Characteristic of all these sorts of mysticism is their esoteric pride.

All those emotions are meant only for a small number of chosen ones. Even

Ghazâlî's ethical mysticism is not for the multitude. The development of

Islâm as a whole, from the Hijrah on, has always been greater in breadth

than in depth; and, consequently, its pedagogics have remained defective.

Even some of the noblest minds in Islâm restrict true religious life to an

aristocracy, and accept the ignorance of the multitude as an irremediable

evil.

Throughout the centuries pantheistic and animistic forms of mysticism have

found many adherents among the Mohammedans; but the infallible Agreement

has persisted in calling that heresy. Ethical mysticism, since Ghazâlî, has

been fully recognized; and, with law and dogma, it forms the sacred trio of

sciences of Islâm, to the study of which the Arabic humanistic arts

serve as preparatory instruments. All other sciences, however useful and

necessary, are of this world and have no value for the world to come. The

unfaithful appreciate and study them as well as do the Mohammedans; but,

on Mohammedan soil they must be coloured with a Mohammedan hue, and their

results may never clash with the three religious sciences. Physics,

astronomy, and philosophy have often found it difficult to observe this

restriction, and therefore they used to be at least slightly suspected in

pious circles.

Mysticism did not only owe to Ijmâ' its place in the sacred trio, but it

succeeded, better than dogmatics, in confirming its right with words of

Allah and His Prophet. In Islâm mysticism and allegory are allied in the

usual way; for the _illuminati_ the words had quite a different meaning

than for common, every-day people. So the Qorân was made to speak the

language of mysticism; and mystic commentaries of the Holy Book exist,

which, with total disregard for philological and historical objections,

explain the verses of the Revelation as expressions of the profoundest soul

experiences. Clear utterances in this spirit were put into the Prophet's

mouth; and, like the canonists, the leaders on the mystic Way to God

boasted of a spiritual genealogy which went back to Mohammed. Thus the

Prophet is said to have declared void all knowledge and fulfillment of the

law which lacks mystic experience.

Of course only "true" mysticism is justified by Ijmâ' and confirmed by the

evidence of Qorân and Sunnah; but, about the bounds between "true" and

"false" or heretical mysticism, there exists in a large measure the

well-known diversity of opinion allowed by God's grace. The ethical

mysticism of al-Ghazâlî is generally recognized as orthodox; and the

possibility of attaining to a higher spiritual sphere by means of methodic

asceticism and contemplation is doubted by few. The following opinion has

come to prevail in wide circles: the Law offers the bread of life to all

the faithful, the dogmatics are the arsenal from which the weapons must be

taken to defend the treasures of religion against unbelief and heresy, but

mysticism shows the earthly pilgrim the way to Heaven.

It was a much lower need that assured the cult of saints a place in the

doctrine and practice of Islâm. As strange as is Mohammed's transformation

from an ordinary son of man, which he wanted to be, into the incarnation

of Divine Light, as the later biographers represent him, it is still more

astounding that the intercession of saints should have become indispensable

to the community of Mohammed, who, according to Tradition, cursed the Jews

and Christians because they worshipped the shrines of their prophets.

Almost every Moslim village has its patron saint; every country has its

national saints; every province of human life has its own human rulers,

who are intermediate between the Creator and common mortals. In no other

particular has Islâm more fully accommodated itself to the religions it

supplanted. The popular practice, which is in many cases hardly to be

distinguished from polytheism, was, to a great extent, favoured by the

theory of the intercession of the pious dead, of whose friendly assistance

people might assure themselves by doing good deeds in their names and to

their eternal advantage.

The ordinary Moslim visitor of the graves of saints does not trouble

himself with this ingenious compromise between the severe monotheism of his

prophet and the polytheism of his ancestors. He is firmly convinced, that

the best way to obtain the satisfaction of his desire after earthly or

heavenly goods is to give the saint whose special care these are what he

likes best; and he confidently leaves it to the venerated one to settle the

matter with Allah, who is far too high above the ordinary mortal to allow

of direct contact.

