IN the seventh century of our era Christianity seemed triumphant over its enemies in the Eastern Empire. Paganism was destroyed, the heresies had been overcome, the faith had received its full definition in what was supposed to be the final creed. The bishops and monks, at least, might bo justified in supposing that the kingdom of God was already established.

In the reign of Heraclius the political situation was almost as promising as the ecclesiastical. For that monarch, with almost Roman energy, repulsed the Persians, the hereditary foes of Byzantium, and extended the bounds of the empire almost to the point which they had reached in the days when the state was Roman in fact as well as in name. In this period of triumph and of apparent prosperity no one could have foretold the appearance of a new power upon the scene a power which would threaten the whole fabric of civilization and change the map of the known world. Yet such a power appeared, overcame the armies sent against it, and with unexampled rapidity took possession of the fairest provinces of the East.

Until this time Arabia had not played a leading part in the drama of history. All earlier knowledge of this country shows its inhabitants to be scattered tribes separated by their deserts and by their mutual hostility. Persia and Byzantium had indeed welded the clans nearest their borders into petty kingdoms which they used each to annoy the other. But of Arabia as a single power they did not dream. Occasional forays of the bold desert dwellers in search of booty they were accustomed to suffer. Now there came the invasion of a new created nation. The scattered Bedawin were fired by a single purpose. Attila, the Scourge of God, was overmatched by Chalid, the Sword of God, and this terrible weapon hewed the devoted provinces of the East with tireless energy. Syria and Egypt fell at a single blow. Babylonia and Persia followed in an instant. In less than half a century from the time when Mohammed fled with a single companion from Mecca, the arms of his followers were triumphant from the Oxus to the site of Carthage. In another half century they had crossed the borders of India on the east, and to the west were checked only by the waves of the Atlantic.

Their conquest of Spain and invasion of France are facts familiar to you, as is the battle of Tours or Poitiers by which Charles Martel preserved to Europe Roman Christianity and the civilization with which it was allied.

That such a movement deserves the attention of all students of history, is the merest truism. Its political importance alone, however, would not make it the proper subject of this course of lectures. "What makes it appropriate for this place and this occasion is its religious character. In this, to be sure, it is not unique. Many, I might say most, of the great move ments of history have been religious. But few if any have shown their religious character so distinctly as the one before us. It calls itself by a religious name when it calls itself Islam, for Islam means resignation to the will of God. The war cry of the clans which crushed the arms of Byzantium was a profession of faith "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is the Apostle of Allah." Islam has never denied or outgrown its religious character, for the same pro fession of faith is to this day repeated by one-tenth of the human race. Politically we may think it no longer formidable, but religiously it seems as strong as ever. "With obstinate confidence in its own possession of the truth it resists the preaching of the Christian missionary, while itself sending missionaries into heathen lands. Because of this tenacity it must be reckoned with as a living force. Its dynasties may become extinct ; its kingdoms may fall into the hands of foreigners; but ideas do not yield to force. They are not subjugated by the heavier artillery or crushed by the stronger battalions. Material forces enable Great Britain to govern the empire of the Great Mogul ; they put Holland into possession of the Malay archipelago, and give France control of Algiers. But the real power which holds the hearts of the people in all these regions is the idea of Allah and His Apostle. For a long time now we have flattered ourselves with Lopes of the regeneration of the East, because a few young men in Constantinople have a varnish of Western education and of Western manners. The illusion has vanished and we see that the mass of the people are living in the ideas of a thousand years ago. There may be a more agreeable, there could scarcely be a more convincing, example of the tenacity of religion.

In a certain sense, our own time is able to appreciate the nature of this force as no preceding age has appreciated it. We have begun to see that there is a science of religion a science Avhich deals both with the history and with the philosophy of religion. And yet it is too much to say that this point of view is universally recognized. Even in the case of Islam, the attempt is still made to account for the phenomena by supposing some other force behind them. The most recent life of Mohammed^[1] tries to explain his movement as a social rather than a religious revolution. Social distress bulks so largely in our own philosophy that we are tempted to give it an equally large place in the thoughts of other times. It is a sufficient present answer to this theory to say that we hear nothing of social claims in connection with the rise and spread of Islam. The cry of the hosts which subdued Asia was not for freedom of land or for relief from feudal burdens, either of taxation or service ; it was not a demand for liberty or equality. Some of these tilings were more or less distinctly involved ; but they were only indirectly involved. The formulated demand of the Moslem army was for the recognition of Allah as the one God, and of Mohammed as His Apostle. They brought a creed for their watchword, and offered a Bible as their boon. This is where we may easily find the strength of Islam to-day. You may talk to an intelligent Mohammedan of the benefits given by modern progress. He will acknowledge that the civilization of Europe has some material advantages ; but, in his heart, he will say that these are only the temporary enjoyments of a transitory world, and he will thank Allah that He has given him the better part in the promise of the world to come. To this day Mecca numbers among its inhabitants men who have emigrated from the countries where they enjoyed peace and security under Christian rule emigrated because they could not feel at home under such rule, in spite of its material advantages. These men desire more than material advantages " They desire to study the sacred sciences in a sacred place, to live in the neighborhood of celebrated and pious scholars or devotees, to do penance for former trans gressions, to cleanse their filthy lucre by using it partly in religious works, or to spend their last days and to die on holy ground." This is the testimony of a man^[2] who had unusual opportunities to know whereof he affirms. And all observers who have become acquainted with the real life of the people in Moslem lands confirm this testimony. The lead ing force in Eastern society is still religion.

