JEWS

JUDAISM. The Jews are mentioned in the Qurʾān and Traditions under the names of Yahūdī ( يهودى‎ ), pl. Yahūd , and Banū Isrāʾīl ( بنو اسرائيل‎ ), “Children of Israel.” No distinction is made between Jews and Israeli tes. They are acknowledged to be a people in po e ion of a divine book, and are called Ahlu ʾl-Kitāb , or “people of the book.” Moses is their special law-giver (Abraham not having been a Jew, but a “ Ḥanīf Muslim ”); they are a people highly-favoured of God, but are said to have perverted the meaning of Scripture, and to have called Ezra “the Son of God.” They have an intense hatred of all true Muslims; and, as a punishment for their sins, some of them in times past had been changed into apes and swine, and others will have their hands tied to their necks and be cast into the Fire at the Day of Judgment. The following are the selections from the Qurʾān relating to the Jews:— Sūrah ii. 116 : “O children of Israel! remember my favour wherewith I have favoured you, and that high above all mankind have I raised you.” Sūrah v. 48, 49 : “Verily, we have sent down the law ( Taurāt ) wherein are guidance and light. By it did the prophets who profe ed Islām judge the Jews; and the doctors and the teachers judged by that portion of the Book of God, of which they were the keepers and the witne es. Therefore, O Jews ! fear not men but fear Me; and barter not away my signs for a mean price! And whoso will not judge by what God hath sent down—such are the Infidels. And therein have we enacted for them, ‘Life for life, an eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and for wounds retaliation’:—Whoso shall compromise it as alms shall have therein the expiation of his sin ; and whoso will not judge by what God hath sent down—such are the transgre ors.” Sūrah iii. 60 : “Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian. He was a Ḥanīf Muslim, and not an idolater.” Sūrah ix. 30 : “The Jews say, ‘Ezra (ʿUzair) is a son of God’; and the Christians say, ‘The Me iah is a son of God.’ Such the saying in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the Infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided!” Sūrah vi. 147 : “To the Jews did we forbid every beast having an entire hoof, and of both bullocks and sheep we forbade them the fat, save what might be on their backs, or their entrails, and the fat attached to the bone. With this have we recompensed them, because of their transgre ion: and verily, we are indeed equitable.” Sūrah iv. 48, 49 : “Among the Jews are those who displace the words of their Scriptures, and say, ‘We have heard, and we have not obeyed. Hear thou, but as one that heareth not; and LOOK AT US ’; perplexing with their tongues, and wounding the Faith by their revilings. But if they would say, ‘We have heard, and we obey; hear thou, and REGARD US ’; it were better for them, and more right. But God hath cursed them for their unbelief. Few only of them are believers!” Sūrah ii. 70–73 : “Desire ye then that for your sakes the Jews should believe? Yet a part of them heard the word of God, and then, after they had understood it, perverted it, and knew that they did so. And when they fall in with the faithful, they say, ‘We believe’; but when they are apart one with another, they say, ‘Will ye acquaint them with what God hath revealed to you, that they may dispute with you about it in the presence of your Lord?’ Understand ye their aim? Know they not that God knoweth what they hide, as well as what they bring to light? But there are illiterates among them who are not acquainted with the Book, but with lies only, and have but vague fancies. Woe to those who with their own hands transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say, ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price! Woe then to them for that which their hands have written! and, Woe to them for the gains which they have made!” Sūrah v. 64–69 : “ Say : O people of the Book! do ye not disavow us only because we believe in God, and in what He hath sent down to us, and in what He hath sent down aforetime, and because most of you are doers of ill? Say : Can I announce to you any retribution worse than that which awaiteth them with God? They whom God hath cursed and with whom He hath been angry—some of them hath He changed into apes and swine; and they who worship T̤āg͟hūt are in evil plight, and have gone far astray from the right path! When they presented themselves to you they said, ‘We believe’; but Infidels they came in unto you, and Infidels they went forth! God well knew what they concealed. Many of them shalt thou see hastening together to wickedne and malice, and to eat unlawful things. Shame on them for what they have done! Had not their doctors and teachers forbidden their uttering wickedne , and their eating unlawful food, bad indeed would have been their doings! ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Their own hands shall be chained up—and for that which they have said shall they be cursed. Nay! outstretched are both His hands! At His own pleasure does He bestow gifts. That which hath been sent down to thee from thy Lord will surely increase the rebellion and unbelief of many of them; and we have put enmity and hatred between them that shall last till the day of the Resurrection. Oft as they kindle a beacon fire for war shall God quench it! and their aim will be to abet disorder on the earth: but God loveth not the abettors of disorder.” Nearly all the leading scripture characters connected with Old Testament history are either mentioned by name in the Qurʾān or are referred to in the Traditions and commentaries :— ( a ) In the Qurʾān we have Adam ( Ādam ), Abel ( Hābīl ), Cain ( Qābīl ), Enoch ( Idrīs ), Noah ( Nūḥ ), Abraham ( Ibrāhīm ), Lot ( Lūt̤ ), Isaac ( Isḥāq ), Ishmael ( Ismāʿīl ), Jacob ( Yaʿqūb ), Joseph ( Yūsuf ), Job ( Aiyūb ), Moses ( Mūsā ), Aaron ( Hārūn ), Korah ( Qārūn ), Pharaoh ( Firʿaun ), Haman ( Hāmān ), David ( Dāʾūd ), Goliath ( Jālūt ), Solomon ( Sulaimān ), Saul ( T̤ālūt ), Jonah ( Yūnus ), Elisha ( Alyasaʿ ). ( b ) In the Traditions and in the earliest commentaries on the Qurʾān, are mentioned: Eve ( Ḥawwāʾ ), Hagar ( Hājar ), Nebuchadnezzar ( Buk͟htnaṣṣar ), Joshua ( Yūshaʿ ), Jeremiah ( Armiyā ), Isaiah ( Shaʿyāʾ ), Benjamin ( Binyāmīn ), Ezekiel ( Ḥizqīl ), Balaam ( Balʿam ), Daniel ( Dāniyāl) , Sarah ( Sārah ), and many others. But it is remarkable that after Solomon, there is no mention of the Kings of Israel and Judah. ( c ) The chief incidents of Jewish history are recorded in the Qurʾān with a strange and curious admixture of Rabbinical fable. The creation of the world, the formation of Adam and Eve, the fall, the expulsion from Eden, Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifices, the death of Abel; Noah’s preaching, the Ark built, the deluge, the tower of Babel; Abraham, the friend of God, his call from idolatry, Isaac the son of promise, Sarah’s incredulity, Hagar and Ishmael, the willingne of Abraham to sacrifice his son, Lot and the cities of the plain; Jacob and the tribes, Joseph sold into Egypt, Potiphar’s wife, Joseph tempted, the dreams of the baker and butler, and of the king; Moses, his preservation in infancy, kills an Egyptian, flies to Midian, works miracles in the presence of Pharaoh, manna from heaven, the giving of the law, Aaron’s rod, the golden calf, the pa age of the Red Sea; Job’s patience; Balaam cursing the Israeli tes; David’s psalms, his sin and repentance; Solomon’s wisdom, the Queen of Sheba, the building of the temple; Jonah’s preaching, his escape from the fish: these and many other incidents, evidently taken from the Old Testament, and worked up into a narrative with the a istance of Talmudic interpretations, form the chief historical portion of the Qurʾān. ( d ) Many of the doctrines and social precepts of the Qurʾān are also from Judaism. The Unity of God, the ministry of angels, the inspired law, the law of marriage and divorce, domestic slavery, the day of Sacrifice, prayer and ablution, the lex talion is, the degrees of affinity, the stoning of the adulterer, and many other injunctions, are precisely those of the Mosaic code, with some modifications to meet the requirements of Arabian social life. Whilst, therefore, Muḥammad took little of his religious system from Christianity, he was vastly indebted to Judaism both for his historical narratives and his doctrines and precepts. Islām is nothing more nor le than Judaism plus the Apostleship of Muḥammad. The teachings of Jesus form no part of his religious system. [ CHRISTIANITY .] ( e ) The Quraish charged Muḥammad with want of originality in his revelations. For even at the end of his career, and when he was uttering his latest Sūrahs, “they said, as our verses were rehearsed to them—‘This is nothing but tales of yore.’ ” ( Sūrah viii. 31 .) “And when it was said to them, What is it your Lord sent down? They said, ‘Old folk’s tales.’ ” ( Sūrah xvi. 25 .) The Quraish even charged him with having obtained a istance, “They said it is only some mortal who teaches him.” And Muḥammad admits there was someone who might be suspected of helping him, for he replies, “The tongue of him whom they lean towards is barbarous and this (Qurʾān) is plain Arabic.” ( Sūrah xvi. 105 .) Ḥusain, the commentator, in remarking upon this verse, says, “It is related that there was a slave belonging to ʿAmr ibn ʿAbdi ʾllāh al-Ḥaẓramī, named Jabr (and according to some a second slave named Yasār), who used to read the Law and the Gospel, and Muḥammad used, when he pa ed, to stand and listen.” And the whole construction of the Qurʾān bears out the supposition that its subject matter was received orally and worked into poetical Arabic by a man of genius. Whatever he may have heard from the readings of Jabr and Yasār of the text of the Old and New Testament scriptures, it is very evident that he obtained his explanations from one well versed in Talmudic lore. A Jewish Rabbi, Abraham Geiger, in A.D . 1833, wrote a prize e ay in answer to the question put by the university: “ Inquiratur in fontes Alcorani seu leg is Muhammedicæ eos, qui ex Judæismo derivandi sunt. ” His e ay in reply is entitled, “ Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume auf genom men? ” In this treatise it is clearly demonstrated how much the whole system of Islām is indebted to Talmudic Judaism for its teachings. Its narratives, its doctrines, and its theological terms, are chiefly derived from those of the Talmud. The works of Geiger, J. M. Arnold, Hershom, McCaul, Bishop Barclay, Deutsch, Light foot, Schottgen, Ugolini, Meuschen (which pending a complete translation of the Talmud, can be consulted), will, upon comparison with the teachings of the Qurʾān, reveal how entirely Muḥammad constructed his religious system on the lines of Talmudic Judaism. We are indebted to the late Dr. J. M. Arnold’s Islam and Christianity , for the following review of the subject, he having largely availed himself of the facts given in Geiger’s celebrated e ay, already referred to. The seven heavens and the seven earths which are held in the Talmud, have found their way into the Qurʾān. 2 During the creation, God’s glorious throne was placed in the air upon the water. 3 According to the Talmud, “the world is the sixtieth part of the garden, the garden is the sixtieth part of Eden”; and Muḥammad states that the breadth of the garden is that of heaven and earth. 4 Both in the Qurʾān and Talmud we find seven hells as the appointed abode for the damned, and each hell has seven gates in both documents. 5 The entrance of Jahannam is marked, according to the Sukkah, by two date-trees, between which smoke i ues; and the Qurʾān speaks of a tree in hell [ ZAQQUM ] of which the damned are to eat, and of which many terrible things are related. 6 In the Talmud the prince of hell demands supply for his domain, and a similar request is made in the Qurʾān. 7 Between the seven heavens and the seven hells is an intermediate place [ AʿRAF ], for those who are too good to be cast into hell and too imperfect to be admitted into heaven. 8 This intermediate abode is, however, so narrow, that the conversations of the ble ed and the damned on either side may be overheard. Again, the happine of Paradise [ PARADISE ] is similarly described in both Talmud and Qurʾān; 9 also the difficulty of attaining it. The Talmud declares that it is as easy for an elephant to enter through the eye of a needle; the Qurʾān substituting a camel for an elephant. 10 That the dead live in the sight of God is stated in both documents in the same terms, and that there is no admi ion to the actual presence of the Almighty before the Day of Judgment and the resurrection of the dead. 11 The signs of the last day as given in the Qurʾān are borrowed equally from the Scriptures and the Talmud. 12 [ RESURRECTION .] The lengthened descriptions in the Qurʾān of the future resurrection and judgment are also tinged with a Talmud i cal colouring. That the several members of the human body shall bear witne against the damned, and that idols shall share in the punishment of their worshippers, is stated in both the Talmud and Qurʾān. 13 The time of the last judgment Muḥammad declined to fix, resting upon the Jewish or Scriptural sentence, that “one day with God is like a you sand.” 14 The Jews, in speaking of the resurrection of the dead, allude to the sending down of rain; the Qurʾān also affirms that this means of quickening the dead will be employed. 15 Further still, the Talmud i cal idea that the dead will rise in the garments in which they were buried, likewise has been adopted by Islām. 16 The Jewish opinion was that “all the prophets saw in a dark, but Moses in a clear mirror.” 17 In the Qurʾān, God sends down His angelic me enger, Gabriel, as “the Holy Ghost,” with revelations; and this very notion of Gabriel being considered the Spirit of God seems to be borrowed from the Jews. 18 Again, the demonology of the Qurʾān is chiefly taken from the Talmud. Three properties the demons have in common with angels, and three with men—they have wings like angels, they can fly from one end of the world to the other, and know things to come. But do they know future events? No, but they listen behind the veil. The three properties in common with men are: they eat and drink, indulge in physical love, and die. 19 This Jewish idea was adopted in the Qurʾān, and spun out ad libitum ; for instance, whilst listening once to the angelic conversations, they were hunted away with stones. Their presence in places of worship is admitted both in the Talmud and the Qurʾān; thus it happened that “when the servant of God stood up to invoke Him, the Jinns all but pre ed on him in the crowd.” 20 [ GENII .] Amongst the moral precepts which are borrowed from the Talmud, we may mention that children are not to obey their parents when the latter demand that which is evil. 21 Prayer may be performed standing, walking, or even riding; 22 devotions may be shortened in urgent cases, without committing sin; 23 drunken persons are not to engage in acts of worship; 24 ablutions before prayer are in special cases enforced, but generally required both in the Talmud and the Qurʾān; 25 each permit the use of sand instead of water [ TAYAMMUM ], when the latter is not to be procured. 26 The Talmud prohibits loud and noisy prayers, and Muḥammad gives this short injunction:—“Cry not in your prayers”; 27 in addition to this secret prayer, public worship is equally commended. The Shema prayer of the Jews is to be performed “when one is able to distinguish a blue from a white thread,” and this is precisely the criterion of the commencement of the fast in the Qurʾān. 28 [ RAMAZAN .] The following social precepts are likewise copied from Judaism: a divorced woman must wait three months before marrying again 29 [ DIVORCE ]; mothers are to nurse their children two full years; and the degrees of affinity within which marriages are lawful. 30 [ MARRIAGE .] The historical incidents which Muḥammad borrowed from Judaism are embodied, regardle of the sources from which he gleaned them, and indifferent to all order or system. Ignorant of Jewish history, Muḥammad appropriates none of the historical way-marks which determine the great epochs recorded in the Old Testament, but confines himself to certain occurrences in the lives of single individuals. At the head of the antediluvian patriarchs stands the primogenitor of the human race. In Sūrah ii. 28–33 we read, “When thy Lord said to the angels, Verily I am going to place a substitute on earth, they said, Wilt thou place there one who will do evil therein and shed blood? but we celebrate Thy praise and sanctify Thee. God answered, Verily I know that which ye know not; and He taught Adam the names of all things, and then proposed them to the angels, and said, Declare unto me the names of these things if ye say truth. They answered, Praise be unto Thee, we have no knowledge but what Thou teach est us, for Thou art knowing and wise. God said, O, Adam, tell them their names. And when he had told them their names, God said, Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and know that which ye discover, and that which ye conceal?” Let us examine whence the Qurʾān obtained this information. “When God intended to create man, He advised with the angels and said unto them, We will make man in our own image ( Gen. i. 26 ). Then said they, What is man, that Thou remember est him ( Psalm viii. 5 ), what shall be his peculiarity? He answered, His wisdom is superior to yours. Then brought He before them cattle, animals, and birds, and asked for their names, but they know it not. After man was created, He caused them to pa before Him, and asked for their names and he answered, This is an ox, that an a , this a horse, and that a camel. But what is thy name? To me it becomes to be called ‘earthly,’ for from ‘earth’ I am created.” 