Chapter X: From the Mongol Invasion to the Present Day (1)

[Sidenote: General characteristics of the period.]

Before proceeding to speak of the terrible catastrophe which filled the whole of Western Asia with ruin and desolation, I may offer a few preliminary remarks concerning the general character of the period which we shall briefly survey in this final chapter. It forms, one must admit, a melancholy conclusion to a glorious history. The Caliphate, which symbolised the supremacy of the Prophet's people, is swept away. Mongols, Turks, Persians, all in turn build up great Muḥammadan empires, but the Arabs have lost even the shadow of a leading part and appear only as subordinate actors on a provincial stage. The chief centres of Arabian life, such as it is, are henceforth Syria and Egypt, which were held by the Turkish Mamelukes until 1517 A.D., when they passed under Ottoman rule. In North Africa the petty Berber dynasties (Ḥafṣids, Ziyánids, and Marínids) gave place in the sixteenth century to the Ottoman Turks. Only in Spain, where the Naṣrids of Granada survived until 1492 A.D., in Morocco, where the Sharífs (descendants of ‘Alí b. Abí Ṭálib) assumed the sovereignty in 1544 A.D., and to some extent in Arabia itself, did the Arabs preserve their political independence. In such circumstances it would be vain to look for any large developments of literature and culture worthy to rank with those of the past. This is an age of imitation and compilation. Learned men abound, whose erudition embraces every subject under the sun. The mass of writing shows no visible diminution, and much of it is valuable and meritorious work. But with one or two conspicuous exceptions--_e.g._ the historian Ibn Khaldún and the mystic Sha‘rání--we cannot point to any new departure, any fruitful ideas, any trace of original and illuminating thought. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries "witnessed the rise and triumph of that wonderful movement known as the Renaissance,... but no ripple of this great upheaval, which changed the whole current of intellectual and moral life in the West, reached the shores of Islam."[817] Until comparatively recent times, when Egypt and Syria first became open to European civilisation, the Arab retained his mediæval outlook and habit of mind, and was in no respect more enlightened than his forefathers who lived under the ‘Abbásid Caliphate. And since the Mongol Invasion I am afraid we must say that instead of advancing farther along the old path he was being forced back by the inevitable pressure of events. East of the Euphrates the Mongols did their work of destruction so thoroughly that no seeds were left from which a flourishing civilisation could arise; and, moreover, the Arabic language was rapidly extinguished by the Persian. In Spain, as we have seen, the power of the Arabs had already begun to decline; Africa was dominated by the Berbers, a rude, unlettered race, Egypt and Syria by the blighting military despotism of the Turks. Nowhere in the history of this period can we discern either of the two elements which are most productive of literary greatness: the quickening influence of a higher culture or the inspiration of a free and vigorous national life.[818]

[Sidenote: The Mongol Invasion.]

Between the middle of the eleventh century and the end of the fourteenth the nomad tribes dwelling beyond the Oxus burst over Western Asia in three successive waves. First came the Seljúq Turks, then the Mongols under Chingíz Khan and Húlágú, then the hordes, mainly Turkish, of Tímúr. Regarding the Seljúqs all that is necessary for our purpose has been said in a former chapter. The conquests of Tímúr are a frightful episode which I may be pardoned for omitting from this history, inasmuch as their permanent results (apart from the enormous damage which they inflicted) were inconsiderable; and although the Indian empire of the Great Moguls, which Bábur, a descendant of Tímúr, established in the first half of the sixteenth century, ran a prosperous and brilliant course, its culture was borrowed almost exclusively from Persian models and does not come within the scope of the present work. We shall, therefore, confine our view to the second wave of the vast Asiatic migration, which bore the Mongols, led by Chingíz Khan and Húlágú, from the steppes of China and Tartary to the Mediterranean.

[Sidenote: Chingíz Khan and Húlágú.]

