Kopisch's collected works were published in 5 vols. (Berlin, 1856.)

KOPP, HERMANN FRANZ MORITZ (1817-1892), German chemist, was born on the

30th of October 1817 at Hanau, where his father, Johann Heinrich Kopp

(1777-1858), a physician, was professor of chemistry, physics and

natural history at the Lyceum.

After attending the gymnasium of his native town, he studied at Marburg

and Heidelberg, and then, attracted by the fame of Liebig, went in 1839

to Giessen, where he became a _privatdozent_ in 1841, and professor of

chemistry twelve years later. In 1864 he was called to Heidelberg in the

same capacity, and he remained there till his death on the 20th of

February 1892. Kopp devoted himself especially to physico-chemical

inquiries, and in the history of chemical theory his name is associated

with several of the most important correlations of the physical

properties of substances with their chemical constitution. Much of his

work was concerned with specific volumes, the conception of which he set

forth in a paper published when he was only twenty-two years of age; and

the principles he established have formed the basis of subsequent

investigations in that subject, although his results have in some cases

undergone modification. Another question to which he gave much attention

was the connexion of the boiling-point of compounds, organic ones in

particular, with their composition. In addition to these and other

laborious researches, Kopp was a prolific writer. In 1843-1847 he

published a comprehensive _History of Chemistry_, in four volumes, to

which three supplements were added in 1869-1875. The _Development of

Chemistry in Recent Times_ appeared in 1871-1874, and in 1886 he

published a work in two volumes on _Alchemy in Ancient and Modern

Times_. In addition he wrote (1863) on theoretical and physical

chemistry for the Graham-Otto _Lehrbuch der Chemie_, and for many years

assisted Liebig in editing the _Annalen der Chemie_ and the

_Jahresbericht_.

He must not be confused with EMIL KOPP (1817-1875), who, born at

Warselnheim, Alsace, became in 1847 professor of toxicology and

chemistry at the École supérieure de Pharmacie at Strasburg, in 1849

professor of physics and chemistry at Lausanne, in 1852 chemist to a

Turkey-red factory near Manchester, in 1868 professor of technology at

Turin, and finally, in 1871, professor of technical chemistry at the

Polytechnic of Zürich, where he died in 1875.

KOPRÜLÜ, or KUPRILI (Bulgarian _Valésa_, Greek _Vélissa_), a town of

Macedonia, European Turkey, in the vilayet of Salonica, situated 600

ft. above sea-level, on the river Vardar, and on the Salonica-Mitrovitza

railway, 25 m. S.E. of Uskub. Pop. (1905), about 22,000. Koprülü has a

flourishing trade in silk; maize and mulberries are cultivated in the

neighbourhood. The Greek and Bulgarian names of the town may be corrupt

forms of the ancient Bylazora, described by Polybius as the chief city

of Paeonia.

KORA, or CORA, an ancient town of Northern India, in the Fatehpur

district of the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 2806. As the capital of a

Mahommedan province, it gave its name to part of the tract (with

Allahabad) granted by Lord Clive to the titular Mogul emperor, Shah

Alam, in 1765.

KORAN. The Koran (Kor'án) is the sacred Book of Islam, on which the

religion of more than two hundred millions of Mahommedans is founded,

being regarded by them as the immediate word of God. And since the use

of the Koran in public worship, in schools and otherwise, is much more

extensive than, for example, the reading of the Bible in most Christian

countries, it has been truly described as the most widely-read book in

existence. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give it an urgent

claim on our attention, whether it suit our taste and fall in with our

religious and philosophical views or not. Besides, it is the work of

Mahomet, and as such is fitted to afford a clue to the spiritual

development of that most successful of all prophets and religious

personalities. It must be owned that the first perusal leaves on a

European an impression of chaotic confusion--not that the book is so

very extensive, for it is not quite as large as the New Testament. This

impression can in some degree be modified only by the application of a

critical analysis with the assistance of Arabian tradition.

Mahomet's View of Revelation.

To the faith of the Moslems, as has been said, the Koran is the word of

God, and such also is the claim which the book itself advances. For

except in sur. i.--which is a prayer for men--and some few passages

where Mahomet (vi. 104, 114; xxvii. 93; xlii. 8) or the angels (xix. 65;

xxxvii. 164 sqq.) speak in the first person without the intervention of

the usual imperative "say" (sing. or pl.), the speaker throughout is

God, either in the first person singular or more commonly the plural of

majesty "we." The same mode of address is familiar to us from the

prophets of the Old Testament; the human personality disappears, in the

moment of inspiration, behind the God by whom it is filled. But all the

greatest of the Hebrew prophets fall back speedily upon the unassuming

human "I"; while in the Koran the divine "I" is the stereotyped form of

address. Mahomet, however, really felt himself to be the instrument of

God; this consciousness was no doubt brighter at his first appearance

than it afterwards became, but it never entirely forsook him.

Nevertheless we cannot doubt his good-faith, not even in the cases in

which the moral quality of his actions leaves most to be desired. In

spite of all, the dominant fact remains, that to the end he was zealous

for his God and for the salvation of his people, nay, of the whole of

humanity, and that he never lost the unconquerable certainty of his

divine mission.

The rationale of revelation is explained in the Koran itself as follows:

In heaven is the original text ("the mother of the book," xliii. 3; "a

concealed book," lv. 77; "a well-guarded tablet," lxxxv. 22). By the

process of "sending down" (_tanzíl_), one piece after another was

communicated to the Prophet. The mediator was an angel, who is called

sometimes the "Spirit" (xxvi. 193), sometimes the "holy Spirit" (xvi.

104), and at a later time "Gabriel" (only in ii. 91, 92; lxvi. 4). This

angel dictates the revelation to the Prophet, who repeats it after him,

and afterwards proclaims it to the world (lxxxvii. 6, &c.). It is plain

that we have here a somewhat crude attempt of the Prophet to represent

to himself the more or less unconscious process by which his ideas arose

and gradually took shape in his mind. It is no wonder if in such

confused imagery the details are not always self-consistent. When, for

example, this heavenly archetype is said to be in the hands of "exalted

scribes" (lxxx. 13 sqq.), this seems a transition to a quite different

set of ideas, namely, the books of fate, or the record of all human

actions--conceptions which are actually found in the Koran. It is to be

observed, at all events, that Mahomet's transcendental idea of God, as a

Being exalted altogether above the world, excludes the thought of direct

intercourse between the Prophet and God.

Component Parts of the Koran.

It is an explicit statement of the Koran that the sacred book was

revealed ("sent down") by God, not all at once, but piecemeal and

gradually (xxv. 34). This is evident from the actual composition of the

book, and is confirmed by Moslem tradition. That is to say, Mahomet

issued his revelations in fly-leaves of greater or less extent. A single

piece of this kind was called either, like the entire collection,

_kor'an_, i.e. "recitation," "reading," or, better still, is the

equivalent of Aramaic _geryana_ "lectionary"; or _kitab_, "writing"; or

_sura_, which is perhaps the late-Hebrew _shura_, and means literally

"series." The last became, in the lifetime of Mahomet, the regular

designation of the individual sections as distinguished from the whole

collection; and accordingly it is the name given to the separate

chapters of the existing Koran. These chapters are of very unequal

length. Since many of the shorter ones are undoubtedly complete in

themselves, it is natural to assume that the longer, which are sometimes

very comprehensive, have arisen from the amalgamation of various

originally distinct revelations. This supposition is favoured by the

numerous traditions which give us the circumstances under which this or

that short piece, now incorporated in a larger section, was revealed;

and also by the fact that the connexion of thought in the present suras

often seems to be interrupted. And in reality many pieces of the long

suras have to be severed out as originally independent; even in the

short ones parts are often found which cannot have been there at first.

