Apocryphal Ḥadīs̤

There exists no doubt respecting the circumstance of certain persons having fabricated some ḥadīs̤ in the Prophet’s name. Those who perpetrated so impudent a forgery were men of the following descriptions:—

(1) Persons desirous of introducing some praiseworthy custom among the public, forged ḥadīs̤ in order to secure success. Such fabrication is restricted exclusively to those ḥadīs̤ which treat of the advantages and benefits which reading the Qurʾān and praying procure to any one, both in this world and the next; which show how reciting passages from the Qurʾān cures every disease, etc.: the real object of such frauds being to lead the public into the habit of reading the Qurʾān and of praying. According to our religion, the perpetrators of such frauds, or of any others, stand in the list of sinners.

(2) Preachers, with a view of collecting large congregations around them, and of amusing their hearers, invented many traditions, such traditions being only those which describe the state and condition of paradise and of hell, as well as the state and condition of the soul after death, etc., in order to awaken the fear of God’s wrath and the hope of salvation.

(3) Those persons who made alterations in the religion of the Prophet, and who, urged by their prejudices, carried the same to extremes, and who, for the purpose of successfully confronting their controversial antagonists, forged such traditions in order to favour their own interested views.

(4) Unbelievers who maliciously coined and circulated spurious ḥadīs̤. Learned men, however, have greatly exerted themselves in order to discover such fabricated traditions, and have written many works upon the subject, laying down rules for ascertaining false traditions and for distinguishing them from genuine ones.

The modes of procedure were as follows: Such persons examined the very words employed in such traditions, as well as their style of composition; they compared the contents of each ḥadīs̤ with the commands and injunctions contained in the Qurʾān, with those religious doctrines and dogmas that have been deduced from the Qurʾān, and with those ḥadīs̤ which have been proved to be genuine; they investigated the nature of the import of such traditions, as to whether it was unreasonable, improbable, or impossible.

It will, therefore, be evident that the ḥadīs̤ considered as genuine by Muḥammadans, must indispensably possess the following characters: The narrator must have plainly and distinctly mentioned that such and such a thing was either said or done by the Prophet; the chain of narrators from the last link up to the Prophet, must be unbroken; the subject related must have come under the actual ken of its first narrators; every one of the narrators, from the last up to the Prophet, must have been persons conspicuous for their piety, virtue, and honesty; every narrator must have received more than one ḥadīs̤ from the narrator immediately preceding him; every one of the narrators must be conspicuous for his learning, so that he might be safely presumed to be competent both to understand correctly, and faithfully deliver to others, the sense of the tradition; the import of the tradition must not be contrary to the injunctions contained in the Qurʾān, or to the religious doctrines deduced from that Book, or to the traditions proved to be correct; and the nature of the import of the tradition must not be such as persons might hesitate in accepting.

Any tradition thus proved genuine can be made the basis of any religious doctrine; but notwithstanding this, another objection may be raised against it, which is, that this tradition is the statement of one person only, and therefore, cannot, properly, be believed in implicitly. For obviating this, three grades have been again formed of the ḥadīs̤ proved as genuine. These three grades are the following: متواتر‎ Mutawātir, مشهور‎ Mashhūr, and خبر احد‎ K͟habar-i-Aḥad.

Mutawātir is an appellation given to those ḥadīs̤ only that have always been, from the time of the Prophet, ever afterwards recognised and accepted by every associate of the Prophet, and every learned individual, as authentic and genuine, and to which no one has raised any objection. All learned Muḥammadan divines of every period have declared that the Qurʾān only is the Ḥadīs̤ Mutawātir; but some doctors have declared certain other ḥadīs̤ also to be Mutawātir, the number, however, of such ḥadīs̤ not exceeding five. Such are the traditions that are implicitly believed and ought to be religiously observed.

Mashhūr is a title given to those traditions that, in every age, have been believed to be genuine, by some learned persons. These are the traditions which are found recorded in the best works that treat of them, and, having been generally accepted as genuine, form the nucleus of some of the Muslim doctrines.

K͟habar-i-Aḥad (or ḥadīs̤ related by one person), is an appellation given to traditions that do not possess any of the qualities belonging to the traditions of the first two grades. Opinions of the learned are divided whether or not they can form the basis of any religious doctrine.

