Books: The Koran

U >> Unknown >> The Koran

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93

8 This was the heresy of those called Encratitæ, and Aquarij. Khwâf, a
Magian heretic, also declared wine unlawful; but this was after Mohammed's
time. Hyde, de Rel. Vet. Pers. p. 300. 9 Vide Reland. de Rel. Moh.
p. 271. 10 Cap. 2, p. 23, c. 5, p. 84. 11 Some writers, as al
Zamakh. and al Shirâzi, mention but three blank arrows. 1
Auctores Nodhm al dorr, et Nothr al dorr, al Zamakh. al Firauzabâdi, al
Shirâzi in Orat. al Hariri, al Beidâwi, &c. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 324, &c.
2 Kor. c. 5, p. 73. 3 Vide Hyde, de Luchs Oriental. in
Prolog. ad Shahiludium.
4 Vide eund. ibid. 5 Vide eundem, ibid. and in Hist.
Shahiludij, p. 135, 6 Cap. 5, p. 84.

That the Arabs in Mohammed's time actually used such images for chess-men
appears from what is related, in the Sonna, of Ali, who passing accidentally
by some who were playing at chess, asked, "What images they were which they
were so intent upon?"7 for they were perfectly new to him, that game having
been but very lately introduced into Arabia, and not long before into Persia,
whither it was first brought from India in the reign of Khosrû Nûshirwân.8
Hence the Mohammedan doctors infer that the game was disapproved only for the
sake of the images: wherefore the Sonnites always play with plain pieces of
wood or ivory; but the Persians and Indians, who are not so scrupulous,
continue to make use of the carved ones.1
The Mohammedans comply with the prohibition of gaming much better than they
do with that of win; for though the common people among the Turks more
frequently, and the Persians more rarely, are addicted to play, yet the better
sort are seldom guilty of it.2
Gaming, at least to excess, has been forbidden in all well-ordered states.
Gaming-houses were reckoned scandalous places among the Greeks, and a gamester
is declared by Aristotle3 to be no better than a thief: the Roman senate made
very severe laws against playing at games of hazard,4 except only during the
Saturnalia; though the people played often at other times, notwithstanding the
prohibition: the civil law forbad all pernicious games;5 and though the laity
were, in some cases, permitted to play for money, provided they kept within
reasonable bounds, yet the clergy were forbidden to play at tables (which is a
game of hazard), or even to look on while others played.6 Accursius, indeed,
is of opinion they may play at chess, notwithstanding that law, because it is
a game not subject to chance,7 and being but newly invented in the time of
Justinian, was not then known in the western parts. However, the monks for
some time were not allowed even chess.8
As to the Jews, Mohammed's chief guides, they also highly disapprove
gaming: gamesters being severely censured in the Talmud, and their testimony
declared invalid.9
Another practice of the idolatrous Arabs forbidden also in one of the
above-mentioned passages,10 was that of divining by arrows. The arrows used
by them for this purpose were like those with which they cast lots, being
without heads or feathers, and were kept in the temple of some idol, in whose
presence they were consulted. Seven such arrows were kept at the temple of
Mecca;11 but generally in divination they made use of three only, on one of
which was written, "My LORD hath commanded me," on another, "My LORD hath
forbidden me," and the third was blank. If the first was drawn, they looked
on it as an approbation of the enterprise in question; if the second, they
made a contrary conclusion; but if the

7 Sokeiker al Dimishki, and Auctor libri al Mostatraf, apud Hyde, ubi sup.
p. 8. 8 Khondemir. apud eund. ibid. p. 41.
1 Vide Hyde, ubi sup. p. 9. 2 Vide eundem, in Proleg. and Chardin,
Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 46. 3 Lib. iv. ad Nicom. 4 Vide
Horat. l. 3. Carm. Od. 24. 5 ff. de Aleatoribus. Novell. Just. 123,
&c. Vide Hyde, ubi sup. in Hist. Aleæ, p. 119. 6 Authent.
interdicimus, c. de episcopis. 7 In com. ad Legem Præd.
8 Du Fresne, in Gloss. 9 Bava Mesia, 84, I; Rosh hashana and Sanhedr.
24, 2. Vide etiam Maimon. in Tract. Gezila. Among the modern civilians,
Mascardus thought common gamesters were not to be admitted as witnesses, being
infamous persons. Vide Hyde, ubi sup. in Proleg. et in Hist. Aleæ, § 3.
10 Kor. c. 5. 11 See before, p. 16.