In 1219 A.D. Chingíz Khan, having consolidated his power in the Far East, turned his face westward and suddenly advanced into Transoxania, which at that time formed a province of the wide dominions of the Sháhs of Khwárizm (Khiva). The reigning monarch, ‘Alá’u ’l-Dín Muḥammad, was unable to make an effective resistance; and notwithstanding that his son, the gallant Jalálu ’l-Dín, carried on a desperate guerilla for twelve years, the invaders swarmed over Khurásán and Persia, massacring the panic-stricken inhabitants wholesale and leaving a wilderness behind them. Hitherto Baghdád had not been seriously threatened, but on the first day of January, 1256 A.D.--an epoch-marking date--Húlágú, the grandson of Chingíz Khan, crossed the Oxus, with the intention of occupying the ‘Abbásid capital. I translate the following narrative from a manuscript in my possession of the _Ta’ríkh al-Khamís_ by Diyárbakrí († 1574 A.D.):--

[Sidenote: Húlágú before Baghdád (1258 A.D.).]

[Sidenote: Sack of Baghdád.]

In the year 654 (A.H. = 1256 A.D.) the stubborn tyrant, Húlágú, the
destroyer of the nations (_Mubídu ’l-Umam_), set forth and took the
castle of Alamút from the Ismá‘ílís[819] and slew them and laid
waste the lands of Rayy.... And in the year 655 there broke out at
Baghdád a fearful riot between the Sunnís and the Shí‘ites, which
led to great plunder and destruction of property. A number of
Shí‘ites were killed, and this so incensed and infuriated the Vizier
Ibnu ’l-‘Alqami that he encouraged the Tartars to invade ‘Iráq, by
which means he hoped to take ample vengeance on the Sunnís.[820] And
in the beginning of the year 656 the tyrant Húlágú b. Túlí b.
Chingíz Khán, the Moghul, arrived at Baghdád with his army,
including the Georgians (_al-Kurj_) and the troops of Mosul. The
Dawídár[821] marched out of the city and met Húlágú's vanguard,
which was commanded by Bájú.[822] The Moslems, being few, suffered
defeat; whereupon Bájú advanced and pitched his camp to the west of
Baghdád, while Húlágú took up a position on the eastern side. Then
the Vizier Ibnu ’l-‘Alqamí said to the Caliph Musta‘ṣim Billáh: "I
will go to the Supreme Khán to arrange peace." So the hound[823]
went and obtained security for himself, and on his return said to
the Caliph: "The Khán desires to marry his daughter to your son and
to render homage to you, like the Seljúq kings, and then to depart."
Musta‘ṣim set out, attended by the nobles of his court and the
grandees of his time, in order to witness the contract of marriage.
The whole party were beheaded except the Caliph, who was trampled to
death. The Tartars entered Baghdád and distributed themselves in
bands throughout the city. For thirty-four days the sword was never
sheathed. Few escaped. The slain amounted to 1,800,000 and more.
Then quarter was called.... Thus it is related in the _Duwalu
’l-Islám_.[824]... And on this wise did the Caliphate pass from
Baghdád. As the poet sings:--

"_Khalati ’l-manábiru wa-’l-asirralu minhumú
wa-‘alayhimú hatta ’l-mamáti salámú._"

"_The pulpits and the thrones are empty of them;
I bid them, till the hour of death, farewell!_"

[Sidenote: Battle of ‘Ayn Jálút (September, 1260 A.D.).]

[Sidenote: Arabic ceases to be the language of the whole Moslem world.]

It seemed as if all Muḥammadan Asia lay at the feet of the pagan conqueror. Resuming his advance, Húlágú occupied Mesopotamia and sacked Aleppo. He then returned to the East, leaving his lieutenant, Ketboghá, to complete the reduction of Syria. Meanwhile, however, an Egyptian army under the Mameluke Sultan Muẓaffar Quṭuz was hastening to oppose the invaders. On Friday, the 25th of Ramaḍán, 658 A.H., a decisive battle was fought at ‘Ayn Jálút (Goliath's Spring), west of the Jordan. The Tartars were routed with immense slaughter, and their subsequent attempts to wrest Syria from the Mamelukes met with no success. The submission of Asia Minor was hardly more than nominal, but in Persia the descendants of Húlágú, the Íl-Kháns, reigned over a great empire, which the conversion of one of their number, Gházán (1295-1304 A.D.), restored to Moslem rule. We are not concerned here with the further history of the Mongols in Persia nor with that of the Persians themselves. Since the days of Húlágú the lands east and west of the Tigris are separated by an ever-widening gulf. The two races--Persians and Arabs--to whose co-operation the mediæval world, from Samarcand to Seville, for a long time owed its highest literary and scientific culture, have now finally dissolved their partnership. It is true that the cleavage began many centuries earlier, and before the fall of Baghdád the Persian genius had already expressed itself in a splendid national literature. But from this date onward the use of Arabic by Persians is practically limited to theological and philosophical writings. The Persian language has driven its rival out of the field. Accordingly Egypt and Syria will now demand the principal share of our attention, more especially as the history of the Arabs of Granada, which properly belongs to this period, has been related in the preceding chapter.