Persons who undertook the task of collecting traditions had neither time nor opportunity for examining and investigating all the above particulars, and some of them collected together whatsoever came under their notice, while others collected only those whose narrators were acknowledged to be trustworthy and honest persons, leaving entirely upon their readers the task of investigating and examining all the above-mentioned particulars, as well as of deciding their comparative merits, their genuineness, and the quantum of credit due to them.

There is some difference of opinion as to who first attempted to collect the traditions, and to compile them in a book. Some say ʿAbdu ʾl-Malik ibn Juraij of Makkah, who died A.H. 150, whilst others assert that the collection, which is still extant, by the Imām Mālik, who died A.H. 179, was the first collection. The work by Imām Mālik is still held in very great esteem, and although not generally included among the standard six, it is believed by many to be the source from whence a great portion of their materials are derived.

The following are the Ṣiḥāḥu ʾs-Sittah, or “six correct” books, received by Sunnī Muslims:—

(1) Muḥammad Ismāʿīl al-Buk͟hārī, A.H. 256.

(2) Muslim ibnu ʾl-Ḥajjāj, A.H. 261.

(3) Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad, at-Tirmiẕī, A.H. 279.

(4) Abū Daʾūd as-Sajistānī, A.H. 275.

(5) Abū ʿAbdi ʾr-Raḥmān an-Nasāʾī, A.H. 303.

(6) Abū ʿAbdi ʾllāh Muḥammad Ibn Mājah, A.H. 273.

According to the Itḥāfu ʾn-Nubalāʾ, there are as many as 1,465 collections of traditions in existence, although the six already recorded are the more generally used amongst the Sunnīs.

It is often stated by European writers that the Shīʿahs reject the Traditions. This is not correct. The Sunnīs arrogate to themselves the title of Traditionists; but the Shīʿahs, although they do not accept the collections of traditions as made by the Sunnīs, receive five collections of Aḥādīs̤, upon which their system of law, both civil and religious, is founded.

(1) The Kāfī, by Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb, A.H. 329.

(2) The Man-lā-yastaḥẓirahu ʾl-Faqīh, by Shaik͟h ʿAlī, A.H. 381.

(3) The Tahẕīb, by Shaik͟h Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḥusain, A.H. 466.

(4) The Istibṣār, by the same author.

(5) The Nahju ʾl-Balāg͟hah, by Saiyid ar-Raẓī, A.H. 406.

There are many stories which illustrate the importance the Companions of the Prophet attached to Sunnah. The K͟halīfah ʿUmar looked towards the black stone at Makkah, and said, “By God, I know that thou art only a stone, and canst grant no benefit, canst do no harm. If I had not known that the Prophet kissed thee, I would not have done so, but on account of that I do it.” ʿAbdu ʾllāh ibn ʿUmar was seen riding his camel round and round a certain place. In answer to an inquiry as to his reason for so doing, he said: “I know not, only I have seen the Prophet do so here.” Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal is said to have been appointed on account of the care with which he observed the Sunnah. One day when sitting in an assembly, he alone of all present observed some formal custom authorised by the practice of the Prophet. Gabriel at once appeared and informed him that now, and on account of his act, he was appointed an Imām. And on another occasion it is said this great traditionist would not even eat water-melons, because, although he knew the Prophet ate them, he could not learn whether he ate them with or without the rind, or whether he broke, bit or cut them: and he forbade a woman, who questioned him as to the propriety of the act, to spin by the light of torches passing in the streets by night, because the Prophet had not mentioned that it was lawful to do so.

The modern Wahhābīs being, for the most part, followers of Ibn Ḥanbal, attach great importance to the teaching of the Traditions, and have therefore caused a revival of this branch of Muslim literature. [WAHHABI.]

We are indebted to Sir William Muir’s Introduction to the Life of Mahomet, for the following:—

“Mahometan tradition consists of the sayings of the friends and followers of the Prophet, handed down by a real or supposed chain of narrators to the period when they were collected, recorded, and classified. The process of transmission was for the most part oral. It may be sketched as follows.

