S. (part 1)

ṢĀʿ (صاع‎) or ṢUWĀʿ (صواع‎). A certain measure used for measuring corn, and upon which depend the decisions of Muslims relating to measures of capacity. It occurs in the Qurʾān, Sūrah xii. 72, for the drinking-cup placed by Joseph in his brother’s pack.

The compiler of the Tāju ʾl-ʿArūs, says that according to five different readers of the Qurʾān, it is given ṣuwāʿ in that verse, but in the majority of texts it is ṣāʿ.

The Qāmūs explains ṣuwāʿ as a certain vessel from which one drinks, and ṣāʿ, a measure of capacity. Its invariable measure being, according to ancient authorities, four times the quantity of corn that fills two hands of a man of moderate size.

Al-Baiẓāwī records, besides ṣuwāʿ and ṣāʿ, the reading ṣauʿ and ṣuwāg͟h.

SABAʾ (سبا‎). (1) A tribe of Yaman, whose dwelling-places are called Maʾrib, mentioned in the XXXIVth Sūrah of the Qurʾān (entitled the Sūratu Sabaʾ), verse 14:—

“A sign there was to Sabaʾ in their dwelling places:—two gardens, the one on the right hand and the other on the left:—‘Eat ye of your Lord’s supplies, and give thanks to him: Goodly is the country, and gracious is the Lord!’

“But they turned aside: so we sent upon them the flood of Iram; and we changed them their gardens into two gardens of bitter fruit and tamarisk and some few jujube trees.

“Such was our retribution on them for their ingratitude.”

M. Caussin de Perceval, Hist. des Arabes, vol. iii., as well as M. de Sacy, fix this event in the second century of the Christian era.

(2) Also the name of a province referred to in the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxvii. 21, where it seems to be identical with the Sheba ‏שֵׁבָא‎ of the Bible, or the country of the Queen of Sheba:—

“Nor tarried it (the lapwing) long ere it came and said, ‘I have gained the knowledge that thou knowest not, and with sure tidings have I come to thee from Sabaʾ:

“ ‘I found a woman reigning over them, gifted with everything, and she hath a splendid throne;

“And I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of God; and Satan hath made their works fair seeming to them, so that he hath turned them from the Way: wherefore they are not guided,

“To the worship of God, who bringeth to light the secret things of heaven and earth, and knoweth what men conceal and what they manifest:

“God: there is no god but He! the lord of the glorious throne!”

For a discussion of the identity of the Sabaʾ of Arabia with the Sheba of the Bible, refer to the word Sheba in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

SABʿATU-AḤRUF (سبعة احرف‎). [SEVEN DIALECTS.]

SABAʿU ʾL-MAS̤ĀNI (سبع المثانى‎). Lit. “The Seven Repetitions.” A title given to the Introductory Chapter of the Qurʾān by Muḥammad himself. (Mishkāt, book viii. ch. i.) There are three reasons assigned for this title:—

(1) Because it is a chapter of seven verses, which is said to have been revealed twice over.

(2) Because it contains seven words twice repeated, namely, Allāh, God; Raḥmān, Compassionate; Raḥīm, Merciful; Iyākā, Thee and to Thee; Ṣīrāt̤, Way; ʿAlaihim, to whom and with whom; G͟hair, Not, and Lā, Not.

(3) Because the seven verses are generally recited twice during an ordinary prayer. (See Majmaʿu ʾl-Biḥār, in loco; and ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq.)

SABBATH. The term used in the Qurʾān for the Jewish Sabbath is Sabt (سبت‎), a corruption of the Hebrew ‏שַׁבָּת‎ Shabbāth. It occurs five times in the Qurʾān:—

Sūrah ii. 61: “Ye know, too, those of you who transgressed on the Sabbath, and to whom We (God) said, ‘Become scouted apes.’ ”

Sūrah iv. 50: “Or curse you as We (God) cursed the Sabbath breakers.”

Sūrah iv. 153: “We (God) said to them (Israel), ‘Break not the Sabbath.’ ”

Sūrah vii. 163: “And ask them (the Jews) about the city that stood by the sea when its inhabitants broke the Sabbath; when their fish came to them appearing openly on their Sabbath-day, but not to them on the day when they kept no Sabbath.”

Sūrah xvi. 125: “The Sabbath was only ordained for those who differed about it.”

In explanation of these verses, the commentator, al-Baiẓāwī relates the following traditions. Moses gave orders for the observance of the Day of Rest on Friday; but the Jews would not obey, and declared that they would observe Saturday, as it was on that day that God rested from creation, so it came to pass that “the Sabbath was ordained for those who differed about it.” But in the time of King David, certain people began to break the Sabbath by fishing in the Red Sea near the town of Ailah (Elath), and as a punishment they were turned into apes.

For an account of the Muḥammadan Sabbath, see FRIDAY.

SABEANS. Arabic Ṣābiʾ (صابىء‎), pl. Ṣābiʾūn. Probably from the Hebrew ‏צָבָא‎ tsābā, “a host.” Gen. ii. 1, i.e. “Those who worship the hosts of heaven.” According to some Arabic writers, the Ṣābiʾūn were a certain sect of unbelievers who worshipped the stars secretly, and openly professed to be Christians. According to others, they are of the religion of Ṣābiʾ, the son of Seth, the son of Adam; whilst others say their religion resembled that of the Christians, except that their qiblah was towards the south, from whence the wind blows. In the Qāmūs it is said they were of the religion of Noah. The word ṣābiʾ also means one who has departed from one religion to another religion, and the Arabs used to call the Prophet aṣ-Ṣābiʾ, because he departed from the religion of the Quraish to al-Islām. (See Lane’s Dict. in loco.) Al-Baiẓāwī says some assert they were worshippers of angels, others that they were the worshippers of the stars.

They are mentioned three times in the Qurʾān, and from the following verses it would appear that Muḥammad regarded them as believers in the true God.

Sūrah ii. 50: “They who believe and they who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—whoever believeth in God and the Last Day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord.”

Sūrah v. 73: “They who believe, and the Jews and the Sabeans, and the Christians—whoever of them believeth in God, and in the Last Day, and doeth what is right, on them shall no fear come; neither shall they be put to grief.”

Sūrah xxii. 17: “They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeans, and the Christians, and the Magians, and those who join other gods with God, verily God shall decide between them on the Day of Resurrection.”

ṢĀBIʾ (صابىء‎). [SABEANS.]

SABĪLU ʾLLĀH (سبيل الله‎). “The road of God.” A term used for religious warfare and other meritorious deeds; e.g. Qurʾān, Sūrah ii.:—

Verse 149: “And say not of those who are slain in the road of God that they are dead, but rather that they are living.”

Verse 263: “Those who expend their wealth in the road of God.” [JIHAD.]

SABT (سبت‎). [SABBATH.]

SACRAMENTS, CHRISTIAN. [EUCHARIST, BAPTISM.]

SACRIFICE. There are six words used in the Muḥammadan religion to express the idea of sacrifice.

(1) ذبح‎ ẕabḥ, Hebrew ‏זֶבַח‎ zebach. Like the Hebrew word (Gen. xxxi. 54), the Arabic is used generally for slaughtering animals, whether on the Great Festival of Sacrifice [ʿIDU ʾL-AZHA], or, at ordinary times, for food. In the Qāmūs, the word ẕabḥ is defined “to split or pierce; to cut the throat of any creature.” In the Qurʾān, the word is used for the slaughtering of the heifer by Moses (Sūrah ii. 63), for the slaying of the sons of Israel by Pharaoh (Sūrah ii. 46), for sacrificing to idols (Sūrah v. 4); and for the intention of Abraham to sacrifice his son (Sūrah xxxvii. 101).

(2) قربان‎ qurbān, Hebrew ‏קָרְבָּן‎ korbān (Lev. ii. 14), Lit. “Approaching near.” It occurs twice in the Qurʾān, for the sacrifice to be devoured by fire from heaven, which the Jews demanded of Muḥammad (Sūrah iii. 179), and for the offering of the sons of Adam (Sūrah v. 30). It is a word frequently employed in Islām to express the ordinary sacrifice, and the great festival is called in Persia the ʿĪd-i-Qurbān, or “Feast of Sacrifice.”

(3) نحر‎ naḥr. Lit. “To injure the jugular vein.” Used for stabbing the breast of a camel, as in sacrifice, hence the sacrifice itself. It occurs once in the Qurʾān, Sūrah cviii. 1, 2: “Verily we have given thee al-Kaus̤ar, so pray to thy Lord and sacrifice,” which al-Baiẓāwī says means to sacrifice a camel, the most costly victim of the Arabians. The ʿĪdu ʾl-Aẓḥā is called the Yaumu ʾn-Naḥr. [ʿIDU ʾL-AZHA.]

(4) اضحية‎ uẓḥīyah. A word which does not occur in the Qurʾān, but in the Traditions it is the subject of a Chapter in Mishkātu ʾl-Maṣābīḥ (book iv. ch. xlix.). According to the Qāmūs, it is derived from ẓaḥw, ẓuḥā, a word which expresses that time of the day when the sun has risen to a considerable height, about 10 A.M. (Ṣalātu ʾẓ-Ẓuḥā, being a voluntary prayer at that hour). Uẓḥīyah is therefore the sacrifice offered about 10 o’clock on the day of the Great Festival.

(5) هدى‎ Hady, or, according to another reading, Hadī. Occurs four times in the Qurʾān, Sūrahs ii. 193, v. 2, , , for offering of an animal for sacrifice sent to the temple at Makkah, when the pilgrim is not able to reach in time. The Qāmūs defines it as that “which is presented.” Al-Baiẓāwī (Tafsīr, p. 100) gives Hady as the plural form of Hadyah and Hadī as that of Hadīyah. The latter occurs in the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxvii. 35, for an offering or gift, and seems to have the same meaning as the Hebrew ‏מִנְחָה‎ minchah, which is used in the Old Testament for a gift or tribute (Gen. iv. 3), and also for the unbloody sacrifice or “meat offering” (Lev. ii. 1).

(6) منسك‎ mansak. Occurs in the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxii. 35: “We have appointed to every nation a rite (mansak).” Sūrah ii. 122: “Show us our rites” (manāsik): also verse 196. Al-Baiẓāwī (Tafsīr, p. 91), to the first passage, says the word means a place of devotion, or a sacrifice which draws a man near to God, and mentions another reading, mansik, a place of worship, of which manāsik is likewise the plural. The word, as quoted above, as well as the plural form, is translated by the late Professor Palmer “rites.” [RITES.]

II. There are only two occasions upon which Muḥammadans sacrifice, namely, on the Great Festival held on the 10th day of Ẕū ʾl-Ḥijjah [ʿIDU ʾL-AZHA] and on the birth of a child [AQIQAH].

(1) The great sacrifice recognised by the Muslim faith is that on the Great Festival, called the ʿĪdu ʾl-Aẓḥā, or “Feast of Sacrifice.” This sacrifice is not only offered by the pilgrims at Makkah, but in all parts of Islām, upon the day of sacrifice. In the first place, this sacrifice is said to have been established in commemoration of Abraham having consented to sacrifice his son (most Muslims say it was Ishmael), as recorded in the Qurʾān, when it is said God “ransomed his (Abraham’s) son with a costly victim” (Sūrah xxxvii. 107); but Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, in his commentary on the Mishkāt, also says that al-Uẓḥīyah, “the sacrifice,” is that which at the special time (i.e. on the festival) is slaughtered with the object of obtaining nearness to God.

(2) The teaching of the Qurʾān on the subject of sacrifice is conveyed in the following verses (Sūrah xxii. 37):—

“The bulky (camels) we made for you one of the symbols of God (Shaʿāʾiri ʾllāhi), therein have ye good. So mention the name of God over them as they stand in a row (for sacrifice), and when they fall down (dead), eat of them and feed the easily contented and him who begs. Thus have we subjected them to you: haply ye may give thanks. Their flesh will never reach to God, nor yet their blood, but the piety from you will reach Him.”

Al-Baiẓāwī on this verse says, “It, the flesh of the sacrifice, does not reach unto God, nor its blood, but the piety (taqwā) that is the sincerity and intention of your heart.” (Tafsīru ʾl-Baiẓāwī, vol. ii. p. 52.)

(3) In the Traditions (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xlix.) we have the following:—

Anas says: “The prophet sacrificed two rams, one was black, and the other was white, and he put his foot on their sides as he killed them, and cried out, ‘Biʾ-smi ʾllāhi, Allāhu akbar! In the name of God! God is most great!’ ”

ʿĀyishah says: “The Prophet ordered a ram with horns to be brought to him, and one that should walk in blackness, sleep in blackness, and look in blackness” (by which he meant with black legs, black breast and belly, and black eyes), “and he said, ‘O ʿĀyishah, give me a knife and sharpen it!’ And I did so. Then the Prophet took hold of the ram and threw him on his side and slew it. And when he was killing it he said, ‘In the name of God! O God accept this from Muḥammad, and from his children, and from his tribe!’ Afterwards he gave to the people their morning meal from the slaughtered ram.”

Jābir says: “The Prophet sacrificed two rams on the day of the Festival of Sacrifice, which were black or white, and had horns, and were castrated; and when he turned their heads towards the Qiblah, he said, ‘Verily I have turned my face to Him who brought the heavens and the earth into existence from nothing, according to the religion of Abraham, and I am not of the polytheists. Verily my prayers, my worshipping, my life, and my death, are for God, the Lord of the universe, who hath no partner; and I have been ordered to believe in one God, and to abandon associating any other god with Him; and I am one of the Muslims. O God! this sacrifice is of Thee, and for Thee; accept it then from Muḥammad and his people!’ And he added, ‘In the name of God! the Great God!’ and then killed them.”

ʿAlī said: “The Prophet has ordered me to see that there be no blemish in the animal to be sacrificed; and not to sacrifice one with the ears cut, either at the top or the bottom, or split lengthways, or with holes made in them. The Prophet prohibited sacrificing a ram with broken horns, or slit ears.”

ʿĀyishah relates that the Prophet said: “Man hath not done anything, on the day of sacrifice, more pleasing to God than spilling blood; for verily the animal sacrificed will come on the Day of Resurrection, with its horns, its hair, its hoofs, and will make the scales of his actions heavy; and verily its blood reacheth the acceptance of God before it falleth upon the ground; therefore be joyful in it.”

Zaid Ibn Arqam relates: “The Companions said, ‘O messenger of God! what are these sacrifices, and whence is their origin?’ He said, ‘These sacrifices are conformable to the laws of your father Abraham.’ They said, ‘O Prophet! what are our rewards therefrom?’ He said, ‘There is a reward annexed to every hair.’ The Companions then said, ‘O Prophet! what are the rewards from the sacrifices of camels and sheep, that have wool?’ He said, ‘There is a good reward also for every hair of their wool.’ ”

(4) The following is the teaching of the Hidāyah regarding the nature and conditions of the sacrifice:—

It is the duty of every free Muslim arrived at the age of maturity to offer a sacrifice, on the ʿĪdu ʾl-Aẓḥā, or “Festival of the Sacrifice,” provided he be then possessed of a Niṣāb (i.e. sufficient property), and be not a traveller. This is the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah, Muḥammad, Zufar, and Ḥasan, and likewise of Abū Yūsuf, according to one tradition. According to another tradition, and also according to ash-Shāfiʿī, sacrifice is not an indispensable duty, but only laudable. At-Tahāwī reports that, in the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah, it is indispensable, whilst the disciples hold it to be in a strong degree laudable. The offering of a sacrifice is incumbent on a man on account of himself, and on account of his infant child. This is the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah in one tradition. In another he has said that it is not incumbent on a man to offer a sacrifice for his child. In fact, according to Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf, a father or guardian is to offer a sacrifice at the expense of the child (when he is possessed of property), eating what parts of it are eatable, and selling the remaining parts that are valuable in their substance, such as the skin, &c. Muḥammad, Zufar, and ash-Shāfiʿī have said that a father is to sacrifice on account of his child at his own expense, and not at that of the child. The sacrifice established for one person is a goat; and that for seven, a cow or a camel. If a cow be sacrificed for any number of people fewer than seven, it is lawful; but it is otherwise if sacrificed on account of eight. If for a party of seven people the contribution of any one of them should be less than a seventh share, the sacrifice is not valid on the part of any one of them. If a camel that is jointly and in an equal degree the property of two men should be sacrificed by them on their own account, it is lawful; and in this case they must divide the flesh by weight, as flesh is an article of weight. If, on the contrary, they distribute it from conjectural estimation, it is not lawful, unless they add to each share of the flesh part of the head, neck, and joints. If a person purchase a cow, with an intent to sacrifice it on his own account, and he afterwards admit six others to join with him in the sacrifice, it is lawful. It is, however, most advisable that he associate with the others at the time of purchase, in order that the sacrifice may be valid in the opinion of all our doctors, as otherwise there is a difference of opinion. It is related from Abū Ḥanīfah that it is abominable to admit others to share in a sacrifice after purchasing the animal, for, as the purchase was made with a view to devotion, the sale of it is therefore an abomination.

The time of offering the sacrifice is on the morning of the day of the festival, but it is not lawful for the inhabitants of a city to begin the sacrifice until their Imām shall have finished the stated prayers for the day. Villagers, however, may begin after break of day. The place, in fact, must regulate the time. Thus, where the place of celebration is in the country, and the performers of it reside in the city, it is lawful to begin in the morning; but if otherwise, it must be deferred until the stated prayers be ended. If the victim be slain after the prayers of the Mosque, and prior to those offered at the place of sacrifice [IDGAH], it is lawful, as is likewise the reverse of this. Sacrifice is lawful during three days—that is, on the day of the festival, and on the two ensuing days. Ash-Shāfiʿī is of opinion that it is lawful on the three ensuing days. The sacrifice of the day of the festival is far superior to any of the others. It is also lawful to sacrifice on the nights of those days, although it be considered as undesirable. Moreover, the offering of sacrifices on these days is more laudable than the custom of omitting them, and afterwards bestowing an adequate sum of money upon the poor. If a person neglect the performance of a sacrifice during the stated days, and have previously determined upon the offering of any particular goat, for instance; or, being poor, have purchased a goat for that purpose,—in either of these cases it is incumbent on him to bestow it alive in charity. But if he be rich, it is in that case incumbent on him to bestow in charity a sum adequate to the price, whether he have purchased a goat with an intent to sacrifice it or not. It is not lawful to sacrifice animals that are blemished, such as those that are blind, or lame, or so lean as to have no marrow in their bones, or having a great part of their ears or tail cut off. Such, however, as have a great part of their ears or tail remaining may lawfully be sacrificed. Concerning the determination of a great part of any member, there are, indeed, various opinions reported from Abū Ḥanīfah. In some animals he has determined it to be the third; in others more than the third; and in others, again, only the fourth. In the opinion of the two disciples, if more than the half should remain, the sacrifice is valid, and this opinion has been adopted by the learned Abū ʾl-Lais̤. If an animal have lost the third of its tail, or the third of its ears or eye-sight, it may be lawfully sacrificed; but if, in either of these cases, it should have lost more than a third, the offering of it is not lawful. The rule which our doctors have laid down to discover in what degree the eye-sight is impaired is as follows. The animal must first be deprived of its food for a day or two that it may be rendered hungry, and having then covered the eye that is impaired, food must be gradually brought towards it from a distance, until it indicate by some emotion that it has discovered it. Having marked the particular spot at which it observed the food, and uncovered the weak eye, the perfect eye must then be bound, and the same process carried on, until it indicate that it has observed it with the defective eye. If, then, the particular distance from those parts to where the animal stood be measured, it may be known, from the proportion they bear to each other, in what degree the sight is impaired.

It is not lawful to offer a sacrifice of any animal except a camel, a cow, or a goat; for it is not recorded that the Prophet, or any of his companions, ever sacrificed others. Buffaloes, however, are lawful as being of the species of a cow. Every animal of a mixed breed, moreover, is considered as of the same species with the mother.

If a Christian or any person whose object is the flesh, and not the sacrifice, be a sharer with six others, the sacrifice is not lawful on the part of any. It is lawful for a person who offers a sacrifice either to eat the flesh or to bestow it on whomsoever he pleases, whether rich or poor, and he may also lay it up in store. It is most advisable that the third part of the flesh of a sacrifice be bestowed in charity. It is not lawful to give a part of the sacrifice in payment to the butcher. It is abominable to take the wool of the victim and sell it before the sacrifice be performed, but not after the sacrifice. In the same manner, it is abominable to milk the victim and sell the milk. It is most advisable that the person who offers the sacrifice should himself perform it, provided he be well acquainted with the method, but if he should not be expert at it, it is then advisable that he take the assistance of another, and be present at the operation. It is abominable to commit the slaying of the victim to a Kitābī (a Jew or Christian). If, however, a person order a Kitābī to slay his victim, it is lawful. It is otherwise where a person orders a Magian, or worshipper of fire, to slay his victim, for this is inadmissible. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. iv. 76.)

(5) From the foregoing references to the Qurʾān, the Traditions, ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, al-Baiẓāwī, it will appear that whilst the Muḥammadan sacrifice is (1) Commemorative, having been instituted in commemoration of Abraham’s willingness to offer his son; (2) Self Dedicatory, as expressed in the Traditional sayings of Muḥammad; and (3) Eucharistic, according to the verse in the Qurʾān already quoted, “Haply ye may give thanks”; that the expiatory character of the sacrifice is not clearly established, for there is no offering for, or acknowledgment of, sin, connected with the institution. Muḥammadanism, true to its anti-Christian character, ignores the doctrine that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Lev. xvii. 11; Heb. ix. 22.)

(6) At the birth of a child it is incumbent upon the Muslim father to sacrifice a goat (one for a girl and two for a boy) at the ceremony called ʿAqīqah, which is celebrated on either the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, or thirty-fifth day after birth, when the hair is first shaved and its weight in silver given to the poor. ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq says ʿAqīqah comes from ʿaqq, “to cut,” and refers to cutting the throat of the animal. Others refer it to cutting the hair. The idea of the sacrifice on this occasion is dedicatory and eucharistic. Buraidah says, “We used, in the time of ignorance, when children were born to us, to slay sheep and rub the child’s head with the blood; but when Islām came we sacrificed a sheep on the seventh day, and shaved the child’s head and rubbed saffron on it.”

ṢĀD (صاد‎). The fourteenth letter of the Arabic alphabet. The title of the XXXVIIIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, which begins with the letter.

ṢADAQAH (صدقة‎), pl. ṣadaqāt. From ṣadq, “to be righteous, truthful”; Hebrew ‏צֶדֶק‎ tsedek. A term used in the Qurʾān for “Almsgiving,” e.g. Sūrah ii. 265: “Kind speech and pardon are better than almsgiving (ṣadaqah) followed by annoyance, for God is rich and clement.”

Ṣadaqatu ʾl-Fit̤r is the alms given on the lesser Festival, called the ʿĪdu ʾl-Fit̤r, which consists of half a ṣāʿ of wheat, flour, or fruits, or one ṣāʿ of barley. This should be distributed to the poor before the prayers of the festival are said. (Hidāyah, vol. i. p. 62.) [ʿĪDU ʾL-FITR.]

SAʿD IBN ABĪ WAQQĀṢ (سعد بن ابى وقاص‎). Called also Saʿd ibn Malik ibn Wahb az-Zuhrī. He was the seventh person who embraced Islām, and was present with Muḥammad in all his battles. He died at ʿAtīq A.H. 55, at the age of 79, and was buried at al-Madīnah.

SAʿD IBN MUʿĀẔ (سعد بن معاذ‎). The chief of the Banū Aus. He embraced Islām at al-Madīnah after the first pledge at ʿAqabah. He died of wounds received at the battle of the Ditch, A.H. 5. (See Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iii. 282.)

SAʿD IBN ʿUBĀDAH (سعد بن عبادة‎). One of the Companions, and an Anṣārī of great reputation. He carried the standard at the conquest of Makkah. Died A.H. 15.

ṢADR (صدر‎), or Ṣadru ʾṣ-Ṣudūr. The chief judge. Under Muḥammadan rule, he was especially charged with the settlement of religious grants and the appointment of law officers.

SADŪM (سدوم‎). [SODOM.]

AṢ-ṢAFĀ (الصفا‎). A hill near Makkah. One of the sacred places visited by the pilgrims during the Ḥajj. [PILGRIMAGE.]

ṢAFAR (صفر‎). Lit. “The void month.” The second month of the Muḥammadan year. So called because in it the ancient Arabs went forth on their predatory expeditions and left their houses ṣifr, or empty; or, according to some, because when it was first named it occurred in the autumn, when the leaves of the trees were ṣufr, or “yellow.” (G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah, in loco.) [MONTHS.]

ṢAFF (صف‎). An even row or line of things.

(1) A term used for a row of persons standing up for prayers.

(2) Aṣ-Ṣaff, the title of the LXIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, in the 6th verse of which the word occurs for the close unbroken line of an army.

AṢ-ṢĀFFĀT (الصافات‎), pl. of ṣāffah, “Ranged in ranks.” The title of the XXXVIIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, in the first verse of which the angels are mentioned as being ranged in ranks.

ṢAFĪYAH (صفية‎). One of the wives of Muḥammad. She was the widow of Kinānah, the Jewish chief of K͟haibar, who was cruelly put to death. In after years it is said Muḥammad wished to divorce her, but she begged to continue his wife, and requested that her turn might be given to ʿĀyishah, as she wished to be one of the Prophet’s “pure wives” in Paradise.

ṢAFĪYU ʾLLĀH (صفى الله‎). Lit. “The Chosen of God.” A title given in the Traditions to Adam, the father of mankind. [ADAM.]

ṢAFŪRĀʾ (صفوراء‎). The Zipporah of the Bible. The wife of Moses. According to Muslim Lexicons, she was the daughter of Shuʿaib. [MOSES.]

ṢAFWĀN IBN UMAIYAH (صفوان بن امية‎). A Ṣaḥābī of reputation. A native of Makkah. He was slain the same day as the K͟halīfah ʿUs̤mān.

ṢAḤĀBĪ (صحابى‎), fem. Ṣaḥābīyah. “An associate.” One of the Companions of Muḥammad. The number of persons entitled to this distinction at the time of Muḥammad’s death is said to have been 144,000, the number including all persons who had ever served as followers of the Prophet, and who had actually seen him. The general opinion being that one who embraced Islām, saw the Prophet and accompanied him, even for a short time, is a Ṣaḥābī, or “associate.” [ASHAB.]

ṢĀḤIBU ʾN-NIṢĀB (صاحب النصاب‎). A legal term for one possessed of a certain estate upon which zakāt, or “legal alms,” must be paid. Also for one who has sufficient means to enable him to offer the sacrifice on the great festival, or to make the pilgrimage to Makkah. The possessor of 200 dirhems, or five camels, is held to be a Ṣāḥibu ʾn-Niṣāb, as regards zakāt.

ṢĀḤIBU ʾZ-ZAMĀN (صاحب الزمان‎). “Lord of the Age.” A title given by the Shīʿahs to the Imām Mahdī. (G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah, in loco.)

ṢAḤĪFAH (صحيفة‎), pl. ṣuḥuf. Lit. “A small book or pamphlet.” A term generally used for the one hundred portions of scripture said to have been given to Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Abraham, although it is used in the Qurʾān (Sūrah lxxxvii. 19) for the books of Abraham and Moses: “This is truly written in the books (ṣuḥuf) of old, the books (ṣuḥuf) of Abraham and Moses.” [PROPHETS.]

ṢAḤĪFATU ʾL-AʿMĀL (صحيفة الاعمال‎). The “Book of Actions,” which is said to be made by the recording angels (Kirāmu ʾl-Kātibīn) of the deeds of men, and kept until the Day of Judgment, when the books are opened. See Qurʾān:—

Sūrah l. 16: “When two (angels) charged with taking account shall take it, one sitting on the right hand and another on the left.”

Sūrah xvii. 14, 15: “And every man’s fate have We (God) fastened about his neck; and on the Day of Resurrection will We bring forth to him a book, which shall be proffered to him wide open: Read thy Book: There needeth none but thyself to make out an account against thee this day.” [KIRAMU ʾL-KATIBIN, RESURRECTION.]

ṢAḤĪḤU ʾL-BUK͟HĀRĪ (صحيح البخارى‎). The title of the first of the Kutubu ʾs-Sittah, or “six correct” books of traditions received by the Sunnīs. It was compiled by Abū ʿAbdu ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Buk͟hārī, who was born at Buk͟hārah, A.H. 194, and died at K͟hartang, near Samarkand, A.H. 256. It contains 9,882 traditions, of which 2,623 are held to be of undisputed authority. They are arranged into 160 books and 3,450 chapters. [TRADITIONS.]

ṢAḤĪḤU MUSLIM (صحيح مسلم‎). The title of the second of the Kutubu ʾs-Sittah, or “six correct” books of the traditions received by the Sunnīs. It was compiled by Abū ʾl-Ḥusain Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushairī, who was born at Naishāpūr, A.H. 204, and died A.H. 261. The collection contains 7,275 traditions, of which, it is said, 4,000 are of undisputed authority. The books and chapters of the work were not arranged by the compiler, but by his disciples. The most celebrated edition of this work is that with a commentary by Muḥyiyu ʾd-dīn Yaḥyā an-Nawawī, who died A.H. 676. [TRADITIONS.]

SAHM (سهم‎). Lit. “An arrow used for drawing lots.” A term in Muḥammadan law for a portion of an estate allotted to an heir. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. iv. p. 487.)

SAḤŪR (سحور‎). The meal which is taken before the dawn of day during the Ramaẓān. It is called in Persian T̤aʿām-i-Saḥarī. In Hindūstānī, Sahārgāhī. In Pushto Peshmani. [RAMAZAN.]

SĀʾIBAH (سائبة‎). Anything set at liberty, as a slave, or she-camel, and devoted to an idol. Mentioned once in the Qurʾān, Sūrah v. 102: “God hath not ordained anything on the subject of sāʾibah, but the unbelievers have invented it.”

SAʿĪD IBN ZAID (سعيد بن زيد‎). A Ṣaḥābī who embraced Islām in his youth. He was present with Muḥammad in all his engagements except at Badr. He is held to be one of the ʿAsharah Mubashsharah, or ten patriarchs of the Muslim faith. Died at ʿAqīq, A.H. 51, aged 79.

SAIFU ʾLLĀH (سيف الله‎). “The Sword of God.” A title given by Muḥammad to the celebrated General K͟halīd ibn al-Walīd. (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. viii.)

SAIḤŪN (سيحون‎). The river Jaxartes. Said to have been one of the rivers of Eden. [EDEN.]

SAINTS. In Muḥammadan countries, reputed saints are very numerous. Very many religious leaders obtain a great reputation for sanctity even before their deaths, but after death it is usual for the followers of any well-known religious teacher to erect a shrine over his grave, to light it up on Thursdays, and thus establish a saintly reputation for their departed guide. Very disreputable persons are thus often reckoned to have died in the “odour of sanctity.” At Hasan Abdal in the Punjab (celebrated in the story of Lala Rookh), there is a shrine erected over a departed cook, who for many years lived on his peculations as keeper of the staging bungalow. When he died, about ten years ago, his family erected over his remains a shrine of some pretensions, which even in the present generation is an object of devout reverence, but which, in the next, will be the scene of reputed miracles. This is but an example of many thousands of shrines and saintly reputations easily gained throughout Islām.