At the same time we must beware of carrying this sifting operation too

far,--as Nöldeke now believes himself to have done in his earlier works,

and as Sprenger also sometimes seems to do. That some suras were of

considerable length from the first is seen, for example, from xii.,

which contains a short introduction, then the history of Joseph, and

then a few concluding observations, and is therefore perfectly

homogeneous. In like manner, xx., which is mainly occupied with the

history of Moses, forms a complete whole. The same is true of xviii.,

which at first sight seems to fall into several pieces; the history of

the seven sleepers, the grotesque narrative about Moses, and that about

Alexander "the Horned," are all connected together, and the same rhyme

through the whole sura. Even in the separate narrations we may observe

how readily the Koran passes from one subject to another, how little

care is taken to express all the transitions of thought, and how

frequently clauses are omitted, which are almost indispensable. We are

not at liberty, therefore, in every case where the connexion in the

Koran is obscure, to say that it is really broken, and set it down as

the clumsy patchwork of a later hand. Even in the old Arabic poetry such

abrupt transitions are of very frequent occurrence. It is not uncommon

for the Koran, after a new subject has been entered on, to return

gradually or suddenly to the former theme,--a proof that there at least

separation is not to be thought of. In short, however imperfectly the

Koran may have been redacted, in the majority of cases the present suras

are identical with the originals.

How these revelations actually arose in Mahomet's mind is a question

which it is almost as idle to discuss as it would be to analyse the

workings of the mind of a poet. In his early career, sometimes perhaps

in its later stages also, many revelations must have burst from him in

uncontrollable excitement, so that he could not possibly regard them

otherwise than as divine inspirations. We must bear in mind that he was

no cold systematic thinker, but an Oriental visionary, brought up in

crass superstition, and without intellectual discipline; a man whose

nervous temperament had been powerfully worked on by ascetic

austerities, and who was all the more irritated by the opposition he

encountered, because he had little of the heroic in his nature. Filled

with his religious ideas and visions, he might well fancy he heard the

angel bidding him recite what was said to him. There may have been many

a revelation of this kind which no one ever heard but himself, as he

repeated it to himself in the silence of the night (lxxiii. 4). Indeed

the Koran itself admits that he forgot some revelations (lxxxvii. 7).

But by far the greatest part of the book is undoubtedly the result of

deliberation, touched more or less with emotion, and animated by a

certain rhetorical rather than poetical glow. Many passages are based

upon purely intellectual reflection. It is said that Mahomet

occasionally uttered such a passage immediately after one of those

epileptic fits which not only his followers, but (for a time at least)

he himself also, regarded as tokens of intercourse with the higher

powers. If that is the case, it is impossible to say whether the trick

was in the utterance of the revelation or in the fit itself.

The Koran Written.

How the various pieces of the Koran took literary form is uncertain.

Mahomet himself, so far as we can discover, never wrote down anything.

The question whether he could read and write has been much debated among

Moslems, unfortunately more with dogmatic arguments and spurious

traditions than authentic proofs. At present one is inclined to say that

he was not altogether ignorant of these arts, but that from want of

practice he found it convenient to employ some one else whenever he had

anything to write. After the migration to Medina (A.D. 622) we are told

that short pieces--chiefly legal decisions--were taken down immediately

after they were revealed, by an adherent whom he summoned for the

purpose; so that nothing stood in the way of their publication. Hence it

is probable that in Mecca, where the art of writing was commoner than in

Medina, he had already begun to have his oracles committed to writing.

That even long portions of the Koran existed in written form from an

early date may be pretty safely inferred from various indications;

especially from the fact that in Mecca the Prophet had caused insertions

to be made, and pieces to be erased in his previous revelations. For we

cannot suppose that he knew the longer suras by heart so perfectly that

he was able after a time to lay his finger upon any particular passage.

In some instances, indeed, he may have relied too much on his memory.

For example, he seems to have occasionally dictated the same sura to

different persons in slightly different terms. In such cases, no doubt,

he may have partly intended to introduce improvements; and so long as

the difference was merely in expression, without affecting the sense, it

could occasion no perplexity to his followers. None of them had literary

pedantry enough to question the consistency of the divine revelation on

that ground. In particular instances, however, the difference of reading

was too important to be overlooked. Thus the Koran itself confesses that

the unbelievers cast it up as a reproach to the Prophet that God

sometimes substituted one verse for another (xvi. 103). On one occasion,

when a dispute arose between two of his own followers as to the true

reading of a passage which both had received from the Prophet himself,

Mahomet is said to have explained that the Koran was revealed in seven

forms. In this apparently genuine dictum seven stands, of course, as in

many other cases, for an indefinite but limited number. But one may

imagine what a world of trouble it has cost the Moslem theologians to

explain the saying in accordance with their dogmatic beliefs. A great

number of explanations are current, some of which claim the authority of

the Prophet himself; as, indeed, fictitious utterances of Mahomet play

throughout a conspicuous part in the exegesis of the Koran. One very

favourite, but utterly untenable interpretation is that the "seven

forms," are seven different Arabic dialects.

Abrogated Readings.

When such discrepancies came to the cognizance of Mahomet it was

doubtless his desire that only one of the conflicting texts should be

considered authentic; only he never gave himself much trouble to have

his wish carried into effect. Although in theory he was an upholder of

verbal inspiration, he did not push the doctrine to its extreme

consequences; his practical good sense did not take these things so

strictly as the theologians of later centuries. Sometimes, however, he

did suppress whole sections or verses, enjoining his followers to efface

or forget them, and declaring them to be "abrogated." A very remarkable

case is that of the two verses in liii., when he had recognized three

heathen goddesses as exalted beings, possessing influence with God. This

had occurred in a moment of weakness, in order that by such a promise,

which yet left Allah in his lofty position, he might gain over his

fellow-countrymen. This object he achieved, but soon his conscience

smote him, and he declared these words to have been an inspiration of

Satan.

Abrogated Laws.

So much for abrogated readings; the case is somewhat different when we

come to the abrogation of laws and directions to the Moslems, which

often occurs in the Koran. There is nothing in this at variance with

Mahomet's idea of God. God is to him an absolute despot, who declares a

thing right or wrong from no inherent necessity but by his arbitrary

fiat. This God varies his commands at pleasure, prescribes one law for

the Christians, another for the Jews, and a third for the Moslems; nay,

he even changes his instructions to the Moslems when it pleases him.

Thus, for example, the Koran contains very different directions, suited

to varying circumstances, as to the treatment which idolaters are to

receive at the hands of believers. But Mahomet showed no anxiety to have

these superseded enactments destroyed. Believers could be in no

uncertainty as to which of two contradictory passages remained in force;

and they might still find edification in that which had become obsolete.

That later generations might not so easily distinguish the "abrogated"

from the "abrogating" did not occur to Mahomet, whose vision, naturally

enough, seldom extended to the future of his religious community.

Current events were invariably kept in view in the revelations. In

Medina it called forth the admiration of the Faithful to observe how

often God gave them the answer to a question whose settlement was

urgently required at the moment. The same näiveté appears in a remark of

the Caliph Othman about a doubtful case: "If the Apostle of God were

still alive, methinks there had been a Koran passage revealed on this

point." Not unfrequently the divine word was found to coincide with the

advice which Mahomet had received from his most intimate disciples.

"Omar was many a time of a certain opinion," says one tradition, "and

the Koran was then revealed accordingly."

Contents of the Koran.

The contents of the different parts of the Koran are extremely varied.

Many passages consist of theological or moral reflections. We are

reminded of the greatness, the goodness, the righteousness of God as

manifested in Nature, in history, and in revelation through the

prophets, especially through Mahomet. God is magnified as the One, the

All-powerful. Idolatry and all deification of created beings, such as

the worship of Christ as the Son of God, are unsparingly condemned. The

joys of heaven and the pains of hell are depicted in vivid sensuous

imagery, as is also the terror of the whole creation at the advent of

the last day and the judgment of the world. Believers receive general

moral instruction, as well as directions for special circumstances. The

lukewarm are rebuked, the enemies threatened with terrible punishment,

both temporal and eternal. To the sceptical the truth of Islam is held

forth; and a certain, not very cogent, method of demonstration

predominates. In many passages the sacred book falls into a diffuse

preaching style, others seem more like proclamations or general orders.

A great number contain ceremonial or civil laws, or even special

commands to individuals down to such matters as the regulation of

Mahomet's harem. In not a few definite questions are answered which had

actually been propounded to the Prophet by believers or infidels.

Mahomet himself, too, repeatedly receives direct injunctions, and does

not escape an occasional rebuke. One sura (i.) is a prayer, two (cxiii.

cxiv.) are magical formulas. Many suras treat of a single topic, others

embrace several.

