied the latter factor and the two Mohammeds, allied by
marriage and a common ambition, began to make converts and conquests.
The son of Bin Saud, Abd-ul-Aziz, was the Omar of the new movement,
and his son Saud even surpassed the father in military prowess and
successful conquest. Abd-ul-Aziz was murdered by a Persian fanatic
while prostrate in prayer in the mosque at Deraiyah, in 1803. Saud
at this very time was pushing the Wahabi conquest to the very gates
of Mecca. On the 27th of April, 1803, he carried his banner into the
court of the Kaaba and began to cleanse the holy place. Piles of pipes,
tobacco, silks, rosaries and amulets were collected into one great
heap and set on fire by the infuriated enthusiasts. No excesses were
committed against the people except that religion was forced upon
them. The mosques were filled by public “whips” who used their leather
thongs without mercy on all the lazy or negligent. Everybody, for a
marvel, prayed five times a day. The result of his victory at Mecca
was communicated by the dauntless Saud in the following naïve letter
addressed to the Sultan of Turkey:
“SAUD TO SALIM—I entered Mecca on the fourth day of Moharram in the
1218th year of the Hegira. I kept peace toward the inhabitants. I
destroyed all things that were idolatrously worshipped. I abolished
all taxes except those that were required by the law. I confirmed the
Kadhi whom you had appointed agreeably to the commands of the prophet
of God. I desire that you will give orders to the rulers of Damascus
and Cairo not to come up to the sacred city with the _Mahmal_[65] and
with trumpets and drums. Religion is not profited by these things. May
the peace and blessing of God be with you.”
The absence of long salutations and the usual phrases of honor is
characteristic of all Wahabi correspondence. In this respect it is a
great improvement on the excessive lavishment of titles and honors so
usual among Moslems, especially among the Persians and the Turks.
Before the close of the year Saud avenged his father’s death by
attacking Medina and destroying the gilded dome that covered the
prophet’s tomb. As early as 1801 parties of plundering Wahabis had
sacked the tomb of Hussein and carried off rich booty from the sacred
city of Kerbela. According to the official inventory this booty
consisted of vases, carpets, jewels, weapons innumerable; also, 500
gilded copper-plates from the dome, 4,000 cashmire shawls, 6,000
Spanish doubloons, 350,000 Venetian coins of silver, 400,000 Dutch
ducats, 250,000 Spanish dollars and a large number of Abyssinian slaves
belonging to the mosque.[66] Their raids and conquests extended in
every direction so that in a few years the Wahabi power was supreme in
the greater part of Arabia.
A single illustration will show the great Saud’s[67] prudence and
celerity in action. When he invaded the Hauran plains, in 1810,
although it was thirty-five days’ journey from his capital, yet the
news of his approach only preceded his arrival by two days, nor was it
known what part of Syria he planned to attack, and thirty-five villages
of Hauran were sacked before the Pasha of Damascus could make any
demonstrations for defence!
Meanwhile the Sublime Porte remained inactive and nothing was done to
regain the sacred territories. It was deemed impossible to reach Mecca
from Damascus with any large body of soldiers through hostile territory
where supplies were scarce. Salvation was expected from Egypt; and it
was hoped that an expedition by sea might succeed in taking Jiddah and
thence advance upon Mecca. Mohammed Ali began preparations in 1810, and
in the summer of 1811 an expedition under his son Touson Pasha was sent
out from Suez. In October the fleet arrived at Yenbo and the troops
took the town. Ghaleb the Sherif of Mecca proved false to the Wahabis
and made negotiations with the Turkish commander to hand over the
town. In January the army occupied Medina but at Bedr the troops were
attacked by Wahabis and utterly routed.
All through this first campaign the cruelty and treachery of the Turks
was shocking even to the mind of their Bedouin allies. None of their
promises were kept; the skulls of the enemy slain were constructed
into a sort of tower near Medina; Ghalib, the Sherif, was betrayed and
in violation of the most sacred promises he was taken prisoner and
deported; wholesale butchery of the wounded and mutilation of the slain
were common.