What has been said is enough to show the importance of a study of this great religious movement. The inquirer into the history of mankind cannot ignore this striking episode. In any of its numerous aspects, Islam will repay investigation. But it obvious that, for a single course of lectures, we must limit our field ; and, for the present course, it is my purpose to consider only the beginnings. The history of a quarter of the globe through a period of thirteen centuries, is an immense subject. Internal and external wars, the rise and fall of dynasties, revolutions, crusades, philosophies, and theologies these would require many volumes for their adequate treatment. To get a clear impression, we must limit our field ; and the best place to begin is at the begin ning "We do not ignore the fact that the Islam of to-day is in many respects different from the Islam which emerged from the wilderness twelve centuries ago. It may be true, as has been claimed, that one who studies the Koran and thinks himself acquainted with the Islam of to-day, is as far wrong as he would be who should study the Gospels and think himself acquainted with the Christianity of Hildebrand or of Pius the Ninth. We need to caution ourselves at this point, and not to assume that what is true of Mohammed and Omar is true also of the now ruling Sultan. But, when all is said, we know a good deal about a system when we know its beginnings. The stream is purest at its source. Principles are simpler when they first show their activity. Later developments may obscure them, but cannot change their essence. The later developments are better understood by the mastery of the earlier and simpler stages. And what is true in general is true, in a very special sense, of the movement before us. The religion of Mohammed developed with great rapidity. During the lifetime of its founder it passed through the stages which Christianity took three centuries to traverse. In one sense this is a disadvantage. The growth would have been more healthy if it had been more deliberate. But it adds to the importance of the earliest period when this period contains so much. It is only the natural result that the dogmatic system of Islam not only assumed its final shape at a very early date, but that it adhered to one type with great tenacity. Development there was; but the development early became sectarian. The official, orthodox dogma overcame the sects, and this orthodox dogma was only the codification of ideas already prevalent in the first century of the Flight. For these reasons knowledge of the origin of Islam is the knowledge of the whole system, more truly than is the case in any other of the great historic religions.

But we must still further limit our inquiry. A general sketch of the rise of Mohammedanism would no doubt be of great interest, but it would still require more space than we can give it. We must choose some one of its many aspects, and fix our attention upon this single point, in the hope that the smallness of the field will conduce to clearness in the picture. Now, the point which I propose to examine is the influence which the Old and New Testaments have exerted upon this religion which is neither Judaism nor Christianity, though it shows such curious resemblances to both. These resemblances force them selves upon the notice of even the most superficial observer. Never was there a religion so little original as this one. The dependence of one religion upon another is, however, not a rare phenomenon. Religious ideas emigrate more rapidly than the religions of which they are a part. All the religions of which we have competent knowledge, not excepting the religion of Israel, show foreign influence. The gods and myths of Greece were emigrants from Asia; Judaism borrowed from Babylonia; Christianity built upon the foundation inherited from Judaism. It is not strange, therefore, that Islam should use both Jewish and Christian ideas. So far from the lack of originality being a reason for ignoring the study of this religion, we may say that it is a special reason for studying it. Here is a great fact the migration of religious beliefs. It is set before us in a striking example. Every consideration urges us to its close and attentive examination.

In examining the dependence of Islam upon the earlier religious we are met at the outset by one capital difficulty. Islam we know ; the sources flow for us with greater copiousness than is true of any other religion. But the Judaism and Christianity of Arabia are almost unknown quantities. There was Judaism in Arabia. We suppose that it conformed in general to the type of other post-biblical Judaism. But how far it may have been affected by its surroundings is hard for us to say. There was Christianity in Arabia. But of its character we are even more ignorant than we are of Arabian Judaism. It seems quite certain that it was not the Christianity of the Greek Church. In all probability it existed in the form of some of the sects stigmatized by the theologians as heretical. The type of heresy represented, however, can be only faintly conjectured. Now, in this state of ignorance, we are obliged to seek some fixed point, and this fixed point can be no other than the Bible. What ever the Judaism of Arabia had, or had not, we are safe in assuming that it had the Hebrew Bible. In like manner, it is true of the Christianity of Arabia that it had a Bible, which, for the most part, was the same as the one which we ourselves hold sacred. For the comparison which we propose to make, the only practicable thing to do is to note what Biblical features appear in the religion of Mohammed. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to note the form which these features assume in their new combination. If these are such as appear elsewhere in the Judaism of the Talmud, it will be perfectly legitimate to as sume that Talmudic influence was at work. If the New Testament influences appear clouded by the tendencies which show themselves in the Apocryphal Gospels, we shall conclude that these tendencies were at work among the nominal Christians of Arabia. Nevertheless, the features which we seek are Biblical in their substance and their origin. Our two known quantities are the Bible and the sources of Islam.

It is significant at the very outset to notice that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, designated him self by two words borrowed from the Scriptures. One was borrowed directly in the Hebrew form naby and was intended to rank him with the Old Testament organs of revelation, the prophets of that dispensation. The other, rasitl, was the translation of the New Testament word which we render apostle, and was equally intended to class him with the origins of revelation in the Christian Church. We see, therefore, that the very terms in which the founder of the new religion announced himself expressed his adoption of Hebrew and Christian ideas. And that, with the words which he adopted, he had the Biblical idea is made plain by many passages of the Koran : " We have sent thee with the truth, as a bringer of tidings and a warner."^[3] The prophets and apostles are well described by this word, for it was their work to warn their people of the judgments of God. It is evident, therefore, that Mohammed s starting-point was the fundamental position of revealed religion that God speaks through chosen men, to make His will known to the world. This position is the key to his activity.

There are thinkers, however, to whom it is incomprehensible that a man should, in all honesty, put forward a claim to speak as the messenger of God. They are compelled to seek some ulterior motive for his activity. The whole mediaeval world was of course incapable of understanding the Prophet of Islam. The only thing which those centuries could see was that Mohammed was the deadly enemy of their civilization. They could explain his impulse only as the direct act of Satan. In truth, the hordes of fierce and savage warriors which poured from Arabia and overran a large part of the known world, must have made upon their victims the impression that hell had let loose all its demons. According to the prevalent theory of Christian writers down to very recent times, therefore, Mohammed was the most distinguished instrument of Satan.^[4] Antichrist is one of the names frequently applied to him. At the present day we may fairly regard this view as antiquated. Satan is not a preacher of truth, and we can hardly doubt that Mohammed was sincere in preaching the truth.