third happened to be drawn, they mixed them and drew over again, till a
decisive answer was given by one of the others. These divining arrows were
generally consulted before anything of moment was undertaken; as when a man
was about to marry, or about to go a journey, or the like.1 This
superstitious practice of divining by arrows was used by the ancient Greeks,2
and other nations; and is particularly mentioned in scripture,3 where it is
said, that "the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head
of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright" (or, according
to the version of the Vulgate, which seems preferable in this place, "he mixed
together, or shook the arrows"), "he consulted with images," &c.; the
commentary of St. Jerome on which passage wonderfully agrees with what we are
told of the aforesaid custom of the old Arabs: "He shall stand," says he, "in
the highway, and consult the oracle after the manner of his nation, that he
may cast arrows into a quiver, and mix them together, being written upon or
marked with the names of each people, that he may see whose arrow will come
forth, and which city he ought first to attack."4
A distinction of meats was so generally used by the eastern nations, that
it is no wonder that Mohammed made some regulations in that matter. The
Korân, therefore, prohibits the eating of blood, and swine's flesh, and
whatever dies of itself, or is slain in the name or in honour of any idol, or
is strangled, or killed by a blow, or a fall, or by any other beast.5 In
which particulars Mohammed seems chiefly to have imitated the Jews, by whose
law, as is well known, all those things are forbidden; but he allowed some
things to be eaten which Moses did not,6 as camels' flesh7 in particular. In
cases of necessity, however, where a man may be in danger of starving, he is
allowed by the Mohammedan law to eat any of the said prohibited kinds of
food;8 and the Jewish doctors grant the same liberty in the same case.9
Though the aversion to blood and what dies of itself may seem natural, yet
some of the pagan Arabs used to eat both: of their eating of the latter some
instances will be given hereafter; and as to the former, it is said they used
to pour blood, which they sometimes drew from a live camel, into a gut, and
then broiled it in the fire, or boiled it, and ate it:1 this food they called
Moswadd, from Aswad which signifies black; the same nearly resembling our
black puddings in name as well as composition.2 The eating of meat offered to
idols I take to be commonly practised by all idolaters, being looked on as a
sort of communion in their worship, and for that reason esteemed by
Christians, if not absolutely unlawful, yet as what may be the occasion of
great scandal:3 but the Arabs were particularly superstitious in this matter,
killing what they ate on stones erected on purpose around the Caaba, or near
their own houses, and calling, at the same time, on the name of some idol.4
Swine's flesh, indeed, the old Arabs seem not to have eaten; and their
prophet, in

1 Ebn al Athîr, al Zamakh. and al Beid. in Kor. c. 5. Al Mostatraf, &c.
Vide poc. Spec. p. 327, &c., and D'Herbel. Bibl. Orient. Art Acdâh.
2 Vide Potter, Antiq. of Greece, vol. i. p. 334. 3 Ezek.
xxi. 21. 4 Vide Poc. Spec. p. 329, &c. 5 Cap. 2, p. 18;
c. 5, p. 73; c. 6; and c. 16. 6 Lev. xi. 4. 7 See Kor. c. 3,
p. 37 and 42, and c. 6. 8 Kor. c. 5, p. 74, and in the other passages
last quoted. 9 Vide Maimon. in Halachoth Melachim. c. 8, § i., &c.
1 Nothr al dorr, al Firauz., al Zamakh., and al Beid.
2 Poc. Spec. p. 320.
3 Compare Acts xv. 29 with I Cor. viii. 4, &c. 4 See the fifth chapter
of the Kor. p. 73, and the notes there.