[Sidenote: The Mamelukes of Egypt (1250-1517 A.D.).]

[Sidenote: Sultan Baybars (1260-1277 A.D.).]

[Sidenote: The ‘Abbásid Caliphs of Egypt.]

The dynasty of the Mameluke[825] Sultans of Egypt was founded in 1250 A.D. by Aybak, a Turkish slave, who commenced his career in the service of the Ayyúbid, Malik Ṣáliḥ Najmu ’l-Dín. His successors[826] held sway in Egypt and Syria until the conquest of these countries by the Ottomans. The Mamelukes were rough soldiers, who seldom indulged in any useless refinement, but they had a royal taste for architecture, as the visitor to Cairo may still see. Their administration, though disturbed by frequent mutinies and murders, was tolerably prosperous on the whole, and their victories over the Mongol hosts, as well as the crushing blows which they dealt to the Crusaders, gave Islam new prestige. The ablest of them all was Baybars, who richly deserved his title Malik al-Ẓáhir, _i.e._, the Victorious King. His name has passed into the legends of the people, and his warlike exploits into romances written in the vulgar dialect which are recited by story-tellers to this day.[827] The violent and brutal acts which he sometimes committed--for he shrank from no crime when he suspected danger--made him a terror to the ambitious nobles around him, but did not harm his reputation as a just ruler. Although he held the throne in virtue of having murdered the late monarch with his own hand, he sought to give the appearance of legitimacy to his usurpation. He therefore recognised as Caliph a certain Abu ’l-Qásim Aḥmad, a pretended scion of the ‘Abbásid house, invited him to Cairo, and took the oath of allegiance to him in due form. The Caliph on his part invested the Sultan with sovereignty over Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and all the provinces that he might obtain by future conquests. This Aḥmad, entitled al-Mustanṣir, was the first of a long series of mock Caliphs who were appointed by the Mameluke Sultans and generally kept under close surveillance in the citadel of Cairo. There is no authority for the statement, originally made by Mouradgea d'Ohsson in 1787 and often repeated since, that the last of the line bequeathed his rights of succession to the Ottoman Sultan Selím I, thus enabling the Sultans of Turkey to claim the title and dignity of Caliph.[828]

[Sidenote: Arabic poetry after the Mongol Invasion.]

[Sidenote: Ṣafiyyu ’l-Dín al-Ḥillí.]

The poets of this period are almost unknown in Europe, and until they have been studied with due attention it would be premature to assert that none of them rises above mediocrity. At the same time my own impression (based, I confess, on a very desultory and imperfect acquaintance with their work) is that the best among them are merely elegant and accomplished artists, playing brilliantly with words and phrases, but doing little else. No doubt extreme artificiality may coexist with poetical genius of a high order, provided that it has behind it Mutanabbí's power, Ma‘arrí's earnestness, or Ibnu ’l-Fáriḍ's enthusiasm. In the absence of these qualities we must be content to admire the technical skill with which the old tunes are varied and revived. Let us take, for example, Ṣafiyyu ’l-Dín al-Ḥillí, who was born at Ḥilla, a large town on the Euphrates, in 1278 A.D., became laureate of the Urtuqid dynasty at Máridín, and died in Baghdád about 1350. He is described as "the poet of his age absolutely," and to judge from the extracts in Kutubí's _Fawátu ’l-Wafayát_[829] he combined subtlety of fancy with remarkable ease and sweetness of versification. Many of his pieces, however, are _jeux d'esprit_, like his ode to the Prophet, in which he employs 151 rhetorical figures, or like another poem where all the nouns are diminutives.[830] The following specimen of his work is too brief to do him justice:--

"How can I have patience, and thou, mine eye's delight,
All the livelong year not one moment in my sight?
And with what can I rejoice my heart, when thou that art a joy
Unto every human heart, from me hast taken flight?
I swear by Him who made thy form the envy of the sun
(So graciously He clad thee with lovely beams of light):
The day when I behold thy beauty doth appear to me
As tho' it gleamed on Time's dull brow a constellation bright.
O thou scorner of my passion, for whose sake I count as naught
All the woe that I endure, all the injury and despite,
Come, regard the ways of God! for never He at life's last gasp
Suffereth the weight to perish even of one mite!"[831]

[Sidenote: Popular poetry.]