31 To this may be added the fable that God commanded the angels to worship Adam, 32 which is likewise appropriated from Talmudic writings. Some Jewish fables record that the angels contemplated worshipping man, but were prevented by God; others precisely agree with the Qurʾān, 33 that God commanded the angels to worship man, and that they obeyed with the exception of Satan. The Sunnah informs us that Adam was sixty yards high, and Rabbinical fables make him extend from one end of the world to the other; but upon the angels esteeming him a second deity, God put His hand upon him and reduced him to a you sand yards! 34 [ ADAM .] The account given in the Qurʾān of Cain’s murder is borrowed from the Bible, and his conversation with Abel, before he slew him, 35 is the same as that in the Targum of Jerusalem, generally called pseudo-Jonathan. After the murder, Cain sees a raven burying another, and from this sight gains the idea of interring Abel. The Jewish fable differs only in ascribing the interment to the parents: “Adam and his wife sat weeping and lamenting him, not knowing what to do with the body, as they were unacquainted with burying. Then came a raven, whose fellow was dead: he took and buried it in the earth, hiding it before their eyes. Then said Adam, I shall do like this raven, and, taking Abel’s corpse, he dug in the earth and hid it.” 36 The sentence following in the Qurʾān—“Wherefore we commanded the children of Israel, that he who slayeth a soul, not by way of retaliation, or because he doeth corruptly in the earth, shall be as if he had slain all mankind; but he who saveth a soul alive shall be as if he saved all souls alive,” would have no connection with what precedes or follows, were it not for the Targum of Onkelos, in the paraphrase of Gen. iv. 10 , where it is said that the blood of Cain’s brother cried to God from the earth, thus implying that Abel’s posterity were also cut off. And in the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the very words which the Qurʾān attaches to the murder, apparently with sense or connection. 37 [ ABEL , CAIN .] Noah stands forth as the preacher of righteousne , builds the ark, and is saved, with his family; 38 his character is, however, drawn more from Rabbinical than Biblical sources. The conversations of Noah with the people, and the words with which they mocked him whilst building the ark, 39 are the same in Talmud i cal writings as in the Qurʾān; and both declare that the generation of the flood was punished with boiling water. 40 [ NOAH .] The next patriarch after the flood is Hūd, who is none other than Eber; another sample of the ignorance of Muḥammad. In the days of Hūd the tower is constructed; the “obstinate hero,” probably Nimrod, takes the lead; the sin of idolatry is abounding; an idol is contemplated as the crowning of the tower; but the building is overthrown, the tribes are dispersed, and punished in this world and in the world to come. 41 These particulars are evidently borrowed from scripture and Rabbinical writings. In the Qurʾān, however, the dispersion is caused by a poisonous wind, and not by the confusion of tongues. The significance which the Qurʾān gives to Hūd is again in perfect accordance with Rabbinical Judaism: “Eber was a great prophet, for he prophetically called his son Peleg (dispersion), by the help of the Holy Ghost, because the earth was to be dispersed.” 42 Among all the patriarchs, Abraham was most esteemed by Muḥammad, as being neither Jew nor Christian, but a Muslim. That he wrote books is also the belief of the Jewish doctors. 43 His attaining the knowledge of the true faith, his zeal to convert his generation; his destruction of the idols; the fury of the people; their insisting on his being burned, and his marvellous deliverance: all these particulars in the life of Abraham, as given by the Qurʾān, are minutely copied from Jewish fictions. 44 [ HUD , ABRAHAM .] The Qurʾān states that the angels whom Abraham received appeared as ordinary Arabs, and he was astonished when they declined to eat. According to the Talmud, they also “appeared to him no more than Arabs;” 45 but another pa age adds: “The angels descended and did eat. Are they, then, said to have really eaten? No! but they appeared as if they did eat and drink.” As a proof of Muḥammad’s uncertainty respecting the history of Abraham, we add, that the doubt regarding their having a son in their old age is expre ed in the Qurʾān by Abraham instead of Sarah, and she is made to laugh at the promise of a son, before it was given. Again, the command to offer his son is given to Abraham before Isaac is born or promised, so that the son who was to be offered up could be none other than Ishmael, who was spoken of immediately before as the “meek youth!” Muḥammadan divines are, however, not agreed whether Ishmael was to be offered up, although it is reported by some that the horns of the ram, which was sacrificed in his stead, were preserved at Makkah, his dwelling-place! [ ISHMAEL .] We may account for Muḥammad’s reckoning Ishmael among the prophets and patriarchs, from his being considered the patriarch of the Arabs and the founder of the Kaʿbah. Among the sons of Jacob, Joseph occupies the pre-eminence. His history is mainly the same as in the Bible, embellished with the fabulous tradition of the Jews. Among these is the a umption that Joseph “would have sinned had he not seen the evident demonstration of his Lord.” That this is borrowed is clear from the following fable: Rabbi Jochanan saith, “Both intended to commit sin: seizing him by the garment, she said, Lie with me.… Then appeared to him the form of his father at the window, who called to him, Joseph! Joseph! the names of thy brothers shall be engraven upon the stones of the Ephod, also thine own: wilt thou that it shall be erased?” 46 This is almost literally repeated by a Muslim commentary to the Sūrah xii. 24 . The fable of Potiphar’s wife inviting the Egyptian ladies to a feast, to see Joseph, because they had laughed at her, and of their being so overcome with admiration of Joseph, 47 that they accidentally cut their hands in eating fruit, is exactly so related in a very ancient Hebrew book, from which Muḥammad doubtle derived it. The story about the garment being rent, and the setting up of an evidence of guilt or innocence respecting it, is also borrowed, to the very letter from the same source. 48 In this Sūrah it is also stated, that “the devil made him (Joseph) forget the remembrance of his Lord,” in perfect harmony with the Jewish tradition, “Vain speech tendeth to destruction; though Joseph twice urged the chief butler to remember him, yet he had to remain two years longer in prison.” 49 The seeking protection from man is here represented as the instigation of Satan. [ JOSEPH .] The Qurʾān causes Jacob to tell his sons to enter at different gates, and the same injunction is given by the Patriarch in the Jewish writings: “Jacob said to them, Enter not through one and the same gate.” 50 The exclamation of the sons of Israel, when they found the cup in Benjamin’s sack—“Has he stolen? so has his brother also”—are clearly a perversion of the words which the Jewish traditions put into their mouths: “Behold a thief, son of a female thief!” referring to the stealing of the Seraphim by Rachel. 51 Muḥammad, again, acquaints us that Jacob knew by divine revelation that his son Joseph was still alive, and Jewish tradition enables us to point out whence he obtained the information. We read in the Midrash Jalkut, “An unbeliever asked our master, Do the dead continue to live? your parents do not believe it, and will ye receive it? Of Jacob, it is said, he refused to be comforted; had he believed that the dead still lived, would he not have been comforted? But he answered, Fool, he knew by the Holy Ghost that he still really lived, and about a living person people need no comfort.” 52 Muḥammad made but scanty allusions to the early patriarchs, Joseph only excepted; but concerning Moses, it was his interest to be more profuse in his communications, po ibly from the desire to be considered like him, as he is generally thought to have taken that prophet as his model. Among the oppre ions which Pharaoh exercised towards the Jews, are named his ordering their children to be cast into the water. Moses, the son of ʿImrān was put into an ark by his mother; Pharaoh’s wife, observing the child, rescues him from death, and gives him back to his mother to nurse. When Moses was grown up, he sought to a ist his oppre ed brethren, and kills an Egyptian; being the next day reminded of this deed by an Hebrew, he flees to Midian, and marries the daughter of an inhabitant of that country. 