It is generally asserted that according to the teachings of Islām, the Prophets (ambiyāʾ) were without sin, but there is a tradition, related by Anas, which distinctly asserts the contrary, and states that Muḥammad not only admitted his own sinfulness, but also the fall of Adam, the murder committed by Moses, and the three lies told by Abraham. (See Mishkāt, book xxiii. ch. xii.) But it is very remarkable that, according to this Ḥadīs̤, Muḥammad does not charge Jesus Christ with having committed sin. The immaculate conception and the sinlessness of Christ are admitted doctrines of Islām. [JESUS CHRIST.]

The terms pīr and walī are common titles for those who, by reputed miracles and an ascetic life, have established a reputation for sanctity, for whom in Persian the title buzurg is generally used. The titles qut̤b and g͟haus̤ are very high orders of sanctity, whilst zāhid and ʿābid are employed for persons who devote their lives to religious contemplation and worship.

The Ṣūfīs use the word sālik, “pilgrim” or “traveller,” for one who has renounced the world for the “path” of mysticism, whilst faqīr is a title of more general application to one who is poor in the sight of God. Shaik͟h and mīr, used for old men, also express a degree of reputation in the religious world; shaik͟h (in India) being a title generally conferred on a convert from Hinduism to Islām. Saiyid, or “lord,” is a title always given to the descendants of Muḥammad, mīr being sometimes used for the same. Miyān, “master” or “friend,” is generally used for the descendants of celebrated saints, or as a mere title of respect.

SAʿĪR (سعير‎). “A flaming fire.” The special place of torment appointed for the Sabeans. (See al-Bag͟hawī’s Commentary on the Qurʾān.) It occurs sixteen times in the Qurʾān (Sūrah iv. 11, and fifteen other places), where it does not seem to be applied to any special class.

S̤AIYIBAH (ثيبة‎). A legal term for a woman who departs from her husband, whether through divorce or the death of her husband, after the first connection.

SAIYID (سيد‎). A term used for the descendants of Muḥammad from his daughter Fāt̤imah by ʿAlī. The word only occurs twice in the Qurʾān—in Sūrah iii. 34, where it is used for John Baptist; and in Sūrah xii. 25, where it stands for the husband of Zalīk͟hah. According to the Majmu ʾl-Biḥār, p. 151, it means “lord, king, exalted, saint, merciful, meek, husband,” &c.

There are two branches of Saiyids—those descended from al-Ḥasan and those descended from al-Ḥusain (both the sons of ʿAlī.)

These descendants of Muḥammad are prayed for at every period of the daily prayers [PRAYERS], and they are held in all Muḥammadan countries in the highest respect, however poor or degraded their position may be.

The term Saiyid is also given as a name to persons who are not descended from Muḥammad, e.g. Saiyid Shāh, Saiyid Amīn, &c., although it is a mere assumption. In addition to the term Saiyid, the term Bādshāh, Shāh, Mīr, and Sharīf, are applied to those descended from Bībī Fāt̤imah.

The author of the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī estimated in his day the descendants of Muḥammad to be not less than 200,000.

SAJDAH (سجدة‎), vulg. sijdah. Lit. “Prostration.”

(1) The act of worship in which the person’s forehead touches the ground in prostration. [PRAYER.]

(2) As-Sajdah, the title of the XXXIInd Sūrah of the Qurʾān, in the 15th verse of which the word occurs: “They only believe in our signs who, when they are reminded of them, fall down adoring and celebrate the praises of their Lord.”

SAJDATU ʾS-SAHW (سجدة السهو‎). “The prostrations of forgetfulness.” Two prostrations made on account of forgetfulness or inattention in prayer. Muḥammad said, “When any of you stand up for prayer, and the devil comes to you and casts doubt and perplexity into your mind, so that you do not know how many rakʿahs you have recited, then prostrate yourself twice.

SAJDATU ʾSH-SHUKR (سجدة الشكر‎). “A prostration of thanksgiving.” When a Muslim has received some benefit or blessing, he is enjoined to make a prostration in the direction of Makkah, and say, “Holiness to God! and Praise be to God. There is no deity but God! God is most Great!” (Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol i. p. 816.)

SAJJĀDAH (سجادة‎). The small carpet, mat, or cloth, on which the Muslim prays. [JAI-NAMAZ, MUSALLA.]

ṢAK͟HR (صخر‎). The jinn or devil who is said to have obtained possession of Solomon’s magic ring, and to have personated the King for forty days, when Ṣak͟hr flew away and threw the ring into the sea, where it was swallowed by a fish, which was afterwards caught and brought to Solomon, who by this means recovered his kingdom.

AṢ-ṢAK͟HRAH (الصخرة‎). “The Rock.” The sacred rock at Jerusalem on which the Temple was erected, and on which now stands the Qubbatu ʾṣ-Ṣak͟hrah, the “Dome of the Rock,” known to English readers as the Mosque of ʿUmar. This rock is said to have come from Paradise, and to be the foundation-stone of the world, to have been the place of prayer of all prophets, and, next to the Kaʿbah, the most sacred spot in the universe. Imām Jalālu ʾd-dīn as-Suyūt̤ī, in his history of the Temple of Jerusalem (Reynolds’ edition, p. 44), gives the following traditional account of the glorious Ṣak͟hrah.

“We are informed by Ibn al-Manṣūr that the Rock of the Baitu ʾl-Muqaddas, in the days of Solomon, was of the height of twelve thousand cubits; each cubit at that time being the full cubit, viz. one modern cubit, one span and one hand-breadth. Upon it also was a chapel, formed of aloes (or sandal) wood, in height twelve miles (sic); also above this was a network of gold, between two eyelet-beads of pearl and ruby, netted by the women of Balka in the night, which net was to serve for three days; also the people of Emmaus were under the shadow of the chapel when the sun rose and the people of Baitu ʾr-Raḥmah when it set, and even others of the valleys were under its shadow; also upon it was a jacinth (or ruby), which shone in the night like the light of the sun; but when the light began to dawn its brilliancy was obscured; nor did all these cease until Nebuchadnezzar laid all waste, and seized whatever he found there, and carried it into Greece.

“Again, by a tradition we learn that the Ṣak͟hrah of Baitu ʾl-Muqaddas was raised aloft into the sky, to the height of twelve miles, and the space between it and heaven was no more than twelve miles. All this remained in the same state until Greece (or Rome) obtained the mastery over it, subsequent to its devastation by Nebuchadnezzar. But when the Greeks obtained possession of it, they said, “Let us build thereupon a building far excelling that which was there before.” Therefore they built upon it a building as broad at the base as it was high in the sky, and gilded it with gold, and silvered it with silver. Then, entering therein, they began to practise their associating Paganism, upon which it turned upside-down over them, so that not one of them came out.

“Therefore, when the Grecian (king) saw this, he summoned the Patriarch and his ministers (deacons), and the chiefs of Greece, and said, ‘What think ye?’ who replied, ‘We are of opinion that our idol-gods are not well pleased, and therefore will not receive us favourably.’ Hereupon he commanded a second temple to be built, which they did, spending a great sum thereon, and having finished the second building, seventy thousand entered it as they had entered the first. But it happened to them as it had happened to the first; when they began their Paganism it turned over upon them. Now their king was not with them. Therefore, when he saw this, he assembled them a third time, and said unto them, ‘What think ye?’ who said, ‘We think that our Lord is not well pleased with us, because we have not offered unto him abundantly; therefore he has destroyed what we have done, therefore we should greatly wish to build a third.’ They then built a third, until they thought they had carried it to the greatest possible height, which having done, he assembled the Christians, and said unto them, ‘Do ye observe any defect?’ who said, ‘None, except that we must surround it with crosses of gold and silver.’ Then all the people entered it, to read and cite (sacred things). Having bathed and perfumed themselves, and having entered it, they began to practise their associating Paganism, as the others had done before them; whereupon down fell the third building upon them. Hereupon the king again summoned them together, and asked their counsel about what he should do. But their dread was very great; and whilst they were deliberating, there came up to them a very old man, in a white robe and a black turban; his back was bent double and he was leaning upon a staff. So he said, ‘O Christian people, listen to me! listen to me! for I am the oldest of any of you in years, and have now come forth from among the retired votaries of religion, in order to inform you that, with respect to this place, all its possessors are accursed, and all holiness hath departed from it, and hath been transferred to this (other) place. I will therefore point out this as the place wherein to build the Church of the Resurrection. I will show you the spot, but you will never see me after this day, for ever. Do, therefore, with a good will that which I shall tell you.’ Thus he cheated them, and augmented their accursed state, and commanded them to cut up the rock, and to build with its stones upon the place which he commended them.

“So whilst he was talking with them he became concealed; and they saw him no more. Thereupon they increased in their infidelity, and said, ‘This is the Great Word. Then they demolished the Mosques, and carried away the columns and the stones, and all the rest, and built therewith the Church of the Resurrection, and the church which is in the valley of Hinnon. Moreover, this cursed old man commanded them, ‘When ye have finished their building upon this place, then take that place whose owners are accursed, and whence all holiness hath departed, to be a common sewer to receive your dung.’ By this they gratified their Lord. Also they did this, as follows: At certain seasons, all the filth and excrement was sent in vessels from Constantinople, and was at a certain time all thrown upon the Rock, until God awoke our Prophet Muḥammad (the peace and blessing of God be with him!), and brought him by night thereunto; which he did on account of its peculiar consecration, and on account of the greatness of its super-excellence. We learn, also, that God, on the Day of Judgment, will change the Ṣak͟hrah into white coral, enlarging it to extend over heaven and earth. Then shall men go from that Rock to heaven or hell, according to that great word, ‘There shall be a time when this earth shall change into another earth, and the heaven shall turn white; the soil shall be of silver; no pollution shall ever dwell thereon.’ Now from ʿĀʾish (may the satisfying favour of God rest upon him!), I said, ‘O apostle of God, on that day when this earth shall become another earth, and this sky shall change, where shall men be on that day?’ He replied, ‘Upon the bridge aṣ-Ṣirāt̤.’ Again, a certain divine says, ‘that in the Law, God says to the Rock of the Holy Abode, “Thou art my seat; thou art near to me; from thy foundation have I raised up the heavens, and from beneath thee have I stretched forth the earth, and all the distant inaccessible mountains are beneath thee. Who dies within thee is as if he died within the world of heaven, and who dies around thee is as if he died within thee. Days and nights shall not cease to succeed, until I send down upon thee a Light of Heaven, which shall obliterate all the (traces) of the infidels of the sons of Adam, and all their footsteps. Also I will send upon thee the hierarchy of angels and prophets; and I will wash thee until I leave thee like milk; and I will fix upon thee a wall twelve miles above the thick-gathering clouds of earth, and also a hedge of light. By my hand will I insure to thee thy support and thy virtue; upon thee will I cause to descend my spirits and my angels, to worship within thee; nor shall any one of the sons of Adam enter within thee until the Day of Judgment. And whosoever shall look upon this chapel from afar shall say, ‘Blessed be the face of him who devoutly worships and adores in thee!’ Upon thee will I place walls of light and a hedge of thick clouds—five walls of ruby and pearl.” ’ Also from the Book of Psalms, ‘Great and glorious art thou, thou threshing-floor! Unto thee shall be the general assemblage: from thee shall all men rise from death.’ Moreover, from the same author, God says to the Rock of the Holy Abode, ‘Who loveth thee, him will I love; who loveth thee, loveth me; who hateth thee, him will I hate. From year to year my eyes are upon thee, nor will I forget thee until I forget my eyes. Whoso prayeth within thee two rakʿahs, him will I cause to cast off all his sins, and to be as guiltless as I brought him from his mother’s womb, unless he return to his sins, beginning them afresh.’ This is also a tradition of old standing: ‘I solemnly engage and promise to everyone who dwells therein, that all the days of his life the bread of corn and olive-oil never shall fail him; nor shall the days and the nights fail to bring that time, when, out of the supremacy of my bounty, I will cause to descend upon thee the assemblage of man for judgment—the whole company of risen mortals.’ There is a tradition that ‘Muqātil Ibn Sulaiman came to this Temple to pray, and sat by the gate looking towards the Rock; and we had assembled there in great numbers; he was reading and we were listening. Then came forward ʿAlī Ibn al-Badawī, stamping terribly with his slippers upon the pavement. This greatly afflicted him, and he said to those around him, “Make an opening for me.” Then the people opened on each side, and he made a threatening motion with his hand to warn him and prevent this stamping, saying, “Tread more gently! That place at which Muqātil is”—pointing with his hand—“and on which thou art stamping, is the very place redolent of Heaven’s breezes; and there is not a spot all around it—not a spot within its precincts a hand’s-breadth square—wherein some commissioned prophet, some near angel, hath not prayed.” ’ Now from the mother of ʿAbdu ʾllāh, daughter of K͟hālid, from her mother, ‘the moment is surely fixed, when the Kaʿbah shall be led as a bride to the Ṣak͟hrah, and shall hang upon her all her pilgrimage merits, and become her turban.’ Also it is said that the Ṣak͟hrah is the middle of the Mosque; it is cut off from every touching substance on all sides. No one supports it but He who supports and holds up the sky; so that nothing falls thence but by His good permission; also upon the upper part of the west side stood the Prophet (the blessing and peace of God be with him!) on the night when he rode al-Burāq. This side began to shake about, from veneration of him; and upon the other side are the marks of the angels’ fingers, who held it up when it shook; beneath it is a deep hole cut out on each side, over which is the gate opened to men for prayer and devotion. ‘I resolved,’ says a certain author, ‘one day to enter it, in great fear lest it should fall upon me, on account of the sins I had contracted; then, however, I looked, and saw its darkness, and some holy pilgrims entering it at the darkest part, who came forth therefrom quite free from sin. Then I began to reflect upon entering. Then I said, “Perhaps they entered very slowly and leisurely, and I was too much in a hurry; a little delay may facilitate the matter.” So I made up my mind to enter; and entering, I saw the Wonder of Wonders, the Rock supported in its position or course on every side; for I saw it separated from the earth, so that no point of the earth touched it. Some of the sides were separated by a wider interval than others; also, the mark of the glorious Foot is at present in a stone divided from the Rock, right over against it, on the other side, west of the Qiblah; it is upon a pillar. Also the Rock is now almost abutting upon the side of the crypt, only divided from it by that space which allows room for the gate of the crypt, on the side of the Qiblah. This gate, also, is disjointed from the base of the Qiblah; it is between the two. Below the gate of the crypt is a stone staircase, whereby one may descend into the crypt. In the midst of this crypt is a dark-brown leather carpet, upon which pilgrims stand when they visit the foundation of the Rock; it is upon the eastern side. There are also columns of marble abutting on the lower side upon the path of the rows of trees upon the side of the Qiblah, and on the other side forming buttresses to the extremity of the Rock; these are to hinder it from shaking on the side of the Qiblah. There are buildings besides these. There is a building in the Chapel of the Rock. Beneath the chapel, the spot marked by the angels’ fingers is in the Rock, on the western side, divided from the print of the glorious Foot above-mentioned, very near to it, over against the western gate, at the end.’ ” (Hist. Jerusalem, from the Arabic MS. of Jalālu ʾd-dīn as-Suyūt̤ī, Reynolds’ ed. 1835.)

Dr. Robinson (Biblical Researches, vol. i. p. 297) says the followers of Muḥammad under ʿUmar took possession of the Holy City A.D. 636, and the K͟halīfah determined to erect a mosque upon the site of the Jewish Temple. An account of this undertaking, as given by Muslim historians, will be found in the article on JERUSALEM. The historians of the crusades all speak of this great Ṣak͟hrah as the Templum Domini, and describe its form and the rock within it. (Will. Tyr., 8, 2, ib. 12, 7. Jac. de Vitriac, c. 62.)

Lieut. E. R. Conder, R.E., remarks that the Dome of the Rock belongs to that obscure period of Saracenic art, when the Arabs had not yet created an architectural style of their own, and when they were in the habit of employing Byzantine architects to build their mosques. The Dome of the Rock, Lieut. Conder says, is not a mosque, as it is sometimes wrongly called, but a “station” in the outer court of the Masjidu ʾl-Aqṣā.

We are indebted to this writer for the following account of the gradual growth of the present building (Tent Work in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 320):—

“In A.D. 831 the Caliph El Mamûn restored the Dome of the Rock, and, if I am correct, enclosed it with an outer wall, and gave it its present appearance. The beams in the roof of the arcade bear, as above-stated, the date 913 A.D.; a well-carved wooden cornice, hidden by the present ceiling, must then have been visible beneath them.

“In 1016 A.D. the building was partly destroyed by earthquake. To this date belong restorations of the original mosaics in the dome, as evidenced by inscriptions. The present wood-work of the cupola was erected by Husein, son of the Sultan Hakem, as shown by an inscription dated 1022 A.D.

“The place next fell into the hands of the Crusaders, who christened it Templum Domini, and established in 1112 A.D. a chapter of Canons.

“The Holy Rock was then cut into its present shape and covered with marble slabs, an altar being erected on it. The works were carried on from 1115 A.D. to 1136 A.D. The beautiful iron grille between the pillars of the dome and various fragments of carved work are of this date, including small altars with sculptured capitals, having heads upon them—abominations to the Moslem, yet still preserved within the precincts. The interior of the outer wall was decorated in the twelfth century with frescoes, traces of which still remain. The exterior of the same wall is surmounted by a parapet, with dwarf pillars and arches, which is first mentioned by John of Wurtzburg, but must be as old as the round arches of the windows below. The Crusaders would seem to have filled up the parapet arches, and to have ornamented the whole with glass mosaic, as at Bethlehem.

“In 1187 A.D. Saladin won the city, tore up the altar, and once more exposed the bare rock, covered up the frescoes with marble slabs, and restored and regilded the dome, as evidenced by an inscription in it dating 1189 A.D.

“In 1318 A.D. the lead outside and the gilding within were restored by Nakr ed Din, as evidenced by an inscription.

“In 1520 A.D. the Sultan Soliman cased the bases and upper blocks of the columns with marble. The wooden cornice, attached to the beam between the pillars, seems to be of this period, and the slightly-pointed marble casing of the arches under the dome is probably of the same date. The windows bear inscriptions of 1528 A.D. The whole exterior was at this time covered with Kishâni tiles, attached by copper hooks, as evidenced by inscriptions dated 1561 A.D. The doors were restored in 1564 A.D., as also shown by inscriptions.

“The date of the beautiful wooden ceiling of the cloisters is not known, but it partly covers the Cufic inscription, and this dates 72 A.H. (688 A.D.), and it hides the wooden cornice, dating probably 913 A.D. The ceiling is therefore probably of the time of Soliman.

“In 1830 A.D. the Sultan Mahmud, and in 1873–75 A.D. the late ʿAbdu ʾl-ʿAzīz, repaired the Dome, and the latter period was one specially valuable for those who wished to study the history of the place.

“Such is a plain statement of the gradual growth of the building. The dates of the various inscriptions on the walls fully agree with the circumstantial accounts of the Arab writers who describe the Dome of the Rock.” [JERUSALEM.]

SAKĪNAH (سكينة‎). A word which occurs in the Qurʾān five times. (1) For that which was in the Ark of the Covenant, Sūrah ii. 249: “The sign of his (Saul’s) kingdom is that there shall come to you the Ark (Tābūt) with the sakīnah in it from your Lord, and the relics that the family of Moses and the family of Aaron left, and the angels bear it.” With reference to this verse, al-Baiẓāwī, the great Muslim commentator, says: “The ark here mentioned is the box containing the Books of Moses (Arabic Taurāt, namely, the Torah, or Law), which was made of box-wood and gilded over with gold, and was three cubits long and two wide, and in it was ‘the sakīnah from your Lord.’ The meaning of which is, that with the Ark there was tranquillity and peace, namely, the Taurāt (Books of Moses), because when Moses went forth to war he always took the Ark with him, which gave repose to the hearts of the children of Israel. But some say that within that Ark there was an idol made either of emerald or sapphire, with the head and tail of a cat, and with two wings; and that this creature made a noise when the Ark was carried forth to war. But others say that the Ark contained images of the prophets, from Adam to Moses. Others assert that the meaning of sakīnah is ‘knowledge and sincerity.’ Others, that the Ark contained the tables of the Law, the rod of Moses, and Aaron’s turban.” (Tafsīru ʾl-Baiẓāwī, Fleischer’s ed., vol. ii. p. 128.)

(2) It is also used in the Qurʾān for help and confidence or grace. Sūrah xlviii. 26: “When those who misbelieved put in their hearts pique—the pique of ignorance—and God sent down His Sakīnah upon His Apostle and upon the believers, and obliged them to keep to the word of piety.” Al-Baiẓāwī says that in this verse the word sakīnah means the tranquillity and repose of the soul, which is the meaning given in all Arabic dictionaries.

The word occurs in three other places in a similar sense:—

Sūrah ix. 26: “God sent down His Sakīnah upon His Apostle and upon the believers, and sent down armies which ye could not see, and punished those who did not believe.”

Sūrah ix. 40: “God sent down His Sakīnah upon him, and aided him with hosts.”

Sūrah xlviii. 2: “It is He who sent down the sakīnah into the hearts of believers, that they might have faith added to faith.”

None of the Muslim commentators seem to understand that the Arabic سكينة‎ Sakīnah is identical with the Hebrew ‏שְׁכִינָה‎ Shechinah, a term which, although not found in the Bible, has been used by the later Jews, and borrowed by the Christians from them, to express the visible Majesty of the Divine Presence, especially when resting or dwelling between the Cherubim on the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle, and in the Temple of Solomon. Rabbinical writers identify the Shechinah with the Holy Spirit, and some Christian writers have thought that the three-fold expression for the Deity—the Lord, the Word of the Lord, and the Shechinah—indicates the knowledge of a trinity of persons in the God-head.

For the Talmudic views regarding the Shechinah, the English reader can refer to Dr. Hershon’s Talmudic Miscellany (Trübner & Co., London).

SALAF (سلف‎). (1) Ancestors; men of repute for piety and faith in past generations.

(2) Money lent without interest. [SALAM.]

SALAM (سلم‎). A contract involving an immediate payment of the price, and admitting a delay in the delivery of the articles purchased. The word used in the Ḥadīs̤ is generally salaf. In a sale of this kind, the seller is called musallam ilai-hi; the purchaser, rabbu ʾs-salam, and the goods purchased, musallam-fī-hi. (Kitābu ʾt-Taʿrīfāt.)

AS-SALĀM (الــســلام‎). “The Peace(ful) one.” (1) One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. It occurs once in the Qurʾān, Sūrah lix. 20: “He is God, than whom there is no other … the Peaceful.” Al-Baiẓāwī explains the word as “He who is free from all loss or harm” (ذو السلامة من كل نقص و آفة‎).

(2) As-Salāmu ʿalai-kum (السلام عليكم‎), “The peace be on you,” the common salutation amongst Muslims. [SALUTATION.]

AṢ-ṢALĀT (الصلوة‎, in construction frequently spelled صلاة‎), pl. ṣalawāt. The term used in the Qurʾān, as well as amongst all Muslims in every part of the world, for the liturgical form of prayer, which is recited five times a day, an account of which is given in the article on PRAYER. Its equivalent in Persian and Urdū is namāz, which has been corrupted into nmūz by the Afghāns. The word occurs with this meaning in the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 239: “Observe the prayers,” and in very many other places. It has also the meaning of prayer or supplication in its general sense, e.g. Sūrah ix. 104: “Pray for them, of a truth thy prayers shall assure their minds.” Also blessing, e.g. Sūrah xxxiii. 56: “Verily God and His Angels bless (not “pray for,” as rendered by Palmer) the Prophet.” (See Lane’s Dictionary, in loco.)

The word ṣalāt occurs with various combinations used to express different periods, and also special occasions of prayer.

The five stated liturgical prayers which are held to be of divine institution:—

(1) Ṣalātu ʾl-Z̤uhr, the meridian prayer.

(2) Ṣalātu ʾl-ʿAṣr, the afternoon prayer.

(3) Ṣalātu ʾl-Mag͟hrib, the sunset prayer.

(4) Ṣalātu ʾl-ʿIshāʾ, the night prayer.

(5) Ṣalātu ʾl-Fajr, the prayer at dawn.

(Obs. The midday prayer is reckoned the first in order.)

Also for the three voluntary daily liturgical prayers:—

(1) Ṣalātu ʾl-Ishrāq, when the sun has well risen.

(2) Ṣalātu ʾl-Ẓuḥā, about 11 A.M.

(3) Ṣalātu ʾl-Tahajjud, after midnight.

Liturgical prayers said on special occasions are given below. [PRAYER.]

ṢALĀTU ʾL-ḤĀJAH (صلاة الحاجة‎). “Prayer of necessity.” Four rakʿah prayers, or, according to some, twelve rakʿahs recited after the night prayer in times of necessity, or trouble. (Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol. i. p. 719.)

ṢALĀTU ʾL-ʿĪDAIN (صلاة العيدين‎). “Prayers of the two festivals.” The two rakʿah prayers recited on the two Muḥammadan festivals, the ʿĪdu ʾl-Fit̤r and the ʿĪdu ʾl-Aẓḥā.

ṢALĀTU ʾL-ISTIK͟HĀRAH (صلاة الاستخارة‎). Lit. “Prayer for conciliating favour.” Two rakʿahs recited for success in an undertaking. Jābir relates that Muḥammad taught him Istik͟hārah, and that after reciting two rakʿahs he should thus supplicate God: “O God, I seek Thy good help in Thy great wisdom. I pray for ability to act through Thy power. I ask this thing of thy goodness. Thou knowest, but I know not. Thou art powerful, but I am not. Thou art knower of secrets. O God, if Thou knowest that the matter which I am about to undertake is good for my religion, for my life, for my future, then make it easy, and prosper me in it. But if it is bad for my religion, my life, and my future, then put it away from me, and show me what is good.” (Mishkāt, book iv. 40.)

ṢALĀTU ʾL-ISTISQĀʾ (صلاة الاستسقاء‎), from saqy, “Watering.” Two rakʿah prayers recited in the time of dearth.

ṢALĀTU ʾL-JINĀZAH (صلاة الجــنــازة‎). The funeral service. [BURIAL OF THE DEAD, JINAZAH.]

ṢALĀTU ʾL-JUMʿAH (صلاة الجمعة‎). Lit. “The prayer of assembly.” The Friday Prayer. It consists of two rakʿahs recited at the time of z̤uhr, or midday prayer on Friday. [FRIDAY, KHUTBAH.]

ṢALĀTU ʾL-K͟HAUF (صلاة الخوف‎). The “Prayers of Fear.” Two rakʿahs of prayers recited first by one regiment and then by another in time of war, when the usual prayers cannot be recited for fear of the enemy. These prayers are founded upon an injunction in the Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 102: “And when ye go to war in the land, it shall be no sin for you to curtail your prayers, if ye fear that the enemy come upon you.” This was also the Talmudic law (Tr. Berachoth iv. 4): “He that goeth in a dangerous place may pray a short prayer.”

ṢALĀTU ʾL-K͟HUSŪF (صلاة الخسوف‎). Prayers said at an eclipse of the moon, consisting of two rakʿahs of prayer. (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. li.)

ṢALĀTU ʾL-KUSŪF (صلاة الكسوف‎). Prayers at an eclipse of the sun, consisting of two rakʿahs of prayer. (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. li.)

ṢALĀTU ʾL-MARĪẒ (صلاة المريض‎). “Prayer of the sick.” When a person is too sick to stand up in the usual prayers, he is allowed to recite them either in a reclining or sitting posture, provided he performs the usual ablutions. It is ruled that he shall in such a case make the prostrations, &c., mentally. (Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol. i. p. 891.)

ṢALĀTU ʾL-WITR (صلاة الوتر‎). The Witr prayers. The word witr means either a unit, or an odd number, and is used for either a single or odd number of rakʿah prayers recited after the evening prayer (ʿishāʾ). (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xxxvi.)

There is considerable controversy amongst the learned doctors as to whether it is farẓ, wājib, or sunnah, but it is generally held to be sunnah, i.e. founded on the example of the Prophet, but with no divine command. Amongst the Ḥanafī sect, it is also known as Qunūtu ʾl-Witr, but the Shāfiʿīs recite the Qunūt separately.

ṢALĀTU ʾR-RAG͟HĀʾIB (صلاة الرغائب‎). “A prayer for things desired.” Two rakʿah prayers recited by one who desires some object in this world. According to the orthodox, it is forbidden in Islām. (Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol. i. p. 717.) It is recited by some persons in the first week of the month Rajab.

ṢALĀTU ʾS-SAFAR (صلاة السفر‎). “Prayers of travel.” A shortened recital of prayer allowed to travellers. It is founded on a tradition by Yaʿla ibn Umaiyah, who says, “I said to ʿUmar, ‘God hath said, “When ye go to war in the land, it shall be no sin for you to shorten your prayers if ye fear that the infidels may attack you”; but now verily we are safe in this journey, and yet we shorten our prayers.’ ʿUmar replied, ‘I also wondered at the thing that astonished you; but the Prophet said, God hath done you a kindness in curtailing your prayers, therefore accept it.’ Ibn ʿUmar says, ‘I travelled with the Prophet, and he did not say more than two rakʿahs of prayer, and Abū Bakr and ʿUmar and ʿUs̤mān did the same.’ Ibn ʿAbbās says, ‘The Prophet used to say on a journey the noon and afternoon prayer together, and the sunset and evening prayer together.’ ” (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xlii.)

The established prayers for a traveller are, therefore, two rakʿahs instead of the four farẓ rakʿahs at the noon and afternoon and evening prayers, and the usual two farẓ at the morning and the usual three farẓ at the sunset prayers; all voluntary prayers being omitted. (Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol. i. p. 821.)

ṢALĀTU ʾT-TARĀWĪḤ (صلاة التراويح‎). “Prayer of rest.” So called because of the pause or rest made for ejaculations between every four rakʿahs. (ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq.)

Twenty rakʿah prayers recited after the night prayer during the month of Ramaẓān. They are often followed with recitations known as ẕikrs [ZIKR], and form an exciting service of devotion. The Imām recites the Tarāwīḥ prayers with a loud voice.

Abū Hurairah says: “The Prophet used to encourage people to say night prayers in Ramaẓān without ordering them positively, and would say, ‘He who stands up in prayer at night, for the purpose of obtaining reward, will have all his sins pardoned’; then the Prophet died, leaving the prayers of Ramaẓān in this way. It is said ʿUmar instituted the present custom of reciting the twenty rakʿahs.” (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xxxviii.) [RAMAZAN.]

ṢALĀTU ʾT-TASBĪḤ (صلاة التسبيح‎). “Prayer of praise.” A form of prayer founded on the following tradition related by Ibn ʿAbbās, who says:—

“Verily the Prophet said to my father, ‘O ʿAbbās! O my uncle! shall I not give to you, shall I not present unto you, shall I not inform you of a thing which covers acts of sin? When you perform it, God will forgive your sins, your former sins, and your latter sins, and those sins which you did unknowingly, and those which you did knowingly, your great sins, and your small sins, your disclosed sins and your concealed sins? It is this, namely, that you recite four rakʿahs of prayer, and in each rakʿah recite the Fātiḥatu ʾl-Kitāb (i.e. the Introductory chapter of the Qurʾān), and some other Sūrah of the Qurʾān; and when you have recited these portions of the Qurʾān in the position of Qiyām, then say, “Holiness to God!” (Subḥāna ʾllāhi), and “Praise be to God!” (Wa ʾl-Ḥamdu li-ʾllāhi), and “There is no deity but God!” (Wa lā Ilāha illā huwa), and “God is most great!” (Wa ʾllāhu Akbar), fifteen times. Then perform a rukūʿ and recite it ten times; then raise up your head and say it ten times, then make the sajdah and say it ten times; then raise your head and say it ten times; then make another sajdah, and say it ten times, then raise your head again and say it ten times; altogether seventy-five times in every rakʿah; and do this in each of the rakʿah. If you are able to say this form of prayer every day, then do so, but if not, do it once every Friday, and if not each week, then say it once a month, and if not once a month, then say it once a year, and if not once a year, then do it once in your lifetime.’ ” (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. xli.)