In support even of this startling deviation from the original, traditions

have been devised. Moreover, the veneration of human beings was favoured

by some forms of mysticism; for, like many saints, many mystics had their

eccentricities, and it was much to the advantage of mystic theologians if

the vulgar could be persuaded to accept their aberrations from normal

rules of life as peculiarities of holy men. But Ijmâ' did more even than

tradition and mysticism to make the veneration of legions of saints

possible in the temples of the very men who were obliged by their ritual

law to say to Allah several time daily: "Thee only do we worship and to

Thee alone do we cry for help."

In the tenth century of our era Islâm's process of accommodation was

finished in all its essentials. From this time forward, if circumstances

were favourable, it could continue the execution of its world conquering

plans without being compelled to assimilate any more foreign elements.

Against each spiritual asset that another universal religion could boast,

it could now put forward something of a similar nature, but which still

showed characteristics of its own, and the superiority of which it could

sustain by arguments perfectly satisfactory to its followers. From that

time on, Islâm strove to distinguish itself ever more sharply from its most

important rivals. There was no absolute stagnation, the evolution was not

entirely stopped; but it moved at a much quieter pace, and its direction

was governed by internal motives, not by influences from outside. Moslim

catholicism had attained its full growth.

We cannot within the small compass of these lectures consider the

excrescences of the normal Islâm, the Shî'itic ultras, who venerated

certain descendants of Mohammed as infallible rulers of the world,

Ishma'ilites, Qarmatians, Assassins; nor the modern bastards of Islâm, such

as the Sheikhites, the Bâbî's, the Behâ'îs--who have found some adherents

in America--and other sects, which indeed sprang up on Moslim soil, but

deliberately turned to non-Mohammedan sources for their inspirations. We

must draw attention, however, to protests raised by certain minorities

against some of the ideas and practices which had been definitely adopted

by the majority.

In the midst of Mohammedan Catholicism there always lived and moved more or

less freely "protestant" elements. The comparison may even be continued,

with certain qualifications, and we may speak also of a conservative and

of a liberal protestantism in Islâm. The conservative Protestantism

is represented by the Hanbalitic school and kindred spirits, who most

emphatically preached that the Agreement (Ijmâ') of every period should be

based on that of the "pious ancestors." They therefore tested every dogma

and practice by the words and deeds of the Prophet, his contemporaries, and

the leaders of the Community in the first decades after Mohammed's death.

In their eyes the Church of later days had degenerated; and they declined

to consider the agreement of its doctors as justifying the penetration

into Islâm of ideas and usages of foreign origin. The cult of saints was

rejected by them as altogether contradictory to the Qorân and the genuine

tradition. These protestants of Islâm may be compared to those of

Christianity also in this respect, that they accepted the results of the

evolution and assimilation of the first three centuries of Islâm, but

rejected later additions as abuse and corruption. When on the verge of our

nineteenth century, they tried, as true Moslims, to force by material means

their religious conceptions on others, they were combated as heretics by

the authorities of catholic Islâm. Central and Western Arabia formed the

battlefield on which these zealots, called Wahhâbites after their leader,

were defeated by Mohammed Ali, the first Khedive, and his Egyptian army.

Since they have given up their efforts at violent reconstitution of what

they consider to be the original Islâm, they are left alone, and their

ideas have found adherents far outside Arabia, _e.g._, in British India and

in Northern and Central Africa.