53 When about to leave Midian, he sees a burning bush, and, approaching it, receives a call to go to Egypt to exhort Pharaoh, and perform miracles; he accepts the mi ion, but requests the aid of his brother Aaron. 54 Pharaoh, however remains an infidel, and gathers his sorcerers together, who perform only inferior miracles; and, in spite of Pharaoh’s threats, they become believers. 55 Judgment falls upon the Egyptians; they are drowned, whilst the Israeli tes are saved. 56 A rock yields water. Moses receives the law, 57 and desires to see the glory of God. 58 During Moses’ absence, the Israeli tes make a golden calf, which he destroys, and reducing it to powder, makes them drink it. 59 After this, Moses chooses seventy men as a istants. 60 The spies sent to Canaan are all wicked with the exception of two: the people being deceived by them, must wander forty years in the desert. 61 Korah, on quarrelling with Moses, is swallowed up by the earth. 62 [ KORAH .] The marvellous journey of Moses with his servant is not to be omitted in this summary of events. 63 Among the details deserve to be mentioned, that Hāmān and Korah were counsellors of Pharaoh. 64 It is not surprising that Muḥammad should a ociate Hāmān with Pharaoh as an enemy of the Jews, since he cared little when individuals lived, provided they could be introduced with advantage. Korah, according to Jewish tradition, was chief agent or treasurer to Pharaoh. 65 The ante-exodus persecution of the Jews is ascribed to a dream of Pharaoh. 66 This is in exact accordance with Jewish tradition, which, as Canon Churton remarks, has in part the sanction of Acts vii . and Hebrews xi ., though not found in Exodus: “The sorcerers said to Pharaoh, A boy shall be born who will lead the Israeli tes out of Egypt. Then thought he, Cast all male children into the river, and he will be cast in among them.” 67 The words ( Exod. xi. 7 ), “I will call one of the Hebrew women,” produced the Rabbinical fiction, “Why just a Hebrew woman? This shows that he was handed to all the Egyptian women; but he would not drink, for God said, The mouth which shall once speak with me, should it drink what is unclean?” 68 This was too valuable for Muḥammad to omit from the Qurʾān. 69 Although it is nowhere said in the Bible that the sign of the leprous hand was wrought in the presence of Pharaoh, yet the Qurʾān relates it as having there taken place. 70 And in this also it was preceded by Jewish tradition—“He put his hand into his bosom, and withdrew it leprous, white as snow; they also put their hands into their bosoms and withdrew them leprous, white as snow.” 71 Again, among Moses’ own people, none but his own tribe believed him. 72 This Muḥammad doubtle inferred from the statement of the Rabbis: “The tribe of Levi was exempted from hard labour.” 73 Among the sorcerers of Egypt, who first asked for their wages, and then became believers, when their serpents were swallowed by that of Moses, 74 Pharaoh himself was chief. 75 Here, again, Muḥammad is indebted to Judaism: “Pharaoh, who lived in the days of Moses, was a great sorcerer.” 76 In other places of the Qurʾān, Pharaoh claims divinity, 77 and Jewish tradition makes him declare, “Already from the beginning ye speak falsehood, for I am Lord of the world, I have made myself as well as the Nile”; as it is said of him ( Ezek. xxix. 3 ), “Mine is the river, and I have made it.” 78 The Arab prophet was much confused with regard to the plagues; in some places he enumerates nine, 79 in others only five, the first of which is said to be the Flood! 80 As the drowning in the Red Sea happened after the plagues, he can only allude to the Deluge. The following somewhat dark and uncertain pa age 81 concerning Pharaoh has caused commentators great perplexity. It is stated that Pharaoh pursued the Israeli tes until actually drowning, when, confe ing himself a Muslim, he was saved alive from the bottom of the sea, to be a “witne for ages to come.” 82 But we find that it is merely a version of a Jewish fable: “Perceive the great power of repentance! Pharaoh, King of Egypt, uttered very wicked words—Who is the God whose voice I shall obey? ( Exod. v. 2 .) Yet as he repented, saying, ‘Who is like unto thee among the gods?’ ( xv. 11 ) God saved him from death; for it saith, Almost had I stretched out my hands and destroyed; but God let him live, that he might declare his power and strength.” 83 As Jewish commentators add to Exod. xv. 27 , where we read of twelve fountains being found near Elim, that each of the tribes had a well, 84 so Muḥammad transposes the statement, and declares that twelve fountains sprang from the rock which had been smitten by Moses at Rephidim. 85 The Rabbinical fable, that God covered the Israeli tes with Mount Sinai, on the occasion of the law-giving, 86 is thus amplified in the Qurʾān: “We shook the mountain over them, as though it had been a covering, and they imagined that it was falling upon them; and we said, ‘ Receive the law which we have brought unto you with reverence. ’ ” 87 The Qurʾān adds that the Israeli tes, now demanding to see God, die, and are raised again. 88 It will not be difficult to trace the origin of this figment. When the Israeli tes demanded two things from God—that they might see his glory and hear his voice—both were granted to them. Then it is added, “These things, however, they had no power to resist; as they came to Mount Sinai, and He appeared unto them, their souls escaped by His speaking, as it is said, ‘My soul escaped as He spake.’ The Torah, however, interceded for them, saying, ‘Does a king give his daughter to marriage and kill his household? The whole world rejoices (at my appearance), and thy children (the Israeli tes) shall they die?’ At once their souls returned; therefore it is said, The doctrine of God is perfect, and brings back the soul.” 89 In the matter of the golden calf, the Qurʾān follows as usual the fabulous account of the Rabbinical traditions. Both represent Aaron as having been nearly killed when at first resisting the entreaty of the people. The Sanhedrin relates: “Aaron saw Chur slaughtered before his eyes (who opposed them), and he thought, If I do not yield to them they will deal with me as they dealt with Chur.” 90 According to another pa age in the Qurʾān, an Israelite named as-Sāmirī enticed them, and made the calf. 91 Like the wandering Jew in Christian fable, as-Sāmirī is punished by Moses with endle wandering, and he is compelled to repeat the words, “Touch me not.” 92 Jewish traditions make Mikah a ist in manufacturing the idol calf; 93 but Muḥammad either derived as-Sāmirī from Samael, or, as the Samaritans are stated by the Arab writers to have said, “Touch me not,” he may have considered as-Sāmirī from the ornaments of the people, lowed on being finished, 94 is evidently a repetition of the following Jewish tradition: “The calf came forth ( Exod. xxxii . 24 ) roaring, and the Israeli tes saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says, Samael entered the calf and roared to deceive the Israeli tes.” The addition, that the tribe of Levi remained faithful to God, is both Scriptural and Rabbinical. 95 The matter of Korah is honoured with singular embellishments; for instance, Korah had such riches, that from ten to forty strong men were required to carry the keys of his treasures. 96 Abū ʾl-Fidāʾ says forty mules were required to convey the keys. Jewish tradition is still more extravagant: “Joseph buried three treasures in Egypt, one of which became known to Korah. Riches are turned to destruction to him that po e es them ( Eccles. v. 12 ), and this may well be applied to Korah. The keys to the treasures of Korah made a burden for 300 white mules.” 97 The accusation from which God cleared his servant Moses, of which the Qurʾān makes mention, was occasioned by Korah. “Abu Aliah says it refers to Korah hiring a harlot to reproach Moses before all the people, upon which God struck her dumb, and destroyed Korah, which cleared Moses from the charge.” 