The seventeenth century had another explanation of the career of Mohammed. This explanation is explicitly stated in a treatise by the celebrated Dr. Prideaux, entitled, " The True Nature of Imposture, Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet."^[5] The polemic nature of this tract (for it is little more) is sufficiently indicated in its title. The author conceives Mohammed to be moved by a desire to regain ancestral honors and wealth, which had been lost by his family. " These considerations meeting with an ambitious, aspiring mind, soon put him upon designs of raising himself to the supreme government of the country ; and being a very subtile, crafty man, after having maturely weighed all ways and means whereby to bring this to pass, [he] concluded none so likely to effect it as the framing of that imposture which he afterward vented with so much mischief to the world."^[6] The author of the treatise, therefore, supposes Mohammed to go deliberately to work and frame a new religion as a means to the royal power. Substantially the same theory was carried out in the Bampton Lectures of 1784, which gave for their subject : "A Comparison of Mahometanista and Christianity in their History, their Evidendes and their Effects." In these lectures it is throughout assumed that the founder of Islam was an impostor, who, "by the mere force of a bold and fertile genius, assisted by a concurrence of circumstances universally auspicious to his design, was enabled to obtain the most unbounded empire over the minds, as well as persons, of a very large portion of mankind."^[7] It is interesting to note that the position taken by these writers, who were moved thereto by the desire to defend Christianity, was also taken by Voltaire, who embodied it in his tragedy : "Le Fanatisme, ou Maliomct le Prophete."^[8] By the author's own letter of dedication, this tragedy was directed against an imposture which brought into play the hypocrisy of some and the fury of others. In the play itself Mohammed is made to confess the ambition that is his motive. He is made to see with the eye of a modern historian, and discovers that Persia is feeble and Byzantium tottering. It is now the turn of Arabia to step upon the scene of action, and erect a monarchy upon the ruins of these. To secure this end a new religion is the best means, and for this end it is invented.^[9]

Neither the English churchman nor the French sceptic had the key to Islam. Both judged the motive from the event. History shows us, however, very few instances in which the course of great movements was foreseen by those who originated them. Mohammed was no exception to the rule ; in fact, he had less than the average prescience of what was to come. To show this, we need only look at the outline of his life.

It seems well established that throughout his early manhood, and until middle life, Mohammed showed no special ambition and no special capacity. "We know very little of this period of his life, except that he was an orphan and poor, until his marriage with Chadija placed him in easy circumstances. He had established a character for honesty, for he was called the faithful. But his religion was the religion of his city, as is abundantly shown by the fact that he named a son Abd Mendf for one of the heathen deities. When about forty years old^[10] the crisis of his life came. He passed through a severe spiritual conflict, and, at the end of it, came forth as a preacher. He began to reason with his countrymen concerning righteousness and a judgment to come, and, at real risk to himself, denounced their idolatry as contrary to the will of God. Before attributing interested motives to such a man we should have clear and convincing proofs. As to his personality, the impression made upon us by the records of this early ministry, and to a considerable extent confirmed by his later history, is that of a modest, retiring man. He was, even when in possession of power, rather reticent, shrinking from prominent activity, lacking in decision. The internal conflict from which he suffered was brought about by what he felt was a call to preach. His conscience urged him to obey, but his natural timidity held him back. In all this he betrays no deep-laid scheme of any kind. He would apparently have been satisfied with the conversion of his native city, and would have been content to leave the government in the hands of the chiefs who already possessed it. The singleness of his motive was indicated moreover by his steadfast ness through years of neglect, contempt, abuse, and even persecution. The Meccans had no special objection to his religion so long as it was simply a personal matter. They would have been quite content to have him get salvation in his own way, if only he would not preach against the publicly established worship. But it was precisely this which Mohammed felt called to do. The chiefs of the Meccans came to Abu Talib (Mohammed s uncle and protector) and complained of the preaching, whereupon the uncle remonstrated with his nephew. Mohammed supposed that he was going to lose the protection of the clan, in which case his life would not have been safe for an hour. Nevertheless, he said, with tears in his eyes : " Though the sun at my right hand and the moon at my left were to command me to give up this matter, I would not give it up."^[11]

In this persistence in his calling Mohammed is not unworthy of being compared with the Old Testament prophets. He reminds us of Jeremiah, who was commanded to preach though he was told that the kings of Judah, and the princes, priests, and people would fight against him. The parallel with some of the Old Testament prophets is the more exact in that Mohammed was apparently slow of speech. In his private life he was taciturn. That when he spoke in public he had difficulty in expressing his thought, seems evident from the phenomena of the Koran. The frequent repetition of the same thoughts, and even the same phrases, shows lack of facility. In many passages we are compelled to think that he was not able to express his thought with clearness. He is fond of figures and metaphors, yet he rarely succeeds in carrying one out consistently. He was far from being a natural orator, and he would have been strangely self-deceived if he had supposed that his eloquence would make his countrymen subservient to his designs. And bis experience is just in Hue with the other evidence on this head. His countrymen had small patience with his harangues. They stigmatized them as the ravings of one possessed, or as the fables of the ancients. Putting these indications together we must agree with an eminent authority on this subject^[12] when he says : "He was not a master of the language which explains the frequent repetitions in the Koran. He composed with difficulty; he rarely found at once the word which correctly expressed his thought. He tried it therefore in different ways, and hence we find the same ideas recur continually in the Koran, only in different words. More than one example shows us that the prophet did not find the appropriate form until after repeated attempts." The matter concerns us here only so far as it affects the sincerity of Mohammed. All the indications point him out as one of the last men to attempt a career which should make him play the part of an orator.