prohibiting the same, appears to have only confirmed the common aversion of
the nation. Foreign writers tell us that the Arabs wholly abstained from
swine's flesh,5 thinking it unlawful to feed thereon,6 and that very few, if
any, of those animals are found in their country, because it produces not
proper food for them;7 which has made one writer imagine that if a hog were
carried thither, it would immediately die.8
In the prohibition of usury9 I presume Mohammed also followed the Jews, who
are strictly forbidden by their law to exercise it among one another, though
they are so infamously guilty of it in their dealing with those of a different
religion: but I do not find the prophet of the Arabs has made any distinction
in this matter.
Several superstitious customs relating to cattle, which seem to have been
peculiar to the pagan Arabs, were also abolished by Mohammed. The Korân10
mentions four names by them given to certain camels or sheep, which for some
particular reasons were left at free liberty, and were not made use of as
other cattle of the same kind. These names are Bahîra, Sâïba, Wasîla, and
Hâmi: of each whereof in their order.
As to the first, it is said that when a she-camel, or a sheep, had borne
young ten times, they used to slit her ear, and turn her loose to feed at full
liberty; and when she died, her flesh was eaten by the men only, the women
being forbidden to eat thereof: and such a camel or sheep, from the slitting
of her ear, they called Bahîra. Or the Bahîra was a she-camel, which was
turned loose to feed, and whose fifth young one, if it proved a male, was
killed and eaten by men and women promiscuously; but if it proved a female,
had its ear slit, and was dismissed to free pasture, none being permitted to
make use of its flesh or milk, or to ride on it; though the women were allowed
to eat the flesh of it when it died: or it was the female young of the Sâïba,
which was used in the same manner as its dam; or else an ewe, which had yeaned
five times.1 These, however, are not all the opinions concerning the Bahîra:
for some suppose that name was given to a she-camel, which, after having
brought forth young five times, if the last was a male, had her ear slit, as a
mark thereof, and was let go loose to feed, none driving her from pasture or
water, nor using her for carriage;2 and others tell us, that when a camel had
newly brought forth, they used to slit the ear of her young one, saying, "O
GOD, if it live, it shall be for our use, but if it die, it shall be deemed
rightly slain;" and when it died, they ate it.3
Sâïba signifies a she-camel turned loose to go where she will. And this
was done on various accounts: as when she had brought forth females ten times
together; or in satisfaction of a vow; or when a man had recovered from
sickness, or returned safe from a journey, or his camel had escaped some
signal danger either in battle or otherwise. A camel so turned loose was
declared to be Sâïba, and, as a mark of it, one of the vertebræ or bones was
taken out of her back, after which none might drive her from pasture or water,
or ride on her.4 Some say that the Sâïba, when she had ten times together
brought forth females, was suffered to go at liberty, none being allowed to
ride on her, and

5 Solin. de Arab. c. 33. 6 Hieronym. in Jovin. l. 2, c. 6.
7 Idem, ibid.
8 Solinus, ubi supra. 9 Kor. c. 2, p. 33, 34. 10 Cap. 5,
p. 86. 1 Al Zamakh., al Beidâwi, al Mostatraf. 3 Ebn al
Athîr. 4 Al Firauzab., al Zamakh.

that her milk was not to be drank by any but her young one, or a guest, till
she died; and then her flesh was eaten by men as well as women, and her last
female young one had her ear slit, and was called Bahîra, and turned loose as
her dam had been.5
This appellation, however, was not so strictly proper to female camels, but
that it was given to the male when his young one had begotten another young
one:6 nay, a servant set at liberty and dismissed by his master, was also
called Sâïba;7 and some are of opinion that the word denotes an animal which
the Arabs used to turn loose in honour of their idols, allowing none to make
uses of them, thereafter, except women only.1
Wasîla is, by one author,2 explained to signify a she-camel which had
brought forth ten times, or an ewe which had yeaned seven times, and every
time twin; and if the seventh time she brought forth a male and a female, they
said, "Wosilat akhâha," i.e., "She is joined," or, "was brought forth with her
brother," after which none might drink the dam's milk, except men only; and
she was used as the Sâïba. Or Wasîla was particularly meant of sheep; as when
an ewe brought forth a female, they took it to themselves, but when she
brought forth a male, they consecrated it to their gods, but if both a male
and a female, they said, "She is joined to her brother," and did not sacrifice
that male to their gods: or Wasîla was an ewe which brought forth first a
male, and then a female, on which account, or because she followed her
brother, the male was not killed; but if she brought forth a male only, they
said, "Let this be an offering to our gods."3 Another4 writes, that if an ewe
brought forth twins seven times together, and the eighth time a male, they
sacrificed that male to their gods; but if the eighth time she brought both a
male and a female, they used to say, "She is joined to her brother," and for
the female's sake they spared the male, and permitted not the dam's milk to be
drunk by women. A third writer tell us, that Wasîla was an ewe, which having
yeaned seven times, if that which she brought forth the seventh time was a
male, they sacrificed it, but if a female, it was suffered to go loose, and
was made use of by women only; and if the seventh time she brought forth both
a male and a female, they held them both to be sacred, so that men only were
allowed to make any use of them, or to drink the milk of the female: and a
fourth5 describes it to be an ewe which brought forth ten females at five
births one after another, i.e., every time twins, and whatever she brought
forth afterwards was allowed to men, and not to women, &c.
Hâmi was a male camel used for a stallion, which, if the females had
conceived ten times by him, was afterwards freed from labour, and let go
loose, none driving him from pasture or from water; nor was any allowed to
receive the least benefit from him, not even to shear his hair.6
These things were observed by the old Arabs in honour of their false gods,1
and as part of the worship which they paid them, and were ascribed to the
divine institution; but are all condemned in the Korân, and declared to be
impious superstitions.2

5 Al Jawhari, Ebn al Athîr. 6 Al Firauz. 7 Idem, al
Jawhari, &c. 1 Nothr al dorr and Nodhm al dorr. 2 Al
Firauz. 3 Idem, al Zamakh. 4 Al Jawhari. 5 Al
Motarrezi.
6 Al Firauz., al Jawhari. 1 Jallal. in Kor. 2 Kor. c.
5, p. 86, and c. 6. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 330-334.