In still quite another way many Moslims who found their freedom of thought

or action impeded by the prevailing law and doctrine, have returned to the

origin of their religion. Too much attached to the traditions of their

faith, deliberately to disregard these impediments, they tried to find in

the Qorân and Tradition arguments in favour of what was dictated to them by

Reason; and they found those arguments as easily as former generations had

found the bases on which to erect their casuistry, their dogma, and their

mysticism. This implied an interpretation of the oldest sources independent

from the catholic development of Islâm, and in contradiction with the

general opinion of the canonists, according to whom, since the fourth or

fifth century of the Hijrah, no one is qualified for such free research. A

certain degree of independence of mind, together with a strong attachment

to their spiritual past, has given rise in the Moslim world to this sort

of liberal protestantism, which in our age has many adherents among the

Mohammedans who have come in contact with modern civilization.

That the partisans of all these different conceptions could remain together

as the children of one spiritual family, is largely owing to the elastic

character of Ijmâ', the importance of which is to some extent acknowledged

by catholics and protestants, by moderns and conservatives. It has never

been contested that the community, whose agreement was the test of truth,

should not consist of the faithful masses, but of the expert elect. In

a Christian church we should have spoken of the clergy, with a further

definition of the organs through which it was to express itself synod,

council, or Pope. Islâm has no clergy, as we have seen; the qualification

of a man to have his own opinion depends entirely upon the scope of his

knowledge or rather of his erudition. There is no lack of standards, fixed

by Mohammedan authorities, in which the requirements for a scholar to

qualify him for Ijmâ' are detailed. The principal criterion is the

knowledge of the canon law; quite what we should expect from the history

of the evolution of Islâm. But, of course, dogmatists and mystics had also

their own "agreements" on the questions concerning them, and through the

compromise between Law, Dogma, and Mysticism, there could not fail to

come into existence a kind of mixed Ijmâ'. Moreover, the standards and

definitions could have only a certain theoretical value, as there never has

existed a body that could speak in the name of all. The decisions of Ijmâ'

were therefore to be ascertained only in a vague and general way. The

speakers were individuals whose own authority depended on Ijmâ', whereas

Ijmâ' should have been their collective decision. Thus it was possible for

innumerable shades of Catholicism and protestantism to live under one roof;

with a good deal of friction, it is true, but without definite breach or

schism, no one sect being able to eject another from the community.

Moslim political authorities are bound not only to extend the domain of

Islâm, but also to keep the community in the right path in its life and

doctrine. This task they have always conceived in accordance with their

political interests; Islâm has had its religious persecutions but tolerance

was very usual, and even official favouring of heresy not quite exceptional

with Moslim rulers. Regular maintenance of religious discipline existed

nowhere. Thus in the bond of political obedience elements which might

otherwise have been scattered were held together. The political decay of

Islâm in our a day has done away with what had been left of official power

to settle religious differences and any organization of spiritual authority

never existed. Hence it is only natural that the diversity of opinion

allowed by the grace of Allah now shows itself on a greater scale than ever

before.

III

THE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ISLÂM

In the first period of Islâm, the functions of what we call Church and

what we call State were exercised by the same authority. Its political

development is therefore of great importance for the understanding of its

religious growth.

The Prophet, when he spoke in the name of God, was the lawgiver of his

community, and it was rightly understood by the later Faithful that his

indispensable explanations of God's word had also legislative power. From

the time of the Hijrah the nature of the case made him the ruler, the

judge, and the military commander of his theocratic state. Moreover, Allah

expressly demanded of the Moslims that they should obey "the Messenger

of God, and those amongst them who have authority."[1] We see by this

expression that Mohammed shared his temporal authority with others. His

co-rulers were not appointed, their number was nowhere defined, they were

not a closed circle; they were the notables of the tribes or other groups

who had arrayed themselves under Mohammed's authority, and a few who had

gained influence by their personality. In their councils Mohammed's word

had no decisive power, except when he spoke in the name of Allah; and we

know how careful he was to give oracles only in cases of extreme need.

[Footnote 1: Qorân, iv., 62.]