Looking at him more closely, it may be confessed without hesitation that Mohammed was not a man after the pattern which most commends itself to us. His personality is one of the most difficult to comprehend in all history, for it seems to us to unite contradictory traits. Frugality and lavishness, temperance and sensual grossness, indecision and firmness, gentleness and cruelty, piety and treachery, all appear by turns ; and the opposites are often in immediate juxtaposition. It is difficult for us modern men of the Aryan race to combine these features in a single picture. It is no more than a commonplace say-that a Semite, a Bedawy, an Arab brought up in heathenism, must be measured by the Semitic standard of twelve hundred years ago. That, measured by this standard, he was no ordinary man is clear from the influence which he exerted during his life, and which has only increased since his death. To the present day, the Prophet enters into the life of his followers to an extent difficult for us to imagine. Nearly all books written by Moslems contain in the preface a eulogy of Mohammed even works of the imagination like the Arabian Nights. Once a year the birthday of the Prophet is celebrated by the Moslem world, and it is the universal custom to hear the story of his life, or poems in his praise. The number of biographies of him is very great ; almost every Arabic author of note has written one. To cast a slur on the name of Mohammed in a Moslem country will excite a mob much more certainly than blasphemy of the name of Jesus will excite one in any Christian country. The Arabic press continues to issue yearly new biographies or books of devotion, in which the exemplary character of the Prophet is set forth for the imitation of the faithful. Even in Mecca, where one would expect feeling to be made callous to this theme by long use, the recitation of a poem in his honor calls forth sighs and tears of longing:^[13]

It need not be denied that in this devotion there is something of superstition. The Bedawin, like most people in a comparatively low state of civilization, are prone to reverence saints. And when we read how the people in Mohammed s campaigns would take the water in which he had performed his ablutions and rub it on their hands and faces, we confess that he was the object of an unreasoning devotion. But this is recorded only of the later years of his life, when his following was increased by the scarcely converted desert tribes, to whom a prophet was only a soothsayer or magician under another name. The early and more intimate companions of the Prophet were not of this class. Omar impresses us as one of the sanest, clearest headed men that ever lived. Abu Bekr, also, though a man of tender religious sensibilities, possessed a sober and practical common-sense, far removed from fanaticism. That this was not mere superstitious devotion to a supposed wonder-working wizard Avhich Mohammed called forth, is evident from others besides these intimate friends. When Saad Ibn Rabia lay on the battle-field in the article of death, he said to a friend who watched by him : " I am dying ; greet the Apostle of Allah for me and say : God reward thee for what thou hast done for us, as He rewarded the other prophets. Greet also the Helpers for me and say : God will not forgive them if harm comes to their prophet." In one of the campaigns Zeid Ibu al-Dathana was taken captive and brought to Mecca, where he was put to death. Just before he was executed one of the spectators asked : " Would you not rather be with your family and that Mohammed should be in your place here? "

The reply was: "I would not have Mohammed pricked with a thorn if thereby I might be in safety with my family." Nowhere was this loyalty more evident than when there was a real grievance. In one of his later campaigns Mohammed disposed of the booty in a manner that quite overlooked the claims of his veteran followers. Their murmurs came to his ears, and gathering them around him he spoke a few words of recognition. All hearts turned to him and the Helpers^[14] broke down in tears, crying : We are content with our portion and our lot. Another example recalls to us the chivalry of Uriah the Hittite. Abu Chaithama came home from the army to fetch grain. The day was hot, and his wives had pitched the tents in the shade of his garden. They also sprinkled them for coolness and prepared refreshing meat and drink. He looked at it all and said : "The Apostle of Allah is exposed to the sun and the wind and the heat ; and shall I spend my time with my wife in the cool shade before a spread table ? That is not right. I will not enter your tent but follow Mohammed." He turned away and as soon as his grain was ready he mounted his camel and went his way.^[15] These examples, which might easily be multiplied, show that it was not mere superstition which drew followers to the Prophet. They felt that this man had brought them real benefit, and their hearts were drawn not only by the benefit they had experienced but also by the qualities of the man. Some of these qualities we can appreciate. For one thing, he was modest in his opinion of himself. When he first came to Medina and saw the people fertilizing the pistillate palms with sprigs of the staminate blossoms, he remarked that it might be as well not to do it. Here upon some of the people left off, and when their crops of dates came short, they naturally reproached him. He made no defence, but confessed that he was fallible except where divinely guided. Although his followers persisted in discovering miracles wrought by him, he expressly declared his inability to work them, and that in a passage which reveals his great desire to work them : " I cannot provide myself with what is useful or [ward off] what is hurtful except as God wills. If I knew the secret things I would desire great good, and evil should not touch me ; but I am only a warner and bringer of tidings to a people who believe."^[16] According to an early tradition he deprecates extravagant honors: "Praise me not as Jesus the son of Mary is praised ; call me the servant of God and His Apostle."^[17] When one of his followers and a Jew were disputing about the comparative merits of their respective prophets, Mohammed said : "Do not put me above Moses." He had, moreover, a distinct sense of his own sinfulness. Ayesha asked him : Do none enter Paradise except through the favor of God ? No ! he replied, none enter but through God's favor. The question was asked and answered three times. Then she said : You, also, O Prophet, will not you enter but by God s compassion? Putting his hand upon his head he replied : I also shall not enter unless God cover me with His mercy.^[18] The consciousness of sin was, in fact, the starting-point of his religion. His prayers always contained a petition for forgiveness. He desired the intercession of his friends, as he in turn interceded for them. That he also laid the case of his enemies before God, and invoked punishment upon them need cause us no surprise.^[19]