We have already referred to the folk-songs (_muwashshaḥ_ and _zajal_) which originated in Spain. These simple ballads, with their novel metres and incorrect language, were despised by the classical school, that is to say, by nearly all Moslems with any pretensions to learning; but their popularity was such that even the court poets occasionally condescended to write in this style. To the _zajal_ and _muwashshaḥ_ we may add the _dúbayt_, the _mawáliyyá_, the _kánwakán_, and the _ḥimáq_, which together with verse of the regular form made up the 'seven kinds of poetry' (_al-funún al-sab‘a_). Ṣafiyyu ’l-Dín al-Ḥillí, who wrote a special treatise on the Arabic folk-songs, mentions two other varieties which, he says, were invented by the people of Baghdád to be sung in the early dawn of Ramaḍán, the Moslem Lent.[832] It is interesting to observe that some few literary men attempted, though in a timid fashion, to free Arabic poetry from the benumbing academic system by which it was governed and to pour fresh life into its veins. A notable example of this tendency is the _Hazzu ’l-Quḥúf_[833] by Shirbíní, who wrote in 1687 A.D. Here we have a poem in the vulgar dialect of Egypt, but what is still more curious, the author, while satirising the uncouth manners and rude language of the peasantry, makes a bitter attack on the learning and morals of the Muḥammadan divines.[834] For this purpose he introduces a typical Fellah named Abú Shádúf, whose rôle corresponds to that of Piers the Plowman in Longland's _Vision_. Down to the end of the nineteenth century, at any rate, such isolated offshoots had not gone far to found a living school of popular poetry. Only the future can show whether the Arabs are capable of producing a genius who will succeed in doing for the national folk-songs what Burns did for the Scots ballads.

[Sidenote: Ibn Khallikán (1211-1282 A.D.).]

Biography and History were cultivated with ardour by the savants of Egypt and Syria. Among the numerous compositions of this kind we can have no hesitation in awarding the place of honour to the _Wafayátu ’l-A‘yán_, or 'Obituaries of Eminent Men,' by Shamsu ’l-Dín Ibn Khallikán, a work which has often been quoted in the foregoing pages. The author belonged to a distinguished family descending from Yaḥyá b. Khálid the Barmecide (see p. 259 seq.), and was born at Arbela in 1211 A.D. He received his education at Aleppo and Damascus (1229-1238) and then proceeded to Cairo, where he finished the first draft of his Biographical Dictionary in 1256. Five years later he was appointed by Sultan Baybars to be Chief Cadi of Syria. He retained this high office (with a seven years' interval, which he devoted to literary and biographical studies) until a short time before his death. In the Preface to the _Wafayát_ Ibn Khallikán observes that he has adopted the alphabetical order as more convenient than the chronological. As regards the scope and character of his Dictionary, he says:--

[Sidenote: His Biographical Dictionary.]

"I have not limited my work to the history of any one particular
class of persons, as learned men, princes, emirs, viziers, or poets;
but I have spoken of all those whose names are familiar to the
public, and about whom questions are frequently asked; I have,
however, related the facts I could ascertain respecting them in a
concise manner, lest my work should become too voluminous; I have
fixed with all possible exactness the dates of their birth and
death; I have traced up their genealogy as high as I could; I have
marked the orthography of those names which are liable to be written
incorrectly; and I have cited the traits which may best serve to
characterise each individual, such as noble actions, singular
anecdotes, verses and letters, so that the reader may derive
amusement from my work, and find it not exclusively of such a
uniform cast as would prove tiresome; for the most effectual
inducement to reading a book arises from the variety of its
style."[835]