98 This is unquestionably an amplification of the following pa age: “Moses heard, and fell on his face. What was it he heard? That they accused him of having to do with another man’s wife.” 99 Others conceive the unjust charge from which Moses was cleared, to have been that of murdering Aaron on Mount Hor, because he and Eleazar only were present when Aaron died! That they had recourse to Jewish tradition, will appear from the subjoined extract: “The whole congregation saw that Aaron was dead; and when Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain, the whole congregation gathered together, asking, Where is Aaron? But they said, He is dead. How can the Angel of Death touch a man, by whom he was resisted and restrained, as it is said, He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stayed? If ye bring him, it is well; if not, we will stone you. Moses prayed, Lord of the World, remove from me this suspicion! Then God opened and showed them Aaron’s body.” And to this the pa age applies: “The whole congregation saw,” . ( Numb. xx. 29 , 75 .) [ MOSES .] The time of the Judges is pa ed over unnoticed, and from the manner in which the election of a king is introduced, 100 it would appear that Muḥammad was ignorant of the long interval between Moses and Saul. 101 [ SAUL .] Of David’s history, only his victory over Goliath and his fall through Bathsheba are recorded. [ DAVID .] The Traditions make mention of the brevity of his slumbers, and commentators of the Qurʾān affirm the same: “The Apostle of God said David slept half the night; he then rose for a third part, and slept again a sixth part.” This is derived from the Rabbis, who a ert that the king slept only for the term of “sixty breathings.” 102 Of the wisdom of Solomon, the Qurʾān makes particular mention; and to support the statement, adds, that he understood the language of birds; this was also the opinion of the Jewish doctors. The winds, or, more probable, spirits, obeyed him; and demons, birds, and beasts, formed part of his standing army. 103 Jewish commentators record that “demons of various kinds, and evil spirits were subject to him.” 104 The story of the Queen of Sheba, and the adventures of the lapwing, 105 are only abridgments from Jewish traditions. With regard to the fable, that demons a isted Solomon in the building of the Temple, and, being deceived, continued it after his death, we may here add that Muḥammad borrowed it directly from the Jews. 106 When Solomon became haughty, one of his many demons ruled in his stead, till he repented. The Sanhedrin also refers to this degradation: “In the beginning Solomon reigned also over the upper worlds”; as it is said, “Solomon sat on the throne of God”; after that only over his staff, as it is said, “What profit hath a man of all his labour?” and still later, “This is my portion of all my labour.” 107 On repenting, he maimed his horses, considering them a usele luxury. In the Talmud and the Scriptures, we find allusion to his obtaining them as well as to their being prohibited. 108 [ SOLOMON .] Elijah is among the few characters which Muḥammad notices after Solomon; nothing, indeed, is mentioned of his rapture to heaven, yet he is considered a great prophet. 109 Among the Jews, Elijah appears in human form to the pious on earth, he visits them in their places of worship, and communicates revelations from God to eminent Rabbis. In this character Elijah also appears in Muslim divinity. [ ELIJAH .] Jonah is the “man of the fish”; 110 Muḥammad relates his history in his usual style, not omitting his journey to Nineveh, or the gourd which afforded him shade. [ JONAH .] Job, too, with his suffering and cure is noticed 111 [ JOB ]; also the three men who were cast into a burning fiery furnace 112 ( Dan. iii. 8 ); the turning back of the shadow of degrees on the occasion of Hezekiah’s recovery. 113 (See Arnold’s Islam and Christianity , Long mans, London, 1874 , p. 116 seqq . Dr. J. M. Arnold gives in many instances the original Hebrew of his quotations from the Talmud.) In the Qurʾān there are several Hebrew and Talmudic terms which seem to indicate that its author had become familiar with Talmudic teaching. The following are the most noticeable:— (1) The Qurʾān , قران‎ , from qaraʾ , “to read,” Heb. ‏קָרָא‎ , and equivalent to ‏מִקְרָא‎ , “reading.” See Neh. viii. 8 : “And caused them to understand the reading .” (2) The Mas̤ānī , مثانى‎ , “repetitions,” Sūrah xv. 86 , which is the Talmudic ‏מִשְׁנֶה‎ . (3) The Taurāt , توراة ‎ , used for the Books of Moses, the Heb. ‏תּוֹרָה‎ of the Old Testament. (4) The Shechinah , or Sakīnah , سكينة‎ , Sūrah ii. 249 : “The sign of his kingdom is that there shall come to you the ARK ( Tābūt ), and SHE CHINA ( Sakīnah ) in it from the Lord.” Heb. ‏שְׁכִינָה‎ . A term not used in the Bible, but used by the Rabbinical writers to expre the visible presence of God between the Cherubim on the Mercy seat of the Tabernacle. (5) The Ark, Tābūt , تابوت‎ . In Sūrah ii. 249 , for the Ark of the Covenant, and in Sūrah xx. 39 , for Noah’s Ark. The Heb. ‏תֵּבָה‎ (which is used in the Bible for Noah’s Ark and the ark of bulrushes), and not the Heb. ‏ אֲרוֹן ‎ ; the former being Rabbinical. (6) Angel, Malak , ملك‎ , Heb. ‏מַלְאָךְ‎ , an angel or me enger of God. (7) Spirit, Ruḥ , روح‎ , Heb. ‏רוּחַ‎ . A term used both for the angel Gabriel and for Jesus Christ. (8) The Sabbath, Sabt , سبت‎ . Sūrah vii. 164 ; ii. 62 . Heb. ‏שַׁבָּת‎ . (9) Jahannam , γέεννα , hell, جهنم‎ . The Rabbinical ‏גֵּיהִנֹּם‎ , and not the ‏שְׁאוֹל‎ , of the Old Testament. The final letter م‎ proves that it was adopted from the Talmudic Hebrew and not from the Greek. JIBRĀʾĪL ( جبرائيل‎ ). The angel Gabriel. [ GABRIEL .] JIBT ( جبت‎ ). An idol of the Quraish mentioned in the Qurʾān, Sūrah iv. 54 : “They (certain renegade Jews) believe in Jibt and T̤āg͟hūt , and say of the infidels, These are guided in a better path than those who hold the faith.” The Jalālān say certain Jews used to do homage to these idols in order to please the Quraish. JIHĀD ( جهاد‎ ). Lit . “An effort, or a striving.” A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mi ion of Muḥammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qurʾān and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islām and of repelling evil from Muslims. When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:— (1) The reception of Islām , in which case the conquered become enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state. (2) The payment of a poll-tax ( Jizyah ), by which unbelievers in Islām obtain protection, and become Ẕimmīs , provided they are not the idolaters of Arabia. (3) Death by the sword , to those who will not pay the poll tax. Ṣūfī writers say that there are two Jihāds: al-Jihādu ʾl-Akbar , or “the greater warfare,” which is against one’s own lusts; and al-Jihādu ʾl-Aṣg͟har , or “the le er warfare,” against infidels. The duty of religious war (which all commentators agree is a duty extending to all time) is laid down in the Qurʾān in the following verses, and it is remarkable that all the verses occur in the al-Madīnah Sūrahs, being those given after Muḥammad had established himself as a paramount ruler, and was in a position to dictate terms to his enemies. Sūrah ix. 5, 6 : “And when the sacred months are pa ed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful. If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge.” Sūrah ix. 29 : “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profe not the profe ion of the truth, until they pay tribute ( jizyah ) out of hand, and they be humbled.” Sūrah iv. 76–79 : “Let those then fight on the path of God, who exchange this present life for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God’s path, whether he be slain or conquer, we will in the end give him a great reward. But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and for the weak among men, women, and children, who say, ‘O our Lord! bring us forth from this city whose inhabitants are oppre ors; give us a champion from Thy presence; and give us from thy presence a defender.’ They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe not, fight on the path of T̤āg͟hūt : Fight therefore against the friends of Satan. Verily the craft of Satan shall be powerle ! Hast thou not marked those to whom it was said, ‘Withhold your hands awhile from war ; and observe prayer, and pay the stated alms.’ But when war is commanded them, lo! a portion of them fear men as with the fear of God, or with a yet greater fear, and say: ‘O our Lord! why hast Thou commanded us war? Couldst thou not have given us respite till our not distant end?’ Say : Small the fruition of this world; but the next life is the true good for him who feareth God! and ye shall not be wronged so much as the skin of a date-stone.” Sūrah ii. 214, 215 : “They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say : To war therein is bad, but to turn aside from the cause of God, and to have no faith in Him, and in the Sacred Temple, and to drive out its people, is worse in the sight of God; and civil strife is worse than bloodshed. They will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your religion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his religion and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitle in this world, and in the next: they shall be consigned to the fire; therein to abide for aye. But they who believe, and who fly their country, and fight in the cause of God may hope for God’s mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful. ” Sūrah viii. 39–42 : “ Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief , what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it , they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s. If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do: but if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector: Excellent protector! excellent helper! And know ye, that when ye have taken any booty, a fifth part be long eth to God and to the Apostle, and to the near of kin, and to orphans, and to the poor, and to the wayfarer. ” Long chapters in the Traditions are devoted to the subject of Jihād (see Ṣaḥīḥu ʾ-Buk͟hārī and Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim , Arabic editions, Bābu ʾl-Jihād), from which the following are quotations of the sayings of the Prophet:— “God is sponsor for him who goeth forth to fight on the road of God ( Sabīlu ʾllāh ). If he be not killed, he shall return to his house with rewards and booty, but if he be slain, he shall be taken to Paradise.” “I swear by God I should like to be killed on the road of God, then be killed and brought to life again, then killed again and then brought to life again, so that I may obtain new rewards every time.” “Guarding the frontiers of Islām for even one day is worth more than the whole world and all that is in it.” “The fire of hell shall not touch the legs of him who shall be covered with the dust of battle in the road of God.” “He who a ists another with arms to fight in the way of God, is as the champion, and is a sharer of the rewards. And he who stayeth behind to take charge of the family of a warrior is even as a champion in war.” “This religion will ever be established, even to the Day of Resurrection, as long as Muslims fight for it.” “In the last day the wounds of those who have been wounded in the way of God will be evident, and will drop with blood, but their smell will be as the perfume of musk.” “Being killed in the road of God covers all sins, but the sin of debt.” “He who dies and has not fought for the religion of Islām, nor has even said in his heart, ‘Would to God I were a champion that could die in the road of God,’ is even as a hypocrite.” “Fighting in the road of God, or resolving to do so, is a divine duty. When your Imām orders you to go forth to fight, then obey him.” The following is the teaching of the Ḥanafī school of Sunnīs on the subject of Jihād, as given in the Hidāyah , vol. ii. p. 140:— “The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who said in the Qurʾān, ‘Slay the infidels,’ and also by a saying of the Prophet, ‘War is permanently established until the Day of Judgment’ (meaning the ordinance respecting war). The observance, however, in the degree above mentioned, suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of advancing the true faith or repelling evil from the servants of God; and when this end is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as in the prayers for the dead—(if, however, no one Muslim were to make war, the whole of the Muslim, would incur the criminality of neglecting it)—and also because if the injunction were positive, the whole of the Muslims must consequently engage in war, in which case the materials for war (such as horses, armour, and so forth) could not be procured. Thus it appears that the observance of war as aforesaid suffices, except where there is a general summons (that is, where the infidels invade a Muslim territory, and the Imām for the time being i ues a general proclamation requiring all persons to go forth to fight), for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants, whether men or women, and whether the Imām be a just or an unjust person; and if the people of that territory be unable to repulse the infidels, then war becomes a positive injunction with respect to all in that neighbourhood; and if these also do not suffice it, then comes a positive injunction with respect to the next neighbours; and in same manner with respect to all the Muslims from east to west. “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggre ors, as appears from various pa ages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect. “It is not incumbent upon infants to make war, as they are objects of compa ion; neither is it incumbent upon slaves or women, as the rights of the master, or of the husband, have precedence; nor is it so upon the blind, the maimed, or the decrepid, as such are incapable. If, however, the infidels make an attack upon a city or territory, in this case the repulsion of them is incumbent upon all Muslims, insomuch that a wife may go forth without the consent of her husband, and a slave without the leave of his master, because war then becomes a positive injunction; and po e ion, either by bondage or by marriage, cannot come in competition with a positive injunction, as in prayer (for instance) or fasting. This is supposing a general summons; for without that it is not lawful for a woman or slave to go forth to make war without the consent of the husband or master, as there is in this case no nece ity for their a istance, since others suffice, and hence no reason exists for destroying the right of the husband or master on that account. If there be any fund in the public treasury, so long as the fund lasts any extraordinary exaction for the support of the warriors is abominable, because such exaction resembles a hire for that which is a service of God as much as prayer or fasting, and, hire being forbidden in these instances, so is it in that which resembles them. In this case, moreover, there is no occasion for any extraordinary exactions, since the funds of the public treasury are prepared to answer all emergencies of the Muslims, such as war, and so forth. If, however, there be no funds in the public treasury, in this case the Imām need not hesitate to levy contributions for the better support of the warriors, because in levying a contribution the greater evil (namely, the destruction of the person) is repelled, and the contribution is the smaller evil, and the imposition of a smaller evil to remedy a greater is of no consequence. A confirmation of this is found in what is related of the Prophet, that he took various articles of armour, and so forth, from Ṣafwān and ʿUmar; in the same manner also he took property from married men, and bestowed it upon the unmarried, in order to encourage them and enable them to go forth to fight with cheerfulne ; and he also used to take the horses from those who remained at home, and bestowed them upon those who went forth to fight on foot. When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is nece ary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn ʿAbbās relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnece ary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war. The Prophet, moreover, has said we are directed to make war upon men only until such time as they shall confe , ‘There is no God but one God.’ But when they repeat this creed, their persons and properties are in protection ( amān ). If they do not accept the call to the faith, they must then be called upon to pay jizyah , or capitation tax, because the Prophet directed the commanders of his armies so to do, and also because by submitting to this tax war is forbidden and terminated upon the authority of the Qurʾān. (This call to pay capitation tax, however, respects only those from whom the capitation tax is acceptable, for, as to apostates and the idolaters of Arabia, to call upon them to pay the tax is usele , since nothing is accepted from them but embracing the faith, as it is thus commanded in the Qurʾān). If those who are called upon to pay capitation tax consent to do so, they then become entitled to the same protection and subject to the same rules as Muslims, because ʿAlī has declared infidels agree to a capitation tax only in order to render their blood the same as Muslims’ blood, and their property the same as Muslims’ property. “It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is po ible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war. “If a Muslim attack infidels without previously calling them to the faith, he is an offender, because this is forbidden; but yet if he do attack them before thus inviting them and slay