Narratives.

From the mass of material comprised in the Koran--and the account we

have given is far from exhaustive--we should select the histories of the

ancient prophets and saints as possessing a peculiar interest. The

purpose of Mahomet is to show from these histories how God in former

times had rewarded the righteous and punished their enemies. For the

most part the old prophets only serve to introduce a little variety in

point of form, for they are almost in every case facsimiles of Mahomet

himself. They preach exactly like him, they have to bring the very same

charges against their opponents, who on their part behave exactly as the

unbelieving inhabitants of Mecca. The Koran even goes so far as to make

Noah contend against the worship of certain false gods, mentioned by

name, who were worshipped by the Arabs of Mahomet's time. In an address

which is put in the mouth of Abraham (xxvi. 75 sqq.), the reader quite

forgets that it is Abraham, and not Mahomet (or God himself), who is

speaking. Other narratives are intended rather for amusement, although

they are always well seasoned with edifying phrases. It is no wonder

that the godless Korrishites thought these stories of the Koran not

nearly so entertaining as those of Rostam and Ispandiar, related by Nadr

the son of Harith, who had learned in the course of his trade journeys

on the Euphrates the heroic mythology of the Persians. But the Prophet

was so exasperated by this rivalry that when Nadr fell into his power

after the battle of Badr, he caused him to be executed; although in all

other cases he readily pardoned his fellow-countrymen.

Relation to the Old and New Testaments.

These histories are chiefly about Scripture characters, especially those

of the Old Testament. But the deviations from the Biblical narratives

are very marked. Many of the alterations are found in the legendary

anecdotes of the Jewish Haggada and the New Testament Apocrypha; but

many more are due perhaps to misconceptions such as only a listener (not

the reader of a book) could fall into. One would suppose that the most

ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman, the minister of Ahasuerus,

for the minister of Pharaoh, as happens in the Koran, or identified

Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary (= Mariam), the mother of Christ.

So long, however, as we have no closer acquaintance with Arab Judaism

and Christianity, we must always reckon with the possibility that many

of these mistakes were due to adherents of these religions who were his

authorities, or were a naïve reproduction of versions already widely

accepted by his contemporaries. In addition to his misconceptions there

are sundry capricious alterations, some of them very grotesque, due to

Mahomet himself. For instance, in his ignorance of everything out of

Arabia, he makes the fertility of Egypt--where rain is almost never seen

and never missed--depend on rain instead of the inundations of the Nile

(xii. 49).

It is uncertain whether his account of Alexander was borrowed from Jews

or Christians, since the romance of Alexander belonged to the

stereotyped literature of that age. The description of Alexander as "the

Horned" in the Koran is, however, in accordance with the result of

recent researches, to be traced to a Syrian legend dating from A.D.

514-515 (Th. Nöldeke, "Beiträge zur Gesch. des Alexanderromanes" in

_Denkschriften Akad. Wien_, vol. xxxviii. No. 5, p. 27, &c.). According

to this, God caused horns to grow on Alexander's head to enable him to

overthrow all things. This detail of the legend is ultimately traceable,

as Hottinger long ago supposed, to the numerous coins on which Alexander

is represented with the ram's horns of Ammon.[1] Besides Jewish and

Christian histories there are a few about old Arabian prophets. In these

he seems to have handled his materials even more freely than in the

others.

The opinion has already been expressed that Mahomet did not make use of

written sources. Coincidences and divergences alike can always be

accounted for by oral communications from Jews who knew a little and

Christians who knew next to nothing. Even in the rare passages where we

can trace direct resemblances to the text of the Old Testament (cf. xxi.

105 with Ps. xxxvii. 29; i. 5 with Ps. xxvii. 11) or the New (cf. vii.

48 with Luke xvi. 24; xlvi. 19 with Luke xvi. 25), there is nothing more

than might readily have been picked up in conversation with any Jew or

Christian. In Medina, where he had the opportunity of becoming

acquainted with Jews of some culture, he learned some things out of the

Mishna, e.g. v. 35 corresponds almost word for word with Mishna

_Sanhedrin_ iv. 5; compare also ii. 183 with Mishna _Berak'hoth_ i. 2.

That these are only cases of oral communication will be admitted by any

one with the slightest knowledge of the circumstances. Otherwise we

might even conclude that Mahomet had studied the Talmud; e.g. the

regulation as to ablution by rubbing with sand, where water cannot be

obtained (iv. 46), corresponds to a talmudic ordinance (_Berak'hoth_ 15

a). Of Christianity he can have been able to learn very little, even in

Medina; as may be seen from the absurd travesty of the institution of

the Eucharist in v. 112 sqq. For the rest, it is highly improbable that

before the Koran any real literary production--anything that could be

strictly called a book--existed in the Arabic language.

Style.

In point of style and artistic effect, the different parts of the Koran

are of very unequal value. An unprejudiced and critical reader will

certainly find very few passages where his aesthetic susceptibilities

are thoroughly satisfied. But he will often be struck, especially in the

older pieces, by a wild force of passion, and a vigorous, if not rich,

imagination. Descriptions of heaven and hell, and allusions to God's

working in Nature, not unfrequently show a certain amount of poetic

power. In other places also the style is sometimes lively and

impressive; though it is rarely indeed that we come across such strains

of touching simplicity as in the middle of xciii. The greater part of

the Koran is decidedly prosaic; much of it indeed is stiff in style. Of

course, with such a variety of material, we cannot expect every part to

be equally vivacious, or imaginative, or poetic. A decree about the

right of inheritance, or a point of ritual, must necessarily be

expressed in prose, if it is to be intelligible. No one complains of the

civil laws in Exodus or the sacrificial ritual in Leviticus, because

they want the fire of Isaiah or the tenderness of Deuteronomy. But

Mahomet's mistake consists in persistent and slavish adherence to the

semi-poetic form which he had at first adopted in accordance with his

own taste and that of his hearers. For instance, he employs rhyme in

dealing with the most prosaic subjects, and thus produces the

disagreeable effect of incongruity between style and matter. It has to

be considered, however, that many of those sermonizing pieces which are

so tedious to us, especially when we read two or three in succession

(perhaps in a very inadequate translation), must have had a quite

different effect when recited under the burning sky and on the barren

soil of Mecca. There, thoughts about God's greatness and man's duty,

which are familiar to us from childhood, were all new to the hearers--it

is hearers we have to think of in the first instance, not readers--to

whom, at the same time, every allusion had a meaning which often escapes

our notice. When Mahomet spoke of the goodness of the Lord in creating

the clouds, and bringing them across the cheerless desert, and pouring

them out on the earth to restore its rich vegetation, that must have

been a picture of thrilling interest to the Arabs, who are accustomed to

see from three to five years elapse before a copious shower comes to

clothe the wilderness once more with luxuriant pastures. It requires an

effort for us, under our clouded skies, to realize in some degree the

intensity of that impression.

Rhetorical Form and Rhyme.

The fact that scraps of poetical phraseology are specially numerous in

the earlier suras, enables us to understand why the prosaic mercantile

community of Mecca regarded their eccentric townsman as a "poet," or

even a "possessed poet." Mahomet himself had to disclaim such titles,

because he felt himself to be a divinely inspired prophet; but we too,

from our standpoint, shall fully acquit him of poetic genius. Like many

other predominantly religious characters, he had no appreciation of

poetic beauty; and if we may believe one anecdote related of him, at a

time when every one made verses, he affected ignorance of the most

elementary rules of prosody. Hence the style of the Koran is not

poetical but rhetorical; and the powerful effect which some portions

produce on us is gained by rhetorical means. Accordingly the sacred book

has not even the artistic form of poetry; which, among the Arabs,

includes a stringent metre, as well as rhyme. The Koran is never

metrical, and only a few exceptionally eloquent portions fall into a

sort of spontaneous rhythm. On the other hand, the rhyme is regularly

maintained; although, especially in the later pieces, after a very

slovenly fashion. Rhymed prose was a favourite form of composition among

the Arabs of that day, and Mahomet adopted it; but if it imparts a

certain sprightliness to some passages, it proves on the whole a

burdensome yoke. The Moslems themselves have observed that the tyranny

of the rhyme often makes itself apparent in derangement of the order of

words, and in the choice of verbal forms which would not otherwise have

been employed; e.g. an imperfect instead of a perfect. In one place, to

save the rhyme, he calls Mount Sinai _Sinin_ (xcv. 2) instead of _Sina_

(xxiii. 20); in another Elijah is called _Ilyasin_ (xxxvii. 130) instead

of _Ilyas_ (vi. 85; xxxvii. 123). The substance even is modified to suit

exigencies of rhyme. Thus the Prophet would scarcely have fixed on the

unusual number of _eight_ angels round the throne of God (lxix. 17) if

the word _thamaniyah_, "eight," had not happened to fall in so well with

the rhyme. And when lv. speaks of _two_ heavenly gardens, each with

_two_ fountains and _two_ kinds of fruit, and again of _two_ similar

gardens, all this is simply because the dual termination (_an_)

corresponds to the syllable that controls the rhyme in that whole sura.