The foregoing is a striking illustration of the mechanical character of the Muslim religion as regards its system of devotion [ZIKR.]

SALE, The Law of. [BAIʿ.]

ṢALĪB (صليب‎). “A crucifix; a cross.” [CROSS.]

ṢĀLIḤ (صالح‎). A prophet mentioned in the Qurʾān (Sūrah vii. 71), who was sent to the tribes ʿĀd and S̤amūd. Al-Baiẓāwī says he was the son of ʿUbaid, the son of Asaf, the son of Māsih, the son of ʿUbaid, the son of Ḥāẕir, the son of S̤amūd. Bochart thinks he must be the Pileg of Genesis xi. 16. D’Herbelot makes him the Salah of Genesis xi. 13.

The following is the account of him in the Qurʾān, with the commentators’ remarks in italics (see Lane’s Selections, 2nd ed., by Mr. Stanley Lane Poole):—

“And We sent unto the tribe of Thamood their brother Ṣáliḥ. He said, O my people, worship God. Ye have no other deity than Him. A miraculous proof of my veracity hath come unto you from your Lord, this she-camel of God being a sign unto you. [He had caused her, at their demand, to come forth from the heart of a rock.] Therefore let her feed in God’s earth, and do her no harm, lest a painful punishment seize you. And remember how He hath appointed you vicegerents in the earth after [the tribe of] ʾA′d, and given you a habitation in the earth: ye make yourselves, on its plains, pavilions wherein ye dwell in summer, and cut the mountains into houses wherein ye dwell in winter. Remember then the benefits of God, and do not evil in the earth, acting corruptly.—The chiefs who were elated with pride, among his people, said unto those who were esteemed weak, namely, to those who had believed among them, Do ye know that Ṣáliḥ hath been sent unto this? And they hamstrung the she-camel (Ḳudár [the son of Sálif] doing so by their order and slaying her with the sword); and they impiously transgressed the command of their Lord, and said, O Ṣáliḥ, bring upon us that punishment with which thou threatenest us for killing her, if thou be [one] of the apostles. And the violent convulsion (a great earthquake, and a cry from heaven) assailed them, and in the morning they were in their dwellings prostrate and dead. So he turned away from them, and said, O my people, I have brought unto you the message of my Lord and given you faithful counsel; but ye loved not faithful counsellors.” (Sūrah vii. 71–77.)

SĀLIK (سالك‎). Lit. “A traveller.” A term used by the mystics for a devotee, or one who has started on the heavenly journey. [SUFI.]

SALSABĪL (سلسبيل‎). Lit. “The softly flowing.” A fountain in Paradise, mentioned in the Qurʾān in Sūrah lxxvi. 19, and from which the Muslims in heaven are said to drink. “A spring therein named Salsabīl, and there shall go round about them immortal boys.”

SALUTATIONS. Arabic as-salām (السلام‎), “peace.” Taslīm (تسليم‎), Heb. ‏שָׁלוֹם‎ shalom, the act of giving the prayer of peace; pl. taslīmāt. The duty of giving and returning a salutation is founded on express injunctions in the Qurʾān.

Sūrah xxiv. 61: “When ye enter houses, then greet each other with a salutation from God, the Blessed and the Good.”

Sūrah iv. 88: “When ye are saluted with a salutation, salute ye with a better than it, or return the same salutation.”

ʿAlī says that Muḥammad established it as an incumbent duty that one Muslim should salute another. [FITRAH.] The ordinary salutation of the Muslim is “as-Salāmu ʿalai-kum,” i.e. “The peace be on you.” And the usual reply is “Wa ʿalai-kum as-salām,” i.e. “And on you also be the peace.”

The supposed origin of this salutation is given in a tradition by Abū Hurairah, who relates that the Prophet said:—

“God created Adam in his own likeness, and his stature was sixty cubits; and God said to Adam, ‘Go and salute that party of angels who are sitting down, and listen to their answer; for verily it shall be the salutation and reply for you and your children.’ Adam then went and said to the angels, ‘as-Salāmu ʿalai-kum,’ i.e. ‘The peace be on you,’ and the angels replied, ‘as-Salāmu ʿalaika wa raḥmatu ʾllāhi,’ i.e. ‘The peace be on thee, and the mercy of God.’ ”

This form is now usually given in reply by devout persons. (Ṣaḥīḥu ʾl-Buk͟hārī, p. 919.)

Muḥammad instructed his people as follows regarding the use of the salutation:—

“The person riding must salute one on foot, and he who is walking must salute those who are sitting, and the small must salute the larger, and the person of higher degree the lower. It is therefore a religious duty for the person of high degree, when meeting one of a lower degree; the giving of the Salām being regarded as a benediction. For,” says Muḥammad, “the nearest people to God are those who salute first. When a party is passing, it is sufficient if one of them give the salutation, and, in like manner, it is sufficient if one of the party return it of those sitting down.”

The Jews in the time of Muḥammad seem to have made the salutation a subject of annoyance to Muḥammad; for it is related when they went to the Prophet they used to say, “As-sammu ʿalai-ka,” “On you be poison.” To which the Prophet always replied, “Wa ʿalai-ka,” “And on you.”

Usāmah ibn Zaid says: “The Prophet once passed a mixed assembly of Muslim polytheists, idolaters, and Jews, and he gave the salutation, but he meant it only for the Muslims.”

Jarīr relates that on one occasion the Prophet met a party of women, and gave them the salutation. But this is contrary to the usual practice of Muḥammadans; and ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, in his commentary on this tradition, says: “This practice was peculiar to the Prophet, for the laws of Islām forbid a man saluting a woman unless she is old.”

In the East it is usual to raise the right hand (the raising of the left hand being disrespectful, as it is the hand used for legal ablutions) when giving the Salām, but this custom, common though it be, is not in accordance with the traditions. For ʿAmr ibn Shuʿaib relates, from his fore-fathers, that the Prophet said, “He is not of us who likens himself to another. Do not copy the Jews or the Christians in your salutation. For a Jew’s salutation is by raising his fingers, and the Christians salute with the palm of the hand. (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. i.)

In Central Asia, the salutation is generally given without any motion of the body, in accordance with the above tradition.

SALVATION. The Arabic word najāt (نجاة‎), “salvation,” only occurs once in the Qurʾān, namely, Sūrah xl. 44: “O my people! how is it that I bid you to salvation, but that ye bid me to the fire?” Nor is the word generally used in Muslim works of divinity, although the orthodox sect of Muslims claims for itself the title of Nājiyah, or those who are being saved.

The word mag͟hfirah, “forgiveness,” is frequently used in the Qurʾān to express what Christians understand by “salvation”; also Islām, Īmān, and Dīn, words which express the idea of a state of salvation.

According to Islām, a man obtains salvation by a recital of the Kalimah, or creed; but if he be an evil doer, he will suffer the pains of a purgatorial fire until his sins are atoned for; whilst he who has not accepted the Muslim creed will endure the pains of everlasting punishment. [HELL.]

AṢ-ṢAMAD (الصمد‎). “The Eternal.” One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. It occurs once in the Qurʾān, Sūrah cxii.: “God the Eternal.”

In its original meaning, it implies a lord, because one repairs to him in exigencies; or when applied to God, because affairs are stayed or rested on Him. Hence, according to al-Muḥkam, in loco, and the Lisānu ʾl-ʿArab, it signifies the Being that continues for ever—the Eternal One.

SAMĀḤAH (سماحة‎). [BENEFICENCE.]

SAMARITAN. [AS-SAMIRI.]

AS-SAMĪʿ (السميع‎). “The Hearer.” One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. The word frequently occurs in the Qurʾān.

AS-SĀMIRĪ (السامرى‎). Mentioned in the Qurʾān (Sūrah xx. 87: “As-Sāmirī has led them astray”) as the person who made the golden calf for the Children of Israel. In Professor Palmer’s translation, it is rendered “the Samaritan,” which is according to al-Baiẓāwī, who says his name was Mūsā ibn Z̤afar, of the tribe of Samaritans. [MOSES.]

SAMUEL. Arabic Ishmawīl (اشمويل‎), or Shamwīl; Heb. ‏שְׁמוּאֵל‎, referred to in the Qurʾān (Sūrah ii. 247) as “the prophet” to whom the Children of Israel said, “Raise for us a King, and we will fight for him in God’s way.”

Ḥusain, the commentator, says it is not quite certain who he was. He was either Yūshaʿ ibn Nūn, or Shamʿūn ibn S̤afīyā, or Ishmawīl. (Tafsīr-i-Ḥusainī, p. 65.)

The Kamālān give his name as Shamwīl, but say it was originally Ismāʾīl, and that the meaning is the same.

ṢANʿĀʾ (صنعاء‎). A city in al-Yaman, the Viceroy of which, Abrahatu ʾl-Ashram, an Abyssinian Christian, marched with a large army and some elephants upon Makkah, with the intention of destroying the Temple (see Qurʾān, Sūrah cv.) in the year Muḥammad was born. Hence the year was known as that of the Elephant.

SANAD (سند‎). Lit. “That on which one rests, as a pillar or cushion.” An authority; a document; a warrant. A term used in Muslim law.

ṢANAM (صنم‎), pl. aṣnām. The word used in the Qurʾān for an idol, e.g. Sūrah xiv. 38: “Turn me and my sons away from serving idols.” [IDOLS.]

SANCTUARY. The Prophet forbade putting a murderer to death in a mosque, but he may be taken by force from the mosque and slain outside the building. The same rule applies to persons guilty of theft. (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. viii.)

The custom of sanctuary was derived from the Levitical law of refuge. The six cities being established as cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer. The altar of burnt offerings was also a place of refuge for those who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) According to Lecky (European Morals, vol. ii. p. 42), the right of sanctuary was possessed by the Imperial statues and by the Pagan temples. Bingham (Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 554) says it seems to have been introduced into the Christian Church by Constantine.

SANDALS. [SHOES.]

SAQAR (سقر‎). “A scorching heat.” According to the commentator, al-Bag͟hawī it is the special division of hell set apart for the Magi. It is mentioned thus in the Qurʾān:—

Sūrah liv. 48: “Taste ye the touch of saqar.”

Sūrah lxxiv. 26: “I will broil him in saqar! And what shall make thee know what saqar is?” It leaveth nought and spareth nought, blackening the skin of man.

SARACEN. A term used by Christian writers for the followers of Muḥammad, and applied not only to the Arabs, but to the Turks and other Muslim nations.

There is much uncertainty as to the origin of this word. The word Σαρακηνός was used by Ptolemy and Pliny, and also by Ammianus and Procopius, for certain Oriental tribes, long before the death of Muḥammad (see Gibbon). Some etymologists derive it from the Arabic sharq, “the rising sun, the East” (see Wedgwood’s Dict.). Others from ṣaḥrāʾ, “a desert,”—the people of the desert (see Webster). Gibbon thinks it may be from the Arabic saraqah, “theft,” denoting the thievish character of the nation; whilst some have even thought it may be derived from Sarah the wife of the Patriarch Abraham.

SARAH. Arabic Sārah (سارة‎), Heb. ‏שָׂרָה‎, Greek Σάῤῥα. Abraham’s wife. Not mentioned by name in the Qurʾān, but referred to in Sūrah xi. 74: “And his wife was standing by laughing, and We gave her the glad tidings of Isaac, and of Jacob after Isaac.”

SARAQAH (سرقة‎). [THEFT.]

ṢARF (صرف‎). (1) A term used for a special kind of sale or exchange. According to the Hidāyah, baiʿu ʾṣ-ṣarf, or ṣarf sale, means a pure sale, of which the articles opposed to each other in exchange are both representatives of price, as gold for gold or silver for silver. (See Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 551.)

(2) That part of grammar which relates to the declining of nouns and the conjugating of verbs.

ṢARĪḤ (صريح‎). Explicit or clear. A term used in Muslim law for that which is express in contradistinction to that which is kināyah, or implied. For example, the T̤alāqu ʾṣ-ṣarīḥ, is an explicit form of divorce, whilst T̤alāqu ʾl-kināyah is an implied form of divorce, as when a man says to his wife, “Thou art free.”

ṢĀRIQ (صارق‎). A thief. [THEFT.]

SATAN. Arabic Shait̤ān (شيطن‎). [DEVIL.]

SATR (ستر‎). A curtain or veil. A term used for the seclusion of women, called also ḥijāb. In the Traditions it is used for necessary and decent attire, bābu ʾs-satr being a special chapter in the Mishkātu ʾl-Maṣābiḥ (book iv. ch. ix.). The satr for a man being from the waist to the knee, and for a free woman from the neck to the feet; but for a slave girl from the waist to the knee as in the case of a man. That part of the body which must be so covered is called ʿaurah or ʿaurat, “shame or modesty,” from which the Hindustani word, ʿaurat, “a woman,” is derived. [HARIM, WOMEN.]

SATTŪQAH (ستوقة‎). Base coin. The term is used for a coin which is current amongst merchants, but is not received at the public treasury. Coins in which the pure metal predominates are not considered base. (See Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 560.)

SAUDAH (سودة‎). One of the wives of Muḥammad. She was the widow of Sakrān, a Quraish, and one of the early companions of the Prophet. Muḥammad married her within two months of the death of K͟hadījah. (Muir’s Life of Mahomet, new ed. p. 117.) She died A.H. 55.

SAUL. Arabic T̤ālūt (طالوت‎). Heb. ‏שָׁאוּל‎ Shaool. King of Israel. Mentioned in the Qurʾān as a king raised up of God to reign over Israel, to whom was given an excellent degree of knowledge and personal appearance.

The following is the account given of Saul in the Qurʾān, with Mr. Lane’s rendering of the commentator’s remarks in italics. (Mr. Stanley Lane Poole’s 2nd Ed.)

“Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said unto a prophet of theirs, namely Samuel, Set up for us a king, under whom we will fight in the way of God? He said unto them, If fighting be prescribed as incumbent on you, will ye, peradventure, abstain from fighting? They replied, And wherefore should we not fight in the way of God, since we have been expelled from our habitations and our children by their having been taken prisoners and slain?—The people of Goliath [Jáloot] had done thus unto them.—But when fighting was commanded them, they turned back, excepting a few of them, who crossed the river with Saul. And God knoweth the offenders. And the prophet begged his Lord to send a king; whereupon he consented to send Saul. And their prophet said unto them, Verily God hath set up Saul as your king. They said, How shall he have the dominion over us, when we are more worthy of the dominion than he, (for he was not of the royal lineage, nor of the prophetic, and he was a tanner, or a tender of flocks or herds,) and he hath not been endowed with ample wealth? He replied, Verily God hath chosen him as king over you, and increased him in largeness of knowledge and of body, (for he was the wisest of the children of Israel at that time, and the most comely of them, and the most perfect of them in make,) and God giveth his kingdom unto whom He pleaseth; and God is ample in His beneficence, knowing with respect to him who is worthy of the kingdom.—And their prophet said unto them, when they demanded of him a sign in proof of his kingship, Verily the sign of his kingship shall be that the ark shall come unto you (in it were the images of the prophets: God sent it down unto Adam, and it passed into their possession; but the Amalekites took it from them by force: and they used to seek victory thereby over their enemy, and to advance it in the fight, and to trust in it, as He—whose name be exalted!—hath said); therein is tranquillity [SAKINAH] from your Lord, and relics of what the family of Moses and the family of Aaron have left: namely, the two shoes (or sandals) of Moses, and his rod, and the turban of Aaron, and a measure of the manna that used to descend upon them, and the fragments of the tables [of the Law]: the angels shall bear it. Verily in this shall be a sign unto you of his kingship, if ye be believers. Accordingly the angels bore it between heaven and earth, while they looked at it, until they placed it by Saul; whereupon they acknowledged his kingship, and hastened to the holy war; and he chose of their young men seventy thousand.

“And when Saul went forth with the troops from Jerusalem, and it was violently hot weather, and they demanded of him water, he said, Verily God will try you by a river, that the obedient among you, and the disobedient, may appear, (and it was between the Jordan and Palestine), and whoso drinketh thereof, he is not of my party (but he who tasteth not thereof, he is of my party), excepting him who takes forth a draught in his hand, and is satisfied therewith, not adding to it; for he is of my party;—then they drank thereof abundantly, excepting a few of them, who were content only with the handful of water. It is related that it sufficed them for their own drinking and for their beasts, and they were three hundred and somewhat more than ten. And when he had passed over it, he and those who believed with him, they said, We have no power to-day to contend against Goliath and his troops. And they were cowardly, and passed not over it. They who held it as certain that they should meet God at the resurrection (and they were those who had passed over it) said, How many a small body of men hath overcome a great body by the permission (or will) of God! And God is with the patient, to defend and aid.—And when they went forth to battle against Goliath and his troops, they said, O our Lord, pour upon us patience, and make firm our feet, by strengthening our hearts for the holy war, and help us against the unbelieving people!—And they routed them by the permission (or will) of God, and David, who was in the army of Saul, slew Goliath.” (Sūrah ii. 247–252.)

ṢAUM (صوم‎). “Fasting.” The usual Arabic term used for this religious act whether during the Ramaẓān or at any other time. Its equivalent in Persian is rozah. [FASTING, RAMAZAN.]

ṢAUMU ʾT-TAT̤AWWUʿ (صوم التطوع‎). A voluntary fast other than the month of Ramaẓān.

SAUT̤ (سوط‎). [DIRRAH.]

S̤AWĀB (ثواب‎). “Recompense; reward”; e.g. Qurʾān, Sūrah iii. 195: “A reward from God; for God, with Him are the best rewards.”

AS-SAWĀDU ʾL-AʿZ̤AM (السواد الاعظم‎). Lit. “The exalted multitude.” A term used in the Traditions and in Muslim theology for the Assembly of God, or the congregation of faithful men, or for a large majority.

SAWĀʾĪM (سوايم‎), pl. of Sāʾimah. Flocks and herds which are grazing and for which zakāt must be collected. [ZAKAT.]

SCHOOLS. Arabic maktab (مكتب‎), pl. makātib; madrasah (مدرسة‎), pl. madāris. According to Muslim law, all education should be carried on in connection with religious instruction, and consequently schools are generally attached to mosques. [EDUCATION.]

SCRIPTURE, HOLY. The expression, “Holy Scripture,” is rendered in Persian by Pāk Nawishtah (پاك نوشته‎), “the Holy Writing,” its equivalent in Arabic being al-Kitābu ʾl-Muqaddas (الكتاب المقدس‎), “the Holy Book,” or Kalāmu ʾllāh (كلام الله‎), “the Word of God.” These terms, whilst they are generally understood by Muslims to refer to the Qurʾān, more correctly include all books acknowledged by Muḥammadans to be the Word of God. They profess to receive all the Jewish Scripture and the New Testament as well as the Qurʾān as the revealed Word of God. [PROPHETS, INSPIRATION.]

SCULPTURE. Arabic anṣāb (انصاب‎). The making of carved, graven, or sculptured figures, is understood to be forbidden in the Qurʾān under the term ṣanam (صنم‎), “an idol” (see Sūrah xiv. 38); also in Sūrah v. 92: “Verily wine, and games of chance, and statues (anṣāb), and divining arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s device.”

Consequently sculpture is not allowed according to Muslim law, although ar-Rāg͟hib says a ṣanam is that which diverts the mind from God.

SEA. Arabic baḥr (بحر‎). “The sea,” al-baḥr, is a term applied in the Qurʾān to the Red Sea, known amongst Muḥammadans as the Baḥru ʾl-Qulzum. [RED SEA.] Sūrahs ii. 47; vii. 134. “The ships that sail like mountains in the sea,” are amongst the “signs” of God. (See Sūrah xlii. 31.) In Sūrah lii. 6, Muḥammad swears by “the swelling sea.” In Sūrah xvii. 68: “It is the Lord who drives the ships for you in the sea, that ye may seek after plenty from Him.” In Sūrah xviii. 109, it occurs as an illustration of the boundless character of the Word of God. “Were the sea ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely fail before the words of my Lord fail; aye, though we brought as much ink again.”

In Muḥammadan works, in the Traditions and commentaries, the Arabic baḥr is used for large rivers, as the Euphrates and the Nile, in the same sense as the Hebrew ‏יָם‎ yām (but the word nahr, Hebrew ‏נָהָר‎ nāhar, occurs in the Qurʾān for “rivers”).

It is related that Muḥammad said, “Let none but three classes of people cross the sea (for it has fire under it which causes its troubled motion), namely, (1) those who perform the Ḥajj, or ‘Pilgrimage’; (2) those who make the ʿumrah, or ‘visitation’; (3) those who go forth to war.” (Majmaʿu ʾl-Biḥār, vol. i. p. 76.)

The following are the names of the seas as current in Muḥammadan literature:—

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Ak͟hẓar, the Green or Indian Ocean.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Abyaẓ, the White or Mediterranean Sea.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Aswad, the Black, or Euxine Sea.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Azraq, the Blue or Persian Sea.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Qulzum, or al-Baḥru ʾl-Aḥmar, the Red Sea.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-Lūt̤, the Sea of Lot or Dead Sea.

Al-Baḥru ʾl-K͟hiẓr, the sea of Khizr, the Caspian Sea.

SEAL OF PROPHECY. K͟hātimu ʾn-Nubūwah (خاتم النبوة‎). A mole of an unusual size on the Prophet’s back, which is said to have been the divine seal which, according to the predictions of the Scriptures, marked Muḥammad as the “Seal of the Prophets,” K͟hātimu ʾn-Nabīyīn.

According to a tradition recorded in the Mishkātu ʾl-Maṣābiḥ, book iii. ch. 7, it was the size of the knob of a bridal canopy. Others say it was the size of a pigeon’s egg, or even the size of a closed fist.

Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq says “it was a piece of flesh, very brilliant in appearance, and according to some traditions it had secretly inscribed within it, ‘God is one and has no Associate.’ ”

Abū Rams̤āʾ, whose family were skilled in surgery, offered to remove it, but Muḥammad refused, saying, “The Physician thereof is He who placed it where it is.”

According to another tradition, Muḥammad said to Abū Rams̤āʾ, “Come hither and touch my back”; which he did, drawing his fingers over the prophetical seal, and, behold! there was a collection of hairs upon the spot. (See Muir, new ed. p. 542.)

ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq also says it disappeared from the Prophet’s back shortly before his death.

It is not clear how far Muḥammad encouraged the belief in this supernatural sign of his prophetic mission, but from his reply to Abū Rams̤āʾ, it would not appear that he really attributed any special power to its existence. [MUHAMMAD.]

SECTS OF ISLĀM. Arabic firqah (فرقة‎), pl. firaq. Muḥammad is related to have prophesied that his followers would be divided into numerous religious sects.

ʿAbdu ʾllāh ibn ʿUmar relates that the Prophet said: “Verily it will happen to my people even as it did to the Children of Israel. The Children of Israel were divided into seventy-two sects, and my people will be divided into seventy-three. Every one of these sects will go to Hell except one sect.” The Companions said, “O Prophet, which is that?” He said, “The religion which is professed by me and my Companions.” (Mishkāt, book i. ch. vi. pt. 2.)

The number has, however, far exceeded the Prophet’s predictions, for the sects of Islām even exceed in number and variety those of the Christian religion.

The Sunnīs arrogate to themselves the title of the Nājiyah, or those who are “being saved” (as, indeed, do the other sects), but within the limits of the Sunnī section of Muḥammadans there are four which are esteemed “orthodox,” their differences consisting chiefly in minor differences of ritual, and in varied interpretations of Muslim law. These four orthodox sects or schools of interpretation amongst the Sunnīs, are the Ḥanafīyah, the Shāfiʿīyah, the Malakīyah, and the Ḥambalīyah.

1. The Ḥanafīyahs are found in Turkey, Central Asia, and North India. The founder of this sect was the Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, who was born at al-Kūfah, the capital of al-ʿIrāq, A.D. 702, or A.H. 80, at which time four of the Prophet’s companions were still alive. He is the great oracle of jurisprudence, and (with his two pupils, the Imāms Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad) was the founder of the Ḥanafīyah Code of Law.

2. The Shāfiʿīyahs are found in South India and Egypt. The founder of this school of interpretation was Imām Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, who was born at Asqalon, in Palestine, A.D. 767 (A.H. 150).

3. The Malakīyahs prevail in Morocco, Barbary, and other parts of Africa, and were founded by Imām Mālik, who was born at al-Madīnah, A.D. 714 (A.H. 95). He enjoyed the personal acquaintance of Abū Ḥanīfah, and he was considered the most learned man of his time.

4. The Ḥambalīyahs were founded by Imām Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥambal, who was born at Bag͟hdād, A.D. 780 (A.H. 164). He attended the lectures delivered by ash-Shāfiʿī, by whom he was instructed in the Traditions. His followers are found in Eastern Arabia, and in some parts of Africa, but it is the least popular of the four schools of interpretation. They have no Muftī at Makkah, whilst the other three sects are represented there. The Wahhābīs rose from this sect. [WAHHABI.]

From the disciples of these four great Imāms have proceeded an immense number of commentaries and other works, all differing on a variety of points in their constructions, although coinciding in their general principles.

The G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hāt gives the following particulars of the seventy-three sects, spoken of in the Traditions, arranging them in six divisions of twelve sects each, and concluding with the Nājiyah, or “Orthodox” Sunnīs.

I.—The Rāfiẓīyah, “the Separatists,” who are divided into—

1. ʿAlawīyah, who esteem the K͟halīfah ʿAlī to have been a prophet.

2. Abadīyah, who hold that ʿAlī is divine.

3. Shuʿaibīyah, who say ʿAlī was the first and best of the K͟halīfahs.

4. Isḥāqīyah, who say the age of prophecy is not yet completed.

5. Ẕaidīyah, who hold that prayers can only be led by a descendant of ʿAlī.

6. ʿAbbāsīyah, who say al-ʿAbbās, the uncle of Muḥammad, was the only rightful Imām.

7. Imāmīyah, who state that the world is never left without an Imām of the Banū Hāshim to lead the prayers.

8. Nārisīyah, who say it is blasphemy for one person to say he is better than another.

9. Tanāsuk͟hīyah, who believe in the transmigration of souls.

10. Lāʿinīyah, those who curse the names of T̤alḥah, Zubair, and ʿĀyishah.

11. Rājiʿīyah, who believe that ʿAlī is hidden in the clouds and will return again to this earth.

12. Murtaẓīyah, who say it is lawful for a Muslim to fight against his Imām.

II.—The K͟hārijīyah, “the Aliens,” who are divided into—

1. Azraqīyah, who say there is no holy vision now to be obtained by the sons of men, as the days of inspiration are past.

2. Riyāẓīyah, who say a man is saved by good works, and not by faith.

3. S̤aʿlabīyah, who say God is indifferent to the actions of men, as though He were in a state of sleep.

4. Jāzimīyah, who hold true faith has not yet been made evident.

5. K͟halfīyah, who say to run away even from double the number of infidels is a mortal sin for Muslims.

6. Kūzīyah, who say that the human body is not made ready for prayer unless the ablutions be such as entirely cleanse the body.

7. Kanzīyah, who do not regard the giving of zakāt as necessary.

8. Muʿtazilah, who maintain that evil actions are not according to the decree of God, and that the prayers of a sinful man are not acceptable to God, and that faith is of man’s free will, and that the Qurʾān is created, and that almsgiving and prayer do not benefit the dead, and that there is no mīzān or kitāb, &c., at the Day of Judgment.

9. Maimūnīyah, who hold that belief in the unseen is absurd.

10. Muḥkamīyah, who say God has not revealed His will to mankind.

11. Sīrājīyah, who believe the example of the saints is of no importance.

12. Ak͟hnasīyah, who hold that there is no punishment for sin.

III.—The Jabarīyah, the “Deniers of Free Will,” who are divided into—

1. Muẓt̤ariyah, who hold that both good and evil are entirely from God, and man is not responsible for his actions.

2. Afʿālīyah, who say man is responsible for his actions although the power to do and to act is alone from God.

3. Maʿīyah, who believe that man possesses an entirely free will.

4. T̤arīqīyah, who say faith without works will save a man.

5. Bak͟htīyah, who believe that as every mortal receives according to God’s special gift, it is not therefore lawful for one to give to another.

6. Mutamannīyah, who hold that good works are those from which comfort and happiness are derived in this world.

7. Kāslānīyah, they who say punishment and reward is inflicted by God only according to the actions of man.

8. Ḥabībīyah, who hold that as one friend never injures another, so God, who is a God of love, does not punish his own creation.

9. K͟haufīyah, who say that just as a friend does not terrify his friend, so God does not terrify his people by judgments.

10. Fikrīyah, who say contemplation is better than worship, and more pleasing to God.

11. Ḥasabīyah, who hold that in the world there is no such a thing as fate or predestination.

12. Ḥujjatīyah, who say that inasmuch as God doeth everything and everything is of God, man cannot be made responsible for either good or evil.

IV.—The Qadarīyah, the “Asserters of Free Will,” who are divided into—

1. Aḥadīyah, who accept the injunctions of God, but not those of the Prophet.

2. S̤anawīyah, who say there are two eternal principles, good and evil; good being of Yazdān and evil being of Ahriman.

3. Kaisanīyah, who say our actions are either the creation of God or they are not.

4. Shait̤ānīyah, who deny the personality of Satan.

5. Sharīkīyah, who say faith is g͟hair mak͟hlūq, or “uncreated.”

6. Wahmīyah, who say the actions of man are of no consequence, whether they be good or evil.

7. Ruwaidīyah, who maintain that the world has an eternal existence.

8. Nākisīyah, who say it is lawful to fight against the Imām or K͟halīfah.

9. Mutabarrīyah, who say the repentance of sinners is not accepted by God.

10. Qāsit̤īyah, who hold that the acquirement of wealth and learning is a religious duty ordered by God.

11. Naz̤āmīyah, who maintain that it is lawful to speak of the Almighty as a thing (shaiʾ).

12. Mutawallifīyah, who say it is not evident whether evil is by God’s decree or not.

V.—The Jahimīyah, the followers of Jahim ibn Ṣafwān, who are divided into—

1. Muʿat̤t̤alīyah, who say the names and attributes of God are created.

2. Mutarābiṣīyah, who hold that the power, knowledge, and purpose of God are created.

3. Mutarāqibīyah, who say God has a place.

4. Wāridīyah, who state that those who enter hell will never escape from it, and that a muʾmin, or “believer,” will never enter hell.

5. Ḥarqīyah, who say the inhabitants of hell will so burn, that in time they will be annihilated.

6. Mak͟hlūqīyah, who believe that the Qurʾān, the Taurāt, the Injīl, and the Zubūr are created.

7. ʿIbarīyah, who say Muḥammad was a learned man, and a philosopher, but not a prophet.

8. Fānīyah, who say both Paradise and Hell will be annihilated.

9. Zanādiqīyah, who say the Miʿrāj, or “ascent of Muḥammad to heaven,” was only in the spirit, and that the world is eternal, and that there is no Day of Judgment.