Mohammed was gentle and considerate in his intercourse with men. He rebukes himself in the Koran because in his anxiety to conciliate a nobleman, he once turned away from a poor blind man who wished to inquire of him.^[20] A poor negro who swept the mosque at Medina died and was buried without the Prophet being informed. On hearing of it later, he rebuked those who had neglected to tell him, inquired for the grave, and prayed over it as he was accustomed to do for his friends.^[21] The support of his household was often a matter of anxiety to him, but he was always mindful of those more needy, so that it was not without ground that his followers called him the protector of orphans and the defence of the poor. More surprising, in an oriental, is his kindness toward animals. Although the dog is unclean of the Moslem, as he is to the Jew, yet Mohammed praised the man who showed kindness to a thirsty dog.^[22] He promised a reward also to the man who watered a stray camel, and, consistently with this, he threatened a woman with hell because she had starved a cat.^[23]

Quite as prominent as his kindness was the good sense he showed in matters where, if he were a fanatic, he might be expected to be extreme. At one time he inclined to ascetic devotion, and stood in prayer so long that his feet swelled, or so long that their skin cracked and they bled. But when his followers showed similar excess of zeal, he restrained them, saying : The body has a claim on you.^[24] Although not without superstition himself, he discouraged it in others even where it might have seemed to his advantage to connive at it. The day that his infant son Ibrahim died, there was an eclipse of the sun. The Moslems were inclined to connect the two events. But Mohammed said : "No! the sun is not eclipsed for the death of any human being ; eclipses are among the miracles of God ; when you see them, engage in prayer."

If Mohammed shows many attractive personal characteristics, he shows also many that are repulsive, especially to our age. That they were not obnoxious in the eyes of his own age is evident from the very devotion which we have been considering. The standard of the times was not very elevated. After the battle of Ohod, Hind, the wife of one of Mohammed's enemies, sought out among the slain the body of Harnza, Mohammed s uncle, who had fallen in the Moslem cause. Having found it, she cut off the nose and ears, which she made into bracelets. She then tore open the trunk and cut out the liver, which she had vowed to eat. Although she was not able to carry out the vow, the whole scene casts a lurid light upon the state of society in which Mohammed grew up. In such a society, the faults which are so prominent to us did not attract serious attention. It is always difficult to say just how far a man should be judged by the standard of his own times. But we may fairly claim that any indulgence granted to Biblical heroes on this plea should be granted also to Mohammed. The state of Arabia in the seventh century was not unlike the state of Canaan two millenniums earlier. The assassinations prompted by Mohammed should be judged as we judge the deeds of Ehud and Jael. His slaughter of the Jews stands by the side of Joshua's extermination of the Canaanites. His indulgence in wives was not more profuse than David's, and fell far short of Solomon's luxury. Like David, he coveted his neighbor's wife, but he did not murder her husband, and he did not take possession of her until she had been divorced. He cursed his enemies, but so did the Psalmist ; and the plea made for the Psalmist, that the objects of his imprecations were the enemies of the cause of God, was precisely the plea that Mohammed would have made in all sincerity.

These things are not said as a justification. Tried by any standard the Prophet of Mecca falls short of perfection. But if we are to appreciate his work we must not let his faults blind us to his real character. That character is defined when we say he was a sin cerely religious man. "Did you know what I know (he is reported to have said) did you know what I know of the future state, you would laugh little and weep much."^[25] This sentence gives us the key to his life and to his power. He had a vivid sense of the great verities the being of God, the evil of sin, the future life. He succeeded in impressing these upon the movement of which he was the head, and they make it what it is one of the great religious of the world.

Before we proceed further it will be necessary to define the sources from which we get our knowledge of Islam. The difficulty which confronts us is the embarrassment of riches. Islam has a long history and a copious literature. In the course of its history it has developed sectarian differences, as great as those which divide professing Christians. Seventy-three sects of Mohammedans were long ago counted, and in the number was found the fulfillment of a prophecy ascribed to Mohammed.^[26] But as we have limited our inquiry to the origin and early stages of Islam, sectarian differences do not concern us. For this inquiry, one document is of the very first importancej and that document is, of course, the Koran. This book is recognized by all parties of Moslems as the foundation of their faith. Even if there were doubt as to its integrity and its authenticity it would still be of prime importance for the history of Islam. But there is no reason to suspect either its integrity or its authenticity. The assurances we have on this point are very complete. The prime fact is that the revelations were committed to memory by a large body of converts during the life of Mohammed. He emphasized this as a meritorious act, and thereby increased the number of living custodians of the word. The book was formally edited and published soon after his death, and when divergences began to appear in the copies of this edition, a new one was published with new safeguards for its correctness. There can be no reasonable doubt that the copies in our hands correspond very closely with this original, and that this original does not vary in any important particular from the text recited by Mohammed himself. This does not mean that we have the complete body of what he published. Some revelations have probably perished ; others were worked over and changed by Mohammed himself. But we may rest assured that what we have in this volume represents his thought as he uttered it during some part of his career.

It is well known that the Koran is regarded as the Book of God, in the strictest sense. God appears throughout as the speaker, and the devout Moslem has the most exalted idea of its excellence. " People are not assembled together in mosques to read the Book of God without light and comfort descending upon them ; the favor of God covers them, angels encompass them round about, and God reckons them among His angels."^[27] This tradition, ascribed to Mohammed, correctly represents his idea, and that of his followers. He is reported to have said further : " The most illustrious of my followers are those who know the Koran by heart, and those who pray in the night." t When a number of Moslems had fallen in battle, those among them who knew the most of the Koran were most honored in their burial. Omar expressed surprise that one of his governors should appoint a freedman to an important office. When told that the man knew the Koran, he approved the appointment. Mohammed challenged his contemporaries to produce a single chapter equal to his in excellence, and it is now an article of faith that the challenge cannot be met. All these are indications of the fundamental importance of this book.