In the last years of Mohammed's life his authority became extended over a

large part of Arabia; but he did very little in the way of centralization

of government. He sent _'âmils, i.e._, agents, to the conquered tribes

or villages, who had to see that, in the first place, the most important

regulations of the Qorân were followed, and, secondly, that the tax into

which the duty of almsgiving had been converted was promptly paid, and

that the portion of it intended for the central fund at Medina was duly

delivered. After the great conquests, the governors of provinces of the

Moslim Empire, who often exercised a despotic power, were called by the

same title of _'âmils_. The agents of Mohammed, however, did not possess

such unlimited authority. It was only gradually that the Arabs learned the

value of good discipline and submission to a strong guidance, and adopted

the forms of orderly government as they found them in the conquered lands.

Through the death of Mohammed everything became uncertain. The combination

under one leadership of such a heterogeneous mass as that of his Arabs

would have been unthinkable a few years before. It became quite natural,

though, as soon as the Prophet's mouth was recognized as the organ of

Allah's voice. Must this monarchy be continued after Allah's mouthpiece had

ceased to exist? It was not at all certain. The force of circumstances and

the energy of some of Mohammed's counsellors soon led to the necessary

decisions. A number of the notables of the community succeeded in forcing

upon the hesitating or unwilling members the acceptance of the monarchy as

a permanent institution. There must be a khalîf, a deputy of the Prophet in

all his functions (except that of messenger of God), who would be ruler

and judge and leader of public worship, but above all _amîr al-mu'minîn_,

"Commander of the Faithful," in the struggle both against the apostate

Arabs and against the hostile tribes on the northern border.

But for the military success of the first khalifs Islâm would never have

become a universal religion. Every exertion was made to keep the troops of

the Faithful complete. The leaders followed only Mohammed's example

when they represented fighting for Allah's cause as the most enviable

occupation. The duty of military service was constantly impressed upon the

Moslims; the lust of booty and the desire for martyrdom, to which the Qorân

assigned the highest reward, were excited to the utmost. At a later period,

it became necessary in the interests of order to temper the result of this

excitement by traditions in which those of the Faithful who died in the

exercise of a peaceful, honest profession were declared to be witnesses to

the Faith as well as those who were slain in battle against the enemies of

God,--traditions in which the real and greater holy war was described as

the struggle against evil passions. The necessity of such a mitigating

reaction, the spirit in which the chapters on holy war of Mohammedan

lawbooks are conceived, and the galvanizing power which down to our own day

is contained in a call to arms in the name of Allah, all this shows that

in the beginning of Islâm the love of battle had been instigated at the

expense of everything else.

The institution of the Khalifate had hardly been agreed upon when the

question of who should occupy it became the subject of violent dissension.

The first four khalîfs, whose reigns occupied the first thirty years after

Mohammed's death, were Qoraishites, tribesmen of the Prophet, and moreover

men who had been his intimate friends. The sacred tradition relates a

saying of Mohammed: "The _imâms_ are from Qoraish," intended to confine the

Khalifate to men from that tribe. History, however, shows that this edict

was forged to give the stamp of legality to the results of a long political

struggle. For at Mohammed's death the Medinese began fiercely contesting

the claims of the Qoraishites; and during the reign of Alî, the fourth

Khalîf, the Khârijites rebelled, demanding, as democratic rigorists, the

free election of khalîfs without restriction to the tribe of Qoraish or to

any other descent. Their standard of requirements contained only religious

and moral qualities; and they claimed for the community the continual

control of the chosen leader's behaviour and the right of deposing him

as soon as they found him failing in the fulfilment of his duties. Their

anarchistic revolutions, which during more than a century occasionally gave

much trouble to the Khalifate, caused Islâm to accentuate the aristocratic

character of its monarchy. They were overcome and reduced to a sect, the

survivors of which still exist in South-Eastern Arabia, in Zanzibar, and in

Northern Africa; however, the actual life of these communities resembles

that of their spiritual forefathers to a very remote degree.