“After the death of Mahomet, the main employment of his followers was arms. The pursuit of pleasure, and the formal round of religious observances, filled up the interstices of active life, but afforded scanty exercise for the higher faculties of the mind. The tedium of long and irksome marches, and the lazy intervals from one campaign to another, fell listlessly upon a simple and semi-barbarous race. These intervals were occupied, and that tedium beguiled, chiefly by calling up the past in familiar conversation or more formal discourse. On what topic, then, would the early Moslems more enthusiastically descant than on the acts and sayings of that wonderful man who had called them into existence as a conquering nation, and had placed in their hands ‘the keys both of this world and of Paradise’?

“Thus the converse of Mahomet’s followers would be much about him. The majesty of his character gained greatness by contemplation; and, as time removed him farther and farther from them, the lineaments of the mysterious mortal who was wont to hold familiar intercourse with the messengers of heaven, rose in dimmer, but in more gigantic proportions. The mind was unconsciously led on to think of him as endowed with supernatural power, and ever surrounded by supernatural agency. Here was the material out of which Tradition grew luxuriantly. Whenever there was at hand no standard of fact whereby these recitals may be tested, the memory was aided by the unchecked efforts of the imagination; and as days rolled on, the latter element gained complete ascendancy.

“Such is the result which the lapse of time would naturally have upon the minds and the narratives of the As-háb or ‘Companions’ of Mahomet, more especially of those who were young when he died. And then another race sprang up who had never seen the Prophet, who looked up to his contemporaries with a superstitious reverence, and who listened to their stories of him as to the tidings of a messenger from the other world. ‘Is it possible, father of Abdallah! that thou hast been with Mahomet?’ was the question addressed by a pious Moslem to Hodzeifa, in the mosque of Kufâ; ‘didst thou really see the Prophet, and wert thou on familiar terms with him?’—‘Son of my uncle! it is indeed as thou sayest.’—‘And how wert thou wont to behave towards the Prophet?’—‘Verily, we used to labour hard to please him.’—‘Well, by the Lord!’ exclaimed the ardent listener, ‘had I been but alive in his time, I would not have allowed him to put his blessed foot upon the earth, but would have borne him on my shoulders wherever he listed.’ (Hishâmi, p. 295.) Upon another occasion, the youthful Obeida listened to a Companion who was reciting before an assembly how the Prophet’s head was shaved at the Pilgrimage, and the hair distributed amongst his followers; the eyes of the young man glistened as the speaker proceeded, and he interrupted him with the impatient exclamation,—‘Would that I had even a single one of those blessed hairs! I would cherish it for ever, and prize it beyond all the gold and silver in the world.’ (Kâtib al Wâckidi, p. 279.) Such were the natural feelings of fond devotion with which the Prophet came to be regarded by the followers of the ‘Companions.’

“As the tale of the Companions was thus taken up by their followers, distance began to invest it with an increasing charm, while the products of living faith and warm imagination were being fast debased by superstitious credulity. This second generation are termed in the language of the patriotic lore of Arabia, Tâbiûn, or ‘Successors.’ Here and there a Companion survived till near the end of the first century; but, for all practical purposes, they had passed off the stage before the commencement of its last quarter. Their first Successors, who were in some measure also their contemporaries, flourished in the latter half of the same century, though some of the oldest may have survived for a time in the second.

“Meanwhile a new cause was at work, which gave to the tales of Mahomet’s companions a fresh and an adventitious importance.

“The Arabs, a simple and unsophisticated race, found in the Coran ample provisions for the regulation of all their affairs, religious, social, and political. But the aspect of Islam soon underwent a mighty change. Scarcely was the Prophet dead when his followers issued forth from their barren peninsula, armed with the warrant of the Coran to impose the faith of Mahomet upon all the nations of the earth. Within a century they had, as a first step to this universal subjugation, conquered every land that intervened between the banks of the Oxus and the farthest shores of Northern Africa and of Spain; and had enrolled the great majority of their peoples under the standard of the Coran. This vast empire differed widely indeed from the Arabia of Mahomet’s time; and that which well sufficed for the patriarchal simplicity and limited social system of the early Arabs, became utterly inadequate for the hourly multiplying wants of their descendants. Crowded cities, like Fostât, Kufâ, and Damascus, required an elaborate compilation of laws for the guidance of their courts of justice: new political relations demanded a system of international equity: the speculations of a people before whom literature was preparing to throw open her arena, and the controversies of eager factions upon nice points of Mahometan faith, were impatient of the narrow limits which confined them:—all called loudly for the enlargement of the scanty and naked dogmas of the Coran, and for the development of its defective code of ethics.