Ibn Khallikan might have added that he was the first Muḥammadan writer to design a Dictionary of National Biography, since none of his predecessors had thought of comprehending the lives of eminent Moslems of every class in a single work.[836] The merits of the book have been fully recognised by the author's countrymen as well as by European scholars. It is composed in simple and elegant language, it is extremely accurate, and it contains an astonishing quantity of miscellaneous historical and literary information, not drily catalogued but conveyed in the most pleasing fashion by anecdotes and excerpts which illustrate every department of Moslem life. I am inclined to agree with the opinion of Sir William Jones, that it is the best general biography ever written; and allowing for the difference of scale and scope, I think it will bear comparison with a celebrated English work which it resembles in many ways--I mean Boswell's _Johnson_.[837]

[Sidenote: Historians of the Mameluke period.]

[Sidenote: Maqrízí.]

To give an adequate account of the numerous and talented historians of the Mameluke period would require far more space than they can reasonably claim in a review of this kind. Concerning Ibn Khaldún, who held a professorship as well as the office of Cadi in Cairo under Sultan Barqúq (1382-1398 A.D.), we have already spoken at some length. This extraordinary genius discovered principles and methods which might have been expected to revolutionise historical science, but neither was he himself capable of carrying them into effect nor, as the event proved, did they inspire his successors to abandon the path of tradition. I cannot imagine any more decisive symptom of the intellectual lethargy in which Islam was now sunk, or any clearer example of the rule that even the greatest writers struggle in vain against the spirit of their own times. There were plenty of learned men, however, who compiled local and universal histories. Considering the precious materials which their industry has preserved for us, we should rather admire these diligent and erudite authors than complain of their inability to break away from the established mode. Perhaps the most famous among them is Taqiyyu ’l-Dín al-Maqrízí (1364-1442 A.D.). A native of Cairo, he devoted himself to Egyptian history and antiquities, on which subject he composed several standard works, such as the _Khiṭaṭ_[838] and the _Sulúk_.[839] Although he was both unconscientious and uncritical, too often copying without acknowledgment or comment, and indulging in wholesale plagiarism when it suited his purpose, these faults which are characteristic of his age may easily be excused. "He has accumulated and reduced to a certain amount of order a large quantity of information that would but for him have passed into oblivion. He is generally painstaking and accurate, and always resorts to contemporary evidence if it is available. Also he has a pleasant and lucid style, and writes without bias and apparently with distinguished impartiality."[840] Other well-known works belonging to this epoch are the _Fakhrí_ of Ibnu ’l-Ṭiqṭaqá, a delightful manual of Muḥammadan politics[841] which was written at Mosul in 1302 A.D.; the epitome of universal history by Abu ’l-Fidá, Prince of Ḥamát († 1331); the voluminous Chronicle of Islam by Dhahabí († 1348); the high-flown Biography of Tímúr entitled _‘Ajá’ibu ’l-Maqdúr_, or 'Marvels of Destiny,' by Ibn ‘Arabsháh († 1450); and the _Nujúm al-Záhira_ ('Resplendent Stars') by Abu ’l-Maḥásin b. Taghríbirdí († 1469), which contains the annals of Egypt under the Moslems. The political and literary history of Muḥammadan Spain by Maqqarí of Tilimsán († 1632) was mentioned in the last chapter.[842]

[Sidenote: Jalálu ’l-Dín al-Suyúṭí (1445-1505 A.D.).]