Another democratic doctrine, still more radical than that of the

Khârijites, makes even non-Arabs eligible for the Khalifate. It must have

had a considerable number of adherents, for the tradition which makes the

Prophet responsible for it is to be found in the canonic collections. Later

generations, however, rendered it harmless by exegesis; they maintained

that in this text "commander" meant only subordinate chiefs, and not "the

Commander of the Faithful." It became a dogma in the orthodox Mohammedan

world, respected up to the sixteenth century, that only members of the

tribe of Qoraish could take the place of the Messenger of God.

The chance of success was greater for the legitimists than for the

democratic party. The former wished to make the Khalifate the privilege

of Alî, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, and his descendants. At

first the community did not take much notice of that "House of Mohammed";

and it did not occur to any one to give them a special part in the

direction of affairs. Alî and Fâtima themselves asked to be placed in

possession only of certain goods which had belonged to Mohammed, but which

the first khalîfs would not allow to be regarded as his personal property;

they maintained that the Prophet had had the disposal of them not as owner,

but as head of the state. This narrow greed and absence of political

insight seemed to be hereditary in the descendants of Ali and Fâtima; for

there was no lack of superstitious reverence for them in later times, and

if one of them had possessed something of the political talent of the best

Omayyads and Abbasids he would certainly have been able to supplant them.

After the third Khalîf, Othmân, had been murdered by his political

opponents, Ali became his successor; but he was more remote than any of his

predecessors from enjoying general sympathy. At that time the Shî'ah, the

"Party" of the House of the Prophet, gradually arose, which maintained that

Ali should have been the first Khalîf, and that his descendants should

succeed him. The veneration felt for those descendants increased in the

same proportion as that for the Prophet himself; and moreover, there

were at all times malcontents, whose advantage would be in joining any

revolution against the existing government. Yet the Alids never succeeded

in accomplishing anything against the dynasties of the Omayyads, the

Abbasids, and the Ottomans, except in a few cases of transitory importance

only.

The Fatimite dynasty, of rather doubtful descent, which ruled a part

of Northern Africa and Egypt in the tenth century A.D., was completely

suppressed after some two and a half centuries. The Sherîfs who have ruled

Morocco for more than 950 years were not chiefs of a party that considered

the legality of their leadership a dogma; they owe their local Khalifate

far more to the out-of-the-way position of their country which prevented

Abbasids and Turks from meddling with their affairs. Otherwise, they would

have been obliged at any rate to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Great

Lord of Constantinople. This was the case with the Sherîfs of Mecca, who

ever since the twelfth century have regarded the sacred territory as their

domain. Their principality arose out of the general political disturbance

and the division of the Mohammedan empire into a number of kingdoms, whose

mutual strife prevented them from undertaking military operations in the

desert. These Sherîfs raised no claim to the Khalifate; and the Shî'itic

tendencies they displayed in the Middle Ages had no political significance,

although they had intimate relations with the Zaidites of Southern Arabia.

As first Egypt and afterwards Turkey made their protectorate over the holy

cities more effective, the princes of Mecca became orthodox.

The Zaidites, who settled in Yemen from the ninth century on, are really

Shî'ites, although of the most moderate kind. Without striving after

expansion outside Arabia, they firmly refuse to give up their own Khalifate

and to acknowledge the sovereignty of any non-Alid ruler; the efforts of

the Turks to subdue them or to make a compromise with them have had no

lasting results. This is the principal obstacle against their being

included in the orthodox community, although their admission is defended,

even under present circumstances, by many non-political Moslim scholars.

The Zaidites are the remnant of the original Arabian Shî'ah, which for

centuries has counted adherents in all parts of the Moslim world, and some

of whose tenets have penetrated Mohammedan orthodoxy. The almost general

veneration of the sayyids and sherîfs, as the descendants of Mohammed are

entitled, is due to this influence.

Mohammedanism Lectures on Its Origin, Its Religious and Political Growth, and Its Present State · 第 4 / 8 段