The law of Mohammed also put a stop to the inhuman custom which had been long
practised by the Pagan Arabs, of burying their daughters alive, lest they
should be reduced to poverty by providing for them, or else to avoid the
displeasure and the disgrace which would follow, if they should happen to be
made captives, or to become scandalous by their behaviour;3 the birth of a
daughter being, for these reasons, reckoned a great misfortune,4 and the death
of one as a great happiness.5 The manner of their doing this is differently
related: some say that when an Arab had a daughter born, if he intended to
bring her up, he sent her, clothed in a garment of wool or hair, to keep
camels or sheep in the desert; but if he designed to put her to death, he let
her live till she became six years old, and then said to her mother, "Perfume
her, and adorn her, that I may carry her to her mothers;" which being done,
the father led her to a well or pit dug for that purpose, and having bid her
to look down into it, pushed her in headlong, as he stood behind her, and then
filling up the pit, levelled it with the rest of the ground; but others say,
that when a woman was ready to fall in labour, they dug a pit, on the brink
whereof she was to be delivered, and if the child happened to be a daughter,
they threw it into the pit, but if a son, they saved it alive.6 This custom,
though not observed by all the Arabs in general, was yet very common among
several of their tribes, and particularly those of Koreish and Kendah; the
former using to bury their daughters alive in Mount Abu Dalâma, near Mecca.7
In the time of ignorance, while they used this method to get rid of their
daughters, Sásaá, grandfather to the celebrated poet al Farazdak, frequently
redeemed female children from death, giving for every one two she-camels big
with young, and a he-camel; and hereto al Farazdak alluded when, vaunting
himself before one of the Khalîfs of the family of Omeyya, he said, "I am the
son of the giver of life to the dead;" for which expression being censured, he
excused himself by alleging the following words of the Korân,8 "He who saveth
a soul alive, shall be as if he had saved the lives of all mankind."1 The
Arabs, in thus murdering of their children, were far from being singular; the
practice of exposing infants and putting them to death being so common among
the ancients, that it is remarked as a thing very extraordinary in the
Egyptians, that they brought up all their children;2 and by the laws of
Lycurgus3 no child was allowed to be brought up without the approbation of
public officers. At this day, it is said, in China, the poorer sort of people
frequently put their children, the females especially, to death with
impunity.4
This wicked practice is condemned by the Korân in several passages;5 one of
which, as some commentators6 judge, may also condemn

3 Al Beidâwi, al Zamakh., al Mostatraf. 4 See Kor. c. 16.
5 Al Meidâni. 6 Al Zamakh.
7 Al Mostatraf. 8 Cap. 5, p. 77. 1 Al Mostatraf. Vide Ebn
Khalekân, in Vita al Farazdak, and Poc Spec. p. 334. 2 Strabo, l. 17.
Vide Diodor. Sic. l. I, c. 80. 3 Vide Plutarch, in Lycurgo.
4 Vide Pufendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent. l. 6, c. 7, § 6. The Grecians
also treated daughters especially in this manner-whence that saying of
Posidippus:
[Greek text],-i.e.,
"A man, tho' poor, will not expose his son;
But if he's rich, will scarce preserve his daughter."-
See Potter's Antiq. of Greece, vol. ii. p. 333. 5 Cap. 6, p. 101, 103;
c. 16; and c. 17. See also chap. 81.
6 Al Zamakh., al Beid.

another custom of the Arabians, altogether as wicked, and as common among
other nations of old, viz., the sacrificing of their children to their idols;
as was frequently done, in particular, in satisfaction of a vow they used to
make, that if they had a certain number of sons born, they would offer one of
them in sacrifice.
Several other superstitious customs were likewise abrogated by Mohammed,
but the same being of less moment, and not particularly mentioned in the
Korân, or having been occasionally taken notice of elsewhere, I shall say
nothing of them in this place.

______

SECTION VI.

OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE KORAN IN CIVIL AFFAIRS.