In the later pieces, Mahomet often inserts edifying remarks, entirely

out of keeping with the context, merely to complete his rhyme. In Arabic

it is such an easy thing to accumulate masses of words with the same

termination, that the gross negligence of the rhyme in the Koran is

doubly remarkable. One may say that this is another mark of the

Prophet's want of mental training, and incapacity for introspective

criticism.

Stylistic Weaknesses.

Dogma of the Stylistic Perfection of the Koran.

On the whole, while many parts of the Koran undoubtedly have

considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the

book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance.

To begin with what we are most competent to criticize, let us look at

some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how

vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by

epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence

of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is

sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first, because

we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a

great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady

advance in the narration. Contrast in these respects the history of

Joseph (xii.) and its glaring improprieties with the admirably conceived

and admirably executed story in Genesis. Similar faults are found in the

non-narrative portions of the Koran. The connexion of ideas is extremely

loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anacolutha are of

frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary

devices. Many sentences begin with a "when" or "on the day when" which

seems to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply

a "think of this" or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great

literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same

words and phrases; in xviii., for example, "till that" (_hatta idha_)

occurs no fewer than eight times. Mahomet, in short, is not in any sense

a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who

reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of

the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its

endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Moslem such a

judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or

polytheism. Among the Moslems, the Koran has always been looked on as

the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in

their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontestable proof of

its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic

infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever

do, may well startle us. In fact, the Koran boldly challenged its

opponents to produce ten suras, or even a single one, like those of the

sacred book, and they never did so. That, to be sure, on calm

reflection, is not so very surprising. Revelations of the kind which

Mahomet uttered, no unbeliever could produce without making himself a

laughing-stock. However little real originality there is in Mahomet's

doctrines, as against his own countrymen he was thoroughly original,

even in the form of his oracles. To compose such revelations at will was

beyond the power of the most expert literary artist; it would have

required either a prophet or a shameless impostor. And if such a

character appeared _after_ Mahomet, still he could never be anything but

an imitator, like the false prophets who arose about the time of his

death and afterwards. That the adversaries should produce any sample

whatsoever of poetry or rhetoric equal to the Koran is not at all what

the Prophet demands. In that case he would have been put to shame, even

in the eyes of many of his own followers, by the first poem that came to

hand. Nevertheless, it is on a false interpretation of this challenge

that the dogma of the incomparable excellence of the style and diction

of the Koran is based. The rest has been accomplished by dogmatic

prejudice, which is quite capable of working other miracles besides

turning a defective literary production into an unrivalled masterpiece

in the eyes of believers. This view once accepted, the next step was to

find everywhere evidence of the perfection of the style and language.

And if here and there, as one can scarcely doubt, there was among the

old Moslems a lover of poetry who had his difficulties about this dogma,

he had to beware of uttering an opinion which might have cost him his

head. We know of at least one rationalistic theologian who defined the

dogma in such a way that we can see he did not believe it (Shahrastani,

p. 39). The truth is, it would have been a miracle indeed if the style

of the Koran had been perfect. For although there was at that time a

recognized poetical style, already degenerating to mannerism, a

developed prose style did not exist. All beginnings are difficult; and

it can never be esteemed a serious charge against Mahomet that his book,

the first prose work of a high order in the language, testifies to the

awkwardness of the beginner. And further, we must always remember that

entertainment and aesthetic effect were at most subsidiary objects. The

great aim was persuasion and conversion; and, say what we will, that aim

has been realized on the most imposing scale.

Foreign words.

Mahomet repeatedly calls attention to the fact that the Koran is not

written, like other sacred books, in a strange language, but in Arabic,

and therefore is intelligible to all. At that time, along with foreign

ideas, many foreign words had crept into the language; especially

Aramaic terms for religious conceptions of Jewish or Christian origin.

Some of these had already passed into general use, while others were

confined to a more limited circle. Mahomet, who could not fully express

his new ideas in the common language of his countrymen, but had

frequently to find out new terms for himself, made free use of such

Jewish and Christian words, as was done, though perhaps to a smaller

extent, by certain thinkers and poets of that age who had more or less

risen above the level of heathenism. In Mahomet's case this is the less

wonderful because he was indebted to the instruction of Jews and

Christians, whose Arabic--as the Koran pretty clearly intimates with

regard to one of them--was very defective. On the other hand, it is yet

more remarkable that several of such borrowed words in the Koran have a

sense which they do not possess in the original language. It is not

necessary that this phenomenon should in every case be due to the same

cause. Just as the prophet often misunderstood traditional traits of the

sacred history, he may, as an unlearned man, likewise have often

employed foreign expressions wrongly. Other remarkable senses of words

were possibly already acclimatized in the language of Arabian Jews or

Christians. Thus, _forqan_ means really "redemption," but Mahomet uses

it for "revelation." The widespread opinion that this sense first

asserted itself in reference to the Arab root [Arabic word] (_faraqa_),

"sever," or "decide," is open to considerable doubt. There is, for

instance, no difficulty in deriving the Arab meaning of "revelation"

from the common Aramaic "salvation," and this transference must have

taken place in a community for which salvation formed the central object

of faith, i.e. either amongst those Jews who looked to the coming of a

Messiah or more probably, among Christians, since Christianity is in a

very peculiar sense the religion of salvation. _Milla_ is properly

"word" (= Aramaic _melltha_), but in the Koran "religion." It is

actually used of the religion of the Jews and Christians (once), of the

heathen (5 times), but mostly (8 times) of the religion of Abraham,

which Mahomet in the Medina period places on the same level with Islam.

Although of the Aramaic dialects none employs the term _Melltha_ in the

sense of religion, it appears that the prophet found such a use.

_Illiyun_, which Mahomet uses of a heavenly book (Sura 83; 18, 19), is

clearly the Hebrew _elyon_, "high" or "exalted." It is, however,

doubtful in what sense this word appeared to him, either as a name of

God, as in the Old Testament it often occurs and regularly without the

article, or actually as the epithet of a heavenly book, although this

use cannot be substantiated from Jewish literature. So again the word

_mathani_ is, as Geiger has conjectured, the regular plural of the

Aramaic _mathnitha_, which is the same as the Hebrew _Mishnah_, and

denotes in Jewish usage a legal decision of some of the ancient Rabbins.

But in the Koran Mahomet appears to have understood it in the sense of

"saying" or "sentence" (cf. xxxix. 24). On the other hand, it is by no

means certain that by "the Seven Mathani" (xv. 87) the seven verses of

Sura i. are meant. Words of undoubtedly Christian origin are less

frequent in the Koran. It is an interesting fact that of these a few

have come over from the Abyssinian; such as _hawariyun_ "apostles,"

_maida_ "table," _munafig_ "doubter, sceptic," _ragun_ "cursed,"

_mihrab_ "temple"; the first three of these make their first appearance

in suras of the Medina period. The word _shaitan_ "Satan," which was

likewise borrowed, at least in the first instance, from the Abyssinian,

had probably been already introduced into the language. Sprenger has

rightly observed that Mahomet makes a certain parade of these foreign

terms, as of other peculiarly constructed expressions; in this he

followed a favourite practice of contemporary poets. It is the tendency

of the imperfectly educated to delight in out-of-the-way expressions,

and on such minds they readily produce a remarkably solemn and

mysterious impression. This was exactly the kind of effect that Mahomet

desired, and to secure it he seems even to have invented a few odd

vocables, as _ghislin_ (lxix. 36), _sijjin_ (lxxxiii. 7, 8), _tasnim_

(lxxxiii. 27), and _salsabil_ (lxxvi. 18). But, of course, the necessity

of enabling his hearers to understand ideas which they must have found

sufficiently novel in themselves, imposed tolerably narrow limits on

such eccentricities.