A second army under Mustafa Bey advanced toward Mecca and also took
possession of Taif. Although the five cities of the Hejaz were now in
the hands of the Turks the Wahabi power was not yet broken. Mohammed
Ali Pasha himself proceeded from Egypt with another army; he had great
difficulty in securing transportation and provisions. Finally he landed
his troops at Jiddah and went on to Mecca, planning to attack Taraba
the great Wahabi centre of the south, as Deraiyah was the capital
of the north. Here the enemy had gathered in great numbers under an
Amazon leader, a widow named Ghalye who ruled the Begoum Arabs. She was
reported to be a sorceress among the Turks and stories of her skill and
courage inspired them with fear. When the attack was made the Wahabis
came off victorious and so harassed the army of occupation that during
1813 and the beginning of 1814 they remained perfectly inactive. Later
the Turks made a sea attack on Gunfida, the port south of Jiddah, and
captured it. The Wahabis however captured the wells that supplied the
town, made a sortie and the Turkish troops fled panic-stricken, to
their ships. Discontentment arose among the Turkish troops. Supplies
failed and wages were in arrears. Mohammed Ali changed now his tactics
and tried to bribe the Bedouin chiefs to desert the Wahabi leaders. At
this time the Turkish army consisted of nearly 20,000 men and yet the
campaign dragged on without a definite victory.[68]
The greatest battle was fought at Bissel near Taif where Mohammed Ali
defeated the Wahabis with great slaughter. Six dollars were offered
for every Wahabi head and before the day ended 5,000 bloody heads
were piled up before the Pasha. About 300 prisoners were taken and
offered quarter. But on reaching Mecca the cruel commander impaled
fifty of them before the gates of the city; twelve suffered a like
horrible death at every one of the ten coffee-houses, halting places
between Mecca and Jiddah; the remainder were killed at Jiddah and their
carcasses left to dogs and vultures.
But the battle went against the Turks when they met the desert and its
terrors. Hunger, thirst, fevers and the Bedouin robbers attacked the
camp. In one day a hundred horses died; the soldiers were dissatisfied
and deserted. At length Mohammed Ali made proposals of peace to
Abdullah bin Saud the Wahabi chief, and when Saud entered Kasim with
an army the negotiations were concluded and peace was declared. But
peace was not kept, and Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mohammed Pasha was
despatched with a large expedition against the Wahabis in August, 1816.
While Egypt was attacking the Wahabi strongholds from the west, with
infinite trouble and dubious results, the greatest loss the Wahabi
government had yet suffered, was from a blow dealt by the British.
In 1809 an English expedition went from Bombay against the piratical
inhabitants of their chief castle and harbor, Ras-el-Kheimah. The
place was bombarded and laid in ashes.
Ibrahim Pasha accomplished by intrigue and bribery what his father
failed to do by force of arms. After a series of advances one tribe
after another was detached from the Wahabi government. At last without
a battle the capital Deraiyah was taken, Abdullah captured, sent to
Constantinople and there publicly executed on December 18th, 1818.
The Turks were naturally jubilant over their success and thought
they had made an end of the hated Wahabis. They soon learned their
mistake. No sooner was the army of Ibrahim Pasha withdrawn than the
old spirit rehabilitated the fallen empire with the old time strength
of fanaticism. The army of the Pashas could not govern or even occupy
the vast territories they had overrun. Within a few years Turki the
son of the late Amir was proclaimed Sultan of Nejd, recovered all and
more than his father’s territories, and by the judicious payment of a
small tribute and yet smaller honor to the Egyptian Khedive retained
the throne until he was murdered in 1831. His son and successor,
Feysul, took the reins of government and was rash enough to repudiate
the Egyptian Suzerainty. Nejd was again invaded. Hofhoof and Katif were
temporarily occupied by Egyptian and Turkish troops and Feysul was
banished to Egypt.[69]