10. Lafz̤īyah, who hold that the Qurʾān is not an inspired writing, but that its instructions are of God.

11. Qabrīyah, who say there is no punishment in the grave.

12. Wāqifīyah, who state that it is not certain whether the Qurʾān is create or uncreate.

VI.—The Murjīyah, or “Procrastinators,” who are divided into—

1. T̤ārīqīyah, who say nothing is necessary but faith.

2. Shāʾīyah, who maintain that when once a person has repeated the Muḥammadan creed he is saved.

3. Rājīyah, who believe that the worship of God is not necessary to piety, nor are good works necessary.

4. Shākkīyah, who say a man cannot be certain if he has faith or not, for faith is spirit.

5. Nāhīyah, who say faith is knowledge, and those who do not know the commandments of God have not faith.

6. ʿAmalīyah, who say faith is but good works.

7. Manqūṣīyah, who say faith is sometimes less and sometimes more.

8. Mustas̤nīyah, who deprecate assurance in religion, but say, “we are believers if God wills it.”

9. Ashʿarīyah, who say qiyās, or “analogical reasoning,” in matters of faith is unlawful.

10. Bidʿīyah, who hold that it is a duty to obey a ruler, even if he give orders which are evil.

11. Mushabbihīyah, who say God did literally make Adam in his own image.

12. Ḥashawīyah, who consider that in Muslim law there is no difference between wājib, sunnah, and mustaḥab.

VII.—The Nājiyah, or “Saved Ones,” make up the complete number of seventy-three.

Mr. Sale traces all the Muḥammadan sects to four sources:—

1. The Muʿtazilīyahs, the followers of Wāṣil ibn ʿAt̤ā, who may be said to have been the first inventor of scholastic divinity in Islām.

2. The Ṣifātīyahs, or Attributists, who hold the contrary opinions of the Muʿtazilīyahs.

3. The K͟hārijīyahs, or Aliens. Those who revolted from ʿAlī.

4. The Shīʿahs, or the followers of ʿAlī.

The author of the Sharḥu ʾ-Muwāqif says there are eight leading divisions of the sects of Islām:—

1. The Muʿtazilah.

2. The Shīʿahs.

3. The K͟hawārij.

4. The Murjīyah.

5. The Najjārīyah.

6. The Jabarīyah.

7. The Mushabbihīyah.

8. The Nājiyah.

For an account of these leading sects, the reader is referred to the articles under their respective titles.

Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾl-Qādir says there are not less than 150 sects in Islām.

SERMON. The oration delivered at the Friday midday prayer is called the k͟hut̤bah (خطبة‎); exhortations at any other time are termed waʿz̤ (وعظ‎). The former is an established custom in Islām, and the discourse is always delivered at the Masjidu ʾl-Jāmīʿ, or principal mosque, on Fridays, but sermons on other occasions although they are in accordance with the practice of Muḥammad, are not common. Very few Maulawīs preach except on Fridays. [KHUTBAH.]

SERPENT, Arabic ḥaiyah (حية‎), occurs in the Qurʾān once for the serpent made from Moses’ rod (Sūrah ii. 21). The word used in another place (Sūrah vii. 104) is s̤uʿbān (ثعبان‎). The Hebrew ‏תַּנִּין‎ tanneen is also used for a large serpent in Muslim books, but it does not occur in the Qurʾān.

In the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 34, it is said Satan made Adam and Eve to backslide and “drove them out from what they were in,” but no mention is made of the serpent.

The commentators say that when the devil attempted to get into Eden to tempt Adam, he was stopped by the angelic guard at the gates of Paradise, whereupon he begged of the animals to carry him in to speak to Adam and his wife, but they all refused except the serpent, who took him between his teeth and so introduced him to our first parents. (Tafsīru ʾl-ʿAzīzī, p. 124.)

SETH. Arabic Shīs̤ (شيث‎); Heb. ‏שֵׁת‎ Sheth. The third son of Adam. A prophet to whom it is said God revealed fifty small portions of scripture. [PROPHETS.] In the fourth century there existed in Egypt a sect of gnostics, calling themselves Sethians, who regarded Seth as a divine emanation (Neander’s Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 115), which will account for Muḥammad classing him as an inspired prophet with a revelation.

SEVEN DIALECTS. Arabic Sabʿatu Aḥruf (سبعة احرف‎). The Prophet is related to have said that the Qurʾān was revealed in seven dialects (Mishkāt, book ii. ch. ii.). The word aḥruf, translated “dialects,” may admit of two interpretations. Some understand it to mean that the Qurʾān contains seven kinds of revelation: Commandment (amr), prohibition (nahy), history (qiṣṣah), parable (mis̤āl), exhortation (waʿz̤), promises (waʿdah), and threatening (waʿīd). But the more common interpretation of aḥruf is “dialects,” by which is understood that by changing the inflections and accentuations of words, the text of the Qurʾān may be read in the then existing “seven dialects” of Arabia, namely, Quraish, T̤aiy, Hawāzin, Yaman, S̤aqīf, Huẕail, Tamīm. [QURʾAN.]

SEVEN SALĀMS. Seven verses of the Qurʾān, in which the word salām (سلام‎), “peace,” occurs:—

Sūrah xxxvi. 58: “Peace shall be the word spoken unto the righteous by a merciful God.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 77: “Peace be on Noah and on all creatures.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 109: “Peace be on Abraham.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 120: “Peace be on Moses and Aaron.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 130: “Peace be on Elias.”

Sūrah xxxvii. 181: “Peace be on His apostles.”

Sūrah xcvii. 5: “It is peace until the breaking of the morn.”

These verses are recited by the religious Muslim during sickness, or in seasons of danger or distress. In some parts of Islām it is customary to write these seven verses of the Qurʾān on paper and then to wash off the ink and drink it as a charm against evil.

SHAʿBĀN (شعبان‎). Lit. “The month of separation.” The eighth month of the Muḥammadan year. So-called because the Arabs used to separate themselves in search of water during this month.

SHAB-I-BARĀT (شب برات‎). The Persian title for the fifteenth day of the month Shaʿbān, which is called in Arabic Lailatu ʾn-niṣf min Shaʿbān, or “the night of the middle of Shaʿbān.”

On this night, Muḥammad said, God registers annually all the actions of mankind which they are to perform during the year; and that all the children of men, who are to be born and to die in the year, are recorded. Muḥammad, it is said, enjoined his followers to keep awake the whole night, to repeat one hundred rakʿah prayers, and to fast the next day; but there are generally great rejoicings instead of a fast, and large sums of money are spent in fireworks. It is the “Guy Fawkes Day” of India, being the night for display of fireworks.

The Shab-i-Barāt is said to be referred to in the XLIVth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, verse 2, as “the night on which all things are disposed in wisdom,” although the commentators are not agreed as to whether the verse alludes to this night or the Shab-i-Qadr, on the 27th of the month of Ramaẓān.

The Shab-i-Barāt is frequently confounded with the Lailatu ʾl-Qadr, or, as it is called in India, the Shab-i-Qadr.

SHAB-I-QADR (شب قدر‎). [LAILATU ʾL-QADR.]

SHĀDI (شادى‎). Persian. Lit. “Festivity.” The ordinary term used for weddings amongst Persian and Urdu-speaking peoples. In Arabic the term is ʿurs (عرس‎). [MARRIAGE.]

SHADĪDU ʾL-QUWĀ (شديد القوى‎). Lit. “One terrible in power.” A title given to the agent of inspiration in the Sūratu ʾn-Najm (liii.), verse 5: “Verily the Qurʾān is no other than a revelation revealed to him: one terrible in power (shadīdu ʾl-quwā) taught it him.”

Commentators are unanimous in assigning this title to the angel Gabriel.

SHAFʿ (شفع‎). A term used for rakʿahs of prayer when recited in pairs.

SHAFĀʿAH (شفاعة‎). [INTERCESSION.]

ASH-SHĀFIʿĪ (الشافعى‎). Imām Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, the founder of one of the four orthodox sects of Sunnīs, was born at Askalon in Palestine A.H. 150. He was of the same tribe as the Prophet, and is distinguished by the appellation of al-Imāmu ʾl-Mut̤t̤alibī, or Quraish Mut̤t̤alibī, because of his descent from the Prophet’s grandfather, ʿAbdu ʾl-Mut̤t̤alib. He derived his patronymic ash-Shāfiʿī from his grandfather, Shāfiʿī Ibn as-Sāʾib. His family were at first among the most inveterate of Muḥammad’s enemies. His father, carrying the standard of the tribe of Hāshim at the battle of Badr, was taken prisoner by the Muslims, but released on ransom, and afterwards became a convert to Islām. Ash-Shāfiʿī is reported by Muslim writers to be the most accurate of all the traditionists, and, if their accounts be well founded, nature had indeed endowed him with extraordinary talents for excelling in that species of literature. It is said that at seven years of age he had got the whole Qurʾān by rote, at ten he had committed to memory the Muwat̤t̤aʾ of Mālik, and at fifteen he obtained the rank of Muftī. He passed the earlier part of his life at Gaza, in Palestine (which has occasioned many to think he was born in that place); there he completed his education and afterwards removed to Makkah. He came to Bag͟hdād A.H. 195, where he gave lectures on the traditions, and composed his first work, entitled al-Uṣūl. From Bag͟hdād he went on a pilgrimage to Makkah, and from thence afterwards passed into Egypt, where he met with Imām Mālik. It does not appear that he ever returned from that country, but spent the remainder of his life there, dividing his time between the exercises of religion, the instruction of the ignorant, and the composition of his later works. He died at Cairo A.H. 204. Although he was forty-seven years of age before he began to publish, and died at fifty-four, his works are more voluminous than those of any other Muslim doctor. He was a great enemy to the scholastic divines, and most of his productions (especially upon theology), were written with a view to controvert their absurdities. He is said to have been the first who reduced the science of Jurisprudence into a regular system, and to have made a systematic collection of traditions. Imām Ḥambal remarks that until the time of ash-Shāfiʿī men did not know how to distinguish between the traditions that were in force and those that were cancelled. His first work was, as before-mentioned, the Uṣūl, or “fundamentals,” containing all the principles of the Muslim civil and canon law. His next literary productions were the Sunan and Masnad, both works on the traditional law, which are held in high estimation among the Sunnīs. His works upon practical divinity are various, and those upon theology consist of fourteen volumes. His tomb is still to be seen at Cairo, where the famous Ṣalāḥu ʾd-dīn afterwards (A.H. 587) founded a college for the preservation of his works and the propagation of his doctrines. The mosque at Ḥīrah was built by Sultān G͟hiyās̤u ʾd-Dīn for the same purpose. Imām ash-Shāfiʿī is said to have been a person of acute discernment and agreeable conversation. His reverence for God was such that he never was heard to mention his name except in prayer. His manners were mild and ingratiating, and he reprobated all unnecessary moroseness or severity in a teacher, it being a saying of his that whoever advised his brother tenderly and in private did him a service, but that public reproof could only operate as a reproach. His principal pupils were Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥambal and az-Zuhairī, the former of whom afterwards founded a sect. [HANBAL.]

The Shāfiʿī sect of Sunnīs is chiefly met with in Egypt and Arabia.

SHAG͟HĀR (شغار‎). A double treaty of marriage common amongst the pagan Arabs, viz. the man marrying the sister or daughter of another, and in return giving his sister or daughter in order to avoid paying the usual dower. It is strictly forbidden by the Muḥammadan religion (see Mishkāt, book xii. ch. 11), although it is even now practised by the people of Central Asia.

SHĀH (شاه‎). Persian. “A King.” A title usually given to members of the Ascetic order, and to Saiyids, as Faqīr Shāh, Akbar Shāh. It has, however, become a common addition to surnames, both in India and other countries, and no longer denotes a position of dignity.

SHAHĀDAH (شهادة‎). “Evidence.” [WITNESSES.] Martyrdom. [MARTYRS.]

SHAHĪD (شهيد‎). [MARTYRS, WITNESS.]

ASH-SHAHĪD (الشهيد‎). “The Witness.” One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. It frequently occurs in the Qurʾān for the Almighty (e.g. Sūrah iii. 93) as one who seeth all things.

SHĀHINSHĀH (شاهنشاه‎). A Persian title given to the King of Persia—“King of Kings.” It is a title strictly forbidden in Traditions, in which it is related that Muḥammad said “ ‘King of Kings’ is the vilest name you can call a man, for there is no other King of Kings but God.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. viii.)

SHAIK͟H (شيخ‎), pl. shuyūk͟h, ashyāk͟h, or mashāyik͟h. A venerable old man. A man above fifty years of age. A man of authority. A superior of an order of Darweshes. Shayk͟hu ʾl-Islām, a title given to the chief Maulawī or Qāẓī of the cities of Constantinople, Cairo, Damascus, &c.

SHAIT̤ĀN (شيطان‎). [DEVIL.]

SHAJJAH (شجة‎), pl. shijāj. [WOUNDS.]

SHAKING HANDS. Arabic muṣāfaḥah (مصافحة‎). Is enjoined in the Traditions, and is founded upon the express example of Muḥammad himself.

Al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib says the Prophet said, “There are no two Muslims who meet and shake hands but their sins will be forgiven them before they separate.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. iii.)

ASH-SHAKŪR (الشكور‎). “The Acknowledger of Thanksgiving.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of the Almighty. Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxv. 27: “Verily He (God) is forgiving, and an acknowledger of thanksgiving.” When used for anyone but God it means one who is grateful, e.g. Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxiv. 12: “Few of my servants are grateful.”

ASH-SHAʾM (الشام‎). Lit. “That which is on the left-hand (looking to the rising sun),” i.e. the northern country to Makkah. Syria.

ASH-SHAMS (الشمس‎). “The Sun.” The title of the XCIst Sūrah of the Qurʾān, which begins with the word.

SHAQQU ʾṢ-ṢADR (شق الصدر‎). Lit. “The splitting open of the heart.” Anas relates that “the Angel Gabriel came to the Prophet, when he was playing with boys, and took hold of him, and laid him on the ground, and split open his heart, and brought out a little bag of blood, and said to Muḥammad, ‘This is the devil’s part of you.’ After this, Gabriel washed the Prophet’s heart with zamzam water, then sewed it up and replaced it. Then the boys who were with the Prophet came running to his nurse, saying, ‘Verily Muḥammad is killed.’ ” Anas also says that he “had seen the marks of the sewing in the Prophet’s breast.” (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. vi.)

According to the commentators al-Baiẓāwī, al-Kamālān, and Ḥusain, the first verse of the XCIVth Sūrah of the Qurʾān refers to this event: “Have we not opened thy breast for thee, and taken off from thee thy burden, which galled thy back?” But it seems probable that this simple verse of one of the earliest chapters of the Qurʾān refers merely to the enlightenment of Muḥammad’s heart, and that his followers afterwards invented the miracle in order to give a supernatural turn to the passage. [MUHAMMAD.]

SHARʿ (شرع‎). [LAW.]

SHARĀB (شراب‎). In its original meaning, “that which is drunk.” A drink. Always applied to wine and intoxicating drinks. In mystic writings, sharāb, “wine,” signifies the dominion of Divine love over the heart of man.

SHARḤ (شرح‎). Lit. “Expounding.” A term used for a commentary written in explanation of any book or treatise, as distinguished from tafsīr, which is used only for a commentary of the Qurʾān. These expositions are written either in the text, or on the side of the book or treatise they attempt to expound. The term, however, generally used for marginal notes is ḥāshiyah. For example, the Tanwīru ʾl-Abṣār is the matn, or text, of a great work on Muḥammadan laws, written by Shamsu ʾd-Dīn Muḥammad, A.H. 995; the Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār is a sharḥ, or commentary written on that work by ʿAlā ʾd-Dīn Muḥammad, A.H. 1088; and the Ḥāshiyah, or marginal notes on these two works, is the Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, by Muḥammad Amīn.

SHARĪʿAH (شريعة‎). The law, including both the teaching of the Qurʾān and of the traditional sayings of Muḥammad. [LAW.]

SHART̤ (شرط‎). The conditions of marriage, of contracts, &c.

SHAVING. The shaving of the beard is forbidden in the Traditions, for Ibn ʿUmar relates that the Prophet said: “Do the opposite of the polytheists; let your beards grow long and clip your mustachios.” The shaving of the head is allowed, provided the whole and not a part is shaven, for the Prophet said: “Shave off all the hair of the head or let it alone.” (Mishkāt, xx. ch. iv. pt. 3.)

In Afghanistan it is the custom to shave the head, but not in other parts of Islām.

SHAVING THE HEAD. Arabic taḥlīq (تحليق‎). Forbidden in the Ḥadīs̤ (Mishkāt, book xiv. ch. v.), although it is most common amongst the Muḥammadans of India and Central Asia.

SHAWWĀL (شوال‎). Lit. “The month of raising the tail.” The tenth month of the Muḥammadan year. (For a discussion of the meaning of the title of this month, see Lane’s Arabic Dict. in loco.)

SHAʿYĀʾ (شعياء‎). [ISAIAH.]

SHECHINA. [SAKINAH, TABUT.]

SHEM. Arabic Sām (سام‎). A son of Noah. Not mentioned in the Qurʾān, but his name is given in commentaries.

SHĪʿAH (شيعة‎). Lit. “Followers.” The followers of ʿAlī, first cousin of Muḥammad and the husband of his daughter Fāt̤imah. The Shīʿahs maintain that ʿAlī was the first legitimate Imām or K͟halīfah, or successor, to the Prophet, and therefore reject Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUs̤mān, the first three K͟halīfahs of the Sunnī Muslims, as usurpers. They are also called the Imāmīyahs, because they believe the Muslim religion consists in the true knowledge of the Imām or rightful leaders of the faithful. Also the Is̤nā-ʿasharīyah, or the twelveans, as followers of the twelve Imāms. The Sunnī Muslims call them the Rāfiẓī, or the forsakers of the truth. The Shīʿahs strenuously maintain that they are the “orthodox” Muslims, and arrogate to themselves (as do also the Sunnīs) the title of al-Muʾminūn, or the “True Believers.”

The spirit of division, which appeared among the followers of Muḥammad, even before his death, broke out with greater violence after it; and the rapid strides of his successors to even imperial power, only afforded a wider sphere for ambition. The great and radical difference between the Shīʿahs and Sunnīs, as we have already remarked, arises from the former maintaining the divine and indefeasible right of ʿAlī to succeed to the K͟halifate on the death of the Prophet. ʿAlī’s claims, they assert, rested on his nearness of kindred to Muḥammad, of whom he was a cousin, and on his having married Fāt̤imah, the only offspring of the Prophet which survived him. They also assert that he was expressly declared his successor by the Prophet himself, under direct guidance from God.

The text quoted in defence of the divine institution of the K͟halifate in the Prophet’s own family, is the 118th verse of the Sūratu ʾl-Baqarah, or the Second Chapter of the Qurʾān, which reads:—

“And when his Lord tried Abraham with words and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘I am about to make of thee an IMĀM to mankind’; he said, ‘Of my offspring also?’ ‘My covenant,’ said God, ‘embraceth not evil doers.’ ”

According to the Shīʿahs, this passage shows that the Imāmate, or K͟halifate, is a divine institution, and the possessor thereof must be of the seed of Abraham. This the Sunnīs would also admit, as they hold that the true K͟halīfah can only be one of the Quraish tribe [KHALIFAH], but from the expression, “my covenant embraceth not evil doers,” the Shīʿah doctors establish the supernatural character of the K͟halifate, and hold that the divinely appointed leader must himself be without spot or blemish or capacity to sin. The primeval creation of ʿAlī is therefore a dogma of the Shīʿah faith.

The author of the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb (Merrick’s ed., p. 4), says: “The Prophet declared that the Most High had created him, and ʿAlī and Fāt̤imah, and Ḥasan and Ḥusain, before the creation of Adam, and when as yet there was neither heaven, nor earth, nor darkness, nor light, nor sun, nor moon, nor paradise, nor hell.” [HAQIQATU ʾL-MUHAMMADIYAH.]

The Shīʿah traditions also give very lengthy accounts of the nomination of ʿAlī by the Prophet to be his successor. The following is the account given in the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb (p. 334):—

“When the ceremonies of the pilgrimage were completed, the Prophet, attended by ʿAlī, and the Muslims, left Makkah for al-Madīnah. On reaching G͟hadīrk͟hum, the Prophet halted, although that place had never been known as a stopping-place for caravans because it had neither water nor pasturage. The reason for stopping at this place being a direct message from the Almighty. The Prophet had received divine messages on the subject before, but He had not before expressly appointed the time of ʿAlī’s inauguration.”

“As the day was very hot, the Prophet ordered them to take shelter under some thorn trees. Having ordered all the camel-saddles to be piled up for a pulpit, he commanded a herald to summon the people around him. Most of them had bound their cloaks on their feet as a protection from the excessive heat. When all the people were assembled, the Prophet ascended the pulpit made of camel-saddles, and, calling to him the Commander of the Faithful (ʿAlī), placed him on his right hand. Muḥammad then gave praise to God, and foretold his own death, saying that he had been called to the gate of God. He then said, ‘I leave among you the Book of God, to which, while you adhere, you will never go astray. I leave with you the members of my family who cannot be separated from the Book of God until both they and the Book join me at the fountain of al-Kaus̤ar.’ [KAUSAR.] He then, with a loud voice, said, ‘Am I not dearer to you than your own lives?’ And all the people said, ‘Yes.’ He then took the hands of ʿAlī and raised them up so high, that the white of his arm-pits appeared, and said, ‘Whosoever from his heart receives me as his master, then let him receive ʿAlī. O Lord, befriend ʿAlī. Be the enemy of all his enemies. Help all who help him, and forsake all who forsake him.’”

The writer also says:—

“Certain authorities, both Shīʿah and Sunnī, declare that when the Prophet died, the hypocritical Muhājirs and Anṣārs, such as Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿAbdu ʾr-Rahmān ibnu ʾl-ʿAuf, instead of visiting the family of the Prophet to comfort them at the time of his death, assembled at the abode of the Banū Saudah, and plotted to seize the K͟halīfate. Most of them did not perform the prayers at the Prophet’s burial, although ʿAlī sent to call them for the purpose. This plan was to make Abū Bakr K͟halīfah, and for this they had plotted in the Prophet’s lifetime. The hypocritical Anṣārs, however, wished to make Saʿd ibnu ʾl-Abādah K͟halīfah, but they were over-ruled by the Muhājirs. A certain man brought the information that Abū Bakr was constituted K͟halīfah, when ʿAlī was in the act of filling in the earth of the Prophet’s grave, and said that the hypocrites had feared that if they waited till the funeral ceremony was over, they would not succeed in their design of depriving ʿAlī of his rights. ʿAlī laid his spade on the ground and recited the first verses of the XXIXth Sūrah of the Qurʾān: ‘A. L. M. Do men reckon that they will be left alone who say, “We believe,” and not be tried? We did try those who were before them, and God will surely know those who are truthful, and he will surely know those who are liars.’ ”

The Shīʿahs believe that at this time God made special revelations to Fāt̤imah, the Prophet’s daughter, and ʿAlī’s wife. These revelations are said to have been possessed by the last of the Imāms, al-Mahdī, and to be still in his possession. [MAHDI.]

It need scarcely be added that the Sunnī writers deny every word of these traditions.

The strong hand of the Sunnī K͟halīfah ʿUmar kept the claims of ʿAlī in abeyance; but when ʿUmar died, the K͟halifate was offered to ʿAlī, on condition that he would govern according to the Qurʾān, and the traditions as received by the Sunnīs. The answer of ʿAlī not being deemed satisfactory, the election devolved upon ʿUs̤mān (Othman). ʿUs̤mān was assassinated A.H. 35, and ʿAlī was elected on his own terms, in spite of the opposition of ʿĀyishah, the favourite wife of the Prophet, who had become a great influence in Islām.

One of the first acts of ʿAlī was to recall Muʿāwiyah from Syria. Muʿāwiyah refused, and then claimed the K͟halīfate for himself. His claims were supported by ʿĀyishah. ʿAlī was eventually assassinated at Kūfah, A.H. 40, and upon his death his son Ḥasan was elected K͟halīfah, but he resigned it in favour of Muʿāwiyah, on the condition that he should resume it on the death of the latter. Muʿāwiyah consented to this arrangement, although secretly determining that his own son Yazīd should be his successor.

Upon the death of Muʿāwiyah, A.H. 60, his son Yazīd, “the Polluted,” obtained the position of Imām or K͟halīfah, without the form of election, and with this event commenced the great Shīʿah schism, which has divided the forces of Islām until this day.

The leading, or “orthodox” sect of the Shīʿahs, the Imāmīyahs, receive the following as the rightful K͟halīfahs:—

1. ʿAlī, the son-in-law of the Prophet.

2. Al-Ḥasan, the son of ʿAlī.

3. Al-Ḥusain, the second son of ʿAlī.

4. ʿAlī, surnamed Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn, the son of al-Ḥusain.

5. Muḥammad al-Bāqir, son of Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn.

6. Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq, son of Muḥammad al-Bāqir.

7. Mūsā al-Kāz̤im, son of Jāʿfar.

8. Ar-Raẓā, son of Mūsā.

9. Muḥammad at-Taqī, son of ar-Raẓā.

10. ʿAlī an-Naqī, son of Muḥammad at-Taqī.

11. Al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, son of ʿAlī an-Naqī.

12. Muḥammad, son of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, or the Imām al-Mahdī, who is supposed by the Shīʿahs to be still alive, though he has withdrawn for a time, and they say he will again appear in the last days as the Mahdī, or “Director,” which the Prophet prophesied would appear before the Day of Judgment. [MAHDI.]

The Imāmites trace the descent of this Imām Muḥammad as direct from ʿAlī, thus making him the twelfth lawful Imām, on which account they are called the Is̤nā-ʿasharīyah, or the “Twelveans.” They assert that this last Imām, whilst still a boy, being persecuted by the Abbaside K͟halīfahs, disappeared down a well in the courtyard of a house at Hillah near Bag͟hdād, and Ibn K͟haldun says, so late as even in his day, devout Shīʿahs would assemble every evening after sunset at this well and entreat the absent Imām to appear again on earth.

In the present day, during the absence of the Imām, the Shīʿahs appeal to the Mujtahidūn, or “enlightened doctors of the law,” whose opinion is final on all matters, both temporal and spiritual.

There have been two great schisms in the succession of the Imāms, the first upon the death of ʿAlī Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn, when part of the sect adhered to his son Zaid, the founder of the Zaidīyah sect. And the second on the death of aṣ-Ṣādiq, when his father nominated his second son, Mūsā al-Kāz̤im, as his successor, instead of allowing the K͟halīfate to go in Ismāʿīl’s family; those who adhered to Ismāʿīl’s family being called Ismāʿīlīyah. The great body of the Shīʿahs acknowledge Mūsā al-Kāz̤im and his descendants as the true Imāms.

The Ismāʿīlīyah, like the Twelveans, make profession of a loyal attachment to the cause of ʿAlī. Their schism was occasioned by a dispute regarding the succession to the Imāmate on the death of Imām Jaʿfar Ṣādiq. Jaʿfar had four sons, the eldest of whom was Ismāʿīl. One day, however, Ismāʿīl was seen in a state of inebriety, and his father disinherited him, and appointed his son Mūsā. The greater number of the Shīʿahs accepted this decision, but a small number, who regarded the drunkenness of the Imām as an evidence that he accepted the hidden meaning and not the legal precepts of Islām (!), remained attached to Ismāʿīl. They say from the time of ʿAlī to the death of Muḥammad, the son of Ismāʿīl, the Imāms were visible, but from his death commenced the succession of concealed Imāms. The fourth of these “concealed” Imāms was a certain ʿAbdu ʾllāh, who lived about the third century of the Hijrah.

The contentions of the Shīʿahs regarding the succession have become endless, and of the proverbial seventy-three sects of Islām, not fewer than thirty-two are assigned to the Shīʿahs, and, according to the Sharḥu ʾl-Muwāqif, there are as many as seventy-three sects of the Shīʿahs alone.

According to the Sharḥu ʾl-Muwāqif, the three principal sects of the Shīʿahs are (1) G͟hulāt, or Zealots, the title generally given to those who, through their excessive zeal for the Imāms, have raised them above the degree of human beings. (2) Zaidīyah, those who separated after the appointment of Muḥammad Bāqir to the K͟halīfate, and followed Zaid. (3) Imāmīyah, or those who acknowledged Jaʿfar Ṣādiq as the rightful Imām, to the exclusion of Ismāʿīl, and which appears to be what may be called the orthodox sect of the Shīʿahs. Out of these three great divisions have grown innumerable sects, which it would be tedious to define. All Shīʿah religionists are more or less infected with mysticism.

Many of the Shīʿahs have carried their veneration for ʿAlī so far, as to raise him to the position of a divine person, and most of the sects make their Imāms partakers of the divine nature. These views have their foundation in the traditions already quoted, which assert the pre-existence of Muḥammad and ʿAlī, and they have undoubtedly been fostered by the gnostic tendencies of all forms of Persian belief, especially Ṣufīism. [SUFI.]

Since the accession of Ismāʿīl, the first of the Ṣūfī dynasty, A.D. 1499, the Shīʿah faith has been the national religion of Persia. Nādir Shah, when at the summit of his power, attempted to convert the Persians to the Sunnī form of Islām, in order to assist his ambitious designs, but the attempt failed, and the attachment of the Persians to the Shīʿah faith has remained as decided as ever.

Sir Lewis Pelly remarks:—

“Though the personal history of Ali and his sons was the exciting cause of the Shiah schism, its predisposing cause lies far deeper in the impassable ethnological gulf which separates the Aryan and Semitic races. Owing to their strongly centralised form of government, the empire of the Sassanides succumbed at once before the onslaught of the Saracens; still, Persia was never really converted to Islam, and when Mohammed, the son of Ali, the son of Abdullah, the son of Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet Mohammed, proclaimed the Imamate as inherent of divine right, in the descendants of the Caliph Ali, the vanquished Persians rose as one man against their Arab conquerors. The sons of Abbas had all espoused the cause of their cousin Ali against Moawiyah, and when Yezid succeeded to the Caliphate, Abdullah refused to acknowledge him, and retired to Mecca. It was he who tried to dissuade Husain from going to Cufa. His son was Ali, who, by order of the Caliph Walid, was flogged and paraded through the streets of Damascus, mounted on a camel, with his face to its tail, and it was to avenge this insult on his father that Mohammed resolved to overthrow the dynasty of the Ommiades.

“The Persians, in their hatred of the Arabs, had from the first accepted the rights of the sons of Ali and Fatimah to the Imamate; and Mohammed cunningly represented to them that the Imamate had been transmitted to him by Abou Hashim, the son of Mohammed, another son of the Caliph Ali, whose mother was a daughter of the tribe of Hanifah. This was a gross fraud on the descendants of Fatimah, but the Persians cared not so long as they threw off the Arab yoke.” (Miracle Play, Intro., p. xvi.; W. H. Allen & Co., 1879.)

The Muḥammadans of the province of Oudh in British India are for the most part Shīʿahs, and there are a few in the region of Tīrah, on the frontier of India. With the exception of the province of Oudh, the Muḥammadans of India are for the most part Sunnīs of the Ḥanafī sect, but practices peculiar to the Shīʿahs have long prevailed in certain localities. In most parts of India, where the parties are Shīʿahs, the law of this school of jurisprudence is always administered, especially with regard to marriage and inheritance.