Date of the Several Parts.

The constituents of our present Koran belong partly to the Mecca

period[2] (before A.D. 622), partly to the period commencing with the

migration to Medina (from the autumn of 622 to 8th June 632). Mahomet's

position in Medina was entirely different from that which he had

occupied in his native town. In the former he was from the first the

leader of a powerful party, and gradually became the autocratic ruler of

Arabia; in the latter he was only the despised preacher of a small

congregation. This difference, as was to be expected, appears in the

Koran. The Medina pieces, whether entire suras or isolated passages

interpolated in Meccan suras, are accordingly pretty broadly distinct,

as to their contents, from those issued in Mecca. In the great majority

of cases there can be no doubt whatever whether a piece first saw the

light in Mecca or in Medina; and for the most part the internal evidence

is borne out by Moslem tradition. And since the revelations given in

Medina frequently take notice of events about which we have fairly

accurate information, and whose dates are at least approximately known,

we are often in a position to fix their date with at any rate

considerable certainty; here again tradition renders valuable

assistance. Even with regard to the Medina passages, however, a great

deal remains uncertain, partly because the allusions to historical

events and circumstances are generally rather obscure, partly because

traditions about the occasion of the revelation of the various pieces

are often fluctuating, and often rest on misunderstanding or arbitrary

conjecture. An important criterion for judging the period during which

individual Meccan suras, interpolated in Medina revelations, arose

(e.g. _Sur._ xvi. 124, vi. 162) is provided by the Ibrahim legend, the

great importance of which, as throwing light on the evolution of

Mahomet's doctrine in its relation to older revealed religions, has been

convincingly set forth by Dr Snouck Hurgronje in his dissertation for

the doctor's degree and in later essays.[3] According to this, Ibrahim,

after the controversy with the Jews, first of all became Mahomet's

special forerunner in Medina, then the first Moslem, and finally the

founder of the Ka'ba. But at all events it is far easier to arrange in

some sort of chronological order the Medina suras than those composed in

Mecca. There is, indeed, one tradition which professes to furnish a

chronological list of all the suras. But not to mention that it occurs

in several divergent forms, and that it takes no account of the fact

that our present suras are partly composed of pieces of different dates,

it contains so many suspicious or undoubtedly false statements, that it

is impossible to attach any great importance to it. Besides, it is a

priori unlikely that a contemporary of Mahomet should have drawn up such

a list; and if any one had made the attempt he would have found it

almost impossible to obtain reliable information as to the order of the

earlier Meccan suras. We have in this list no genuine tradition, but

rather the lucubrations of an undoubtedly conscientious Moslem critic,

who may have lived about a century after the Flight.

The Meccan Suras.

Among the revelations put forth in Mecca there is a considerable number

of (for the most part) short suras, which strike every attentive reader

as being the oldest. They are in an altogether different strain from

many others, and in their whole composition they show least resemblance

to the Medina pieces. It is no doubt conceivable--as Sprenger

supposes--that Mahomet might have returned at intervals to his earlier

manner; but since this group possesses a remarkable similarity of style,

and since the gradual formation of a different style is on the whole an

unmistakable fact, the assumption has little probability; and we shall

therefore abide by the opinion that these form a distinct group. At the

opposite extreme from them stands another cluster, showing quite obvious

affinities with the style of the Medina suras, which must therefore be

assigned to the later part of the Prophet's work in Mecca. Between these

two groups stand a number of other Meccan suras, which in every respect

mark the transition from the first period to the third. It need hardly

be said that the three periods--which were first distinguished by

Professor Weil--are not separated by sharp lines of division. With

regard to some suras, it may be doubtful whether they ought to be

reckoned amongst the middle group, or with one or other of the extremes.

And it is altogether impossible, within these groups, to establish even

a probable chronological arrangement of the individual revelations. In

default of clear allusions to well-known events, or events whose date

can be determined, we might indeed endeavour to trace the psychological

development of the Prophet by means of the Koran, and arrange its parts

accordingly. But in such an undertaking one is always apt to take

subjective assumptions or mere fancies for established data. Good

traditions about the origin of the Meccan revelations are not very

numerous. In fact the whole history of Mahomet previous to the Flight is

so imperfectly related that we are not even sure in what year he

appeared as a prophet. Probably it was in A.D. 610; it may have been

somewhat earlier, but scarcely later. If, as one tradition says, xxx. 1

seq. ("The Romans are overcome in the nearest neighbouring land") refers

to the defeat of the Byzantines by the Persians, not far from Damascus,

about the spring of 614, it would follow that the third group, to which

this passage belongs, covers the greater part of the Meccan period. And

it is not in itself unlikely that the passionate vehemence which

characterizes the first group was of short duration. Nor is the

assumption contradicted by the tolerably well attested, though far from

incontestable statement, that when Omar was converted (A.D. 615 or 616),

xx., which belongs to the second group, already existed in writing. But

the reference of xxx. 1 seq. to this particular battle is by no means so

certain that positive conclusions can be drawn from it. It is the same

with other allusions in the Meccan suras to occurrences whose chronology

can be partially ascertained. It is better, therefore, to rest satisfied

with a merely relative determination of the order of even the three

great clusters of Meccan revelations.

Oldest Meccan Suras.

In the pieces of the first period the convulsive excitement of the

Prophet often expresses itself with the utmost vehemence. He is so

carried away by his emotion that he cannot choose his words; they seem

rather to burst from him. Many of these pieces remind us of the oracles

of the old heathen soothsayers, whose style is known to us from

imitations, although we have perhaps not a single genuine specimen. Like

those other oracles, the suras of this period, which are never very

long, are composed of short sentences with tolerably pure but rapidly

changing rhymes. The oaths, too, with which many of them begin were

largely used by the soothsayers. Some of these oaths are very uncouth

and hard to understand, some of them perhaps were not meant to be

understood, for indeed all sorts of strange things are met with in these

chapters. Here and there Mahomet speaks of visions, and appears even to

see angels before him in bodily form. There are some intensely vivid

descriptions of the resurrection and the last day which must have

exercised a demonic power over men who were quite unfamiliar with such

pictures. Other pieces paint in glowing colours the joys of heaven and

the pains of hell. However, the suras of this period are not all so wild

as these; and those which are conceived in a calmer mood appear to be

the oldest. Yet, one must repeat, it is exceedingly difficult to make

out any strict chronological sequence. For instance, it is by no means

certain whether the beginning of xcvi. is really, what a widely

circulated tradition calls it, the oldest part of the whole Koran. That

tradition goes back to the Prophet's favourite wife Ayesha; but as she

was not born at the time when the revelation is said to have been made,

it can only contain at the best what Mahomet told her years afterwards,

from his own not very clear recollection, with or without fictitious

additions, and this woman is little trustworthy. Moreover, there are

other pieces mentioned by others as the oldest. In any case xcvi. 1 sqq.

is certainly very early. According to the traditional view, which

appears to be correct, it treats of a vision in which the Prophet

receives an injunction to recite a revelation conveyed to him by the

angel. It is interesting to observe that here already two things are

brought forward as proofs of the omnipotence and care of God: one is the

creation of man out of a seminal drop--an idea to which Mahomet often

recurs; the other is the then recently introduced art of writing, which

the Prophet instinctively seizes on as a means of propagating his

doctrines. It was only after Mahomet encountered obstinate resistance

that the tone of the revelations became thoroughly passionate. In such

cases he was not slow to utter terrible threats against those who

ridiculed the preaching of the unity of God, of the resurrection, and of

the judgment. His own uncle Abu Lahab had rudely repelled him, and in a

brief special sura (cxi.) he and his wife are consigned to hell. The

suras of this period form almost exclusively the concluding portions of

the present text. One is disposed to assume, however, that they were at

one time more numerous, and that many of them were lost at an early

period.