them, and take their property, neither fine, expiation, nor atonement are due, because that which protects (namely, Islām) does not exist in them, nor are they under protection by place (namely, the Dāru ʾl-Islām , or Muslim territory), and the mere prohibition of the act is not sufficient to sanction the exaction either of fine or of atonement for property; in the same manner as the slaying of the women or infant children of infidels is forbidden, but if, notwithstanding, a person were to slay such, he is not liable to a fine. It is laudable to call to the faith a people to whom a call has already come, in order that they may have the more full and ample warning; but yet this is not incumbent, as it appears in the Traditions that the Prophet plundered and despoiled the tribe of al-Muṣt̤aliq by surprise, and he also agreed with Asāmah to make a predatory attack upon Qubnā at an early hour, and to set it on fire, and such attacks are not preceded by a call. (Qubnā is a place in Syria: some a ert it is the name of a tribe .) “If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for a istance, and to make war upon them, because God is the a istant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is nece ary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. And having so done, the Muslims must then with God’s a istance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike engines (as the Prophet did by the people of T̤āʾif), and must also set fire to their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain , because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified by the law. “It is no objection to shooting arrows or other mi iles against the infidels that there may chance to be among them a Muslim in the way either of bondage or of traffic, because the shooting of arrows and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim slave or trader is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted, and also because it seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims, since it is most probable that there are Muslims residing in them, either in the way of bondage or of traffic, and hence, if the use of mi ile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed. If the infidels in time of battle should make shields of Muslim children, or of Muslims, who are prisoners in their hands, yet there is no need on that account to refrain from the use of mi ile weapons, for the reason already mentioned. It is requisite, however, that the Muslims in using such weapons aim at the infidels, and not at the children or the Muslim captives, because, as it is impo ible in shooting to distinguish precisely between them and the infidels, the person who discharges the weapon must make this distinction in his intention and design by aiming at the infidels, and not at the others, since thus much is practicable, and the distinction must be made as far as is practicable. “There is also neither fine nor expiation upon the warriors on account of such of their arrows or other mi iles as happen to hit the children or the Muslims, because the war is in observance of a divine ordinance, and atonement is not due for anything which may happen in the fulfilment of a divine ordinance, for otherwise men would neglect the fulfilment of the ordinance from an apprehension of becoming liable to atonement. It is otherwise in the case of a person eating the bread of another when perishing for hunger, as in that instance atonement is due; although eating the bread of other people, in such a situation, be a divine ordinance, because a person perishing for hunger will not refrain from eating the provision of another, from the apprehension of atonement, since his life depends upon it; whereas war is attended with trouble and dangerous to life, whence men would be deterred, by apprehension of atonement, from engaging in it. There is no objection to the warriors carrying their Qurʾāns and their women along with them, where the Muslim force is considerable, to such a degree as to afford a protection from the enemy, and not to admit of any apprehension from them, because in that case safety is most probable, and a thing which is most probable stands and is accounted as a thing certain. If the force of the warriors be small (such as is termed a Sarrīyah ), so as not to afford security from the enemy, in this case their carrying their women or Qurʾāns along with them is reprobated, because in such a situation taking those with them is exposing them to dishonour; and taking the Qurʾān with them, in particular, is exposing it to contempt, since infidels scoff at the Qurʾān, with a view of insulting the Muslims; and this is the true meaning of the saying of the Prophet, ‘Carry not the Qurʾān along with you into the territory of the enemy’ (that is, of the infidels). If a Muslim go into an infidel camp under a protection, there is no objection to his taking his Qurʾān along with him, provided these infidels be such as observe their engagements, because from these no violence is to be apprehended. “It is lawful for aged women to accompany an army, for the performance of such busine as suits them, such as dre ing victuals, administering water, and preparing medicines for the sick and wounded; but with respect to young women, it is better that they stay at home, as this may prevent perplexity or disturbance. The women, however, must not engage in fight, as this argues weakne in the Muslims. Women, therefore, must not take any personal concern in battle unle in a case of absolute nece ity; and it is not laudable to carry young women along with the army, either for the purpose of carnal gratification, or for service; if, however, the nece ity be very urgent, female slaves may be taken, but not wives. A wife must not engage in a fight but with the consent of her husband, nor a slave but with the consent of his owner (according to what was already stated, that the right of the husband and the master has precedence), unle from nece ity where an attack is made by the enemy. “It does not become Muslims to break treaties or to act unfairly with respect to plunder or to disfigure people (by cutting off their ears and noses, and so forth); for as to what is related of the Prophet, that he disfigured the Oorneans, it is abrogated by subsequent prohibitions. In the same manner it does not become Muslims to slay women or children, or men aged, bedridden, or blind, because opposition and fighting are the only occasions which make slaughter allowable (according to our doctors), and such persons are incapable of these. For the same reason also the paralytic are not to be slain, nor those who are dismembered of the right hand, or of the right hand and left foot. Ash-Shāfiʿī maintains that aged men, or persons bedridden or blind, may be slain, because (according to him) infidelity is an occasion of slaughter being allowable, and this appears in these persons. What was before observed, however, that the paralytic or dismembered are not to be slain, is in proof against him, as infidelity appears in these also, yet still they are not slain, whence it is evident that mere infidelity is not a justifiable occasion of slaughter. The Prophet, moreover, forbade the slaying of infants or single persons, and once, when the Prophet saw a woman who was slain, he said, ‘Alas! this woman did not fight, why, therefore, was she slain?’ But yet, if any of these persons be killed in war, or if a woman be a queen or chief, in this case it is allowable to slay them, they being qualified to molest the servants of God. So, also, if such persons as the above should attempt to fight, they may be slain, for the purpose of removing evil, and because fighting renders slaying allowable. “A lunatic must not be slain unle he fight, as such a person is not responsible for his faith, but yet where he is found fighting it is nece ary to slay him, for the removal of evil. It is also to be observed that infants or lunatics may be slain so long as they are actually engaged in fight, but it is not allowed to kill them after they are taken prisoners, contrary to the case of others, who may be slain even after they are taken, as they are liable to punishment because they are responsible for their faith. “A person who is insane occasionally stands, during his lucid intervals, in the same predicament as a sane person. “It is abominable in a Muslim to begin fighting with his father, who happens to be among the infidels, nor must he slay him, because God has said in the Qurʾān, ‘Honour thy father and thy mother,’ and also because the preservation of the father’s life is incumbent upon the son, according to all the doctors, and the permi ion to fight with him would be repugnant to that sentiment. If, also, the