“And yet it was the cardinal principle of early Islam, that the standard of Law, of Theology, and of Politics, was the Coran and the Coran alone. By it Mahomet himself ruled; to it in his teaching he always referred; from it he professed to derive his opinions, and upon it to ground his decisions. If he, the Messenger of the Lord, and the Founder of the faith, was thus bound by the Coran, much more were the Caliphs, his uninspired substitutes. New and unforeseen circumstances were continually arising, for which the Coran contained no provision. It no longer sufficed for its original object. How then were its deficiencies to be supplied?

“The difficulty was resolved by adopting the Custom or ‘Sunnat’ of Mahomet, that is, his sayings and his practice, as a supplement to the Coran. The recitals regarding the life of the Prophet now acquired an unlooked-for value. He had never held himself to be infallible, except when directly inspired of God; but this new doctrine assumed that a heavenly and unerring guidance pervaded every word and action of his prophetic life. Tradition was thus invested with the force of law, and with some of the authority of inspiration. It was in great measure owing to the rise of this theory, that, during the first century of Islam, the cumbrous recitals of tradition so far outstripped the dimensions of reality. The prerogative now claimed for Tradition stimulated the growth of fabricated evidence, and led to the preservation of every kind of story, spurious or real, touching the Prophet. Before the close of the century it had imparted an almost incredible impulse to the search for traditions, and had in fact given birth to the new profession of Collectors. Men devoted their lives to the business. They travelled from city to city, and from tribe to tribe, over the whole Mahometan world; sought out by personal inquiry every vestige of Mahomet’s biography yet lingering among the Companions, the Successors, and their descendants; and committed to writing the tales and reminiscences with which they used to edify their wondering and admiring auditors.

“The work, however, too closely affected the public interests, and the political aspect of the empire, to be left entirely to private and individual zeal. About a hundred years after Mahomet, the Caliph Omar II. issued circular orders for the formal collection of all extant traditions. [He committed to Abu Bacr ibn Muhammad the task of compiling all the traditions he could meet with. This traditionist died A.H. 120, aged 84. Sprenger’s Mohammed, p. 67.] The task thus begun continued to be vigorously prosecuted, but we possess no authentic remains of any compilation of an earlier date than the middle or end of the second century. Then, indeed, ample materials had been amassed, and they have been handed down to us both in the shape of Biographies and of general Collections, which bear upon every imaginable point of Mahomet’s character, and detail the minutest incidents of his life.

“It thus appears that the traditions we now possess remained generally in an unrecorded form for at least the greater part of a century. It is not indeed denied that some of Mahomet’s sayings may possibly have been noted down in writing during his life-time, and from that source copied and propagated afterwards. We say possibly, for the evidence in favour of any such record is meagre, suspicious, and contradictory. The few and uncertain statements of this nature may have owed their origin to the authority which a habit of the kind would impart to the name of a Companion, supposed to have practised it.… It is hardly possible that, if the custom had prevailed of writing down Mahomet’s sayings during his life, we should not have had frequent intimation of the fact, with notices of the writers, and special references to the nature, contents, and peculiar authority of their records. But no such references or quotations are anywhere to be found. It cannot be objected that the Arabs trusted so implicitly to their memory that they regarded oral to be as authoritative as recorded narratives, and therefore would take no note of the latter; for we see that Omar was afraid lest even the Coran, believed by him to be divine and itself the subject of heavenly care, should become defective if left to the memory of man. Just as little weight, on the other hand, should be allowed to the tradition that Mahomet prohibited his followers from noting down his words; though it is not easy to see how that tradition could have gained currency at all, had it been the regular and constant practice of any persons to record his sayings. The truth appears to be that there was in reality no such practice; and that the story of the prohibition, though spurious, embodies the after-thought of serious Mahometans as to what Mahomet would have said, had he foreseen the loose and fabricated stories that sprang up, and the real danger his people would fall into of allowing Tradition to supersede the Coran. The evils of Tradition were, in truth, as little thought of as its value was perceived, till many years after Mahomet’s death.