Since Mahomet's strength lay in his enthusiastic and fiery imagination

rather than in the wealth of ideas and clearness of abstract thought on

which exact reasoning depends, it follows that the older suras, in which

the former qualities have free scope, must be more attractive to us than

the later. In the suras of the second period the imaginative glow

perceptibly diminishes; there is still fire and animation, but the tone

becomes gradually more prosaic. As the feverish restlessness subsides,

the periods are drawn out, and the revelations as a whole become longer.

The truth of the new doctrine is proved by accumulated instances of

God's working in nature and in history; the objections of opponents,

whether advanced in good faith or in jest, are controverted by

arguments; but the demonstration is often confused or even weak. The

histories of the earlier prophets, which had occasionally been briefly

touched on in the first period, are now related, sometimes at great

length. On the whole, the charm of the style is passing away.

The Fatiha.

There is one piece of the Koran, belonging to the beginning of this

period, if not to the close of the former, which claims particular

notice. This is Sura i., the Lord's Prayer of the Moslems, a vigorous

hymn of praise to God, the Lord of both worlds, which ends in a petition

for aid and true guidance (_huda_). The words of this sura, which is

known as _al-fatiha_ ("the opening one"), are as follows:--

(1) In the name of God, the compassionate compassioner. (2) Praise be

[literally "is"] to God, the Lord of the worlds, (3) the compassionate

compassioner, (4) the Sovereign of the day of judgment. (5) Thee do we

worship and of Thee do we beg assistance. (6) Direct us in the right

way; (7) in the way of those to whom Thou hast been gracious, on whom

there is no wrath, and who go not astray.

The thoughts are so simple as to need no explanation; and yet the prayer

is full of meaning. It is true that there is not a single original idea

of Mahomet's in it. Of the seven verses of the sura no less than five

(verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) have an extremely suspicious relationship with

the stereotyped formulae of Jewish and Christian liturgies. Verse 6

agrees, word for word, with Ps. xxvii. 11. On the other hand, the

question must remain open whether Mahomet only gave free renderings of

the several borrowed formulae, or whether in actually composing them he

kept existing models. The designation of God as the "Compassioner,"

_Rahman_, is simply the Jewish _Rahmana_, which was a favourite name for

God in the Talmudic period. The word had long before Mahomet's time been

used for God in southern Arabia (cf. e.g. the Sabaean Inscriptions,

Glaser, 554, line 32; 618, line 2).

Mahomet seems for a while to have entertained the thought of adopting

_al-Rahman_ as a proper name of God, in place of _Allah_, which was

already used by the heathens.[4] This purpose he ultimately

relinquished, but it is just in the suras of the second period that the

use of _Rahman_ is specially frequent. If, for this reason, it is to a

certain extent certain that Sura i. belongs to this period, yet we can

neither prove that it belongs to the beginning of the Mecca period nor

that the present introductory formula "In the name of God," &c.,

belonged to it from the first. It may therefore even be doubted whether

Mahomet at the outset looked upon the latter as revealed. Tradition, of

course, knows in this connexion no doubt, and looks upon the Fatiha

precisely as the most exalted portion of the Koran. Every Moslem who

says his five prayers regularly--as the most of them do--repeats it not

less than twenty times a day.

Latest Meccan Suras.

The suras of the third Meccan period, which form a fairly large part of

our present Koran, are almost entirely prosaic. Some of the revelations

are of considerable extent, and the single verses also are much longer

than in the older suras. Only now and then a gleam of poetic power

flashes out. A sermonizing tone predominates. The suras are very

edifying for one who is already reconciled to their import, but to us at

least they do not seem very well fitted to carry conviction to the minds

of unbelievers. That impression, however, is not correct, for in reality

the demonstrations of these longer Meccan suras appear to have been

peculiarly influential for the propagation of Islam. Mahomet's mission

was not to Europeans, but to a people who, though quick-witted and

receptive, were not accustomed to logical thinking, while they had

outgrown their ancient religion.

Medinan Suras.

When we reach the Medina period it becomes, as has been indicated, much

easier to understand the revelations in their historical relations,

since our knowledge of the history of Mahomet in Medina is tolerably

complete. In many cases the historical occasion is perfectly clear, in

others we can at least recognize the general situation from which they

arose, and thus approximately fix their time. There still remains,

however, a remnant, of which we can only say that it belongs to Medina.

The style of this period bears a fairly close resemblance to that of the

latest Meccan period. It is for the most part pure prose, enriched by

occasional rhetorical embellishments. Yet even here there are many

bright and impressive passages, especially in those sections which may

be regarded as proclamations to the army of the faithful. For the

Moslems Mahomet has many different messages. At one time it is a summons

to do battle for the faith; at another, a series of reflections on

recently experienced success or misfortune, or a rebuke for their weak

faith; or an exhortation to virtue, and so on. He often addresses

himself to the "doubters," some of whom vacillate between faith and

unbelief, others make a pretence of faith, while others scarcely take

the trouble even to do that. They are no consolidated party, but to

Mahomet they are all equally vexatious, because, as soon as danger has

to be encountered, or a contribution is levied, they all alike fall

away. There are frequent outbursts, ever increasing in bitterness,

against the Jews, who were very numerous in Medina and its neighbourhood

when Mahomet arrived. He has much less to say against the Christians,

with whom he never came closely in contact; and as for the idolaters,

there was little occasion in Medina to have many words with them. A part

of the Medina pieces consists of formal laws belonging to the

ceremonial, civil and criminal codes; or directions about certain

temporary complications. The most objectionable parts of the whole Koran

are those which treat of Mahomet's relations with women. The laws and

regulations were generally very concise revelations, but most of them

have been amalgamated with other pieces of similar or dissimilar import,

and are now found in very long suras.

Such is an imperfect sketch of the composition and the internal history

of the Koran, but it is probably sufficient to show that the book is a

very heterogeneous collection. If only those passages had been preserved

which had a permanent value for the theology, the ethics, or the

jurisprudence of the Moslems, a few fragments would have been amply

sufficient. Fortunately for knowledge, respect for the sacredness of the

letter has led to the collection of all the revelations that could

possibly be collected--the "abrogating" along with the "abrogated,"

passages referring to passing circumstances as well as those of lasting

importance. Every one who takes up the book in the proper religious

frame of mind, like most of the Moslems, reads pieces directed against

long-obsolete absurd customs of Mecca just as devoutly as the weightiest

moral precepts--perhaps even more devoutly, because he does not

understand them so well.

Mysterious Letters.

At the head of twenty-nine of the suras stand certain initial letters,

from which no clear sense can be obtained. Thus, before ii. iii. xxxi.

xxxii. we find [Arabic word] (_Alif Lam Mim_), before xl.-xlvi.

[Arabic word] (_Ha Mim_). Nöldeke at one time suggested that these

initials did not belong to Mahomet's text, but might be the monograms

of possessors of codices, which, through negligence on the part of the

editors, were incorporated in the final form of the Koran; he now

deems it more probable that they are to be traced to the Prophet

himself, as Sprenger, Loth and others suppose. One cannot indeed admit

the truth of Loth's statement that in the proper opening words of

these suras we may generally find an allusion to the accompanying

initials; but it can scarcely be accidental that the first verse of

the great majority of them (in iii. it is the second verse) contains

the word "book," "revelation," or some equivalent. They usually begin

with: "This is the book," or "Revelation ('down sending') of the

book," or something similar. Of suras which commence in this way only

a few (xviii. xxiv. xxv. xxxix.) want the initials, while only xxix.

and xxx. have the initials and begin differently. These few exceptions

may easily have proceeded from ancient corruptions; at all events they

cannot neutralize the evidence of the greater number. Mahomet seems to

have meant these letters for a mystic reference to the archetypal text

in heaven. To a man who regarded the art of writing, of which at the

best he had but a slight knowledge, as something supernatural, and who

lived amongst illiterate people, an A B C may well have seemed more

significant than to us who have been initiated into the mysteries of

this art from our childhood. The Prophet himself can hardly have

attached any particular meaning to these symbols: they served their

purpose if they conveyed an impression of solemnity and enigmatical

obscurity. In fact, the Koran admits that it contains many things

which neither can be, nor were intended to be, understood (iii. 5). To

regard these letters as ciphers is a precarious hypothesis, for the

simple reason that cryptography is not to be looked for in the very

infancy of Arabic writing. If they are actually ciphers, the

multiplicity of possible explanations at once precludes the hope of a

plausible interpretation. None of the efforts in this direction,

whether by Moslem scholars or by Europeans, has led to convincing

results. This remark applies even to the ingenious conjecture of

Sprenger, that the letters [Arabic word] (_Kaf He Ye Ain Sad_) before

xix. (which treats of John and Jesus, and, according to tradition, was

sent to the Christian king of Abyssinia) stand for _Jesus Nazarenus

Rex Judaeorum_. Sprenger arrives at this explanation by a very

artificial method; and besides, Mahomet was not so simple as the

Moslem traditionalists, who imagined that the Abyssinians could read a

piece of the Arabic Koran. It need hardly be said that the Moslems

have from of old applied themselves with great assiduity to the

decipherment of these initials, and have sometimes found the deepest

mysteries in them. Generally, however, they are content with the

prudent conclusion that God alone knows the meaning of these letters.