It is not correct, as stated by Sale (Introduction to the Koran) and others, that the Shīʿahs reject the Sunnah, or Traditions; for although the Shīʿahs do not receive the “six correct books of the Sunnīs,” they acknowledge five collections of their own, namely: (1) Al-Kāfī, (2) Man-lā-yastaḥẓirahu ʾl-Faqīh, (3) Tahẕīb, (4) Istibṣār, (5) Nahju ʾl-Balāg͟hah. [TRADITIONS.] The works written on the traditions are very numerous.

The Rev. James L. Merrick (Boston, 1850) has translated into English portions of the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb, the most popular book of traditions amongst the Shīʿahs. It was originally compiled by Muḥammad Bāqir, son of Muḥammad Tākī, whose last work was the well-known Ḥaqqu ʾl-Yaqīn, A.H. 1027 (A.D. 1627).

The Shīʿah school of jurisprudence is of earlier date than that of the Sunnīs, for Abū Ḥanīfah, the father of the Sunnī Code of Muslim law, received his first instructions in jurisprudence from Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq, the sixth Imām of the Shīʿahs; but this learned doctor afterwards separated from his teacher, and established a code of laws of his own.

The differences between the Shīʿahs and the Sunnīs are very numerous, but the following are the principal points:—

(1) The discussion as to the office of Imām, already alluded to.

(2) The Shīʿahs have a profound veneration for the K͟halīfah ʿAlī, and some of their sects regard him as an incarnation of divinity, whilst they all assert that next to the Prophet, ʿAlī is the most perfect and excellent of men.

(3) They still possess Mujtahids, or “enlightened doctors,” whose opinion is final in matters of Muslim law and doctrine. The Mujtahid is the highest degree amongst Muḥammadan doctors. The Sunnīs say, in the present divided condition of Islām it is impossible to appoint them, but the Shīʿahs still elect them in Persia, and the appointment is confirmed by the king. [MUJTAHID.]

(4) They observe the ceremonies of the Muḥarram in commemoration of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusain, whilst the Sunnīs only observe the tenth day of the Muḥarram, or the ʿĀshūrāʾ, being, they say, the day on which God created Adam. [MUHARRAM.]

(5) They include the Majūsī, or fire worshippers, amongst the Ahlu ʾl-Kitāb, or people who have received an inspired record from God, whilst the Sunnīs only acknowledge the Jews, Christians, and Muslims as such.

(6) They admit the principle of religious compromise called Taqīyah (lit. “Guarding oneself”). A pious fraud, whereby the Shīʿah Muḥammadan believes he is justified in either smoothing down, or denying, the peculiarities of his religious belief in order to save himself from persecution. [TAQIYAH.]

(7) There are also various minor differences in the liturgical ceremonies of the Shīʿahs, which will be found in the account of the liturgical prayers. [PRAYER.]

(8) The differences between the civil law of the Shīʿahs and Sunnī have been carefully noted in Mr. N. B. E. Baillie’s Introduction to his Digest of the Imameea Code (London, 1869):—

(a) “With regard to the sexes, any connection between them, which is not sanctioned by some relation founded upon contract or upon slavery, is denounced by both the sects as zināʾ, or fornication. But, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, the contract must be for the lives of the parties, or the woman be the slave of the man, and it is only to a relation founded on a contract for life that they give the name of nikāḥ, or marriage. According to the Shīʿahs, the contract may be either temporary, or for life, and it is not necessary that the slave should be the actual property of the man; for it is sufficient if the usufruct of her person be temporarily surrendered to him by her owner. To a relation established in any of these ways they give the name of nikāḥ, or marriage, which is thus, according to them, of three kinds, permanent, temporary, and servile. It is only their permanent marriage that admits of any comparison with the marriage of the Ḥanafīyahs. And here there is, in the first place, some difference in the words by which the contract is effected. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the words may be ṣarīḥ (express) or kināyah (ambiguous). According to the Shīʿahs, they must always be express; and to the two express terms of the other sect (nikāḥ and tazwīj) they add a third mutʿah, which is rejected by the others as insufficient. [MUTʿAH.] Further, while the Ḥanafīyahs regard the presence of witnesses as essential to a valid contract of marriage, the Shīʿahs do not deem it to be in anywise necessary. The causes of prohibition correspond, to some extent, in both schools; but there is this difference between them, that the Ḥanafīyah includes a difference of dār, or nationality, among the causes of prohibition, and excludes liʿān, or imprecation, from among them; while the Shīʿah excludes the former and includes the latter. There is, also, some difference between them as to the conditions and restrictions under which fosterage becomes a ground of prohibition. And with regard to infidelity, though both schools entirely prohibit any sexual intercourse between a Muslimah or Musalman woman and a man who is not of her own religion, the Ḥanafī allows of such intercourse, under the sanction of marriage or of slavery, between a Muslim and any woman who is a kitābīyah, that is, who belongs to any sect that is supposed to have a revealed religion, while the Shīʿah restricts such connection to mutʿah, or temporary and servile marriages. Among Kitābīyah both schools include Christians and Jews, but the Ḥanafī rejects Majūsīs, or fire-worshippers, who are included among them by the Shīʿahs. The Shīʿahs do not appear to make any distinction between invalid and valid marriages, all that are forbidden being apparently void according to them. But the distinction is of little importance to the parties themselves, as under neither of the schools does an unlawful marriage confer any inheritable quality upon the parties; and the rights of the children born of such marriages are determined by another consideration, which will be adverted to in the proper place hereafter.

“(b) With regard to the servile marriage of the Shīʿahs, it is nothing more than the right of sexual intercourse which every master has with his slaves; but there is the same difference between the two sects, in this case, as in that of marriage by contract. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the right must be permanent, by the woman’s being the actual property of the man. According to the Shīʿahs, the right may be temporary, as when it is conceded for a limited time by the owner of the slave. When a slave has borne a child to her own master, which he acknowledges, she becomes his umm-ul-walad, or mother of a child, and cannot be sold, while she is entitled to emancipation at her master’s death. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, these privileges are permanent, but, according to the Shīʿahs, the exemption from sale is restricted to the life of her child, and her title to emancipation is at the expense of her child’s share in the master’s estate. If that be insufficient, her enfranchisement is only pro tanto, or so far as the share will go. Where the child’s father has only an usufructuary right in the mother, the child is free, though the mother, being the property of another, does not acquire the rights of an umm-ul-walad.

“(c) With regard to the persons who may be legally slaves, there seems to be little, if any, difference between the two sects. According to the Shīʿahs, slavery is the proper condition of the ḥarabīs, or enemies, with the exception only of Christians, Jews, and Majūsīs, or fire-worshippers, so long as they continue in a state of ẕimmah, or subjection, to the Mussulman community. If they renounce their ẕimmah, they fall back into the condition of ordinary ḥarabīs, and if a person should buy from a ḥarabī his child, or wife, or any of his consanguineous relations, the person so purchased is to be adjudged a slave. There seems also to be but little difference in the manner in which slaves may be enfranchised, or their bondage qualified. But there is an important difference as to children; for, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child follows the conditions of its mother, being free or a slave, as she is the one or the other; while, according to the Shīʿahs, it is free, if either of its parents be so. Both the sects are agreed that marriage may be dissolved by the husband at any time at his pleasure, and to such dissolutions they both give the name of t̤alāq.

“(d) But there are some important differences between the repudiation of the two sects. Thus, while the Ḥanafīyahs recognize two forms, the Sunnī and Bidaʿī, or regular and irregular, as being equally efficacious, and subdivide the regular into two other forms, one of which they designate as aḥsan, or best, and the other as ḥasan, or good, the Shīʿahs reject these distinctions altogether, recognizing only one form of the Sunnī, or regular. So also as to the expressions by which repudiation may be constituted; while the Ḥanafīyahs distinguish between what they call ṣarīḥ, or express words, which are inflections of the word t̤alāq, and various expressions which they term kināyah, or ambiguous, the Shīʿahs admit the former only. Further, the Ḥanafīyahs do not require intention when express words are used; so that, though a man is actually compelled to use them, the repudiation is valid according to them. Nor do they require the presence of witnesses as necessary in any case to the validity of a repudiation; while, according to the Shīʿahs, both intention and the presence of two witnesses in all cases are essential. Both sects agree that repudiation may be either bāʾin (absolute) or rajaʿī (revocable), and that a repudiation given three times cannot be revoked, nor a woman so repudiated be again married by her husband until she has been intermediately married to another man, and the marriage with him has been consummated. But, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, repudiation may be made irrevocable by an aggravation of the terms, or the addition of a description, and three repudiations may be given in immediate succession, or even unico contextu, in one expression; while, according to the Shīʿahs, on the other hand, the irrevocability of a repudiation is dependent on the state in which the woman may be at the time that it is given, and three repudiations, to have their full effect, must have two intervening revocations. To the bāʾin and rajaʿī repudiations of both sects, the Shīʿahs add one peculiar to themselves, to which they give the name of the t̤alāq-uʾl-ʿiddah, or repudiation of the ʿiddah, and which has the effect of rendering the repudiated woman for ever unlawful to her husband, so that it is impossible for them ever to marry with each other again. The power of revocation continues until the expiration of the ʿiddah, or probationary period for ascertaining whether a woman is pregnant or not. After it has expired, the repudiation becomes absolute, according to both schools. So long as it is revocable, the parties are still in a manner husband and wife; and if either of them should happen to die, the other has a right of inheritance in the deceased’s estate.

“(e) With regard to parentage, maternity is established, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, by birth alone, without any regard to the connection of the parents being lawful or not. According to the Shīʿahs, it must in all cases be lawful; for a waladu ʾz-zināʾ, or illegitimate child, has no descent, even from its mother, nor are there any mutual rights of inheritance between them. For the establishment of paternity there must have been, at the time of the child’s conception, according to both sects, a legal connection between its parents by marriage or slavery, or a semblance of either. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, an invalid marriage is sufficient for that purpose, or even, according to the head of the school, one that is positively unlawful; but, according to the Shīʿahs, the marriage must in all cases be lawful, except when there is error on the part of both or either of the parents. Again, as to the children by slaves, express acknowledgment by the father is required by both the sects, except when the slave is his ummu ʾl-walad, or has already borne a child to him; for though, according to the Shīʿahs, there are two reports on the subject, yet, by the most generally received of these, a slave does not become the wife of her master by mere coition, and her child is not affiliated to him without his acknowledgment. With regard to children begotten under a semblance of right, the Ḥanafīyahs require some basis for the semblance in the relation of the parties to each other; while, according to the Shīʿahs, bonâ fide belief on the part of the man that the woman is his wife or his slave seems to be all that is required; while no relation short of a legal marriage or slavery, without such belief either on the part of the man or the woman, would apparently be sufficient.

“(f) On the subject of testimony, both schools require that it shall be direct to the point in issue; and they also seem to be agreed that when two or more witnesses concur in asserting a fact in the same terms, the judge is bound by their testimony, and must give his judgment in conformity with it. They agree in requiring that a witness should in general have full knowledge, by the cognizance of his own senses, of the fact to which he is bearing testimony; but both allow him, in certain exceptional cases, to testify on information received from others, or when he is convinced of the fact by inference from circumstances with which it is connected.

“(g) Nasab, or descent, is included by both sects among the exceptional facts to which a witness is allowed to testify when they are generally notorious, or when he is credibly informed of them by others. But according to the Ḥanafīyahs, it is enough if the information be received from two just men, or one just man and two just women; while the Shīʿahs require that it should have been received from a considerable number of persons in succession, without any suspicion of their having got up the story in concert. The Ḥanafīyahs class marriage among the exceptional facts, together with Nasab; but, according to the Shīʿahs, it more properly follows the general rule, which requires that the witness should have the direct evidence of his own senses to the fact to which he is giving his testimony. They seem, however, to admit an exception in its favour; for they reason that as we adjudge K͟hadījah to have been the mother of Fāt̤imah, the daughter of the Prophet, though we know it only by general notoriety and tradition, which is but continued hearsay, so also we may equally decide her to have been the Prophet’s wife, for which we have the same evidence, though we were not present at the contract of marriage, nor even heard the Prophet acknowledge it. Both sects are agreed that a witness may lawfully infer and testify that a thing is the property of a particular person when he has seen it in his possession; and so, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, ‘When a person has seen a man and woman dwelling in the same house, and behaving familiarly with each other in the manner of married persons, it is lawful for him to testify that she is his wife, in the same way as when he has seen a specific thing in the hands of another.’ The Shīʿahs do not apply this principle of inference to the case of marriage, and there is no ground for saying that, according to them, marriage will be presumed in a case of proved continual cohabitation.

“(h) There is difference between the two schools as to the person who is entitled to claim a right of shufʿah, or pre-emption. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the right may be claimed, firstly, by a partner in the thing itself; secondly, by a partner in its rights of water and way; and thirdly, by a neighbour. According to the Shīʿahs, the right belongs only to the first of these, with some slight exception in favour of the second. The claim of the third they reject altogether. In gift the principal difference between the schools is, that a gift of an undivided share of a thing, which is rejected by the Ḥanafīyah, is quite lawful according to the Shīʿahs.

“(i) In appropriation and alms there do not seem to be any differences of importance between the two schools. And in wills the leading difference seems to be that, while, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, a bequest in favour of an heir is positively illegal, it is quite unobjectionable according to the Shīʿahs.

“(j) In respect of inheritance, there are many and important differences between the two sects, but they admit of being reduced to a few leading principles, which I now proceed to notice, following the order in which the different branches of the subject are treated of in this volume. The impediments to inheritance are four in number, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, viz. slavery, homicide, difference of religion, and difference of dār, or country. Of these the Shīʿahs recognize the first; the second also with some modification, that is, they require that the homicide be intentional, in other words, murder, while with the Ḥanafīyahs it operates equally as an impediment to inheritance, though accidental. For difference of religion the Shīʿahs substitute infidelity, and difference of country they reject entirely. Exclusion from the whole inheritance, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, is founded upon and regulated by two principles. The one is that a person who is related to the deceased through another has no interest in the succession during the life of that other, with the exception of half-brothers and sisters by the mother, who are not excluded by her. The other principle is, that the nearer relative excludes the more remote. The former of these principles is not expressly mentioned by the Shīʿahs, but it is included without the exception in the second, which is adopted by them, and extended, so as to postpone a more remote residuary to a nearer sharer—an effect which is not given to it by the Ḥanafīyahs.

“With regard to partial exclusion or the diminution of a share, there is also some difference between the sects. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child, or the child of a son, how low soever, reduces the shares of a husband, a wife, and a mother, from the highest to the lowest appointed for them; while, according to the Shīʿahs, the reduction is effected by any child, whether male or female, in any stage of descent from the deceased. Further, when the deceased has left a husband or wife, and both parents, the share of the mother is reduced, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, from a third of the whole estate to a third of the remainder, in order that the male may have double the share of the female; but, according to the Shīʿahs, there is no reduction of the mother’s third in these circumstances, though, when the deceased has left a husband, the share of the father can only be a sixth. The shares and the person for whom they are appointed being expressly mentioned in the Qurʾān, there is no difference in respect of them between the two schools. But they differ materially as to the relatives who are not sharers. They are divided by the Ḥanafīyahs into residuaries and distant kindred. The residuaries in their own right they define as every male in whose line of relation to the deceased no female enters; and the ‘distant kindred,’ as ‘all relatives who are neither sharers nor residuaries.’ The residuaries not only take any surplus that may remain after the sharers have been satisfied, but also the whole estate when there is no sharer, to the entire exclusion of the distant kindred, though these may, in fact, be much nearer in blood to the deceased. This preference of the residuary is rejected with peculiar abhorrence by the Shīʿahs, who found their objection to it, certainly with some appearance of reason, on two passages of the Qurʾān cited below. Instead of the triple division of the Ḥanafīyahs, they mix up the rights of all the relatives together, and then separate them into three classes, according to their proximity to the deceased, each of which in its order is preferred to that which follows; so that while there is a single individual, even a female, of a prior class, there is no room for the succession of any of the others.

“Within the classes operation is given to the doctrine of the return by the Shīʿahs, nearly in the same way as by the Ḥanafīyahs: that is, if there is a surplus over the shares, it reverts to the sharers, with the exception of the husband or wife, and is proportionately divided among them. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, this surplus is always intercepted by the residuary, and it is only when there is no residuary that there is with them any room for the doctrine of the return. When the shares exceed the whole estate, the deficiency is distributed by the Ḥanafīyahs over all the shares by raising the extractor of the case—a process which is termed the ʿaul, or increase. This is also rejected by the Shīʿahs, who make the deficiency to fall exclusively upon those among them whose relationship to the deceased is on the father’s side. With regard to the computation of shares, there does not appear to be any difference between the schools.” A Digest of Moohummudan Law. Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie, London (1869).

Mr. Wilfrid S. Blunt, in his Future of Islam, has the following remarks on the present position of the Shīʿah sect:—

“In theory, I believe the Shias still hold that there is an Imam and Caliph, but they will not tolerate the pretension of any one now in authority to the title, and leave it in abeyance until the advent of the Mohady (Mahdī), or guide, who is to reunite Islam and restore its fortunes. So much is this the case that, sovereign though he be and absolute master in Persia, the Shah is to the present day looked upon by the Persians as a usurper, and he himself acknowledges the fact in a rather curious ceremony. It is a maxim with Mussulmans of all sects that prayer is not valid if made in another man’s house without his permission, and this being so, and the Shah admitting that his palaces of right belong not to himself but to the Mohady, he is obliged to lease them according to legal form from an alem (ʿālim) or mujtahed, acting for the supposed Mohady, before he can pray in them to his spiritual profit.

“It will be readily understood that, with such an organization and with such tendencies to deductive reasoning, a wide basis is given for divergence of opinion among the Shiites, and that while the more highly educated of their mollahs occasionally preach absolute pantheism, others consult the grosser inclinations of the vulgar, and indulge their hearers with the most extravagant tales of miracle and superstition. These are a constant source of mockery to the Sunites. Among the more respectable Shiite beliefs, however, there seems to be a general conviction in Persia that a reform of Islam is at hand, and that a new leader may be expected at any moment and from any quarter, so that enthusiasts are constantly found simulating the gifts of inspiration and affecting a divine mission. The history of the Babites, so well described by M. de Gobineau in his Religions of Asia, is a case in point, and similar occurrences are by no means rare in Persia. I met at Jeddah a highly educated Persian gentleman, who informed me that he had himself been witness, when a boy, to a religious prodigy, notorious, if I remember rightly, at Tabriz. On that occasion, one of these prophets, being condemned to death by the supreme government, was bound to a cross with two of his companions, and, after remaining suspended thus for several hours, was fired at by the royal troops. It then happened that, while the companions were dispatched at the first volley, the prophet himself remained unhurt, and, incredible to relate, the cords which bound him were cut by the bullets, and he fell to the ground on his feet. ‘You Christians,’ said another Persian gentleman once to me, ‘talk of your Christ as the Son of God and think it strange, but with us the occurrence is a common one. Believe me, we have “sons of God” in nearly all our villages.’ [SUFI.]

“Thus, with the Shiites, extremes meet. No Moslems more readily adapt themselves to the superficial atheisms of Europe than do the Persians, and none are more ardently devout, as all who have witnessed the miracle play of the two Imams will be obliged to admit. Extremes, too, of morality are seen, fierce asceticisms and gross licentiousnesses. By no sect of Islam is the duty of pilgrimage more religiously observed, or the prayers and ablutions required by their rule performed with a stricter ritual. But the very pilgrims who go on foot to Mecca scruple not to drink wine there, and Persian morality is everywhere a by-word. In all these circumstances there is much to fear as well as to hope on the side of the Shiite sect; but their future only indirectly involves that of Islam proper. Their whole census does not probably exceed fifteen millions, and it shows no tendency to increase. Outside Persia we find about one million Irâki Arabs, a few in Syria and Afghanistan, and at most five millions in India. One small group still maintains itself in the neighbourhood of Medina, where it is tolerated rather than acknowledged, and a few Shiites are to be found in most of the large cities of the west, but everywhere the sect of Ali stands apart from and almost in a hostile attitude to the rest of Islam. It is noticeable, however, that within the last fifty years the religious bitterness of Shiite and Sunite is sensibly in decline.”

For information on the History of the Shīʿahs, the English reader can refer to Malcolm’s History of Persia, 2 vols. (A.D. 1815); Morier’s Travels, 2 vols. (A.D. 1812); Markham’s History of Persia (A.D. 1874). A translation of their traditions is found in the Life and Religion of Mohammad, by the Rev. James L. Merrick, Boston (1850). For Shīʿah Law, consult Tagore Lectures, 1874; A Digest of Moohummudan Law. The Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie (1869). [MUHARRAM.]

SHIRB (شرب‎). The share of water used for tillage. [RIVER.]

SHIRK (شرك‎). “Idolatry; paganism; polytheism.” Ascribing plurality to the Deity. Associating anything with God.

According to Wahhābī writers, Shirk is defined to be of four kinds: Shirku ʾl-ʿilm, ascribing knowledge to others than God; Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf, ascribing power to others than God; Shirku ʾl-ʿibādah, offering worship to created things; Shirku ʾl-ʿādah, the performance of ceremonies which imply reliance on others than God.

(1) Shirku ʾl-ʿilm is illustrated by the statement that prophets and holy men have no knowledge of secret things unless as revealed to them by God. Thus some wicked persons made a charge against ʿĀyishah. The Prophet was troubled in mind, but knew not the truth of the matter till God made it known to him. To ascribe, then, power to soothsayers, astrologers, and saints is Polytheism. “All who pretend to have a knowledge of hidden things, such as fortune-tellers, soothsayers, and interpreters of dreams, as well as those who profess to be inspired, are all liars.” Again, “should anyone take the name of any saint, or invoke his aid in the time of need, instead of calling on God, or use his name in attacking an enemy, or read passages to propitiate him, or make him the object of contemplation—it is Shirku ʾl-ʿilm.”

(2) Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf is to suppose that anyone has power with God. He who looks up to anyone as an intercessor with God commits Shirk. Thus: “But they who take others beside Him as lords, saying, ‘We only serve them that they may bring us near God,’—God will judge between them (and the Faithful) concerning that wherein they are at variance.” (Sūrah xxxix. 4.) Intercession may be of three kinds. For example, a criminal is placed before the King. The Vizier intercedes. The King, having regard to the rank of the Vizier, pardons the offender. This is called Shafāʿat-i-Wajāhah, or “intercession from regard.” But to suppose that God so esteems the rank of anyone as to pardon a sinner merely on account of it is Shirk. Again, the Queen or the Princes intercede for the criminal. The King, from love to them, pardons him. This is called Shafāʿat-i-maḥabbah, or “intercession from affection.” But to consider that God so loves anyone as to pardon a criminal on his account is to give that loved one power, and this is Shirk, for such power is not possible in the Court of God. “God may out of His bounty confer on His favourite servants the epithets of Ḥabīb, ‘favourite,’ or K͟halīl, ‘friend,’ &c.; but a servant is but a servant, no one can put his foot outside the limits of servitude, or rise beyond the rank of a servant.” Again, the King may himself wish to pardon the offender, but he fears lest the majesty of the law should be lowered. The Vizier perceives the King’s wish, and intercedes. This intercession is lawful. It is called Shafāʿat-i-ba-ʾiẕn, “intercession by permission,” and such power Muḥammad will have at the Day of Judgment. Wahhābīs hold that he has not that power now, though all other Musalmāns consider that he has, and in consequence (in Wahhābī opinion) commit the sin of Shirku ʾt-taṣarruf. The Wahhābīs quote the following passages in support of their view. “Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission.” (Sūrah ii. 256) “Say: Intercession is wholly with God! His the kingdoms of the heavens and of the earth.” (Sūrah xxxix. 45.) They also say: “Whenever an allusion is made in the Qurʾān, or the Traditions to the intercession of certain prophets or apostles, it is this kind of intercession and no other that is meant.”

(3) Shirku ʾl-ʿIbādah is prostration before any created being, with the idea of worshipping it; perambulating the shrines of departed saints. “Prostration, bowing down, standing with folded arms, spending money in the name of an individual, fasting out of respect to his memory, proceeding to a distant shrine in a pilgrim’s garb and calling out the name of the saint.” It is wrong “to cover the grave with a sheet, to say prayers at the shrine, to kiss any particular stone, to rub the mouth and breast against the walls of the shrine, &c.” This is a stern condemnation of the very common practice of visiting the tombs of saints and of some of the special practices of the pilgrimage to Makkah. All such practices as are here condemned are called Ishrāk fī ʾl-ʿIbādah, “association in worship.”

(4) Shirku ʾl-ʿādah is the keeping up of superstitious customs, such as the Istik͟hārah, seeking guidance from beads, &c., trusting to omens, good or bad, believing in lucky and unlucky days, adopting such names as ʿAbdu ʾn-Nabī (Slave of the Prophet), and so on. In fact, the denouncing of such practices and calling them Shirk brings Wahhābīism into daily contact with the other sects, for scarcely any people in the world are such profound believers in the virtue of charms and the power of astrologers as Musalmāns. The difference between the first and fourth Shirk, the Shirku ʾl-ʿilm and the Shirku ʾl-ʿādah, seems to be that the first is the belief, say in the knowledge of a soothsayer, and the second the habit of consulting him.

To swear by the name of the Prophet, of ʿAlī, of the Imāms, or of Pīrs (Leaders) is to give them the honour due to God alone. It is Ishrāk fī ʾl-adab, “Shirk in association.” [WAHHABI.]

SHIRKAH (شركة‎). “Partnership.” The term signifies the union of two or more persons in one concern. It is applied in Muslim law to contracts as well as to partnerships. Shirkah, or association, with regard to the essence and person of God, is forbidden in Islām.

SHĪS̤ (شيث‎). [SETH.]

SHOES. The removal of the sandals, shoes, or boots, from the feet upon entering either a mosque or house, or during worship, is not enjoined in Muḥammadan law, although it has become a common custom in all Eastern countries, for the modern Muslim uncovers his feet upon entering the Kaʿbah at Makkah (Burckhardt’s Arabia, vol. i. p. 270), the Muḥammadans of Palestine remove the shoes upon entering their places of worship (Robinson’s Researches, vol. ii. p 36) and it is also the practice to take off the shoes in Egypt (Lane, vol. i. pp. 16, 105; vol. ii. p. 11), and in Hindūstān.

The number of traditions which prove that Muḥammad allowed his followers to worship with their feet covered, is very numerous, and they are held to be Aḥādīs̤ of good authority, and supported by the fatwās of eminent doctors of law.

Shaddād ibn Aus relates that the Prophet said, “Act the reverse of the Jews in your prayers, for they do not pray in boots or shoes.”

Abū Saʿīd al-K͟hudrī says “the Prophet said his prayers with the Companions, and suddenly took off his shoes, and put them down on his left side; and when the people observed it, they took off theirs also, and when prayers were finished, the Prophet asked why they took their shoes off. The Companions replied, ‘We followed your example.’ The Prophet then said, ‘Verily Gabriel came to me and told me there was a little filth on my shoes. Therefore, when any of you enter a mosque, look well at your shoes, and if you perceive any dirt on them, wipe it off, and then say your prayer in them.’ ”

ʿAmr ibn Shuʿaib relates that he saw the Prophet saying his prayers sometimes with his shoes and sometimes without. (Mishkāt, book iv. ch. 9.)

In the Hidāyah it is enjoined that when there is any uncleanness on the shoes, such as dung, blood, &c., they must be rubbed with earth, and then they become legally clean and fit for worship. (Arabic edition, vol. i. p. 26.)

This is confirmed by the Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār (vol. i. pp. 30, 65), and by numerous traditions. (Mishkāt, book iii. ch. ii.)

If the dirt cannot be removed from the shoes by rubbing them with earth, the law permits the Muslim to make them ceremonially clean by wetting his three fingers and drawing them once over the upper part of the shoes or boots. [MASAH.]

According to the Traditions, when a Muslim sits down on the floor, he should take off his shoes and place them on one side, and he should take off the right shoe first and then the left. (Mishkāt, book xx. ch. iii.)

SHROUD. Arabic kafan (كفن‎). The act of shrouding is called takfīn. A wooden coffin is called tābūt, the use of which is generally held to be forbidden by Sunnīs, but it is used by the Shīʿahs.

Muḥammad is related to have said:—

“Do not be expensive in your shrouds, for they soon rot.”

“Plain white is the best for the shrouds of your dead.”

“The best cloth for a shroud is ḥullah” (i.e. a white striped cloth used in Arabia).

ʿĀyishah says: “The Prophet was shrouded in three garments, but there was neither a coat nor a turban.”

These three garments are still used as shrouds in all parts of Islām.

(1) Izār, a piece of cloth which covers from the waist to the feet.

(2) Ridāʾ, covering from the feet to the shoulders.

(3) Lifāfah, a large sheet covering the whole body from head to feet, and closed at the ends.

The bodies of martyrs are not shrouded, but are buried in the garments in which they fell, for it is related that Muḥammad so ordered the men who fell in the battle of Uḥud to be buried; their weapons being first removed from their bodies, they were buried in their blood-stained clothes. [BURIAL.]

SHUʿAIB (شعيب‎). The Muslim commentators generally suppose Shuʿaib to be the same person with the father-in-law of Moses, who is named in scripture Reuel or Rageul and Jethro. But Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdi ʾl-Ḥalīm charges those who entertain this opinion with ignorance. They say (after the Jews) that he gave his son-in-law [MOSES] that wonder-working rod with which he performed all those miracles in Egypt and the desert, and also gave excellent advice and instruction; whence he had the surname of K͟hat̤ību ʾl-Ambiyāʾ (خطيب الانبياء‎), the “Preacher to the Prophets.”

The account given of him in the Qurʾān, Sūrah vii. 83–91, is as follows:—

“And unto Midian did we send their brother Shuʿaib, who said, ‘O my people! serve God, ye have no god save Him. There has come to you a manifest sign from your Lord: then give good weight and measure, and be not niggardly of your gifts to men, and do not evil in the earth after it has been righted. That is better for you if ye are believers; and sit not down in every path, threatening and turning from the path of God those who believe in Him, and craving to make it crooked. Remember when ye were few and He multiplied you; and see what was the end of the evil-doers! And if there be a party of you who believe in what I am sent with, and a party who believe not, then wait patiently until God judges between us, for He is the best of judges!’ Said the crowd of those who were big with pride amongst his people, ‘We will of a surety turn thee out, O Shuʿaib, and those who believe with thee, from our village; or else thou shalt return unto our faith.’ Said he, ‘What even if we be averse therefrom? We shall have devised a lie against God if we return unto your faith after God has saved us from it; and what should ail us that we should return thereto, unless that God our Lord should please? Our Lord embraces everything in His knowledge; on God do we rely. O our Lord! open between us and between our people in truth, for Thou art the best of those who open.’ And the chiefs of those who disbelieved amongst his people said, ‘If ye follow Shuʿaib, verily, ye shall be the losers.’ Then there took them the earthquake, and in the morning they lay in their dwellings prone. Those who called Shuʿaib a liar, (were) as though they had not dwelt therein. Those who called Shuʿaib a liar, they were the losers then! And he turned away from them and said, ‘O my people! I preached to you the messages of my Lord, and I gave you good advice; how should I be vexed for a people who do misbelieve?’ ”

ASH-SHUʿARĀʾ (الشعراء‎). “The Poets.” The title of the XXVIth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, so called because at the conclusion of the chapter the Arabian poets are severely censured. [POETS.]

SHUFʿAH (شفعة‎). [PREEMPTION.]