“But even were we to admit all that has been advanced, it would prove no more than that some of the Companions used to keep memoranda of the Prophet’s sayings. Now, unless it be possible to connect such memoranda with extant Tradition, the concession would be useless. But it is not, as far as I know, demonstrable of any single tradition or class of traditions now in existence, that they were copied from such memoranda, or have been derived in any way from them. To prove, therefore, that some traditions were at first recorded, will not help us to a knowledge of whether any of these still exist, or to a discrimination of them from others resting on a purely oral basis. The very most that could be urged from the premises is, that our present collections may contain some traditions founded upon a recorded original, and handed down in writing; but we are unable to single out any individual tradition and make such affirmation regarding it. The entire mass of extant tradition rests in this respect on the same uncertain ground, and the uncertainty of any one portion (apart from internal evidence of probability) attaches equally to the whole. We cannot with confidence, or even with the least show of likelihood, affirm of any tradition that it was recorded till nearly the end of the first century of the Hegira.

“We see, then, how entirely tradition, as now possessed by us, rests its authority on the memory of those who handed it down; and how dependent therefore it must have been upon their convictions and their prejudices. For, in addition to the common frailty of human recollection which renders traditional evidence notoriously infirm, and to the errors or exaggerations which always distort a narrative transmitted orally through many witnesses, there exist throughout Mahometan Tradition abundant indications of actual fabrication; and there may everywhere be traced the indirect but not less powerful and dangerous influence of a silently working bias, which insensibly gave its colour and its shape to all the stories of their Prophet treasured up in the memories of the believers.

“That the Collectors of Tradition rendered an important service to Islam, and even to history, cannot be doubted. The vast flood of tradition, poured forth from every quarter of the Moslem empire, and daily gathering volume from innumerable tributaries, was composed of the most heterogeneous elements; without the labours of the traditionists it must soon have formed a chaotic sea, in which truth and error, fact and fable, would have mingled together in undistinguishable confusion. It is a legitimate inference from the foregoing sketch, that Tradition, in the second century, embraced a large element of truth. That even respectably derived traditions often contained much that was exaggerated and fabulous, is an equally fair conclusion. It is proved by the testimony of the Collectors themselves, that thousands and tens of thousands were current in their times, which possessed not even a shadow of authority. The mass may be likened to the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, formed by the unnatural union of gold, of silver, of the baser metals, and of clay; and here the more valuable parts were fast commingling hopelessly with the bad.” (Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. i., Intro. p. xxviii.)

TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS. [TANASUKH.]

TREATY. Arabic ʿAhd (عهد‎). The observance of treaties is enjoined in the Qurʾān (Sūrah viii. 58; ix. 4); but if peace be made with aliens for a specified term (e.g. ten years), and afterwards the Muslim leader shall perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muslim interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war, after giving the enemy due notice. (Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 151; Arabic edition, vol. ii. p. 423.)

The negotiations with John the Christian prince of Ailah, are an interesting incident in the life of Muḥammad, as indicating the spirit of Islām, in its early history, towards Christianity. In the first place, Muḥammad addressed to John the following letter:—

“To John (Yaḥyā), the son of Rūbah, and the chiefs of the tribe of Ailah. Peace be unto you! Praise be to God, besides whom there is no God. I will not fight against you until I receive an answer to this letter. Believe, or else pay tribute (jizyah). Be obedient unto God and to His Apostle. Receive the embassy of God’s Apostle, and honour them, and clothe them with excellent vestments, and not with inferior raiment. Specially honour Ḥāris̤ ibn Zaid, for as long as my messengers are pleased, so am I likewise. Ye know the tribute. If ye desire security by sea and by land, obey God and His Apostle, and you will be defended from every attack, whether by Arab or by foreigner. But if you oppose God and His Apostle, I will not accept a single thing from you until I have fought against you, and have slain your men, and have taken captive your women and children. For, in truth, I am God’s Apostle. Believe in God and in His Apostle, as you do in the Messiah the son of Mary; for truly he is the Word of God, and I believe in him as an apostle of God. Submit, then, before trouble reaches you. I commend this embassy to you. Give to Harmalah three measures of barley, for Harmalah hath indeed interceded for you. As for me, if it were not for the Lord and for this intercession, I would not have sent any embassy to you, until you had been brought face to face with my army. But now submit to my embassy, and God will be your protector, as well as Muḥammad and all his followers. This embassy doth consist of Shuraḥbīl, and Ubaiy, and Harmalah, and Ḥāris̤ ibn Zaid. Unto you is the protection of God and of his Apostle. If you submit, then peace be unto you, and convey the people of Maqnah back to their land.”