Transmission of the Koran.

Zaid's First Koran.

It is probable (see above) that Mahomet had already caused revelations

to be written down at Mecca, and that this began from the moment when he

felt certain that he was the transmitter of the actual text of a

heavenly book to mankind. It is even true that he may at some time or

another have formed the intention of collecting these revelations. The

idea of a heavenly model would in itself have suggested such a course

and, only in an inferior degree to this, the necessity of setting a new

and uncorrupted document of the divine will over against the sacred

scriptures of the Jews and Christians, the people of the Book, as the

Koran calls them. In any case, when Mahomet died, the separate pieces of

the Koran, notwithstanding their theoretical sacredness, existed only in

scattered copies; they were consequently in great danger of being

partially or entirely destroyed. Many Moslems knew large portions by

heart, but certainly no one knew the whole; and a merely oral

propagation would have left the door open to all kinds of deliberate and

inadvertent alterations. But now, after the death of the Prophet, most

of the Arabs revolted against his successor, and had to be reduced to

submission by force. Especially sanguinary was the struggle against the

prophet Maslama (Mubarrad, _Kamil_ 443, 5), commonly known by the

derisive diminutive Mosailima. At that time (A.D. 633) many of the most

devoted Moslems fell, the very men who knew most Koran pieces by heart.

Omar then began to fear that the Koran might be entirely forgotten, and

he induced the Caliph Abu Bekr to undertake the collection of all its

parts. The Caliph laid the duty on Zaid ibn Thabit, a native of Medina,

then about twenty-two years of age, who had often acted as amanuensis to

the Prophet, in whose service he is even said to have learned the Jewish

letters. The account of this collection of the Koran has reached us in

several substantially identical forms, and goes back to Zaid himself.

According to it, he collected the revelations from copies written on

flat stones, pieces of leather, ribs of palm-leaves (not palm-leaves

themselves), and such-like material, but chiefly "from the breasts of

men," i.e. from their memory. From these he wrote a fair copy, which he

gave to Abu Bekr, from whom it came to his successor Omar, who again

bequeathed it to his daughter Hafsa, one of the widows of the Prophet.

This redaction, commonly called _al-sohof_ ("the leaves"), had from the

first no canonical authority; and its internal arrangement can only be

conjectured.

Othman's Koran.

The Moslems were as far as ever from possessing a uniform text of the

Koran. The bravest of their warriors sometimes knew deplorably little

about it; distinction on _that_ field they cheerfully accorded to pious

men like Ibn Mas'ud. It was inevitable, however, that discrepancies

should emerge between the texts of professed scholars, and as these men

in their several localities were authorities on the reading of the

Koran, quarrels began to break out between the levies from different

districts about the true form of the sacred book. During a campaign in

A.H. 30 (A.D. 650-651), Hodhaifa, the victor in the great and decisive

battle of Nehaveand (see CALIPHATE; and PERSIA: _History_) perceived

that such disputes might become dangerous, and therefore urged on the

caliph Othman the necessity for a universally binding text. The matter

was entrusted to Zaid, who had made the former collection, with three

leading Koreishites. These brought together as many copies as they could

lay their hands on, and prepared an edition which was to be canonical

for all Moslems. To prevent any further disputes, they burned all the

other codices except that of Hafsa, which, however, was soon afterwards

destroyed by Merwan the governor of Medina. The destruction of the

earlier codices was an irreparable loss to criticism; but, for the

essentially political object of putting an end to controversies by

admitting only one form of the common book of religion and of law, this

measure was necessary.

The result of these labours is in our hands; as to how they were

conducted we have no trustworthy information, tradition being here too

much under the influence of dogmatic presuppositions. The critical

methods of a modern scientific commission will not be expected of an age

when the highest literary education for an Arab consisted in ability to

read and write. It now appears highly probable that this second

redaction took this simple form: Zaid read off from the codex which he

had previously written, and his associates, simultaneously or

successively, wrote one copy each to his dictation. These three

manuscripts will therefore be those which the caliph, according to

trustworthy tradition, sent in the first instance as standard copies to

Damascus, Basra and Kufa to the warriors of the provinces of which these

were the capitals, while he retained one at Medina. Be that as it may,

it is impossible now to distinguish in the present form of the book what

belongs to the first redaction from what is due to the second.

In the arrangement of the separate sections, a classification according

to contents was impracticable because of the variety of subjects often

dealt with in one sura. A chronological arrangement was out of the

question, because the chronology of the older pieces must have been

imperfectly known, and because in some cases passages of different dates

had been joined together. Indeed, systematic principles of this kind

were altogether disregarded at that period. The pieces were accordingly

arranged in indiscriminate order, the only rule observed being to place

the long suras first and the shorter towards the end, and even that was

far from strictly adhered to. The two magic formulae, suras cxiii.,

cxiv. owe their position at the end of the collection to their peculiar

contents, which differ from all the other suras; they are protecting

spells for the faithful. Similarly it is by reason of its contents that

sura i. stands at the beginning: not only because it is in praise of

Allah, as Psalm i. is in praise of the righteous man, but because it

gives classical expression to important articles of the faith. These are

the only special traces of design. The combination of pieces of

different origin may proceed partly from the possessors of the codices

from which Zaid compiled his first complete copy, partly from Zaid

himself. The individual suras are separated simply by the

superscription: "In the name of God, the compassionate Compassioner,"

which is wanting only in the ninth. The additional headings found in our

texts (the name of the suras, the number of verses, &c.) were not in the

original codices, and form no integral part of the Koran.

It is said that Othman directed Zaid and his associates, in cases of

disagreement, to follow the Koreish dialect; but, though well attested,

this account can scarcely be correct. The extremely primitive writing of

those days was quite incapable of rendering such minute differences as

can have existed between the pronunciation of Mecca and that of Medina.

The Koran not complete.

Othman's Koran was not complete. Some passages are evidently

fragmentary; and a few detached pieces are still extant which were

originally parts of the Koran, although they have been omitted by Zaid.

Amongst these are some which there is no reason to suppose Mahomet

desired to suppress. Zaid may easily have overlooked a few stray

fragments, but that he purposely omitted anything which he believed to

belong to the Koran is very unlikely. It has been conjectured that in

deference to his superiors he kept out of the book the names of

Mahomet's enemies, if they or their families came afterwards to be

respected. But it must be remembered that it was never Mahomet's

practice to refer explicitly to contemporary persons and affairs in the

Koran. Only a single friend, his adopted son Zaid (xxxiii. 37), and a

single enemy, his uncle Abu Lahab (cxi.)--and these for very special

reasons--are mentioned by name; and the name of the latter has been left

in the Koran with a fearful curse annexed to it, although his son had

embraced Islam before the death of Mahomet, and his descendants belonged

to the noblest families. So, on the other hand, there is no single verse

or clause which can be plausibly made out to be an interpolation by Zaid

at the instance of Abu Bekr, Omar, or Othman. Slight clerical errors

there may have been, but the Koran of Othman contains none but genuine

elements--though sometimes in very strange order. All efforts of

European scholars to prove the existence of later interpolations in the

Koran have failed.