ASH-SHŪRĀ (الشورى‎). “The Consultation.” The title of the XLIInd Sūrah of the Qurʾān. Taken from the 36th verse, in which the believers are commended for taking consultation together.

SHURB (شرب‎). Lit. “Drinking.” A term used for wine-drinking, which is forbidden by the Muslim law. [DRUNKENNESS.]

ṢIBG͟HAH (صبغة‎). Lit. “A dye.” A word which occurs in the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 132: “The dye of God! And who is better than God at dyeing? And we are worshippers of Him”; which both Mr. Sale and Mr. Rodwell translate baptism, but which Professor Palmer says must be rendered “dye.” According to al-Baiẓāwī, it stands in the text for the Islām of God, but refers to Christian baptism. [BAPTISM.]

ṢIDDĪQ (صديق‎). “One who speaks the truth.” It occurs in the Qurʾān for Idrīs (generally identified with Enoch), who is described as a man of eminent truthfulness. Professor Palmer translates the word “confessor” (see Sūrah xix. 57.)

Aṣ-Ṣiddīq is a title said to have been given to the first K͟halīfah Abū Bakr by Muḥammad himself.

SIDRATU ʾL-MUNTAHĀ (سدرة المنتهى‎). Lit. “The Lote-tree of the extremity.” A tree in the seventh heaven, having its roots in the sixth. Its fruits were like water-pots, and its leaves like elephant’s ears. (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. vii. pt. 1.)

It is mentioned twice in the Qurʾān, Sūrah liii. 8–18:—

“Then came he (Gabriel or the angel) nearer and approached,
And was at the distance of two bows, or even closer,—
And he revealed to his servant what he revealed.
His heart falsified not what he saw.
What! will ye then dispute with him as to what he saw?
He had seen him also another time,
Near the Sidrah-tree, which marks the boundary.
Near which is the garden of repose.
When the Sidrah-tree was covered with what covered it,
His eye turned not aside, nor did it wander:
For he saw the greatest of the signs of his Lord.”

The Sidrah-tree is the Zizyphus jujuba of Linnæus, the prickly plum, which is called Ber in India. A decoction of its leaves is used in India to wash the dead, on account of the sacredness of the tree.

ṢIFAH (صفة‎), pl. Ṣifāt. An attribute. Used for the attributes of God. The Qurʾān is also said to be a Ṣifah of the Almighty.

Ismu ʾṣ-Ṣifah, the name of an attribute, is a term applied to any of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. [GOD.]

ṢIFĀTĪYAH (صفاتية‎). From Ṣifāt, “attributes.” A school of thought rather than a sect of Islām, although it is given by Mr. Sale as one of the Muḥammadan sects. The orthodox Sunnī claims to be a Ṣifātī, or Attributist (as opposed to the Muʿtazilahs, who reject the idea of God’s attributes being eternal), and maintains that the attributes of God are eternally inherent in His essence without separation or change; every attribute being conjoined with Him as life with knowledge, or knowledge with power. With regard to the verses of the Qurʾān which are held to be Mutashābih, and assign some resemblance between God and His creatures, the Ṣifātīyahs say the expressions “hands,” “face,” “sitting,” &c., must simply be accepted as they stand, without any attempt at explanation. [MUʿTAZILAH, WAHHABI.]

AṢ-ṢIḤĀḤU ʾS-SITTAH (الصحاح الستة‎), also called al-Kutubu ʾs-Sittah (الكتب الستة‎). “The six correct (books).” The title given to the six most trustworthy collections of traditions received by Sunnī Muslims, namely, those by:—

(1) Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Buk͟hārī, born A.H. 194; died A.H. 256.

(2) Abū ʾl-Ḥusain Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushairī, born A.H. 204, died A.H. 261.

(3) Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ʾl-Tirmiẕī, born A.H. 209, died A.H. 279.

(4) Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān ibn Ashʿas̤ as-Sajastānī, born A.H. 202, died A.H. 275.

(5) Abū ʿAbdi ʾr-Raḥmān Aḥmad ibn Shuʿaib an-Nasāʾī, born A.H. 215, died A.H. 303.

(6) Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, ibn Mājah, al-Qazwīnī, born A.H. 209, died A.H. 273.

The above are generally esteemed the six authentic collections, but some substitute for the Sunan Ibn Mājah the Muwat̤t̤aʾ of Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Mālik ibn Anas ibn Mālik ibn Abī ʿĀmir ibn ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥāris̤ al-Aṣbaḥī al-Ḥimyarī, born A.H. 95, died A.H. 179.

(The above words in italics denote the popular title of the collection.)

Al-Buk͟hārī and Muslim are held in highest reputation, and are called aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥān, or “the two authentics.”

The collection by Mālik, the founder of the second orthodox sect of the Sunnīs, is the most ancient collection of traditions, and is held in high reputation, but it is sometimes omitted from the list by the Ḥanafīs, because he is the founder of a certain school of jurisprudence. [TRADITIONS.]

SIJDAH. [SAJDAH.]

SIJILL (سجل‎). A register. The record of a court of justice. The decree of a judge. In the Qurʾān, the word occurs when it is used for the angel which has charge of the register of the fate of mankind, or, according to others, it may mean the roll itself.

Sūrah xxi. 104: “The day when we will roll up the heavens as as-Sijill rolls up his books; as We produced it at the first creation, will we bring it back again.”

SIJJĪN (سجين‎). A deep pit in which is kept the register of the actions of the wicked, and hence this register itself. Qurʾān, Sūrah lxxxiii. 7, 8: “The book of the wicked is in Sijjīn, and what shall make thee know what Sijjīn is?—It is an inscribed book.” (See also Mishkāt, book v. ch. iii. pt. 3.)

SIKANDAR (سكندر‎). The Persian for Alexander, by which is meant Alexander the Great. [ZU ʾL-QARNAIN.]

SIKHISM (from the Panjābī word sikh or sikhā = Sanskrit śishya, “a disciple” or “pupil”). The religion of the Sikhs in the Panjāb. Founded by Nānak, who was born in the village of Talvandī (now known as Nankānā), on the banks of the river Rāvī, near Lahore, in A.D. 1469.

The history of the Sikh religion has not yet been subjected to the scrutiny necessary to warrant strong dogmatism as to the ultimate source, or sources, whence the system of Nānak and his followers took its rise. The literature and traditions of Sikhism present a strange intermingling of Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas; and this is so palpably apparent that even superficial inquirers have been led to conclude that Nānak purposely intended his creed to be a compromise between those two great religions. Dr. Trumpp, the able translator of the Ādi Granth (the sacred book of the Sikhs), who is the only author that has written with knowledge on the subject, is, however, distinctly of opinion that Sikhism has only an accidental relationship with Muḥammadanism. In the Introduction to his Translation of the Ādi Granth (p. ci.), he says:—

“It is a mistake, if Nānak is represented as having endeavoured to unite the Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas about God. Nānak remained a thorough Hindū, according to all his views; and if he had communionship with Musalmāns, and many of these even became his disciples, it was owing to the fact that Sūfism, which all these Muḥammadans were professing, was in reality nothing but a Pantheism, derived directly from Hindū sources, and only outwardly adapted to the forms of the Islām. Hindū and Muslim Pantheists could well unite together, as they entertained essentially the same ideas about the Supreme.”

If the foregoing opinion accurately represents the real truth, then Sikhism hardly deserves mention in the present work; but it will soon be seen that the balance of evidence is heavily on the other side. A careful investigation of early Sikh traditions points strongly to the conclusion that the religion of Nānak was really intended as a compromise between Hindūism and Muḥammadanism, if it may not even be spoken of as the religion of a Muḥammadan sect. The very little that seems to be known as to the views of the early Sikh teachers, coupled with the decided opinion put forth by Dr. Trumpp, has made it necessary to give here a longer article on Sikhism than its importance with respect to Islām would have otherwise warranted; because it was necessary to establish the relationship which actually existed between the two faiths. It will be seen that the information given in this article is chiefly taken from original Panjābī books, and from manuscripts in the India Office Library; and it is supported by the authority of the Ādi Granth, which is the sacred canon of the Sikhs.

The Janam-Sākhīs, or biographical sketches of Nānak and his associates, contain a profusion of curious traditions, which throw considerable light on the origin and development of the Sikh religion. From these old books we learn that, in early life, Nānak, although a Hindū by birth, came under Ṣūfī influence, and was strangely attracted by the saintly demeanour of the faqīrs who were thickly scattered over Northern India and swarmed in the Panjāb. Now, Ṣūfīism is not, as Dr. Trumpp supposes, due to Hindū pantheism; for it arose in the very earliest days of Muḥammadanism, and is almost certainly due to the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism on the rude faith of Arab Islāmism. Persia has ever been the stronghold of Ṣūfīistic doctrine; and the leading writers who have illustrated that form of Muḥammadanism have been the Persian poets Firdūsī, Niz̤āmī, Saʿdī, Jalālu ʾd-Dīn, Ḥāfiz̤, and Jāmī.

Ḥāfiz̤, the prince of Ṣūfī poets, boldly declares: “I am a disciple of the old Magian: be not angry with me, O Shaik͟h! For thou gavest me a promise; he hath brought me the reality.” Although this stanza alludes directly to two persons known to Ḥāfiz̤, its almost obvious meaning is: “I, a Persian, adhere to the faith of my ancestors. Do not blame me, O Arab conqueror! that my faith is more sublime than thine.” That Ḥāfiz̤ meant his readers to take his words in a general sense, may be inferred from the stanza in which he says: “I am the servant of the old man of the tavern (i.e. the Magian); because his beneficence is lasting: on the other hand, the beneficence of the Shaik͟h and of the Saiyid at times is, and at times is not.” Indeed, Ḥāfiz̤ was fully conscious of the fact that Ṣūfīism was due to the influence of the faith of his ancestors; for, in another ode, he plainly says: “Make fresh again the essence of the creed of Zoroaster, now that the tulip has kindled the fire of Nimrod.” And Niz̤āmī, also, was aware that his ideas were perilously akin to heterodoxy; for, he says in his K͟husrū wa Shīrīn: “See not in me the guide to the temple of the Fire-worshippers; see only the hidden meaning which cleaveth to the allegory.” These citations, which could be indefinitely multiplied, sufficiently indicate the Zoroastrian origin of the refined spirituality of the Ṣūfīs. The sublimity of the Persian faith lay in its conception of the unity of Eternal Spirit, and the intimate association of the Divine with all that is manifest. Arab Muḥammadans believe in the unity of a personal God; but mankind and the world were, to them, mere objects upon which the will of God was exercised. The Ṣūfīs approached nearer to the Christian sentiment embodied in the phrase, “Christ in us.”

The Persian conquerors of Hindūstān carried with them the mysticism and spirituality of the Islāmo-Magian creed. It was through Persia that India received its flood of Muḥammadanism; and the mysticism and asceticism of the Persian form of Islām found congenial soil for development among the speculative ascetics of northern India. It is, therefore, only reasonable to suppose that any Hindū affected by Muḥammadanism would show some traces of Ṣūfī influence. As a fact we find that the doctrines preached by the Sikh Gurus were distinctly Ṣūfīistic; and, indeed, the early Gurus openly assumed the manners and dress of faqīrs, thus plainly announcing their connection with the Ṣūfīistic side of Muḥammadanism. In pictures they are represented with small rosaries in their hands, quite in Muḥammadan fashion, as though ready to perform ẕikr. Guru Arjun, who was fifth in succession from Nānak, was the first to lay aside the dress of a faqīr. The doctrines, however, still held their position; for we find the last Guru dying while making an open confession of Ṣūfīism. His words are: “The Smritis, the Śāstras, and the Vedas, all speak in various ways: I do not acknowledge one (of them). O possessor of happiness, bestow thy mercy (on me). I do not say, ‘I,’ I recognise all as ‘Thee.’ ”—(Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 81.) Here we have not only the ideas, but the very language of Ṣūfīs, implying a pantheistic denial of all else than Deity. The same manner of expression is found in the Ādi Granth itself, e.g. “Thou art I; I am thou. Of what kind is the difference?” (Translation, p. 130); and again, “In all the One dwells, the One is contained” (p. 41). Indeed, throughout the whole Ādi Granth, a favourite name for Deity is the “True One,” that is, that which is truly one—the Absolute Unity. It is hardly possible to find a more complete correspondence of ideas than that furnished by the following sentences, one taken from the Yūsuf wa Zulaik͟ha of Jāmī, the Persian Ṣūfī; and the others, from the Jap-jī and the Ādi Granth. Jāmī says:—

“Dismiss every vain fancy, and abandon every doubt;
Blend into one every spirit, and form, and place;
See One—know One—speak of One—
Desire One—chant of One—and seek One.”

In the Jap-jī, a formula familiar to every Sikh household, we find:—

“The Guru is Īsar (Siva), the Guru is Gorakh (Vishnu), Brahmā, the Guru is the mother Pārbatī.
If I should know, would I not tell? The story cannot be told.
O Guru, let me know the One; that the One liberal patron of all living beings may not be forgotten by me.”

In the Ādi Granth, we read:—

“Thou recitest the One; thou placest the One in (thy) mind; thou recognizest the One.
The One (is) in eye, in word, in mouth; thou knowest the One in both places (i.e. worlds).
In sleeping, the One; in waking, the One; in the One thou art absorbed.”

(India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 568.)

It is not only with respect to the idea of the unity of God that this identity of expression is discernible; for other technical terms of Ṣūfīism are, also, reproduced in Sikhism. Thus the Ṣūfī Farīdu ʾd-Dīn Shakrganj calls Deity “the light of life,” and Jalālu ʾd-Dīn speaks of “flashes of His love,” while Jāmī represents the “light” of the Lord of Angels as animating all parts of the universe; and Niz̤āmī exclaims, “Then fell a light, as of a lamp, into the garden (of my heart),” when he feels that a ray of the Divine has entered into his soul. It is not difficult to collect many such instances from the works of Persian Ṣūfīs. Turning to Sikhism, we find that the Ādi Granth is full of similar expressions. It is enough to cite the following exclamation of Nānak himself: “In all (is) light. He (is) light. From His light, there is light in all.” (India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 35.) And in another place he says: “The Luminous One is the mingler of light (with himself).” (fol. 186.) On fol. 51 we find: “There death enters not; light is absorbed in the Luminous One.”

Another favourite metaphor of Ṣūfīs for the Deity is “the Beloved”; for example, when Ḥāfiz̤ says: “Be thankful that the Assembly is lighted up by the presence of the Beloved.” This term is well recognized in Sikhism; thus in the Ādi Granth, “If thou call thyself the servant of the Beloved, do not speak despitefully (of Him).” (India Office MS., No. 2484, fol. 564.) “Love to the Beloved naturally puts joy into the heart. I long to meet the Lord (Prabhu); therefore why should I be slothful.” (India Office MS., 2484, fol. 177.) Also, “In my soul and body are excessive pangs of separation, how shall the Beloved come to my house and meet (with me)?” And again: “The Beloved has become my physician.” (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 87.) The words used in the Panjābī texts are pirīˏā, prītam, and pirī, “a lover,” or “beloved one.”

Another remarkable proof of Persian influence is found in the form of the Ādi Granth itself. It consists of a collection of short poems, in many of which all the verses composing the poem rhyme together, in singular conformity with the principle regulating the construction of the Persian g͟hazal. This resemblance is rendered more striking by the fact that the name of Nānak is worked into the composition of the last line of each of the poems. This last characteristic is too persistent to be considered the result of accident; and while it is altogether foreign to the practice of Hindū verse, it is in precise accord with the rule for the correct composition of the g͟hazal.

The foregoing facts seem conclusive as to the influence of Persian Ṣūfīism on the origin of the Sikh religion. Dr. Trumpp, when discussing the philosophy of the Ādi Granth, admits the intimate connection between Sikhism and Ṣūfīism in the following words:—

“We can distinguish in the Granth a grosser and a finer kind of Pantheism.… In this finer shade of Pantheism, creation assumes the form of emanation from the Supreme (as in the system of the Sūfīs); the atomic matter is either likewise considered co-eternal with the Absolute and immanent in it, becoming moulded into various, distinct forms by the energizing vigour of the absolute joti (light); or, the reality of matter is more or less denied (as by the Sūfīs, who call it the عَدَم‎, τὸ μὴ ὄν) so that the Divine joti is the only real essence in all.”—(Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, pp. c.–ci.)

Any doubt that may remain on the question seems to be set at rest by the express statement in the life of Guru Arjun, who was urged by his followers to reduce to writing the genuine utterances of Nānak, because “by reciting the numerous verses and speeches uttered by other Ṣūfīs, which have received the name of Bābā Nānak, pride and worldly wisdom are springing up in the hearts of men.” (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 29.) And in the Ādi Granth itself, we find the following remarkable verses ascribed to Nānak:—

“A ball of intoxication, of delusion, is given by the Giver.
The intoxicated forget death, they enjoy themselves four days.
The True One is found by the Ṣofīs, who keep fast his Court.”

(Translation, p. 23.)

Here we have not only a plain claim of kinship with the Ṣūfīs, but the incorporation of several of their favourite terms.

The traditions of Nānak preserved in the Janam-Sākhī, are full of evidences of his alliance with Muḥammadanism. He was a Hindū by birth, of the Vedī Khattrī caste; and was the son of the patwārī, or village-accountant, of the place now called Nankānā, in the neighbourhood of Lahore. In his very early days, he sought the society of faqīrs; and used both fair and unfair means of doing them service, more especially in the bestowal of alms. At fifteen years of age, he misappropriated the money which his father had given him for trade; and this induced his parents to send him to a relative at Sultānpur, in order that he might be weaned from his affection for faqīrs (India Office MS. No. 1728, fol. 29). His first act in his new home was to join the service of a Muḥammadan Nawāb, named Daulat K͟hān Loḍī; and, while serving him, he continued to give to faqīrs all his salary, except the bare maintenance he reserved for himself. While in the service of this Muḥammadan, Nānak received the ecstatic exaltation which he felt to be Divine inspiration. It is stated in the tradition of his life, that Nānak went to the river to perform his ablutions, and that whilst so engaged, he was translated bodily to the gates of Paradise. “Then a goblet of amrita (the water of life) was given (to him) by command (of God). The command was: ‘This amrita is the goblet of my name; drink thou it.’ Then the Guru Nānak made salutation, and drank the goblet. The Lord (Ṣāḥib) had mercy (and said): ‘Nānak, I am with thee; I have made thee happy, and whoever shall take thy name they all shall be rendered happy by me. Go thou, repeat my name, and cause other people to repeat it. Remain uncontaminated from the world. Continue (steadfast) in the name, in alms-giving, in ablutions, in service, and in the remembrance (of me). I have given to thee my own name: do thou this work.’ ” (fol. 33.) Here we have notions closely akin to those of the Ṣūfīs, who lay much stress on the repetition of the name of God, which they term ZIKR [q.v.], on religious ablutions [WAZUʾ, q.v.], and on meditating on the unity of God [WAHDANIYAH, q.v.]. No sooner had Nānak recovered from his trance than he uttered the key-note of his future system in the celebrated phrase, “There is no Hindū, and there is no Musalmān.” (fol. 36.) The Janam-Sākhī then goes on to say that, “The people went to the K͟hān (his former employer) and said, ‘Bābā Nānak is saying, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān.’ The K͟hān replied, ‘Do not regard his statement; he is a faqīr.’ A Qāẓī sitting near said: ‘O K͟hān! it is surprising that he is saying there is no Hindū and no Musalmān.’ The K͟hān then told an attendant to call Nānak; but the Guru Nānak said: ‘What have I to do with thy K͟hān?’ Then the people said: ‘This stupid is become mad.’… Then the Bābā (Nānak) was silent. When he said anything, he repeated only this statement: ‘There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān.’ The Qāẓī then said: ‘K͟hān, is it right that he should say, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān?’ Then the K͟hān said: ‘Go, fetch him.’ The attendant went, and said: ‘Sir, the K͟hān is calling (you). The K͟hān says: For God’s sake give me an interview [Panj. aj barā Khudāˏī de tānˏī = Persian az barāˏī K͟hudā]; I want to see thee.’ The Guru Nānak arose and went, saying: ‘Now the summons of my Lord (Ṣāḥib) is come, I will go.’ He placed a staff upon his neck and went. The K͟hān said: ‘Nānak, for God’s sake take the staff from off thy neck, gird up thy waist; thou art a good faqīr.’ Then Guru Nānak took the staff from off (his) neck, and girded up his loins. The K͟hān said: ‘O Nānak, it is a misfortune to me that a steward such as thou shouldst become a faqīr.’ Then the K͟hān seated the Guru Nānak near himself and said: ‘Qāẓī, if thou desirest to ask anything, ask now; otherwise this one will not again utter a word.’ The Qāẓī becoming friendly, smiled and said: ‘Nānak, what dost thou mean by saying, There is no Hindū, there is no Musalmān?’ Nānak replied: … ‘To be called a Musalmān is difficult; when one (becomes it) then he may be called a Musalmān. First of all, having made religion (dīn) sweet, he clears away Musalmān wealth. Having become firm (مُسَلَّم‎), religion (dīn) in this way brings to an end the revolution of dying and living.’—(I. O. MS., 2484, fol. 84.) When Nānak had uttered this verse, the Qāẓī became amazed. The K͟hān said: ‘O Qāẓī, is not the questioning of him a mistake?’ The time of the afternoon prayer had come. All arose and went (to the mosque) to prayers, and the Bābā (Nānak) also went with them.” Nānak then demonstrated his supernatural power by reading the thoughts of the Qāẓī. “Then the Qāẓī came and fell down at his feet, exclaiming, ‘Wonderful, wonderful! on this one is the favour of God.’ Then the Qāẓī believed; and Nānak uttered this stanza: ‘A (real) Musalmān clears away self; (he possesses) sincerity, patience, purity of speech: (what is) erect he does not annoy: (what) lies (dead) he does not eat. O Nānak! that Musalmān goes to heaven (bihisht).’ When the Bābā had uttered this stanza, the Saiyids, the sons of the Shaik͟hs, the Qāẓī, the Muftī, the K͟hān, the chiefs and leaders were amazed. The K͟hān said: ‘Qāẓī, Nānak has reached the truth; the additional questioning is a mistake.’ Wherever the Bābā looked, there all were saluting him. After the Bābā had recited a few stanzas, the K͟hān came and fell down at his feet. Then the people, Hindūs and Musalmāns, began to say to the K͟hān that God (K͟hudā) was speaking in Nānak.” (India Office MS. 1728, fol. 36–41.)

The foregoing anecdotes are taken from the India Office MS., No. 1728; but the ordinary Janam-Sākhīs current in the Panjāb vary the account somewhat by saying that when the K͟hān reproved Nānak for not coming to him when sent for, the latter replied: “ ‘Hear, O Nawāb, when I was thy servant I came before thee; now I am not thy servant; now I am become the servant of K͟hudā (God).’ The Nawāb said: ‘Sir, (if) you have become such, then come with me and say prayers (niwāj = nimāz, see PRAYER). It is Friday.’ Nānak said: ‘Go, Sir.’ The Nawāb, with the Qāẓī and Nānak, and a great concourse of people, went into the Jāmiʿ Masjid and stood there. All the people who came into the Masjid began to say, ‘To-day Nānak has entered this sect.’ There was a commotion among the respectable Hindūs in Sultānpur; and Jairām, being much grieved, returned home. Nānakī perceiving that her husband came home dejected, rose up and said, ‘Why is it that you are to-day so grieved?’ Jairām replied, ‘Listen, O servant of Paramesur (God), what has thy brother Nānak done! He has gone, with the Nawāb, into the Jāmiʿ Masjid to pray; and, in the city, there is an outcry among the Hindūs and Musalmāns that Nānak has become a Turk (Muslim) to-day.’ ” (India Office MS., No. 2885, fol. 39.)

From the foregoing it is perfectly clear that the immediate successors of Nānak believed that he went very close to Muḥammadanism; and we can scarcely doubt the accuracy of their view of the matter, when we consider the almost contemporaneous character of the record, from which extracts have been given, and the numerous confirmatory evidences contained in the religion itself. It is particularly worthy of remark that a “cup of amrita” (i.e. immortality) is considered the symbol of inspiration; just as Ḥāfiz̤ exclaims, “Art thou searching, O Ḥāfiz̤, to find the waters of eternal life?” And the same poet expresses his own ecstasy in a way almost identical with the reception accorded to Nānak at the gate of Paradise. His words are: “Then he gave into my hand a cup which flashed back the splendour of Heaven so gloriously, that Zuhrah broke out into dancing and the lute-player exclaimed, ‘Drink!’ ” The staff (muttakā) that is mentioned is, also, that of a faqīr, on which a devotee supports himself while in meditation. Another significant fact is that when Nānak speaks of himself as the servant of God, he employs the word K͟hudā, a Persian Muḥammadan term; but when his brother-in-law Jairām speaks of God, he uses the Hindū word Paramesur. It will, also, be noticed that Muḥammadans are affected by the logic and piety of Nānak; and to them he shows himself so partial that he openly accompanies them to the mosque, and thereby causes his Hindū neighbours and friends to believe that he is actually converted to the faith of Islām. But, of course, the most remarkable expression of all is the emphatic and repeated announcement that “There is no Hindū; there is no Musalmān.” This can mean nothing else than that it was Nānak’s settled intention to do away with the differences between those two forms of belief, by instituting a third course which should supersede both of them.

Nānak’s whilom employer, in consequence of the foregoing manifestations of wisdom, became his devoted admirer. After this, Nānak undertook a missionary tour; and it is noticeable that the first person he went to and converted was Shaik͟h Sajan (? ساجن‎), who showed himself to be a pious Muḥammadan. Nānak then proceeded to Pānīpat, and was met by a certain Shaik͟h Tatīhar, who accosted him with the Muḥammadan greeting, “Peace be on thee, O Darvesh!” (Salām-āleka Darves); to which Nānak immediately replied, “And upon you be peace, O servant of the Pīr! (āleka us-salāmu, ho Pīr ke dasta-pes).” (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 48.) Here we find Nānak both receiving and giving the Muḥammadan salutation; and also the acknowledgment that he was recognized as a darvesh. The Panjābī form of the Arabic salutation is given lest it might be thought that the special character of the words is due to the translation. The disciple then called his master, the Pīr Shaik͟h Sharaf, who repeated the salutation of peace, and after a long conversation acknowledged the Divine mission of Nānak, kissed his hands and feet, and left him. (fol. 52.) After the departure of this Pīr, the Guru Nānak wandered on to Delhi, where he was introduced to Sultān Ibrahīm Loḍī, who also called him a darvesh. The previous conversations and acts are found to have awakened the curiosity of Nānak’s attendant Mardānā, who asked in surprise: “Is God, then, one?” To which Nānak firmly replied: “God (K͟hudā) is one.” (fol. 55.) This was intended to satisfy Mardānā that there is no difference between the Muḥammadan and the Hindū God.

Nānak is next said to have proceeded to the holy city of Benares, and there he met with a Pandit named Satrudās. The MS. 1728 (fol. 56) says: “He came to this Nānak, and cried, ‘Rām! Rām!’ Seeing his (Nānak’s) disguise (bhekhu), he sat down, and said to him, ‘O devotee (bhagat), thou hast no sāligrām; no necklace of tulsī; no rosary; no tikā of white clay; and thou callest (thyself) a devotee! What devotion hast thou obtained?’ ” In other words, the Pandit is made to challenge his piety; because he has none of the marks of a Hindū upon him. Nānak explains his peculiar position and views; and is reported to have converted the Hindū Pandit to his own way of thinking. This anecdote, also, shows that the immediate successors of Nānak were aware that their great Guru occupied an intermediate position between Muḥammadanism and Hindūism; for we see that he is made to convert Muḥammadans on the one hand, and Hindūs on the other. After this primary attack on Hindūism, Nānak is said to have converted some Jogīs, Khattrīs, Thags, necromancers, witches, and even the personified Kaliyug, or present age of the world. These conquests over imaginary Hindūs are obviously allegorical; though they clearly point to a well recognized distinction between the teaching of Nānak and that of orthodox Hindūism.

The most significant associate which Nānak found was, undoubtedly, Shaik͟h Farīd. He was a famous Muḥammadan Pīr, and a strict Ṣūfī, who attracted much attention by his piety, and formed a school of devotees of his own. Shaik͟h Farīd must have gained considerable notoriety in his day; for his special disciples are still to be found in the Panjāb, who go by the name of Shaik͟h Farīd’s faqīrs. This strict Muḥammadan became the confidential friend and companion of Nānak; and if all other traditions had failed, this alone would have been enough to establish the eclectic character of early Sikhism. The first greeting of these famous men is significant enough. Shaik͟h Farīd exclaimed, “Allah, Allah, O Darvesh”; to which Nānak replied, “Allah is the object of my efforts, O Farīd! Come, Shaik͟h Farīd! Allah, Allah (only) is ever my object.” The words in the original being Allah, Farīd, juhdī; hamesa āˏu, Sekh Farīd, juhdī Allah Allah. (India Office MS., No. 1728, fol. 86.) The use of the Arabic term juhd implies the energy of the purpose with which he sought for Allah; and the whole phrase is forcibly Muḥammadan in tone.

An intimacy at once sprang up between these two remarkable men; and Shaik͟h Farīd accompanied Nānak in all his wanderings for the next twelve years. The intended compromise between Hindūism and Islām is shown not only in the fact of this friendship, but in the important circumstance that no less than 142 stanzas composed by Shaik͟h Farīd are admitted into the Ādi Granth itself. An examination of these verses still further proves the mingling of the two religions which Nānak effected. They are distinctly Ṣūfīistic in tone, containing such lines as, “Youth is passing, I am not afraid, if love to the Beloved does not pass”; and still more pointedly, “Full of sins I wander about; the world calls me a Darvesh”; while, between these declarations of steady adherence to Islām, comes the remarkable Hindū line, “As by fire the metal becomes purified, so the fear of Hari removes the filth of folly.” The fact that the compositions of a genuine Ṣūfī should have been admitted into the canonical book of the Sikhs, and that they should contain such a clear admixture of Hindū and Muḥammadan ideas, is conclusive evidence that Nānak, and his immediate successors, saw no incongruity in the mixture.

As soon as Nānak and his friend Shaik͟h Farīd begin to travel in company, it is related that they reached a place called Bisīˏār, where the people applied cow-dung to every spot on which they had stood, as soon as they departed. (I. O. MS., No. 1728, fol. 94.) The obvious meaning of this is, that orthodox Hindūs considered every spot polluted which Nānak and his companion had visited. This could never have been related of Nānak had he remained a Hindū by religion.

In his next journey Nānak is said to have visited Patan, and there he met with Shaik͟h Ibrahīm, who saluted him as a Muslim, and had a conversation with him on the Unity of God. Nānak expressed his views in the following openly Ṣūfīistic manner: “Thou thyself (art) the wooden tablet; thou (art) the pen; thou (art) also the writing upon (it). O Nānak, why should the One be called a second?” (India Office MS. 1728, fol. 117.) The Pīr asks an explanation of this verse in these words: “Thou sayest, ‘There is One, why a second?’ but there is one Lord (Ṣāḥib), and two traditions. Which shall I accept, and which reject? Thou sayest, ‘The only One, he alone is one’; but the Hindūs are saying that in (their) faith there is certainty; and the Musalmāns are saying that only in (their) faith is there certainty. Tell me, in which of them is the truth, and in which is there falsity?” Nānak replied, “There is only one Lord (Ṣāḥib), and only one tradition.” (fol. 119.) This anecdote serves still further to illustrate the intermediate position between the two religions ascribed to Nānak by his immediate followers.