Upon receipt of this message, John hastened to Muḥammad’s camp, where he was received with kindness; and having made submission and having agreed to pay tribute of 300 dīnārs a year, the following treaty was ratified:—

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Gracious. A treaty of Peace from God, and from Muḥammad the Apostle of God, granted unto Yaḥyā ibn Rūbah and unto the tribe of Ailah. For them who stay at home and for those who travel abroad, there is the security of God and the security of Muḥammad the Apostle of God, and for all who are with them, whether they belong to Syria, or to al-Yaman, or to the sea-coast. Whoso breaketh this treaty, his wealth shall not save him; it shall be the fair prize of whosoever shall capture him. It shall not be lawful to hinder the men of Ailah from going to the springs which they have hitherto used, nor from any journey they may desire to make, whether by land or by sea. This is the writing of Juhaim and Shuraḥbīl by the command of the Apostle of God.” [TOLERATION.]

TRIBUTE. [JIHAD, JIZYAH, TAXATION, TREATY.]

TRINITY. Arabic Tas̤līs̤ (تثليث‎), “Holy Trinity,” as̤-S̤ālūs̤u ʾl-Aqdas (الثالوث الاقدس‎). The references to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the Qurʾān occur in two Sūrahs, both of them composed by Muḥammad towards the close of his career at al-Madīnah.

Sūrah iv. 169: “Believe, therefore, in God and His apostles, and say not ‘Three.’ ”

Sūrah v. 77: “They misbelieve who say, ‘Verily God is the third of three.’… The Messiah, the Son of Mary, is only a prophet, … and his mother was a confessor; they both ate food.”

Sūrah v. 116: “And when God shall say, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, hast thou said unto mankind: Take me and my mother as two Gods besides God?’”

Al-Baiẓāwī, in his remarks on Sūrah iv. 169, says, the Christians made the Trinity consist of Allāh, al-Masīh, and Maryam; and Jalālu ʾd-dīn takes the same view. Al-Baiẓāwī, however, refers to a view taken of the Trinity, by some Christians in his day, who explained it to be, Ab, Father, or the Essence of God; Ibn, Son, or the Knowledge of God; and Rūḥu ʾl-Quds, the Life of God.

In a work quoted in the Kashfu ʾz̤-Z̤unūn, entitled al-Insānu ʾl-Kāmil (written by the Shaik͟h ʿAbdu ʾl-Karīm ibn Ibrahīm al-Jīlī, lived A.H. 767–811) it is said that when the Christians found that there was at the commencement of the Injīl the superscription باسم الاب و الابن‎, i.e. ‘In the name of the Father and Son,’ they took the words in their natural meaning, and [thinking it ought to be Ab, father, Umm, mother, and Ibn, son] understood by Ab, the Spirit, by Umm, Mary, and by Ibn, Jesus; and on this account they said, S̤ālis̤u S̤alās̤atin, i.e. ‘(God is) the third of three.’ (Sūrah v. 77.) But they did not understand that by Ab is meant God Most High, by Umm, the Māhīyatu ʾl-Ḥaqāʾiq, or ‘Essence of Truth’ (Quidditas veritatum), and by Ibn, the Book of God, which is called the Wujūdu ʾl-Mut̤laq, or ‘Absolute Existence,’ being an emanation of the Essence of Truth, as it is implied in the words of the Qurʾān, Sūrah xiii. 9: ‘And with him is the Ummu ʾl-Kitāb, or the Mother of the Book.’