When we come to the Koran for information, how ever, we are much perplexed, for we find it to be a book without form or plan. It is a collection of disconnected compositions, which were uttered at intervals during a period of more than twenty years. When they were written down, no pains were taken to indicate date or occasion of composition. Fragments of different dates were joined to make a single chapter, or new sections were interpolated in chapters already complete. When the final redaction was made, it was altogether mechanical in its arrangement. The only principle discoverable is that the longest chapters come first and the shortest last. Within the several chapters the transitions are abrupt and with out apparent motive, and when we add that the repetition of set phrases is a standing feature, we are not surprised that, to the Western mind, the book is unattractive and its study anything but a pleasure. For our present purpose, however, these drawbacks do not weigh so heavily as they would if our purpose were purely historical. For a life of Mohammed, it is a great disadvantage not to be able to date the suras.^[28] But our present inquiry is less concerned with the progressive stages of the Prophet's thought, than with the total of his religion. We might almost say that it is not of so much importance for us to discover what he meant as it is to discover what his contemporaries supposed him to mean. For it is this which has made Islam what it is. What they supposed him to mean we can generally discover, for exegetical tradition is, in its main features, constant. In one respect we are better off than the exegetes themselves, (for they are under a dogmatic bias from which we are free.)

Second to the Koran but second to it alone we have another source for the knowledge of Islam in a great body of traditions concerning the Prophet. To understand the place which it occupies we need only recall the position of the Moslem community after the death of Mohammed. Up to that time, he had been accustomed to answer every question that arose. He was the law. When he was taken away, they still had a law in the Koran. But this was not enough. No book of rules can provide for every case that may arise. Mohammed, moreover, had always left something to oral teaching. It was not his intention that the Koran alone should be the rule of life. His own example was to be a guide, as is expressly stated in the Koran itself.^[29] In a tradition, he is reported as saying : " What I have commanded to believers outside the Koran is equal in quality to the Koran itself, or even greater."^[30] Whether the tradition is authentic or not, it undoubtedly represents the consensus of Mohammedan opinion. From it we can understand the anxiety to preserve the remembrance of Mohammed s deeds and words.

The necessity of collecting the traditions was not simply private or personal. Questions arose concerning the state. Public law and administration had to be dealt with in just the same way as matters of individual right and wrong. If these questions were not answered by the Koran, they must be answered in some other way. Here, too, the most natural recourse was the precedents set by the original ruler. There was, to be sure, a possibility of arguing by analogy, and so of making the written law cover cases which were not directly provided for. Bat analogy is not always convincing, and the jurists early showed their distrust of it.^[31] Even with the best will in the world, the Koran could not be made to decide every question that arose.

These considerations show the importance which tradition early assumed in the public and private life of the Moslem. It is not different in other religions. The Jews have their Talmud for an authority along with the Bible. The early Church recognized Apostolic tradition as part of the rule of faith, and even those modern churches which have discarded tradition, find the need of Confessions, Canons, and Books of Discipline. In like manner there stands by the side of the Koran a body of tradition, almost equally venerated and more exactly obeyed. The process in this case stands in the clear light of his tory. When, immediately after the death of Mohammed, all Arabia seemed to revolt from Islam, attempts were made to treat with Abu Bekr for new conditions of peace. But the Caliph was like iron in maintain ing what the Prophet had imposed " If they with hold a kid from that which the Prophet required of them, I will declare war," was his declaration.^[32] The precedent was decisive. Henceforth the example of the Prophet was law to the whole of Islam.

The consequence could easily be foreseen. The intellectual activity of the new religion was turned to two subjects the study of the Koran and the collection of traditions. This was the beginning of Moslem science, and seldom has science had more devoted disciples. For two centuries the traditionists pursued their task, undisturbed by the storm of war which raged about them. They collected and preserved from the Helpers and Companions all that these could remember of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet. They took at second, third, and fourth hand all that was alleged to have come from the Helpers and Companions. The result was an enormous mass of material, which the more earnest and less biassed minds saw must be proved and sifted. Of the zeal in collecting, we have an example in Gabir Ibn Abdullah, who went a month's journey to hear a single tradition.^[33] Not a few journeyed from one end of the Mohammedan world to the other for the sake of this knowledge. "What was done in the way of testing and editing may be judged from the statement of Bochari that from six hundred thousand traditions he had selected only a little over seven thousand.^[34]

It is apart from our present purpose to go at length into the subject of tradition. Yet to illustrate the pains taken by Mohammedans in preserving the recollections of their prophet, I will venture to quote a single example. It reads as follows : "Adam Ibn Abi lyas tells us that Shayban tells us from Mansur from Mujahed from Taus from Ibn Abbas (God be pleased with both of them) that the Prophet (God bless and save him) said on the day of the surrender of Mecca : There is no more [duty of] Flight, but the Holy War and the Intention ; and when you are called to the Holy War, then go ! "^[35] The substance of the tradition is here a saying of the Prophet. But it might be as well, an action of his or a refusal to act, or his silence. The meaning of the saying here given is that, whereas before the conquest of Mecca, there rested upon believers an obligation to flee from that city as Mohammed himself had done, the obligation was now abrogated. But the merit of the action will be acquired by him who engages in war with unbelievers, or who sets his mind to accomplish the end which could formerly be reached only by flight, that is, to avoid temptation to apostasy. The importance of preserving such a dictum will be seen at once.

Six collections of traditions enjoy favor among the Moslems. I cannot claim acquaintance with any but Bochari, for which I have used the vocalized version, Bulak, without date. I cite from this by volume and page, as the traditions are not numbered. I have read, also, Captain Matthew's English translation of the Mishcat-ul-Masabih, Calcutta, 1809, 1810, two volumes, quarto.