THE Mohammedan civil law is founded on the precepts and determinations of the
Korân, as the civil laws of the Jews were on those of the Pentateuch; yet
being variously interpreted, according to the different decisions of their
civilians, and especially of their four great doctors, Abu Hanîfa, Malec, al
Shâfeï, and Ebn Hanbal,7 to treat thereof fully and distinctly in the manner
the curiosity and usefulness of the subject deserves, would require a large
volume; wherefore the most that can be expected here, is a summary view of the
principal institutions, without minutely entering into a detail of
particulars. We shall begin with those relating to marriage and divorce.
That polygamy, for the moral lawfulness of which the Mohammedan doctors
advance several arguments,1 is allowed by the Korân, every one knows, though
few are acquainted with the limitations with which it is allowed. Several
learned men have fallen into the vulgar mistake that Mahommed granted to his
followers an unbounded plurality; some pretending that a man may have as many
wives,2 and others as many concubines,3 as he can maintain: whereas, according
to the express words of the Korân,4 no man can have more than four, whether
wives or concubines;5 and if a man apprehend any inconvenience from even that
number of ingenuous wives, it is added, as an advice (which is generally
followed by the middling and inferior people),6 that he marry one only, or, if
he cannot be contented with one, that he take up with his she-slaves, not
exceeding, however, the limited number;7 and this

7 See Sect. VIII. 1 See before, Sect. II., p. 31. 2
Nic.Cusanus, in Cribrat. Alcor. l. 2, c. 19. Olearius, in Itinerar. P. Greg.
Thoslosanus, in Synt. Juris, l. 9, c. 2, § 22. Septemcastrensis (de Morib.
Turc. p. 24) says the Mohammedans may have twelve lawful wives, and no more.
Ricaut falsely asserts the restraint of the number of their wives to be no
precept of their religion, but a rule superinduced on a politic consideration.
Pres. State of the Ottoman Empire, bk. iii, c. 21.
3 Marracc. in Prodr. ad Refut. Alcor. part iv. p. 52 and 71. Prideaux, Life
of Mah. p. 114. Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. i. p. 166. Du Ryer, Sommaire de
la Rel. des Turcs, mis à la tête de sa version de l'Alcor. Ricaut, ubi supra.
Pufendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent. l. 6, c. I, § 18. 4 Cap. 4, p. 53.
5 Vide Gagnier, in Notis and Abulfedæ Vit. Moh. p. 150 Reland. de Rel.
Moh. p. 243, &c., and Selden, Ux. Hebr. l. r, c. 9. 6 Vide Reland ubi
sup. p. 244. 7 Kor. c. 4, p. 53.

is certainly the utmost Mohammed allowed his followers: nor can we urge as an
argument against so plain a precept, the corrupt manners of his followers,
many of whom, especially men of quality and fortune, indulge themselves in
criminal excesses;8 nor yet the example of the prophet himself, who had
peculiar privileges in this and other points, as will be observed hereafter.
In making the above-mentioned limitation, Mohammed was directed by the
decision of the Jewish doctors, who, by way of counsel, limit the number of
wives to four,9 though their law confines them not to any certain number.10
Divorce is also well known to be allowed by the Mohammedan law, as it was
by the Mosaic, with this difference only, that, according to the latter, a man
could not take again a woman whom he had divorced, and who had been married or
betrothed to another;1 whereas Mohammed, to prevent his followers from
divorcing their wives on every light occasion, or out of an inconstant humour,
ordained that, if a man divorced his wife the third time (for he might divorce
her twice without being obliged to part with her, if he repented of what he
had done), it should not be lawful for him to take her again until she had
been first married and bedded by another, and divorced by such second
husband.2 And this precaution has had so good an effect that the Mohammedans
are seldom known to proceed to the extremity of divorce, notwithstanding the
liberty given them, it being reckoned a great disgrace so to do; and there are
but few, besides those who have little or no sense of honour, that will take a
wife again on the condition enjoined.3 It must be observed that, though a man
is allowed by the Mohammedan, as by the Jewish law,4 to repudiate his wife
even on the slightest disgust, yet the women are not allowed to separate
themselves from their husbands, unless it be for ill-usage, want of proper
maintenance, neglect of conjugal duty, impotency, or some cause of equal
import; but then she generally loses her dowry,5 which she does not if
divorced by her husband, unless she has been guilty of impudicity or notorious
disobedience.6
When a woman is divorced she is obliged, by the direction of the Korân, to
wait till she hath had her courses thrice, or, if there be a doubt whether she
be subject to them or not, by reason of her age, three months, before she
marry another; after which time expired, in case she be found not with child,
she is at full liberty to dispose of herself as she pleases; but if she prove
with child, she must wait till she be delivered; and during her whole term of
waiting she may continue in the husband's house, and is to be maintained at
his expense, it being forbidden to turn the woman out before the expiration of
the term, unless she be guilty of dishonesty.7 Where a man divorces a woman