In the G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hāt, in loco, it is said the Nazarenes (Naṣārā) say there are three aqānīm, or principles, namely, wujūd (entity), ḥayāt (life), and ʿilm (knowledge); and also Ab (Father), Ibn (Son), and Rūḥu ʾl-Quds (Holy Spirit). [INJIL, JESUS, SPIRIT.]

It is evident neither Muḥammad nor his followers (either immediate or remote), had any true conception of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, but the elimination of the Holy Spirit from the Trinity is not strange, when we remember that Muḥammad was under the impression that the angel Gabriel was the Holy Ghost.

As the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is one of several stumbling-blocks to the Muslim’s reception of Christianity, we cannot refrain from quoting Charles Kingsley’s words addressed to Thomas Cooper on the subject (vol. i. p. 311):—

“They will say ‘Three in one’ is contrary to sense and experience. Answer, ‘That is your ignorance.’ Every comparative anatomist will tell you the exact contrary, that among the most common, though the most puzzling phenomena, is multiplicity in unity—divided life in the same individual of every extraordinary variety of case. That distinction of persons with unity of individuality (what the old schoolmen properly called substance) is to be met with in some thousand species of animals, e.g. all the compound polypes, and that the soundest physiologists, like Huxley, are compelled to talk of these animals in metaphysic terms, just as paradoxical as, and almost identical with, those of the theologian. Ask them then, whether granting one primordial Being who has conceived and made all other beings, it is absurd to suppose in Him, some law of multiplicity in unity, analogous to that on which He has constructed so many millions of His creatures.

“But my heart demands the Trinity, as much as my reason. I want to be sure that God cares for us, that God is our Father, that God has interfered, stooped, sacrificed Himself for us. I do not merely want to love Christ—a Christ, some creation or emanation of God’s—whose will and character, for aught I know, may be different from God’s. I want to love and honour the absolute, abysmal God Himself, and none other will satisfy me; and in the doctrine of Christ being co-equal and co-eternal, sent by, sacrificed by, His Father, that He might do His Father’s will, I find it; and no puzzling texts, like those you quote, shall rob me of that rest for my heart, that Christ is the exact counterpart of Him in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”

TROVES, Arabic luqt̤ah (لقطة‎), signifies property which a person finds on the ground, and takes away for the purpose of preserving it in the manner of a trust. A trove under ten dirhams must be advertised for some days, or as long as he may deem expedient; but if it exceed ten dirhams in value, he must advertise it for a year. (Hamilton’s Hidāyah, vol. ii. p. 266.)

TRUMPET. Arabic ṣūr (صور‎). According to the Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxix. 68, the trumpet at the Day of Resurrection shall be blown twice. “The trumpet shall be blown (first), and those who are in the heavens and in the earth shall swoon (or die), save whom God pleases. Then it shall be blown again, and, lo! they shall rise again and look on.”

Al-Baiẓāwī says there will only be these two blasts, but Traditionists assert there will be three. The blast of consternation, the blast of examination, and the blast of resurrection, for an account of which, see the article on RESURRECTION.

TUBBAʿ (تبع‎). A tribe of Ḥimyarite Arabs, whose kings were called Tubbaʿ, or “Successors,” and who are mentioned in the Qurʾān, Sūrah xliv. 35: “Are they better than the people of Tubbaʿ and those before them? Verily, they were sinners, and we destroyed them.”

T̤UHR (طهر‎). The period of purity in a woman. [DIVORCE, PURIFICATION.]

T̤ULAIḤAH (طليحة‎). A chief of the Banū Asad, a warrior of note and influence in Najd, who claimed to have a divine commission in the days of Muḥammad, but who was afterwards subdued by K͟hālid under the K͟halīfate of Abū Bakr, and embraced Islām. (Muir’s Life of Mahomet, vol. iv. p. 246.)

T̤ŪR (طور‎). Chaldee ‏טוּר‎. (1) A mount. At̤-T̤ūr, the mountain mentioned in the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 60: “When we took a covenant (mīs̤āq) with you, and held the mountain (ready to fall) over you.” This is generally understood to mean T̤ūru Saināʾ, or Mount Sinai, but al-Baiẓāwī says it was Jabal Zubail. In Persian, the mountain is called Koh-i-T̤ūr, or the Mount of T̤ūr. In Arabia, the name is given to the Mount Sinai of Scripture.