Equally important is it that the dictum should be known to come from Mohammed. And it was with the desire to assure this, that the traditionists preserved in every case the chain of witnesses who reported the tradition. In the case cited, the saying went through six hands before it reached the author who put it on paper. It is obvious that defective memory or lack of veracity on the part of any one of these would vitiate the credibility of the tradition. The Mohammedan authors are well aware of this, and the critical activity which resulted in the rejection of so large a number of traditions consisted largely in an examination of the credibility of the narrators. That the editors were not free from bias in their decisions is only what we might expect. They were novices in the science of criticism, and could hardly be expected rightly to weigh tendencies which our own time has only begun to appreciate. In truth the Hadith^[36] must be regarded with marked scepticism, so far as it is used as a source for the life of Mohammed. The forgery or invention of traditions began very early. The Companions were not always too scrupulous to clothe their own opinions in the form of anecdotes. The greatest number of traditions are related by men who were very young when the Prophet came to Medina. One of these defends himself for remembering so many things that others could not recall a case where self-excuse is self-accusation. To invent what would cast honor on the name of the Apostle of God would seem to those times a meritorious fault, if fault at all, while there would be even stronger temptation to suppress anything that would not comport with his reputation. The same Companion (Abu Horaira) who defended himself for the profuseness of his memory, also confessed that he had two sorts of recollections ; one sort he was accustomed to relate, but it would have been as much as his life was worth to relate to others. These natural tendencies were magnified by the party spirit which early became rife in Islam. Each party counted among its adherents immediate followers of Mohammed. Each was anxious to justify itself by an appeal to his words and deeds. It is only the natural result that traditions with a notoriously party bias were circulated at an early day. A traditionist of the first rank admits that pious men were inclined to no sort of fraud so much as to the invention of traditions.^[37] The jurists moreover found that new legal precedents were almost a necessity, and (as in other systems of law) fiction was used as a means of adapting old laws to new cases. The jurists therefore encouraged the multiplication of traditions without any close inquiry into their authenticity.

From our point of view, therefore, many traditions, even if well authenticated to external appearance, bear internal evidence of forgery. For example, we read that the Apostle of Allah said : " The resurrection will not take place until people kill their own Imam [or divinely appointed ruler] and kill one another with swords and until a tyrannical king shall reign."^[38] There is an evident reference here to the killing of Ali and the succession of the Ommayads to the throne. An orthodox Moslem would see no objection to the probability of Mohammed's uttering such a prediction. His criticism could hardly be expected to question it ; while to us it bears evident marks of a later date.

I may give here an anecdote which illustrates the way in which the pious mind shrinks from too sharp criticism, or indeed from any criticism, of the documents which it has been accustomed to regard as sacred. A leading authority on the Hadith was once lecturing on the evidence for and against doubtful traditions, when a friend dropped in at the exercise. On being asked the subject of discussion, the lecturer replied : I am inquiring into the reliability and unreliability of certain scholars. "Are you not ashamed before God," asked the intruder, "to slander men who have already been in Paradise a hundred or two hundred years ? " The lecturer broke down in tears, and said : "Oh! if my ears had only heard these words before I began my work, I would never have composed it ! " The book foil from his hand and he was so much moved that ho could not continue the lecture.^[39]

Where the pious feeling enlists itself on the side of tradition we can hardly expect criticism to be very radical. The leading Moslem traditionists were men of this cast. Bochari never recorded a tradition without performing the ablution, and a prayer of four prostrations. He sincerely desired to get at the truth, and it is greatly to his credit that he brought himself to reject so large a proportion of the literature which he had been taught to regard with reverence. But we cannot suppose that his work or that of other editors like-minded with him is final.

Our conclusion is that for the life of Mohammed this great body of material must be used with great caution. But when the interest is rather in the first generations of Moslems than in Mohammed individually, the case is somewhat better. It has already been remarked of the Koran, that what the early believers supposed it to mean is nearly as valuable to us as what it actually means, or as what Mohammed intended it to mean. In the same way we can say of the traditions what the early Moslems suppose Mohammed to have said is nearly as valuable for us as what he actually did say. For we are concerned with the formative period of his religion, and this period extends beyond his death. Let me suppose in illustration that some Christian at the end of the second century had gathered and recorded for us all that oral tradition had to say of the words and actions of Jesus Christ. Seven thousand such fragments would be of priceless value. We could not be sure that in more than a small fraction of cases the tradition was reliable. The material could not be used for a life of Christ without great caution. Oral tradition is a doubtful thing. It is liable to suspicion in an increasing ratio as it passes through three, four, or five mouths. Yet such a collection would reveal to us the thoughts, beliefs, and customs of the early Church, and in this regard it would be beyond price. Such a collection we have for Islam. Bochari, the editor to whom I have alluded, lived through the first half of the third century of the Mohammedan era (he died A.H. 256). We cannot doubt that, with the care he took, the material he gathered was all considerably older than himself. It is not too much to assume that the traditions represent the views of the first hundred years after the death of Mohammed, and we may therefore use them to form our picture of primitive Islam.

So much it was necessary to say in order to justify the use of the traditions in our inquiry. We must not come to them, however, with extravagant expectations. We are inclined to suppose that the Biblical element in these will be large from the fact that so many converts were early made from both Judaism and Christianity. But the expectation is disappointed. For one thing, the interest of the compilers of tradition is very different from our own. They have preserved what is of secondary importance to us, while doubtless much of what they have discarded would be to us a welcome source of light. It seems, moreover, that the Koran had already, even in the first century of Islam, fully impressed itself as the supreme law, so that the tradition, while it illustrates, does not often add anything to its essential contents. The Koran remains the chief source of our knowledge.