Shortly after the foregoing episode, Nānak was captured among the prisoners taken by the Emperor Bābar, who seems to have been attracted by the Guru’s piety, and to have shown him some attentions. The chronicler informs us that “all the people, both Hindūs and Musalmāns, began to salute (Nānak).” (fol. 137.) After his release, Nānak recommenced his missionary work, and is described as meeting a Muḥammadan named Miyān Mithā, who called upon him for the Kalimah [see KALIMAH], or Muḥammadan confession of faith (fol. 143); which leads to a long conversation, in which Nānak lays emphasis on the Ṣūfī doctrine of the Unity of God. In this conversation Nānak is made to say, “The book of the Qurʾān should be practised.” (fol. 144.) He also acknowledged that “justice is the Qurʾān.” (fol. 148.) When the Miyān asked him what is the one great name, Nānak took him aside and whispered in his ear, “Allāh” [GOD]. Immediately the great name is uttered, Miyān Mithā is consumed to ashes; but a celestial voice again utters the word “Allāh!” and the Miyān regains life, and falls at the feet of Nānak. (fol. 147.)

Nānak then proceeded to convert some Jainas, and even a Rākshasas, or Hindū demon; and next went to Multān, where he converted the famous Pīr, Mak͟hdūm Bahāʾu ʾd-Dīn. In Kashmīr he met with a Hindū Pandit who recognized him as a sādhu, or virtuous person; but asked him why he had abandoned caste usages, why he wore skins, and ate meat and fish. The Pandit’s scruples having been satisfied, he flung away his idols, and became a devoted believer in Nānak’s doctrines. This anecdote again furnishes us with distinct evidence that Nānak took up an intermediate position between Islām and Hindūism, and sought to bring both under one common system.

In precise conformity with this deduction is the tradition of Nānak’s pilgrimage to Makkah. The particulars of his visit to that holy place are fully given, in all accounts of Nānak’s life; and although, as Dr. Trumpp reasonably concludes, the whole story is a fabrication, yet the mere invention of the tale is enough to prove that those who most intimately knew Nānak considered his relationship to Muḥammadanism sufficiently close to warrant the belief in such a pilgrimage. In the course of his teaching in Makkah, Nānak is made to say: “Though men, they are like women, who do not obey the Sunnat, and Divine commandment, nor the order of the book (i.e. the Qurʾān).” (I. O. MS. No. 1728, fol. 212.) He also admitted the intercession of Muḥammad, denounced the drinking of bhang, wine, &c., acknowledged the existence of hell, the punishment of the wicked, and the resurrection of mankind; in fact, the words here ascribed to Nānak contain a full confession of Islām. These tenets are, of course, due to the narrator of the tale; and are only useful as showing how far Nānak’s followers thought it possible for him to go.

A curious incident is next related to the effect that Mak͟hdūm Bahāʾu ʾd-Dīn, the Pīr of Multān, feeling his end approaching, said to his disciples, “O friends, from this time the faith of no one will remain firm; all will become faithless (be-īmān).” His disciples asked for an explanation; and in reply he delivered himself of an oracular statement: “O friends, when one Hindū shall come to Heaven (bihisht), there will be brilliancy (ujālā) in Heaven.” To this strange announcement his disciples replied: “Learned people say that Heaven is not decreed for the Hindū; what is this that you have said?” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 224.) The Pīr told them that he was alluding to Nānak; and sent one of his disciples to ask Nānak if he, also, had received an intimation of his approaching death.

In this anecdote we have the extraordinary admission from a Muḥammadan that Nānak would succeed in breaking up the faith of Islām. It is in consequence of a Hindū’s having conquered Heaven itself, and vindicated his right to a place in the paradise of Muḥammad, that those who were then in the faith of the Prophet would lose confidence in his teaching. Here again the words employed are useful; for the Pīr is made to say that Muslims will become be-īmān, the Arabic term specially applicable to the “faith” of Islām; and Heaven is called in the Panjābī story bhisat, that is bihisht, the Paradise of Muḥammadans [see PARADISE]; for had the Hindū heaven been intended, some such word as swarg, or paralok, or Brahmalok would have been used.

The final incident in the life of this enlightened teacher is in precise accord with all that has been said of his former career. Nānak came to the bank of the Rāvī to die—in conformity with Hindū custom—by the side of a natural stream of water. It is expressly said that both Hindūs and Muslims accompanied him. He then seated himself at the foot of a Sarīh tree, and his Assembly of the faithful (Sangat) stood around him. His sons asked him what their position was to be; and he told them to subordinate themselves to the Guru Angad whom he had appointed as his successor. They were to succeed to no power or dignity merely on the ground of relationship; no hereditary claim was to be recognized; on the contrary, the sons were frankly told to consider themselves non-entities. The words are: “Sons, even the dogs of the Guru are not in want; bread and clothes will be plentiful; and should you mutter ‘Guru! Guru!’ (your) life will be (properly) adjusted.” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 238.) The anecdote then proceeds in the following remarkable manner: “Then the Hindūs and Musalmāns who were firm in the name (of God), began to express themselves (thus): the Musalmāns said, ‘We will bury (him)’; and the Hindūs said, ‘We will burn (him).’ Then the Bābā said, ‘Place flowers on both sides; on the right side those of the Hindūs, on the left side those of the Musalmāns, (that we may perceive) whose will continue green to-morrow. If those of the Hindūs keep green, then burn (me); and if those of the Musalmāns keep green, then bury (me).’ Then the Bābā ordered the Assembly to repeat the praises (of God); and the Assembly began to repeat the praises accordingly. [After a few verses had been recited] he laid down his head. When the sheet (which had been stretched over him) was raised, there was nothing (under it); and the flowers of both (sides) remained green. The Hindūs took away theirs; and the Musalmāns took away theirs. The entire Assembly fell to their feet.” (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 239, 240.)

The mixture of Hindūism and Muḥammadanism is evident in this tradition. It is obviously intended to summarize the life of Nānak and the object of his teaching. He is not represented as an outcaste and a failure; on the other hand, his purposes are held to have been fully accomplished. The great triumph was the establishment of a common basis of religious truth for both Muḥammadan and Hindū; and this he is shown to have accomplished with such dexterity that at his death no one could say whether he was more inclined to Hindūism or to Muḥammadanism. His friends stood around him at the last moment quite uncertain as to whether they should dispose of his remains as those of a Muḥammadan, or as those of a Hindū. And Nānak is represented as taking care that the matter should ever remain a moot point. The final miraculous disappearance of the corpse is obviously intended to convey the idea that Nānak belonged specially neither to one party nor to the other; while the green and flourishing appearance of the flowers of both parties conveys the lesson that it was his wish that both should live together in harmony and union. The narrator of the life clearly wishes his history to substantiate the prophetic statement recorded at the commencement of his book (I. O. MS. 1728, fol. 7) that, at Nānak’s birth, “The Hindūs said, ‘The manifestation of some God (Devatā) has been produced’; and the Musalmāns said, ‘Some holy man (ṣādiq) of God (K͟hudā) has been born.’ ”

The most potent cause of the uncertainty as to Nānak’s true position in the religious world, arises from the initial fact that he was born a Hindū, and necessarily brought up in that form of belief. He was a perfectly uneducated man, there being no reason to suppose that he could either read or write, or perform any other literary feat, beyond the composition of extemporaneous verses in his mother tongue. Guru Arjun, the fourth successor of Nānak, appears to have been the first chieftain of the fraternity who could read and write. The necessary result of Nānak’s early associations was that all his ideas throughout life were substantially Hindū, his mode of thought and expression was Hindū, his illustrations were taken from Hindū sources, and his system was based on Hindū models. It must be borne in mind that Nānak never openly seceded from the pale of Hindūism, or ever contemplated doing so. Thus in the Sākhī of Miyān Mithā it is related that towards the end of Nānak’s life a Muḥammadan named Shāh ʿAbdu ʾr-Raḥmān acknowledged the great advantages he had derived from the teaching of Nānak, and sent his friend Miyān Mithā to the Guru so that he might derive similar benefit. “Then Miyān Mithā said, ‘What is his name? Is he a Hindū, or is he a Musalmān?’ Shāh ʿAbdu ʾr-Raḥmān replied, ‘He is a Hindū; and his name is Nānak.’”—(Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 258.) He struck a heavy blow at Hindūism by his rejection of caste distinctions; and on this point there can be no doubt, for his very words, preserved in the Ādi Granth, are: “Thou (O Lord) acknowledgest the Light (the ray of the Divine in man), and dost not ask after caste. In the other world there is no caste.”—(Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. 494.) In consequence of this opinion Nānak admitted to his fraternity men of all castes; his constant companions being spoken of as Saiyids and Sikhs, that is, Muḥammadan and Hindū pupils. Sikhs have ever before them the intermediate character of their religion by the stanza (21) of the Jap-Jī, which says, “Pandits do not know that time, though written in a Purāna; Qāẓīs do not know that time, though written in the Qurʾān.” Hindū scholars are told in the Ādi Granth that they miss the true meaning of their religion through delusion. “Reading and reading the Pandit explains the Veda, (but) the infatuation of Māyā (delusion personified) lulls him to sleep. By reason of dual affection the name of Hari (i.e. God) is forgotten.” (Translation, p. 117.) In the same way Nānak turns to the Musalmān and says,—

“Thou must die, O Mullā! thou must die! remain in the fear of the Creator!
Then thou art a Mullā, then thou art a Qāẓī, if thou knowest the name of God (K͟hudā).
None, though he be very learned, will remain, he hurries onwards.
He is a Qāẓī by whom his own self is abandoned, and the One Name is made his support.
He is, and will be, He will not be destroyed, true is the Creator.
Five times he prays (niwāj gujarhi), he reads the book of the Qurʾān.”

(Translation, p. 37.)

Nānak does not seem to have been fastidious as to the name under which he recognized the Deity; he was more concerned with impressing on his companions a correct understanding of what Deity was. The names Hari, Rām, Govind, Brahma, Parameśwar, K͟hudā, Allāh, &c., are used with perfect freedom, and are even mixed up in the same poem. The most common name for God in the Ādi Granth is certainly Hari; but that does not seem to have shocked the Muslim friends of Nānak. Thus, in a poem addressed to Hari as “the invisible, inaccessible, and infinite,” we are told that, “Pīrs, prophets, sāliks, ṣādiqs, martyrs, shaik͟hs, mullās, and darveshes; a great blessing has come upon them, who continually recite his salvation.”—(Translation, p. 75.)

The chief point of Nānak’s teaching was unquestionably the Unity of God. He set himself firmly against the idea of associating any other being with the Absolute Supreme. This exalted idea of Divine Majesty enabled Nānak to treat with indifference the crowd of Hindū deities. To such a mind as that of Nānak it would have been sheer waste of time to argue, with any earnestness, about the attributes, powers, or jurisdictions, of a class of beings, the whole of whom were subordinate to one great, almighty, and incomprehensible Ruler. Without any overt attack on the Hindū pantheon, he caused the whole cluster of deities to subside into a condition similar to that of angels in modern Christianity; whose existence and operations may be the subject of conversation, but the whole of whom sink into utter insignificance compared with the central idea of the Divine Majesty. The One God, in Nānak’s opinion (and, it may be added, in the opinion of all Ṣūfīs), was the creator of plurality of form, not the creator of matter out of nothing. The phenomenal world is the manifestation of Deity, and it is owing to pure deception that the idea of severalty exists. In the Ādi Granth we read:—

“The cause of causes is the Creator.
In His hand are the order and reflection.
As He looks upon, so it becomes.
He Himself, Himself is the Lord.
Whatever is made, (is) according to His own pleasure.
He is far from all, and with all.
He comprehends, sees, and makes discrimination.
He Himself is One, and He Himself is many.
He does not die nor perish, He neither comes nor goes.
Nānak says: He is always contained (in all).”—(Translation, p. 400.)

Notwithstanding this conception that the Supreme One comprehends both spirit and matter, and therefore is what is; He is nevertheless spoken of as in some way different from the creatures He has formed, and has been endowed with moral and intellectual qualities. Thus we find in the Ādi Granth—

“Whose body the universe is, He is not in it, the Creator is not in it.
Who is putting (the things) together, He is always aloof (from them), in what can He be said (to be contained)?”

(Translation, p. 474.)

The soul of man is held to be a ray of light from the Light Divine; and it necessarily follows that, in its natural state, the soul of man is sinless. The impurity, which is only too apparent in man, is accounted for by the operation of what is called Māyā, or Delusion; and it is this Māyā which deludes creatures into egotism and duality, that is, into self-consciousness or conceit, and into the idea that there can be existence apart from the Divine. This delusion prevents the pure soul from freeing itself from matter, and hence the spirit passes from one combination of matter to another, in a long chain of births and deaths, until the delusion is removed, and the entrammelled ray returns to the Divine Light whence it originally emanated. The belief in metempsychosis is thus seen to be the necessary complement of pantheism; and it is essential to the creed of a Hindū, a Buddhist, and a Ṣūfī.

In Sikhism, as in Buddhism, the prime object of attainment is not Paradise, but the total cessation of individual existence. The method by which this release from transmigration is to be accomplished is by the perfect recognition of identity with the Supreme. When the soul fully realizes what is summed up in the formula so ham, “I am that,” i.e. “I am one with that which was, and is, and will be,” then emancipation from the bondage of existence is secured. This is declared by Nānak himself in the Ādi Granth in these words:—

“Should one know his own self as the so ham, he believes in the esoteric mystery.
Should the disciple (Gur-mukhi) know his own self, what more can he do, or cause to be done?”—(I. O. MS. 2484, fol. 53.)

The principles of early Sikhism given above are obviously too recondite for acceptance among masses of men; accordingly we find that the pantheistic idea of Absolute Substance became gradually changed into the more readily apprehended notion of a self-conscious Supreme Being, the Creator and Governor of the universe. Here Dr. Trumpp himself admits the influence of Muḥammadanism, when he says: “It is not improbable that the Islām had a great share in working silently these changes, which are directly opposed to the teaching of the Gurus.”—(Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. cxii.) The teaching of Nānak was, however, very practical. His followers are daily reminded in the Jap-Jī that, “Without the practice of virtue there can be no worship.”

In all that has preceded we have confined ourselves strictly to the intimate relationship subsisting between early Sikhism and the Muḥammadan religion. It is, however, needful to allude to the fact that certain surviving relics of Buddhism had no small share in moulding the thoughts of the Founder of the Sikh religion. A full examination of this part of the subject would be out of place in the present work. It must suffice to say that Buddhism held its position in the Panjāb long after it had disappeared from other parts of Northern India; and the abundance of Buddhistic relics, which are continually being unearthed in the district, prove the wide-spread and long-continued influence of the tenets of the gentle-hearted Buddha. Indications of this influence on early Sikhism are seen in its freedom from caste, in the respect for animal life, the special form of metempsychosis accepted, the importance ascribed to meditation, the profuse charity, the reverence paid to the seat of the Guru (like the Buddhistic worship of the throne), Nānak’s respect for the lotos, his missionary tours, and the curious union subsisting between the Guru and his Sangat. In the Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, translated from the original Gurmukhī by an excellent scholar, Sirdār Atar Singh, we find the following remarkable sentence: “The Guru and his Sangat are like the warp and woof in cloth,—there is no difference between them” (p. 37). In the Ādi Granth there is an entire Sukhmanī, or poem, by Guru Arjun, wholly devoted to a recitation of the advantages of “the society of the pious,” the term employed being, however, in this case, sādh kai sang. (I. O. MS. 2484, fol. 134.) In addition to these points of resemblance, there is found in early Sikhism a curious veneration for trees, offerings to which were sometimes made, as will be seen by reference to pp. 67, 70, and 83, of the Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, just cited. In precise conformity with the tradition that Buddha died under a Sāl tree, we have seen that Nānak purposely breathed his last under a Sarīh tree. Anyone familiar with Buddhism will readily recognize the remarkable coincidences stated above; but the most conclusive of all is the positive inculcation of views identical with the crowning doctrine of Buddhism—the Nirvāna itself. The following is what Dr. Trumpp says on the subject:—

“If there could be any doubt on the pantheistic character of the tenets of the Sikh Gurus regarding the Supreme, it would be dissolved by their doctrine of the Nirbān. Where no personal God is taught or believed in, man cannot aspire to a final personal communion with him, his aim can only be absorption in the Absolute Substance, i.e. individual annihilation. We find, therefore, no allusion to the joys of a future life in the Granth, as heaven or paradise, though supposed to exist, is not considered a desirable object. The immortality of the soul is only taught so far as the doctrine of transmigration requires it; but when the soul has reached its highest object, it is no more mentioned, because it no longer exists as individual soul.

“The Nirbān, as is well known, is the grand object which Buddha in his preaching held out to the poor people. From his atheistic point of view, he could look out for nothing else; personal existence, with all the concomitant evils of this life, which are not counterbalanced by corresponding pleasures, necessarily appeared to him as the greatest evil. His whole aim was, therefore, to counteract the troubles and pain of this existence by a stoical indifference to pleasure and pain, and to stop individual consciousness to its utmost limit, in order to escape at the point of death from the dreaded transmigration, which he also, even on his atheistic ground, had not ventured to reject. Buddhism is, therefore, in reality, like Sikhism, nothing but unrestricted Pessimism, unable to hold out to man any solace, except that of annihilation.

“In progress of time, Buddhism has been expelled from India, but the restored Brahmanism, with its confused cosmological legends, and gorgeous mythology of the Purānas, was equally unable to satisfy the thinking minds. It is, therefore, very remarkable, that Buddhism in its highest object, the Nirbān, soon emerges again in the popular teachings of the mediæval reformatory movements. Nāmdev, Trilochan, Kabīr, Ravidās, &c., and after these Nānak, take upon themselves to show the way to the Nirbān, as Buddha in his time had promised, and find eager listeners; the difference is only in the means which these Bhagats [saints] propose for obtaining the desired end.” (Introduction to Translation of the Ādi Granth, p. cvi.)

Such, then, was the Sikh religion as founded by Guru Nānak. It is based on Hindūism, modified by Buddhism, and stirred into new life by Ṣūfīism. There seems to be superabundant evidence that Nānak laboured earnestly to reconcile Hindūism with Muḥammadanism, by insisting strongly on the tenets on which both parties could agree, and by subordinating the points of difference. It is impossible to deny that Nānak in his life-time actually did effect a large amount of reconciliation, and left behind him a system designed to carry on the good work. The circumstances which led to the entire reversal of the project, and produced between Muḥammadans and Sikhs the deadliest of feuds, does not come within the purview of the present article. It is enough to state that the process was gradual, and was as much due to political causes as to a steady departure from the teachings of the Founder of Sikhism.

The Sikhs acknowledge ten Gurus, whose names, with the year in which each died, are given in the following list:—

Name. Date of Death. Duration of Guru-ship.

A.D. Years.

Guru Nānak 1538 34

Guru Angad 1552 14

Guru Amar-Dās 1574 22

Guru Rām-Dās 1581 7

Guru Arjun 1606 25

Guru Har-Govind 1638 32

Guru Har-Rāˏī 1660 22

Guru Har-Krishan 1664 4

Guru Tegh-Bahādur 1675 11

Guru Govind Singh 1708 33

It is thus seen that the Sikh fraternity was under the guidance of personal Gurus from A.D. 1504, when Nānak received the spiritual impulse which gave birth to the new sect, until A.D. 1708, a total period of 204 years. After the death of Guru Govind Singh, the Ādi Granth itself was taken to be the ever-existing impersonal guide.

The first successor of Nānak was appointed on account of his devotion to the cause. Shortly after the supposed visit to Makkah, Nānak met with a devotee named Lahanā, whose faith and earnestness were so fully demonstrated that Nānak named him, in preference to either of his sons, as his successor in the leadership of the new sect. His name was also changed from Lahanā to Angad (= anga-da, “body-giving”), implying that he was willing to give his very body to the cause of God. He was a poor and ignorant man, and maintained himself by rope-making. He is said to have heard the whole account of Nānak’s life from Bhāˏī Bālā, who had long been with the Founder. It is related that all the counsel which Nānak had given to the Sikhs was sedulously inculcated by him. (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 19.) Like his predecessor, the Founder, he also named as his successor a devoted servant; although he had sons whom he might have appointed.

Amar-Dās, the third Guru, was a simple-minded and inoffensive man, who was as unlearned as his two predecessors; nevertheless, he composed several verses incorporated in the Ādi Granth. It was in his time that we hear of the first differences between the Sikhs and the Muḥammadans. The gentle disposition of Amar-Dās was unsuited to the position of ruler among the strong-willed people of the Panjāb; accordingly, when a difference occurred, he was quite incapable of settling the matter. It is related that Amar-Dās was completely absorbed in the service of Paramesur (God). (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 25.) The use of this word indicates a marked inclination towards the Hindū side of Sikhism; and we may suppose that such an inclination would be resented by the firmer adherents to Islām; for we find that the Muslims began to annoy this Guru’s disciples by trivial acts of aggression. The disciples asked their Guru what they had better do; and he suggested various temporising expedients, which only emboldened the aggressors. When again appealed to, he desired his disciples to endure the wrong, as it was more meritorious to submit than to resent an insult. The weak conduct of this Guru left a legacy of ill-will for his successors to deal with. Amar-Dās nominated his son-in-law as his successor; an example which initiated the hereditary Guru-ship which followed.

Rām-Dās was a poor lad, who got a scanty living by selling boiled grain. He was taken into the family of Amar-Dās, and married his daughter. He had acquired the elements of education, and was a peaceful and non-aggressive man. On attaining the Guru-ship, he set himself industriously to the acquisition of disciples; and took large contributions from them in the shape of voluntary offerings. This wealth placed him above his brothers in the faith; and conferred upon him the elements of a royal state. He restored an old tank in magnificent style, for the purpose of religious ablution, and called it Amritsar, or the lake of the water of life. This tank enabled the Sikhs to perform their ablutions in a luxurious manner, and necessarily attracted many to the spot. In the course of time, a town grew up round the tank, which gradually increased in importance, and is now one of the most important places in the Punjāb. This assumption of dignity and increasing wealth in all probability awakened the anxiety of the Muḥammadan governors of the country; and the gradual drifting into common Hindūism accentuated the feeling. It is clear that the Muḥammadans who had fought so desperately to overturn the ancient Hindū kingdoms, could not view with indifference the up-growth of a Hindū sovereignty in their very midst. Rām-Dās named his son as his successor in the Guru-ship—an act which sealed the fate of the Sikh attempt at compromise in religious matters; for every Muḥammadan felt his position as a citizen threatened by the establishment of a rallying-point for disaffected Hindūs.

Guru Arjun, the fifth Guru, was an active and ambitious man. He laid aside the dress of a faqīr, which had been worn by all his predecessors, and converted the voluntary offerings of his disciples into a tax. This raised him to some importance, and enabled him to take men into his pay, a proceeding which conferred additional dignity upon him, and, at the same time, intensified the jealousy of his Muḥammadan neighbours. As an additional means of uniting his community into one compact body, he collected the words of Nānak, and those of other saintly personages, into a book, which he called Granth, i.e. “the book”; and strictly enjoined his followers to accept no speech as authoritative which was not contained in “the book.” The spark which lit the torch was, however, a distinct interference in political affairs, which provoked the resentment of the Muḥammadan ruler at Delhi, and occasioned the arrest and, ultimately, the death of the Guru. It is not clear whether the Emperor actually executed him, or whether the Guru committed suicide; but his death was brought about by the ruler of Delhi; and this was enough to inflame the passions of the Sikhs, who were eager to revenge his death.

Har-Govind succeeded his father in the Guru-ship; and at once proceeded to arm his followers, and slay those who had been personally concerned in procuring the death of the late Guru. This did not, however, prevent him from entering the service of the Emperors Jahāngīr and Shāh-Jahān in a military capacity; but his turbulence got him into much trouble, and he spent a predatory, rather than a religious, life. Under his Guru-ship the Sikhs were changed from faqīrs into soldiers; and were freely recruited from the warlike Jat population, who eagerly availed themselves of any opportunity for securing plunder. It is evident that the actions of this Guru must have led him into frequent contests with the Muḥammadan authorities; and provoked the efforts afterwards made to break up what the rulers must have felt to be a dangerous confederation.

Har-Rāˏī was the grandson of the last Guru; and was chosen as successor because Har-Govind distrusted the fitness of his sons for the office. Har-Rāˏī fought against Aurangzīb in the interest of Dārā-Shikoh; and when the latter was defeated he made his submission to the Emperor, and was pardoned.

Har-Krishan was the younger son of the preceding. Nothing eventful occurred during his short tenure of power. He was called to Delhi by the Emperor Aurangzīb, and was there attacked by small-pox, of which disease he died. The succession to the Guru-ship was broken by his death; for he was too weak to appoint a successor, and merely indicated that the next Guru would be found in Bakālā, a village near Anand-pur.

Tegh-Bahādur, who happened to be residing in Bakālā, was the son of Har-Govind, and had been passed over by his father in favour of Har-Rāˏī. He was by nature contemplative, and not particularly anxious to assume the delicate position of leader among the bellicose Sikhs. Aurangzīb was in the full fury of his Islāmizing mania, and was accordingly specially solicitous to suppress the ambitious projects of the Sikhs. The Panjāb appears to have been too carefully guarded to be pleasant to Tegh-Bahādur, and he, therefore, began a wandering life over the north of India. An account of his travels has been translated from Panjābī into English by the learned Sirdār Atar Singh; and the story is singularly interesting to the student of Sikh history. We learn from one anecdote that, even in the time of this ninth Guru, Muḥammadans could feel a certain respect for the Sikhs. The tale relates that a small party of Hindūs and Muḥammadans went to rob the Guru; but at the last moment the Muḥammadans felt remorse, for they said, “he was undoubtedly a prophet.”—(Travels of Guru Tegh Bahādur, p. 24.) On reaching Śivarām the Guru met a Saiyid seated under a Sarīh tree (the same kind of tree, be it remarked, as that under which Nānak breathed his last); and the Saiyid saluted the Guru with reverence, saying: “I am really happy now, having seen your divine countenance.”—(Travels, &c., p. 46.) Still more marked is the friendly feeling shown by the courteous reception which Tegh-Bahādur received from Sharafu ʾd-Dīn, a Muḥammadan gentleman residing near Patiālā. This Muslim sent him presents, and then went out to meet him. He conducted him with much ceremony to his own palace, where he entertained him. It is specially mentioned that “the Guru’s eyes fell upon a mosque, and Sharafu ʾd-Dīn immediately said that that was the house of God.”—(Travels, &c., p. 2.) Notwithstanding this reverential treatment by pious Muḥammadans, it is certain that Tegh-Bahādur spent his life in violent antagonism to the Muslim rulers of the country. The book of Travels, from which we are quoting, gives numerous instances of this, as may be seen by those who care to study the details, in pp. 45, 49, 57, 58, 69, 126, 130, 131. Some desperate fights took place, and after a specially severe engagement it is said on p. 58 that “from that day the Muḥammadans never ventured to fight with the Guru.” However, the Guru appears to have been hunted from place to place, and on many occasions he narrowly escaped capture. The apparent contradiction involved in the reverential attitude of pious Muḥammadans, and the skirmishes with Muḥammadan soldiery, finds its explanation in the supposition that the religious aspect of Sikhism was not antagonistic to Muḥammadan ideas, while its political aspect provoked the violence of the Court of Delhi. In the present day much the same state of things is recognizable with respect to the Wahhābīs. The English Government would never dream of interfering with the religions opinions of that, or any other, sect; but when their doctrines find expression in the subversion of civil authority, the leaders soon find themselves in the Andaman islands. Tegh-Bahādur was at length arrested, and the Emperor is stated to have endeavoured earnestly to bring him over to the pure Muslim faith; but when he proved obdurate he was thrown into prison, where long-continued cruelty induced him to command a Sikh, who was with him, to cut off his head.

Govind Singh was the tenth and last Guru, and he succeeded his father Tegh-Bahādur when only 15 years of age. He was brought up under Hindū guidance, and became a staunch devotee of the goddess Durgā; and, by his pronounced preference for Hindūism, he caused a division in the Sikh community. He introduced several important changes into the constitution of Sikh society. The chief among these was the establishment of the Khālsā, by which he bound his disciples into an army, and conferred upon each of them the name Singh, or lion. He freely admitted all castes to the ranks of his army; and laboured more earnestly over their military than over their religious discipline. The nature of the changes which Govind Singh effected in the fraternity is best shown by the fact that the special followers of Nānak personally, separated themselves from him, and formed a community of their own, rejecting the title of Singh. In other words, they preferred the religious to the military idea. This Guru fought against the Muḥammadans with determination; and was so incensed against them that he instituted a fine of 25 rupees for saluting a Muḥammadan tomb, however saintly. Towards the end of his Guru-ship an attempt was made to raise this fine to 5,000 rupees; but it was ultimately fixed at 125 rupees (Travels, &c., pp. 69 and 130.) The spirit of toleration so marked during the life of Nānak was clearly gone; and in yet later times this hostility gave birth to the maxim that “a true Sikh should always be engaged in war with the Muḥammadans and slay them, fighting them face to face.” After a turbulent reign, Guru Govind Singh was treacherously slain by the dagger of a Pathān follower. He refused to name a successor, telling his followers that after his death the Granth Ṣāḥib, or “the Lord the Book,” was to be their guide in every respect. (Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā, p. 79.)

The foregoing sketch of the relation of the Sikhs to the Muḥammadans is sufficient to show that the religion of Nānak began in large-hearted tolerance; and that political causes operated to convert its adherents into a narrow-minded sect. The Hindūism which Nānak had disciplined, reasserted its superiority under his successors, and ultimately became predominant. While this change was in progress the religious aspect of the movement became gradually converted into a military and political propaganda. No contrast, indeed, could well be greater than that between the inoffensive and gentle-minded Nānak, and the warlike and ambitious Gurus of later times. But while we cannot help being painfully impressed with the apparently undying feud which still subsists between the Sikhs and the Muḥammadans, it seems perfectly clear that the intention of the Founder was to reconcile the differences between those creeds; and that in this excellent work he attained a large measure of success. His pious object was defeated by political causes, and by the warlike nature of the people of the Panjāb. The name “Muḥammadan,” in the various countries in which it exists, is allowed to cover differences in religious belief quite as great as those between the views of Nānak and those of Muḥammad; and in all probability would have done so in this instance also, but for the reasons pointed out. We cannot, however, concern ourselves with probabilities; it is enough for the purposes of this article to have established the fact that Sikhism, in its inception, was intimately associated with Muḥammadanism; and that it was intended as a means of bridging the gulf which separated the Hindūs from the believers in the Prophet.

There are five leading sects of Sikhs, the names of which need only be mentioned. They are:—

• 1. The Udāsīs, or those who are “indifferent” to the world.
• 2. The Suthre, or the “pure.”
• 3. The Diwāne, or “mad” saints.
• 4. The Nirmale Sādhu, or “spotless saints.”
• 5. The Akālīs, or worshippers of the “Eternal One.”

[The foregoing able review of the connection between Sikhism and the teachings of Islām has been contributed, specially for the present work, by Mr. Frederic Pincott, M.R.A.S.]