(2) The title of the LIInd Sūrah of the Qurʾān.

TURBAN. Arabic ʿimāmah (عمامة‎), Persian dastār (دستار‎), Hindūstānī pagṛī (پگڑى‎). The turban, which consists of a stiff round cap, occasionally rising to a considerable height, and a long piece of muslin, often as much as twenty-four yards in length, wound round it, is amongst all Muḥammadan nations a sign of authority and honour, and it is held to be disrespectful to stand in the presence of a person of respectability, or to worship God, with the head uncovered. Shaik͟hs and persons of religious pretensions wear green turbans. The Coptic Christians in Egypt wear a blue turban, having been compelled to do so by an edict published in A.D. 1301. In some parts of Islām, it is usual to set apart a Maulawī, or to appoint a chief or ruler, by placing a turban on his head.

The mitre, bonnet, hood, and diadem of the Old Testament are but varieties of the head-dress known in the East as the turban. Canon Cook, in the Speaker’s Commentary, on Exodus xxviii. 4, 37, says the mitznepheth, or “mitre” of the Hebrew Bible, “according to the derivation of the word, and from the statement in verse 39, was a twisted band of linen coiled into a cap, to which the name mitre in its original sense closely answers, but which in modern usage would rather be called a turban.”

The term used in the Hebrew Bible for putting on the tzaniph or the peer, “bonnet,” in Ex. xxix. 9, Lev. viii. 13, is ‏חָבַשׁ‎ k͟hāvash, “to bind round,” and would therefore indicate that even in the earliest periods of Jewish history the head-dress was similar in character to that now seen amongst the different Muslim tribes of the world.

Josephus’ account of the high priest’s mitre is peculiar; he says (Antiquities, book iii. ch. vii. p. 3): “Its make is such that it seems to be a crown, being made of thick swathes, but the contexture is of linen, and it is doubled many times, and sewn together; besides which, a piece of fine linen covers the whole cap from the upper part, and reaches down to the forehead and the seams of the swathes, which would otherwise appear indecently; this adheres closely upon the solid part of the head, and is thereto so firmly fixed that it may not fall off during the sacred service about the sacrifices.”

The varieties of turban worn in the East are very great, and their peculiarities are best illustrated by the accompanying drawing, giving seventeen different styles of tying up the turban. In books written upon the subject in Eastern languages, it is said that there are not fewer than a thousand methods of binding the turban. It is in the peculiar method of tying on, and of arranging this head-dress, that not only tribal and religious distinctions are seen, but even peculiarities of disposition. The humility or pride, the virtue or vice, as well as the social standing of the individual, is supposed to be indicated in his method of binding the turban upon his head. And travellers in the East can at once distinguish the different races by their turbans. [DRESS.]

TURK. Arabic tark or turk (ترك‎), pl. atrāk. (1) A term applied by European writers to express Muḥammadans of all nationalities. (See Book of Common Prayer, Collect for Good Friday.)

(2) An inhabitant of Turkomania, Turkistān or Transoxania, so named from Tur, eldest son of Farīdūn, to whom his father gave it for an inheritance. Also of those numerous races of Tartars who claim to be descended from Turk, a son of Japhet. Turki chin, a Chinese Tartar.

(3) A native of European or Asiatic Turkey. Halaku, the Turk, a grandson of Jengiz K͟hān, took Bag͟hdād A.D. 1258, and about forty years afterwards ʿUs̤mān (Othman) founded the ʿUs̤mānī or Turk dynasty at Constantinople, A.D. 1299. Hence Muḥammadans were known to the European Christians as Turks.

The word Turk is also frequently used by Sikh writers to express Muḥammadans in general. The terms Turk and Musulmān are employed interchangeably. [KHALIFAH.]

T̤UWĀ (طوى‎). A sacred valley mentioned in the Qurʾān:—

Sūrah xx. 12: “O Moses! verily I am thy Lord, so take off thy sandals; thou art in the sacred valley of T̤uwā, and I have chosen thee.”

Sūrah lxxix. 16: “Has the story of Moses reached you? when his Lord addressed him in the holy valley of T̤uwā.”