The purpose of this lecture is fulfilled if it has set before you the nature of the problem with which we have to deal. The plan of the lectures sufficiently shows the order which the inquiry will follow. The plan itself indicates the close connection of Islam in its structure with the system which prevails in Judaism and in Christianity. If the plan proves to be in accordance with the facts presented by the sources already described, I shall consider that the inquiry is both interesting and profitable.

Original footnotes

1. ↑ Grimmp, Vriammed, Erstcr Toil, Da? Lebon, Miinster, 1802.
2. ↑ Snouck-Hungronje, MeJcka, II., p. 5.
3. ↑ Koran 2" 3 , cf. 48 s , 6 JH . It should be noticed that God is uniformly the speaker in the Koran.
4. ↑ The reverse opinion that the Mohammedans were God's instruments of punishment for heresy or schism was also maintained. Cf. Keller, Der Geisteskampf des Christentums gegen den Islam^ 1896, pp. 12, 56.
5. ↑ My copy is of the seventh edition, London, 1818, but the preface is dated 1696-97.
6. ↑ Prideaux, /. c., p. 7.
7. ↑ Joseph White, Sermons preached before the University of Oxford in the year 1784 at the Lecture founded by the Her. John Bampton, M.A. Second Edition, London, 1811, p. 47. Cf. also p. 85, where Mohammed is described as the impostor " whose false and impious pretences to divine revelation were . . . crowned with success."
8. ↑ OEuvres Completes de Voltaire, 1785, Tome III. The Tragedy was first acted August 9, 1742.
9. ↑ 0p. cit. Acte II. , Scene V.
10. ↑ I give the traditional data. Great uncertainty hangs over Mohammed's early life, especially over the chronology. For the epithet Faithful see : Das Leben Mohammed s nach Mohammed Ibn Ishak bearbeitet von Ibn Hischam, iibersetzt von Dr. Gustav Weil. Stuttgart, 1864, I., p. 94, ami Sprenger, Leben Mohammeds, I., p. 526.

    The name Abd Menaf for Mohammed's son is given by Miiller, Der Islam im Morgen-und Alendlande, I., p. 48; and the tradition that Mohammed offered a white sheep to the goddess Uzzah, by Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, III., p. ,"0.

11. ↑ Weil, Ibn ffischam, I., p. 125.
12. ↑ Dozy, Essai sur VHistoire de I Islamisme, Traduit par Chauvin, Lcyde et Paris, 1879, p. 119.
13. ↑ Snouck-Hurgronje, Mekka^ II., p. 74.
14. ↑ The Helpers (Ancar) are the people of Medina who welcomed Mohammed when he fled from Mecca.
15. ↑ These examples are taken from Weil, Ibn Ilischam, pp. 31, 71, 252, 231.
16. ↑ Koran 7 ISS , and cf. 6" et al. In RocJiari, III., p. 149, Mohammed intimates that his judgment in legal decisions is not infallible.
17. ↑ Cited by Goldziher, Mxhammedanische Studien, II., p. 271).
18. ↑ Mishcat ul Masabih (English translation), I., p. 280.
19. ↑ Bochari, I., p. 140; II., p. 14.
20. ↑ Koran 80 f . This is the traditional occasion for the passage. Grimrue objects to the tradition, but I see no sufficient reason for rejecting it.
21. ↑ Bochari, II., p. 84.
22. ↑ " When a man journeys and his thirst consumes him and he comes to a well and drinks, then comes away and sees a famished dog gnawing the dirt in his thirst, and says : This animal is in the condition in which I was ; then fills his boot and holds its mouth and comes and gives the dog to drink God rewards such a man and forgives him. The people said : 0, Apostle of Allah, do we receive a reward in the matter of animals? He replied : For every animal [literary : for every moist liver] there is a reward." Bochari, III., p. 71. Cf. also Wellhausen s Vdkidi, p. 327.
23. ↑ Mishcat, II., p. 42.
24. ↑ Bochari, II., pp. 41. 22G
25. ↑ Mislicai, I., p. 327.
26. ↑ The tradition appears in different forms: "The Banu Israel were divided into seventy-two tribes, and my people will be seventy-three. Every one will go to hell except one." MisTicat, I., p. 50. The more elaborate form gives the Zoroastrians seventy sects, the Jews seventy-one, Christians seventy-two, and Islam seventy-three. Dozy, rislamisme, p 196. Haarbriicker, Schahrastani s Religions-partheien und Philosophenschulen (1850), I., p. 3. The tradition is no doubt an invention.
27. ↑ Mishcat, I., p. 55. f Ibid., P. 2G4.
28. ↑ A sura is one of the divisions (chapters) of the Koran. The word seems to be borrowed from the Hebrew, where it meant a row of stones in a wall. The principle of arrangement, if we may call it so, is not applied with absolute rigor. The first sura is a short one.
29. ↑ The Apostle of Allah is an excellent pattern to him who fears Allah and the Last Day." (33". ) The tradition confirms this. Bochari, II., 152.
30. ↑ Mishcai, I., p. 48.
31. ↑ Cf. Goldziher, Die Zahiriten (1884), p. 5 ff.
32. ↑ Kremer, Kulturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chah fcn (1875), I., p. 14.
33. ↑ Bochari, I., p. 25.
34. ↑ The system of traditional science is set forth by Professor Salisbury in a paper entitled Contributions to our Knoulcdye of the Science of Muslim Tradition in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VII. (1860), pp. 60-142.
35. ↑ Bochari, IV., p. 35. The same tradition, II. p. 197.
36. ↑ Hadith is the technical term for a tradition of whatever kind. Sunna is customary law, generally, hut not necessarily, based on tradition. Cf. Goldziher, MuliammedaniscJie Studicn, II., p. 11. i, III., p. 2.
37. ↑ See the citation, Goldziber, Muhammedanisclie Studien, II., p. 47.
38. ↑ Mishcat, II., p. 533
39. ↑ Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, II., p. 272 f.