The authorities upon which this article is based are:—Dr. Trumpp’s Translation of the Ādi Granth; the text of the Ādi Granth, India Office MS. No. 2484; the Janam-Sākhī of Guru Nānak in old Panjābī, I. O. MS. No. 1728; the Janam-Patrī of Guru Nānak, I. O. MS. No. 2885; Sikhān de Rāj dī Vithiˏā (an Account of the Rule of the Sikhs, in Panjābī); The Travels of Guru Tegh-Bahādur and Guru Gobind Singh, translated from the original Gur-mukhī by Sirdār Atar Singh, Chief of Bhadaur; Jap-Jī Sāhib, the Panjābī text with commentary in Urdū, by Sirdār Atar Singh; Srī Guru Charitra Prabhākar, by Pandit Gyānī Sant Singh; Srī Nānak Prakās, by Bhāˏī Santokh Singh; Srī Granth Gur-Pratāp Sūraj Rāsā, by Bhāˏī Santokh Singh. [FAQIR, MUHAMMADANISM, SUFI.]

SILSILAH (سلسلة‎). Lit. “A chain.” (1) The line of succession in any religious order, traced either to some religious leader of reputation, or to the four rightly directed K͟halīfahs, or to the Prophet himself. (2) An unbroken tradition.

SIMON PETER. Arabic Shamʿūn (شمعون‎). Not mentioned by name in the Qurʾān, but al-Baiẓāwī says he is the Apostle who was sent to Antioch to succour the two disciples in prison (said to be John and Jude), and who is referred to in Sūrah xxxvi. 13: “And we strengthened them with a third.”

SIMSĀR (سمسار‎), pl. samāsirah. A term used in Muḥammadan law for agents or brokers.

SIN. Arabic zamb (زنب‎), k͟hat̤iʾah (خطئة‎), is̤m (اثم‎). Heb. ‏אָשָׁם‎ āshām, ‏חֵטְא‎ k͟hētʾ. Muḥammadan doctors divide sin into two classes. Kabīrah, “great,” and ṣag͟hīrah, “little” sins. Kabīrah sins are those great sins of which, if a Musalmān do not repent, he will be sent to the purgatorial hell reserved for sinful Muslims, whilst ṣag͟hīrah are those venial sins which are inherent in our fallen nature.

Muḥammadan writers are not agreed as to the exact number of kabīrah sins, but they are generally held to be the following seventeen:—

1. Kufr, or infidelity.

2. Constantly committing little sins.

3. Despairing of God’s mercy.

4. Considering oneself safe from the wrath of God.

5. False witness.

6. Qaẕf, or falsely charging a Muslim with adultery.

7. Taking a false oath.

8. Magic.

9. Drinking wine.

10. Appropriation of the property of orphans.

11. Usury.

12. Adultery.

13. Unnatural crime.

14. Theft.

15. Murder.

16. Fleeing in battle before the face of an infidel enemy.

17. Disobedience to parents.

The following are sayings of Muḥammad, as given in the Traditions, on the subject of sin (Mishkāt, book i. ch. ii.):—

“He is not a believer who commits adultery, or steals, or drinks liquor, or plunders, or embezzles, when entrusted with the plunder of the infidel. Beware! beware!”

“The greatest sin is to associate another with God, or to vex your father and mother, or to murder your own species, or to commit suicide, or to swear, or to lie.”

“The greatest of sins before God is that you call any other like unto the God who created you, or that you murder your child from an idea that it will eat your victuals, or that you commit adultery with your neighbour’s wife.”

“Abstain ye from seven ruinous destructive things, namely, (1) associating anything with God; (2) magic; (3) killing anyone without reason; (4) taking interest on money; (5) taking the property of the orphan; (6) running away on the day of battle; (7) and taxing an innocent woman with adultery.”

“Do not associate anything with God, although they kill or burn you. Do not affront your parents, although they should order you to leave your wives, your children, and your property. Do not abandon the divine prayers, for he who does so will not remain in the asylum of God. Never drink wine; for it is the root of all evil. Abstain from vice, for from it descends the anger of God. Refrain from running away in battle, although ye be killed. When a pestilence shall visit mankind, and you are in the midst of it, remain there. Cherish your children, and chastise them in order to teach them good behaviour, and instruct them in the fear of God.”

It is related that a Jew once said to his friend, “Take me to this Prophet.” He said, “Do not call him a prophet, for if he hears it he will be pleased.” And they came to the Prophet and asked him about the nine (sic) wonders (i.e. Ten Commandments), which appeared (from the hands of Moses). He said, “Do not associate anything with God, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor murder, nor take an inoffensive person before the king to be killed, nor practise magic, nor take interest, nor accuse an innocent woman of adultery, nor turn your backs on the field of battle; and it is proper, particularly for the Jews, not to work on Saturday.” The Jews kissed the hands and feet of the Prophet, and said, “We bear witness that you are a Prophet.” He said, “What prevented you from being my disciples?” They replied, “David called on God to perpetuate the gift of prophecy in his family, and we fear the Jews will kill us if we become your followers.”

SINAI. Arabic Saināʾ (سيناء‎), Heb. ‏סִינַי‎ Sinai. In the Qurʾān T̤ūru Saināʾ (طور سيناء‎), also T̤ūru Sīnīn (طور سينين‎), “Mount Sinai”; and at̤-T̤ūr (الطور‎), “the Mount”; Chaldee ‏טוּר‎ T̤ūr. In Muslim commentaries, Jabalu Mūsā (جبل موسى‎), “the Mount of Moses.”

It is referred to in the Qurʾān as the mountain on which God gave the tables of the Law (Sūrah vii. 139), and as the place where God assembled the prophets and took a compact from them (Sūrah iii. 75). In Sūrah xcv. 2, Muḥammad makes the Almighty swear “by Mount Sinai”; and in Sūrah xxiii. 20, we are told that, “a tree growing out of Mount Sinai produces oil and a condiment for those who eat.”

Al-Baiẓāwī (Fleischer’s ed., vol. i. p. 343), and the author of the Majmaʿu ʾl-Biḥār (p. 57), both say that Moses received the tables of the Law on the mountain called Jabalu Zubair (جبل زبير‎).

SINGING. Arabic g͟hināʾ (غناء‎). Among Muslim theologians, singing is generally held to be unlawful, and the objection is founded on a tradition recorded by Jābir, who relates that Muḥammad said, “Singing and hearing songs causeth hypocrisy to grow in the heart, even as rain causeth the corn to grow in the field.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. ix. pt. 3.)

Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾl-Ḥaqq, in his commentary, remarking on this tradition, says, it is not a tradition of any authority, and adds, “The traditionists all agree that there is no Ḥadīs̤ of any authority forbidding the practice of singing.” (vol. iv. p. 63.)

The Ṣūfīs, who engage in the service of song as an act of worship, say Muḥammad only forbade songs of an objectionable character. Still most divines of reputation regard the practice with disfavour.

SĪPĀRAH (سيپاره‎). The Persian term for the thirty juzʾ, or divisions of the Qurʾān. From sī, “thirty,” and pārah, “a portion.”

The Qurʾān is said to have been thus divided to enable the pious Muslim to recite the whole of the Qurʾān in the month of Ramaẓān. Muḥammadans generally quote the Qurʾān by the Sīpārah and not by the Sūrah. [QURʾAN.]

S̤IQAH (ثقة‎). “Worthy of confidence.” A term used in the study of the Ḥadīs̤ for a traditionist worthy of confidence.

ṢIRĀT̤ (صراط‎). Lit. “A road.” The word occurs in the Qurʾān thirty-eight times, in nearly all of which it is used for the Ṣirāt̤u ʾl-Mustaqīm, or the “right way” of religion. In Muslim traditions and other writings it is more commonly used for the bridge across the infernal fire, which is described as finer than a hair and sharper than a sword, and is beset on each side with briars and hooked thorns. The righteous will pass over it with the swiftness of the lightning, but the wicked will soon miss their footing and will fall into the fire of hell. (Mulla ʿAlī Qārī, p. 110.)

Muḥammad appears to have borrowed his idea of the bridge from the Zoroastrian system, according to which the spirits of the departed, both good and bad, proceed along an appointed path to the “bridge of the gatherer” (chinvat peretu). This was a narrow road conducting to Heaven or Paradise, over which the souls of the pious alone could pass, whilst the wicked fell into the gulf below. (Rawlinson’s Seventh Oriental Monarchy, p. 636.)

The Jews, also, believed in the bridge of hell, which is no broader than a thread, over which idolaters must pass. (Midrash, Yalkut, Reubeni, sect. Gehinnom.)

AṢ-ṢIRĀT̤U ʾL-MUSTAQĪM (الصراط المستقيم‎). “The right way,” i.e. the Muḥammadan religion; e.g. Qurʾān, Sūrah iii. 44: “Fear God and obey me; of a truth God is my Lord and your Lord: Therefore worship Him. This is the right way.” It occurs in about thirty other places.

SIRIUS. Arabic ash-Shiʿrā (الشعرى‎). “The dog-star.” The Almighty is called in the Qurʾān, Sūrah liii. 50, Rabbu ʾsh-Shiʿrā, the “Lord of the Dog-star.”

The Kamālān say that before the time of Muḥammad this star was worshipped by the Banū K͟huzāʿah, hence the reference to it in the Qurʾān.

SITTING. Arabic julūs (جلوس‎). The traditionists are very particular in describing the precise position in which Muḥammad used to sit.

Ibn ʿUmar says: “I saw him sit with his knees up and the bottom of his feet on the ground, and his arms round his legs.”

Jābir says: “I saw him sitting reclining upon a pillow which was put under his arm.”

Kailah says: “I saw him sitting in the mosque upon his buttocks, in the greatest humility and lowliness.”

Jābir says, again: “The Prophet used, after he had said morning prayer, to sit with his feet drawn under him, until sun-rise.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. v.)

Muḥammadans always sit on the ground in their places of public worship. In social gatherings, people of inferior position always sit lower than their superiors.

SIX FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH. Al-Īmān (الايمان‎), or “the Faith,” is defined as consisting of the six articles of belief:—

• 1. Allāh, God.
• 2. Al-Malāʾikah, the Angels.
• 3. Al-Kutub, the Books (of the Prophets).
• 4. Ar-Rusul, the Prophets.
• 5. Al-Yaumu ʾl-Āk͟hir, the Last Day.
• 6. Al-Qadar, the Decrees of God.

These Six Articles of Faith are entitled Ṣifātu ʾl-Īmān, “the Attributes of Faith,” or Arkānu ʾl-Īmān, “the Pillars of Faith.” [MUHAMMADANISM.]

SIYAR (سير‎), pl. of sīrah. Lit. “Going in any manner or pace.” The record of a man’s actions and exploits. Stories of the ancients.

Kitābu ʾs-Siyar is the title given to a history of the establishment of Islām, hence as-Siyar means an historical work on the life of Muḥammad, or any of his Companions, or of his successors, &c. The earliest book of the kind written in Islām is that by Imām Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, who died A.H. 51. (Kashfu ʾz̤-Z̤unūn, Flügel’s edition, vol. iii. p. 634.)

SLANDER. [QAZF.]

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS. [FOOD, ZABH.]

SLAVERY. Arabic ʿUbūdīyah (عبودية‎), Heb. ‏עֲבוֹדָה‎ ʿabōdāh. A slave, ʿAbd (عبد‎) (Sūrah ii. 220), Heb. ‏עֶבֶד‎ ʿebed; Mamlūk (مملوك‎) (Sūrah xvi. 77); A female slave, amah (امه‎) (Sūrah ii. 220). The term generally used in the Qurʾān for slaves is ما ملكت ايمانكم‎ mā malakat aimānukum, “that which your right hands possess.”

Muḥammad found slavery an existing institution, both amongst the Jews and the idolaters of Arabia, and therefore it is recognised although not established in the Qurʾān.

I.—The Teaching of the Qurʾān on the subject of slavery is as follows:

(1) Muslims are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves. Sūrah iv. 3: “Then marry what seems good to you of women, by twos, or threes, or fours; and if ye fear that ye cannot be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands possess.” Sūrah iv. 29: “Take of what your right hands possess of young women.” Sūrah xxxiii. 49: “O prophet! verily We make lawful for thee wives to whom thou hast given their hire (dowry), and what thy right hand possesses out of the booty God hath granted thee.”

(2) They are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves. Sūrah iv. 28: “Unlawful for you are … married women, save such as your right hands possess.” (On this verse al-Jalālān the commentators say: “that is, it is lawful for them to cohabit with those women whom you have made captive, even though their husbands be alive in the Dāru ʾl-Ḥarb.”)

(3) Muslims are excused from strict rules of decorum in the presence of their female slaves, even as in the presence of their wives. Sūrah xxiii. 5: “Those who are strict in the rules of decorum, except for their wives, or what their right hands possess.” See also Sūrah lxx. 29.

(4) The helpless position of the slave as regards his master illustrates the helpless position of the false gods of Arabia in the presence of their Creator. Sūrah xvi. 77: “God has struck out a parable, an owned slave, able to do nothing, and one provided with a good provision, and one who expends therefrom in alms secretly and openly, shall they be held equal? Praise be to God, most of them do not know!” See also Sūrah xxx. 27.

(5) Muslims shall exercise kindness towards their slaves. Sūrah iv. 40: “Serve God and do not associate aught with Him, and show kindness to your parents and to kindred … and to that which your right hands possess.”

(6) When slaves can redeem themselves it is the duty of Muslims to grant the emancipation. Sūrah xxiv. 33: “And such of those whom your right hands possess as crave a writing (i.e. a document of freedom), write it out for them if ye know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of God which He has given you. And do not compel your slave-girls to prostitution if they desire to keep continent.”

From the teaching of the Qurʾān above quoted it will be seen that all male and female slaves taken as plunder in war are the lawful property of their master; that the master has power to take to himself any female slave, either married or single; that the position of a slave is as helpless as that of the stone idols of Arabia; but they should be treated with kindness, and be granted their freedom when they are able to ask for and pay for it.

II.—From the Teaching of the Traditions, it appears that it was the custom of Muḥammad either to put to death or take captive those of the enemy who fell into his hands. If a captive embraced Islām on the field of battle he was a free man; but if he were made captive, and afterwards embraced Islām, the change of creed did not emancipate him. ʿAt̤īyatu ʾl-Quraz̤ī relates that, after his battle with the Banū Quraiz̤ah, the Prophet ordered all those who were able to fight to be killed, and the women and children to be enslaved.

Very special blessings are attached to the emancipation of a slave. Abū Hurairah relates that Muḥammad said, “Whosoever frees a slave who is a Muslim, God will redeem every member of his body, limb for limb, from hell fire.” Abū Ẕarr asked which slave was the best to emancipate, and the Prophet replied, “That which is of the highest price and most liked by his master.” An Arab once asked the Prophet what act would take him to Paradise, and the Prophet said, “Free a slave, or assist one in redeeming a bond of slavery.” The following are some of the sayings of Muḥammad regarding the treatment of slaves:

“It is well for a slave who regularly worships God and discharges his master’s work properly.”

“Whoever buys a slave and does not agree about his property, then no part of it is for the purchaser of the slave.”

“When a slave of yours has money to redeem his bond, then you must not allow him to come into your presence afterwards.”

“Behaving well to slaves is a means of prosperity, and behaving ill to them is a cause of loss.”

“When any one of you is about to beat his slave, and the slave asks pardon in the name of God, then withhold yourself from beating him.”

“It is incumbent upon the master of slaves to find them in victuals and clothes, and not order them to do what they are not able to do.”

“When a slave-girl has a child by her master she is free at his death.”

“Whoever frees a slave, and the slave has property, it is for the master, unless the master shall have agreed that it was the slave’s at the time of freeing him.” (See Mishkātu ʾl-Maṣābīḥ, Ṣaḥīḥu ʾl-Buk͟hārī, Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim.)

III.—With regard to the Enslaving of Captives, the author of the Hidāyah says:

“The Imām, with respect to captives, has it in his choice to slay them, because the Prophet put captives to death, and also because slaying them terminates wickedness; or, if he choose, he may make them slaves, because by enslaving them the wickedness of them is remedied, and at the same time the Muslims reap an advantage; or, if he please, he may release them so as to make them freemen and Ẕimmīs, according to what is recorded of ʿUmar; but it is not lawful so to release the idolaters of Arabia, or apostates. It is not lawful for the Imām to return the captives to their own country, as this would be strengthening the infidels against the Muslims. If captives become Muslims, let not the Imām put them to death, because the wickedness of them is hereby remedied without slaying them; but yet he may lawfully make them slaves, after their conversion, because the reason for making them slaves (namely, their being secured within the Muslim territory) had existence previous to their embracing the faith. It is otherwise where infidels become Muslims before their capture, because then the reason for making them slaves did not exist previous to their conversion. It is not lawful to release infidel captives in exchange for the release of Muslim captives from the infidels. According to the two disciples, this is lawful (and such also is the opinion of ash-Shāfiʿī), because this produces the emancipation of Muslims, which is preferable to slaying the infidels or making them slaves. The argument of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah is that such an exchange is an assistance to the infidels, because those captives will again return to fight the Muslims, which is a wickedness, and the prevention of this wickedness is preferable to effecting the release of the Muslims, since, as they remain in the hands of the infidels, the injury only affects them, and does not extend to the other Muslims, whereas the injury attending the release of infidel captives extends to the whole body of Muslims. An exchange for property (that is, releasing infidel prisoners in return for property) is also unlawful, as this is assisting the infidels, as was before observed, and the same is mentioned in the Maẕhabu ʾl-Mashhūr. In the Sairu ʾl-Kabīr it is asserted that an exchange of prisoners for property may be made where the Muslims are necessitous, because the Prophet released the captives taken at Badr for a ransom. If a captive become a Muslim in the hands of the Muslims, it is not lawful to release and send him back to the infidels in return for their releasing a Muslim who is a captive in their hands, because no advantage can result from the transaction. If, however, the converted captive consent to it, and there be no apprehension of his apostatizing, in this case the releasing of him in exchange for a Muslim captive is a matter of discretion. It is not lawful to confer a favour upon captives by releasing them gratuitously, that is, without receiving anything in return, or their becoming Ẕimmīs, or being made slaves. Ash-Shāfiʿī says that showing favour to captives in this way is lawful, because the Prophet showed favour in this way to some of the captives taken at the battle of Badr. The arguments of the Ḥanafī doctors upon this point are two-fold: First, it is said in the Qurʾān, ‘Slay idolaters wherever ye find them’; secondly, the right of enslaving them is established by their being conquered and captured, and hence it is not lawful to annul that right without receiving some advantage in return, in the same manner as holds with respect to all plunder; and with respect to what ash-Shāfiʿī relates that the Prophet showed favour in this way to some of the captives taken at the battle of Badr, it is abrogated by the text of the Qurʾān already quoted. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 160.)

IV.—Slave Traffic is not only allowed but legislated for by Muḥammadan law, and is clearly sanctioned by the example of the Prophet as given in the Traditions (see Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, Kitābu ʾl-Buyūʿ, vol. i. p. 2). In the Law of Sale (see Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār. Hidāyah, Hamilton’s ed., vol. ii. p. 458), slaves, male and female, are treated merely as articles of merchandize. In chapters on sale, and option, and wills, the illustrations are generally given as regards slaves, and the same, or very similar, rules apply both to the sale of animals and bondsmen.

The following traditions (Mishkāt, book xiii. chap. xx.) with reference to the action of the Prophet in this matter are notable:—

“ʿImrān ibn al-Ḥusain said a man freed six slaves at his death, and he had no other property besides; and the Prophet called them, and divided them into three sections, and then cast lots; he then ordered that two of them should be freed, and he retained four in slavery, and spoke severely of the man who had set them free.”

“Jābir said we used to sell the mothers of children in the time of the Prophet, and of Abū Bakr; but ʿUmar forbade it in his time.”

V.—The Manumission or Slaves is permitted by Muḥammadan law under the following forms: (1) ʿAtāq (ʿAtq, Iʿtāq); (2) Kitābah; (3) Tadbīr; and (4) Istīlād.

(1) ʿAtāq, in its literal sense, means power, and in law expresses the act of the owner of a slave (either male or female) giving immediate and unconditional freedom to his slave. This act is lawful when it proceeds from a person who is free, sane, adult, and the actual owner of the slave in question. If such a person say to his slave, “Thou art free,” or “Thou art muʿtaq” or “Thou art consecrated to God,” or make use of any similar expression to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free, whether the owner really mean emancipation or not.

(2) Kitābah, literally “a writing,” signifies a bond of freedom granted to a slave (male or female), in return for money paid. It is founded on the teaching of the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxiv. 33: “And such of those as your right hands possess as crave a writing, write it out for them if ye know any good in them,” which precept is held to be recommendatory, although not injunctive. The slave thus ransomed is called mukātab, until the ransom is fully paid. During the interval between the promise of freedom and the payment of the money the mukātab enjoys a certain degree of freedom, but is nevertheless placed under certain restrictions. For example, although he is free to move from place to place, he cannot marry, or bestow alms, or become bail, or grant a loan, or make a pilgrimage, &c., without the permission of his master.

(3) Tadbīr signifies literally, “arrangement, disposition, plan,” but in the language of the law it means a declaration of freedom made to a slave (male or female), to take effect after the master’s death. If the owner of a slave say, “Thou art free at my death,” or “Thou art a mudabbir,” or words to that effect, the slave can claim his freedom upon the decease of his master, and any children born to him in the interval are placed in the position.

(4) Istīlād, Lit. “the offspring’s claim,” signifies a man having a child born to him of a female slave, which he claims and acknowledges as his own, which acknowledgment becomes ipso facto the cause of the freedom of the female slave. The woman is then called ummu ʾl-walad, “the mother of offspring,” and stands in relation to her master as his wife, the child being also free.

(5) In addition to the above forms of emancipation, it is also established that the manumission of slaves is the legal penalty or expiation (kaffārah) for certain sins, e.g. for breaking the fast of Ramaẓān the expiation is either the release of a slave or feeding seven poor persons; this expiation is also made for a rash oath [OATH], as also for the rash form of divorce known as z̤ihār [ZIHAR]. (See Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, vol. ii. p. 175; iii. p. 92; ii. p. 952.)

VI.—Modern Muslim Slavery. The slaves of the Arabs are mostly from Abyssinia and negro countries; a few, chiefly in the homes of wealthy individuals, are from Georgia and Circassia.

Mr. Lane says, in Egypt “Abyssinian and white female slaves are kept by many men of the middle and higher classes, and often instead of wives, as requiring less expense, and being more subservient, but they are generally indulged with the same luxuries as free ladies; their vanity is gratified by costly dresses and ornaments, and they rank high above free servants, as do also the male slaves. Those called Abyssinians appear to be a mixed race between negroes and whites, and from the territories of the Gallas. They are mostly kidnapped and sold by their own countrymen. The negro female slaves, as few of them have considerable personal attractions (which is not the case with the Abyssinians, many of whom are very beautiful), are usually employed only in cooking and other menial offices.

“The female slaves of the higher classes are often instructed in plain needlework and embroidery, and sometimes in music and dancing. Formerly many of them possessed sufficient literary accomplishments to quote largely from esteemed poems, or even to compose extemporary verses, which they would often accompany with the lute. The condition of many concubine slaves is happy, and that of many quite the contrary. These, and all other slaves of either sex, are generally treated with kindness, but at first they are usually importuned, and not unfrequently used with much harshness, to induce them to embrace the Muḥammadan faith, which almost all of them do. Their services are commonly light; the usual office of the male white slave, who is called (memlook) mamlūk, is that of a page, or a military guard.

“Eunuchs are employed as guardians of the women, but only in the houses of men of high rank or of great wealth; on account of the important office which they fill, they are generally treated in public with special consideration. I used to remark, in Cairo, that few persons saluted me with a more dignified and consequential air than these pitiable but self-conceited beings. Most of them are Abyssinians or negroes. Indeed, the slaves in general take too much advantage of the countenance of their masters, especially when they belong to men in power.” (Arabian Nights, vol. i. p 55.)

In Central Asia the great slave-trade is carried on with Kāfiristān. The Kāfirs, inasmuch as they enslave each other in war, sell their own countrymen and countrywomen into slavery, and, when the slave market is dull, the Muḥammadans residing on their borders make inroads upon the Kāfirs and carry them (especially the women who are very fair and pretty) into slavery. Some Kāfir slaves have risen to eminence in Cabul, the late Sher Ali K͟hān’s commander-in-chief, Feramoz K͟hān, being a Kāfir slave.

In Hindūstān British rule has abolished slavery, but it nevertheless exists in noble families, where the slaves seem willingly to assent to their condition of bondage.

VII.—The Treatment of Slaves.—It has been already shown that, both according to the teaching of the Qurʾān and also according to the injunctions of Muḥammad, as given in the Traditions, kindness to slaves is strictly enjoined; and it must be admitted that the treatment of slaves in Muḥammadan countries contrasts favourably with that in America, when slavery existed as an institution under a Christian people.

Mr. Lane (Arabian Nights, vol. i. p. 55), writing from his personal observations of slavery in Egypt, remarks:—

“The master is bound to afford his slaves proper food and clothing, or to let them work for their own support, or to sell, give away, or liberate them. It is, however, considered disgraceful for him to sell a slave who has been long in his possession; and it seldom happens that a master emancipates a female slave without marrying her to some man able to support her, or otherwise providing for her.

“The Prophet strongly enjoined the duty of kindness to slaves. ‘Feed your slaves,’ said he, ‘with food of that which ye eat, and clothe them with such clothing as ye wear; and command them not to do that which they are unable.’ These precepts are generally attended to, either entirely or in a degree.”

“Some other sayings of the Prophet on this subject well deserve to be mentioned; as the following:—

“ ‘He who beats his slave without fault, or slaps him on the face, his atonement for this is freeing him.’

“ ‘A man who behaves ill to his slave will not enter into Paradise.’

“ ‘Whoever is the cause of separation between mother and child by selling or giving, God will separate him from his friends on the day of resurrection.’

“ ‘When a slave wishes well to his master, and worships God well, for him are double rewards.’

“It is related of Othman (ʿUs̤mān), that he twisted the ear of a memlook belonging to him, on account of disobedience, and afterwards, repenting of it, ordered him to twist his ear in like manner; but he would not. Othman urged him, and the slave advanced and began to wring it by little and little. He said to him, ‘Wring it hard, for I cannot endure the punishment of the Day of Judgment [on account of this act].’ The memlook answered, ‘O my master, the day that thou fearest I also fear.’

“It is related also of Zainu ʾl-Abidīn, that he had a memlook who seized a sheep and broke its leg; and he said to him, ‘Why didst thou this?’ He answered, ‘To provoke thee to anger.’ ‘And I,’ said he, ‘will provoke to anger him who taught thee; and he is Iblīs (i.e. the Devil): go, and be free, for the sake of God.’

“Many similar anecdotes might be added; but the general assertions of travellers in the East are far more satisfactory evidence in favour of the humane conduct of most Muslims to their slaves.”

But although this testimony of Mr. Lane’s will be borne out with regard to the treatment of slaves in Islām in all parts of the Muḥammadan world, the power which a Muslim possesses over the persons of his bondsman or bondsmaid is unlimited. For example, according to the Hidāyah (vol. iv. p. 282), “A master is not slain for the murder of his slave,” nor “if one of two partners in a slave kill the slave is retaliation incurred.” In this the law of Muḥammad departs from that of Moses. See Exodus xxi. 20: “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. (Heb. avenged.) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

Slaves have no civil liberty, but are entirely under the authority of their owners, whatever may be the religion, sex, or age, of the latter; and can possess no property, unless by the owner’s permission. The owner is entire master, while he pleases, of the person and goods of his slave; and of the offspring of his female slave, which, if begotten by him or presumed to be so, he may recognise as his own legitimate child, or not: the child, if recognised by him, enjoys the same privileges as the offspring of a free wife, and if not recognised by him is his slave.

He may give away or sell his slaves, excepting in some cases which have been mentioned, and may marry them to whom he will, but not separate them when married. A slave, however, according to most of the doctors, cannot have more than two wives at the same time. Unemancipated slaves, at the death of their master, become the property of his heirs; and when an emancipated slave dies, leaving no male descendants or collateral relations, the former master is the heir; or, if he be dead, his heirs inherit the slave’s property. As a slave enjoys less advantages than a free person, the law, in some cases, ordains that his punishment for an offence shall be half of that to which the free is liable for the same offence, or even less than half: if it be a fine, or pecuniary compensation, it must be paid by the owner, to the amount, if necessary, of the value of the slave, or the slave must be given in compensation.

The owner, but not the part owner, may cohabit with any of his female slaves who is a Muḥammadan, a Christian, or a Jewess, if he has not married her to another man; but not with two or more who are sisters, or who are related to each other in any of the degrees which would prevent their both being his wives at the same time if they were free: after having so lived with one, he must entirely relinquish such intercourse with her before he can do the same with another who is so related to her. He cannot have intercourse with a pagan slave. A Christian or Jew may have slaves, but not enjoy the privilege above mentioned with one who is a Muḥammadan. The master must wait a certain period (generally from a month to three months) after the acquisition of a female slave before he can have such intercourse with her. If he find any fault in her within three days, he is usually allowed to return her.

When a man, from being the husband, becomes the master of a slave, the marriage is dissolved, and he cannot continue to live with her but as her master, enjoying, however, all a master’s privileges; unless he emancipates her, in which case he may again take her as his wife, with her consent. In like manner, when a woman, from being the wife, becomes the possessor of a slave, the marriage is dissolved, and cannot be renewed unless she emancipates him, and he consents to the reunion.

There is absolutely no limit to the number of slave-girls with whom a Muḥammadan may cohabit, and it is the consecration of this illimitable indulgence which so popularizes the Muḥammadan religion amongst uncivilized nations, and so popularizes slavery in the Muslim religion.

In the Ak͟hlāq-i-Jalālī, which is the popular work upon practical philosophy amongst the Muḥammadans, it is said that “for service a slave is preferable to a freeman, inasmuch as he must be more disposed to submit, obey and adopt his patron’s habits and pursuits.”

Some Muslim writers of the present day (Syed Ameer Ali’s Life of Mohammed, p. 257) contend that Muḥammad looked upon the custom as temporary in its nature, and held that its extinction was sure to be achieved by the progress of ideas and change of circumstances; but the slavery of Islām is interwoven with the Law of marriage, the Law of sale, and the Law of inheritance, of the system, and its abolition would strike at the very foundations of the code of Muḥammadanism.

Slavery is in complete harmony with the spirit of Islām, while it is abhorrent to that of Christianity. That Muḥammad ameliorated the condition of the slave, as it existed under the heathen laws of Arabia, we cannot doubt; but it is equally certain that the Arabian legislator intended it to be a perpetual institution.

Although slavery has existed side by side with Christianity, it is undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of the teaching of our divine Lord, who has given to the world the grand doctrine of universal brotherhood.

Mr. Lecky believes (European Morals, vol. ii. p. 70) that it was the spirit of Christianity which brought about the abolition of slavery in Europe. He says, “The services of Christianity were of three kinds. It supplied a new order of relations, in which the distinction of classes was unknown. It imparted a moral dignity to the servile classes. It gave an unexampled impetus to the movement of enfranchisement.”

SLEEPING. Arabic naum (نوم‎). Heb. ‏נוּם‎ nūm. It is usual for Muslims to sleep with the head in the direction of Makkah.

Abū Ẕarr relates that on one occasion he was sleeping on his belly, and the Prophet saw him, and, kicking him, said, “O Jundub! this way of sleeping is the way the devils sleep!”

Abbab says he saw the Prophet sleeping on his back, with one leg lying over the other, but Jābir says the Prophet forbade that way of sleeping. (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. v. pt. 1.)