Of the four exemplars of Othman's Koran, one was kept in Medina, and one

was sent to each of the three metropolitan cities, Kufa, Basra, and

Damascus. It can still be pretty clearly shown in detail that these four

codices deviated from one another in points of orthography, in the

insertion or omission of a wa ("and") and such-like minutiae; but these

variations nowhere affect the sense. All later manuscripts are derived

from these four originals.

Other Editions.

At the same time, the other forms of the Koran did not at once become

extinct. In particular we have some information about the codex of Ubay

ibn Ka'b. If the list which gives the order of its suras is correct, it

must have contained substantially the same materials as our text; in

that case Ubay ibn Ka'b must have used the original collection of Zaid.

The same is true of the codex of Ibn Mas'ud, of which we have also a

catalogue. It appears that the principle of putting the longer suras

before the shorter was more consistently carried out by him than by

Zaid. He omits i. and the magical formulae of cxiii., cxiv. Ubay, on the

other hand, had embodied two additional short prayers, which we may

regard as Mahomet's. One can easily understand that differences of

opinion may have existed as to whether and how far formularies of this

kind belonged to the Koran. Some of the divergent readings of both these

texts have been preserved as well as a considerable number of other

ancient variants. Most of them are decidedly inferior to the received

readings, but some are quite as good, and a few deserve preference.

Ibn Mas'ud.

The only man who appears to have seriously opposed the general

introduction of Othman's text is Ibn Mas'ud. He was one of the oldest

disciples of the Prophet, and had often rendered him personal service;

but he was a man of contracted views, although he is one of the pillars

of Moslem theology. His opposition had no effect. Now when we consider

that at that time there were many Moslems who had heard the Koran from

the mouth of the Prophet, that other measures of the imbecile Othman met

with the most vehement resistance on the part of the bigoted champions

of the faith, that these were still further incited against him by some

of his ambitious old comrades until at last they murdered him, and

finally that in the civil wars after his death the several parties were

glad of any pretext for branding their opponents as infidels;--when we

consider all this, we must regard it as a strong testimony in favour of

Othman's Koran that no party found fault with his conduct in this

matter, or repudiated the text formed by Zaid, who was one of the most

devoted adherents of Othman and his family, and that even among the

Shiites criticism of the caliph's action is only met with as a rare

exception.

Later History of the Text.

But this redaction is not the close of the textual history of the

Koran. The ancient Arabic alphabet was very imperfect; it not only

wanted marks for the short and in part even for the long vowels, but

it often expressed several consonants by the same sign, e.g. one and

the same character could mean B, T, Th at the beginning and N and J

(I) in the middle of words. Hence there were many words which could

be read in very different ways. This variety of possible readings was

at first very great, and many readers seem to have actually made it

their object to discover pronunciations which were new, provided they

were at all appropriate to the ambiguous text. There was also a

dialectic licence in grammatical forms, which had not as yet been

greatly restricted. An effort was made by many to establish a more

refined pronunciation for the Koran than was usual in common life or

in secular literature. The various schools of "readers" differed very

widely from one another; although for the most part there was no

important divergence as to the sense of words. A few of them gradually

rose to special authority, and the rest disappeared. Seven readers are

generally reckoned chief authorities, but for practical purposes this

number was continually reduced in process of time; so that at present

only two "reading-styles" are in actual use,--the common style of

Hafs, and that of Nafi'; which prevails in Africa to the west of

Egypt. There is, however, a very comprehensive massoretic literature

in which a number of other styles are indicated. The invention of

vowel-signs of diacritic points to distinguish similarly formed

consonants, and of other orthographic signs, soon put a stop to

arbitrary conjectures on the part of the readers. Many zealots

objected to the introduction of these innovations in the sacred text,

but theological consistency had to yield to practical necessity. In

accurate codices, indeed, all such additions, as well as the titles of

the sura, &c., are written in coloured ink, while the black characters

profess to represent exactly the original of Othman. But there is

probably no copy quite faithful in this respect. Moreover, the right

recitation of the Koran is an art which even people of Arab tongue can

only learn with great difficulty. In addition to the nuances of

pronunciation already alluded to, there is a semi-musical modulation.

In these matters also the various schools differ.

Manuscripts.

In European libraries, besides innumerable modern manuscripts of the

Koran, there are also codices, or fragments, of high antiquity, some

of them probably dating from the 1st century of the Flight. For the

restoration of the text, however, the works of ancient scholars on its

readings and modes of writing are more important than the manuscripts;

which, however elegantly they may be written and ornamented, proceed

from irresponsible copyists. The original, written by Othman himself,

has indeed been exhibited in various parts of the Mahommedan world.

The library of the India Office contains one such manuscript, bearing

the subscription: "Written by 'Othman the son of 'Affan." These, of

course, are barefaced forgeries, although of very ancient date; so are

those which profess to be from the hand of 'Ali, one of which is

preserved in the same library. In recent times the Koran has been

often printed and lithographed, both in the East and the West. In

Mahommedan countries lithography alone is employed.

Commentators.

Shortly after Mahomet's death certain individuals applied themselves

to the exposition of the Koran. Much of it was obscure from the

beginning, other sections were unintelligible apart from a knowledge

of the circumstances of their origin. Unfortunately, those who took

possession of this field were not very honourable. Ibn 'Abbas, a

cousin of Mahomet, and the chief source of the traditional exegesis of

the Koran, has, on theological and other grounds, given currency to a

number of falsehoods; and at least some of his pupils have emulated

his example. These earliest expositions dealt more with the sense and

connexion of whole verses than with the separate words. Afterwards, as

the knowledge of the old language declined, and the study of philology

arose, more attention began to be paid to the explanation of vocables.

A good many fragments of this older theological and philological

exegesis have survived from the first two centuries of the Flight,

although we have no complete commentary of this period. The great

commentary of Tabari, A.D. 839-923, of which for the last few years we

have possessed an Oriental edition in 30 parts (Cairo A.H. 1321 = A.D.

1903), is very full when it comes to speak of canonical law, as well

as in its accounts of the occasions of the several revelations; for,

as in his great historical work, he faithfully records a large number

of traditions with the channels by which they have come down to us

(genealogical trees, _isnad_). In other respects the hopes based upon

this commentary have not been fulfilled.

Translations.

Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhshari (A.D.

1075-1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar,

with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read

his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of

Baidawi (d. A.D. 1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846-1848), is

little more than an abridgment of Zamakhshari's. Thousands of

commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been

written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in

manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much

that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our

understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt,

see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is

under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be

helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even

the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and

imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its

interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly

understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in

the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view,

however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned

with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being

quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be

accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of

the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and

discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy

beginning was made in Geiger's youthful essay _Was hat Mohamed aus dem

Judenthum aufgenommen?_ (Bonn, 1833; the "second revised edition,"

Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough

commentary, executed with the methods and resources of modern science.

No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation

which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in

English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time

admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of

Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order,

and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional

arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer's translation

is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship.

Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W.

Lane's _Selections from the Kur-an_. Not much can be said in praise of

the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of

Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of

Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs

who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and

are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert's excellent

version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives

only selections. M. Klamroth's translation of the fifty oldest suras,

_Die fünfzig ältesten Suren_ (Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to

reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the

translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L.

Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern

editions, commentaries, &c., see MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION: _Bibliography_).

Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and

topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred

book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the

Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its

verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would

nowadays be called "historical and critical introductions." Moreover,

the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the

recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the

sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply

to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department

in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary,

influence has not been felt.

Eternity of the Koran.

The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its

climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word, i.e. thought,

is immanent in God, and consequently _eternal_ and _uncreated_. This

dogma, which was doubtless due to the influence of the Christian

doctrine of the eternal Word of God, has been accepted by almost all

Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians

did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too

preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and

letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were

the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could

not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The following works may be especially consulted: Weil,

_Einleitung in den Koran_ (2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke, _Geschichte

des Qoran's_ (Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908);

the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols.

i.-iii., Berlin, 1861-1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje, _Het

mekkaansche Feest_ (Leiden, 1880), _De Islam_ (de Gids, 1886, ii.

257-273, 454-498, iii. 90-134); "Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed,"

_Revue de l'histoire des religions_, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.;

Leone Caetani, _Annali dell'Islam_, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan,

1907); Frants Buhl, _Muhammeds Liv_ (Copenhagen, 1903).

(Th. N.; Fr. Sy.)