son should find the father, he must not slay him himself, but must hold him in view until some other come and slay him: for thus the end is answered without the son slaying his father, which is an offence. “If, however, the father attempt to slay the son, insomuch that the son is unable to repel him but by killing him, in this case the son need not hesitate to slay him, because the design of the son is merely to repel him, which is lawful; for if a Muslim were to draw his sword with a design of killing his son, in such a way that the son is unable to repel him but by killing him, it is then lawful for the son to slay his father, because his design is merely repulsion. In a case, therefore, where the father is an infidel, and attempts to slay his son, it is lawful for the son to slay the father in self-defence à fort i or i . “If the Imām make peace with aliens, or with any particular tribe or body of them, and perceive it to be eligible for the Muslims, there need be no hesitation, because it is said in the Qurʾān: ‘If the infidels be inclined to peace do ye likewise consent thereto,’ and also because the Prophet in the year of the punishment of Eubea, made a peace between the Muslims and the people of Mecca for the space of ten years; peace, moreover is war in effect where the interest of the Muslims requires it, since the design of war is the removal of evil, and this is obtained by means of peace: contrary to where peace is not to the interest of the Muslims, for it is not in that case lawful, as this would be abandoning war both apparently and in effect. It is here, however, proper to observe that it is not absolutely nece ary to restrict a peace to the term above recorded (namely, ten years), because the end for which peace is made may be sometimes more effectually obtained by extending it to a longer term. If the Imām make peace with the aliens for a single term (namely, ten years), and afterwards perceive that it is most advantageous for the Muslim’s interest to break it, he may in that case lawfully renew the war after giving them due notice, because, upon a change of the circumstances which rendered peace advisable, the breach of peace is war, and the observance of it a desertion of war, both in appearance and also in effect, and war is an ordinance of God, and the forsaking of it is not becoming (to Muslims). It is to be observed that giving due notice to the enemy is in this case indispensably requisite in such a manner that treachery may not be induced, since this is forbidden. It is also requisite that such a delay be made in renewing the war with them, as may allow intelligence of the peace being broken off to be universally received among them, and for this such a time suffices as may admit of the king or chief of the enemy communicating the same to the different parts of their dominion, since by such a delay the charge of treachery is avoided. “If the infidels act with perfidy in a peace, it is in such case lawful for the Imām to attack them without any previous notice, since the breach of treaty in this instance originates with them, whence there is no occasion to commence the war on the part of the Muslims by giving them notice. It would be otherwise, however, if only a small party of them were to violate the treaty by entering the Muslim territory and there committing robberies upon the Muslims, since this does not amount to a breach of treaty. If, moreover, this party be in force so as to be capable of opposition, and openly fight with the Muslims, this is a breach of treaty with respect to that party only, but not with respect to the rest of their nation or tribe, because, as this party have violated the treaty without any permi ion from their prince, the rest are not answerable for their act; whereas if they made their attack by permi ion of their prince, the breach of treaty would be regarded as by the whole, all being virtually implicated in it. “If the Imām make peace with the aliens in return for property, there is no scruple; because since peace may be lawfully made without any such gratification, it is also lawful in return for a gratification. This, however, is only where the Muslims stand in need of the property thus to be acquired; for if they be not in nece ity, making peace for property is not lawful, since peace is a desertion of war both in appearance and in effect. It is to be observed that if the Imām receive this property by sending a me enger and making peace without the Muslim troops entering the enemy’s territory, the object of disbursement of it is the same as that of jizyah or capitation-tax; that is, it is to be expended upon the warriors and not upon the poor. If, however, the property be taken after the Muslims have invaded the enemy, in this case it is as plunder, one-fifth going to the Imām and the remainder to be divided among the troops, as the property has in fact been taken by force in this instance. It is incumbent on the Imām to keep peace with apostates, and not to make war upon them, in order that they may have time to consider their situation, since it is to be hoped that they may again return to the faith. It is, therefore, lawful to delay fighting with them in a hope that they may again embrace Islām; but it is not lawful to take property from them. If, however, the Imām should take property from them, it is not incumbent upon him to return it, as such property is not in protection. If infidels hara the Muslims, and offer them peace in return for property, the Imām must not accede thereto, as this would be a degradation of the Muslim honour, and disgrace would be attached to all the parties concerned in it; this, therefore, is not lawful except where destruction is to be apprehended, in which case the purchasing a peace with property is lawful, because it is a duty to repel destruction in every po ible mode.” [For K͟halīfah ʿUmar’s treatment of the garrison of Jerusalem when captured, see the treaty given in the article JERUSALEM .] JIHĀZ ( جهاز‎ ). (1) The wedding trou eau of a Muḥammadan wife. Those vestments and furniture which a bride brings to her husband’s house, and which ever remain the property of the wife. ( Hidāyah , vol. iii. p. 100.) (2) The word is also used for the shroud of a dead Muslim. JINĀYAH ( جناية‎ ), pl. Jināyāt . The legal term for all offences committed against the person, such as murder, wounding, drowning, . JINN ( جن‎ ). [ GENII .] JĪRĀN ( جيران‎ ). “Neighbours.” “If a person make a bequest to his neighbours ( jīrān ) it includes, according to some doctors, all those houses which are within forty cubits of his house in every direction. Some say it is forty houses on either side of his.” (See Baillie’s Digest of Imāmīyah Law , pp. 216, 246.) [ NEIGHBOURS .] JIRJĪS ( جرجيس‎ ). George. St. George of England. The author of the G͟hiyās̤u ʾl-Lug͟hah says that, “ Jirjīs Bāqiyā is the name of a prophet who was on several occasions killed by his people, and was again raised to life by God, and over and over again instructed and preached the way of God. He is called Bāqiyā on account of his being raised up from the dead.” This seems to be a wild and exaggerated account of the story of George of Cappadocia, who suffered death in the first year of the reign of Julian. It is a mystery how this George ever was admitted into the Christian Calendar at all, and still more marvellous how he became a Muḥammadan prophet as well as the patron saint of England. Jalālu ʾd-dīn as-Suyūt̤ī, in his History of the Temple of Jerusalem , says Jirjīs was at Damascus in the time of Muʿāwiyah the K͟halīfah. [ AL-KHIZR .] JIZYAH ( جزية‎ ). The capitation tax, which is levied by Muḥammadan rulers upon subjects who are of a different faith, but claim protection ( amān ). It is founded upon a direct injunction of the Qurʾān: “Make war upon such of those, to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God or in the last day, and forbid not that which God and his Apostles have forbidden, and who profe not the profe ion of truth, until they pay tribute ( jizyah ) out of their hand, and they be humbled.” According to the Hidāyah (vol. ii. p. 211), jizyah is of two kinds: that which is established voluntarily, and that which is enforced. The usual rate is one dīnār for every male person, females and children being exempt according to Abū Ḥanīfah, but included by Ash-Shāfiʿī. It should be imposed upon Jews, and Christians, and Magians, but it should not be accepted from the Arabian idolators, or from apostates, who should be killed. But from idolators of other countries than Arabia it may be accepted. It should not be levied upon monks, or hermits, or paupers, or slaves. He who pays the capitation tax and obtains protection from the Muḥammadan state is called a ẕimmī .