If we were asked to select a single figure who should exhibit as completely as possible in his own person the literary tendencies of the Alexandrian age of Arabic civilisation, our choice would assuredly fall on Jalálu ’l-Dín al-Suyúṭí, who was born at Suyúṭ (Usyúṭ) in Upper Egypt in 1445 A.D. His family came originally from Persia, but, like Dhahabí, Ibn Taghríbirdí, and many celebrated writers of this time, he had, through his mother, an admixture of Turkish blood. At the age of five years and seven months, when his father died, the precocious boy had already reached the _Súratu ’l-Taḥrím_ (Súra of Forbidding), which is the sixty-sixth chapter of the Koran, and he knew the whole volume by heart before he was eight years old. He prosecuted his studies under the most renowned masters in every branch of Moslem learning, and on finishing his education held one Professorship after another at Cairo until 1501, when he was deprived of his post in consequence of malversation of the bursary monies in his charge. He died four years later in the islet of Rawḍa on the Nile, whither he had retired under the pretence of devoting the rest of his life to God. We possess the titles of more than five hundred separate works which he composed. This number would be incredible but for the fact that many of them are brief pamphlets displaying the author's curious erudition on all sorts of abstruse subjects--_e.g._, whether the Prophet wore trousers, whether his turban had a point, and whether his parents are in Hell or Paradise. Suyúṭí's indefatigable pen travelled over an immense field of knowledge--Koran, Tradition, Law, Philosophy and History, Philology and Rhetoric. Like some of the old Alexandrian scholars, he seems to have taken pride in a reputation for polygraphy, and his enemies declared that he made free with other men's books, which he used to alter slightly and then give out as his own. Suyúṭí, on his part, laid before the Shaykhu ’l-Islám a formal accusation of plagiarism against Qasṭallání, an eminent contemporary divine. We are told that his vanity and arrogance involved him in frequent quarrels, and that he was 'cut' by his learned brethren. Be this as it may, he saw what the public wanted. His compendious and readable handbooks were famed throughout the Moslem world, as he himself boasts, from India to Morocco, and did much to popularise the scientific culture of the day. It will be enough to mention here the _Itqán_ on Koranic exegesis; the _Tafsíru ’l-Jalálayn_, or 'Commentary on the Koran by the two Jaláls,' which was begun by Jalálu ’l-Dín al-Maḥallí and finished by his namesake, Suyúṭí; the _Muzhir_ (_Mizhar_), a treatise on philology; the _Ḥusnu ’l-Muḥáḍara_, a history of Old and New Cairo; and the _Ta’ríkhu ’l-Khulafá_, or 'History of the Caliphs.'

[Sidenote: Other scholars of the period.]

To dwell longer on the literature of this period would only be to emphasise its scholastic and unoriginal character. A passing mention, however, is due to the encyclopædists Nuwayrí († 1332), author of the _Niháyatu ’l-Arab_, and Ibnu ’l-Wardí († 1349). Ṣafadí († 1363) compiled a gigantic biographical dictionary, the _Wáfí bi ’l-Wafayát_, in twenty-six volumes, and the learned traditionist, Ibn Ḥajar of Ascalon († 1449), has left a large number of writings, among which it will be sufficient to name the _Iṣába fí tamyíz al-Ṣaḥába_, or Lives of the Companions of the Prophet.[843] We shall conclude this part of our subject by enumerating a few celebrated works which may be described in modern terms as standard text-books for the Schools and Universities of Islam. Amidst the host of manuals of Theology and Jurisprudence, with their endless array of abridgments, commentaries, and supercommentaries, possibly the best known to European students are those by Abu ’l-Barakát al-Nasafí († 1310), ‘Aḍudu ’l-Dín al-Íjí († 1355), Sídí Khalíl al-Jundí († 1365), Taftázání († 1389), Sharíf al-Jurjání († 1413), and Muḥammad b. Yúsuf al-Sanúsí († 1486). For Philology and Lexicography we have the _Alfiyya_, a versified grammar by Ibn Málik of Jaen († 1273); the _Ájurrúmiyya_ on the rudiments of grammar, an exceedingly popular compendium by Ṣanhájí († 1323); and two famous Arabic dictionaries, the _Lisánu ’l-‘Arab_ by Jamálu ’l-Dín Ibn Mukarram († 1311), and the _Qámús_ by Fírúzábádí († 1414). Nor, although he was a Turk, should we leave unnoticed the great bibliographer Ḥájjí Khalífa († 1658), whose _Kashfu ’l-Ẓunún_ contains the titles, arranged alphabetically, of all the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish books of which the existence was known to him.

[Sidenote: The 'Thousand and One Nights.']

The Mameluke period gave final shape to the _Alf Layla wa-Layla_, or 'Thousand and One Nights,' a work which is far more popular in Europe than the Koran or any other masterpiece of Arabic literature. The modern title, 'Arabian Nights,' tells only a part of the truth. Mas‘údí († 956 A.D.) mentions an old Persian book, the _Hazár Afsána_ ('Thousand Tales') which "is generally called the Thousand and One Nights; it is the story of the King and his Vizier, and of the Vizier's daughter and her slave-girl: Shírázád and Dínázád."[844] The author of the _Fihrist_, writing in 988 A.D., begins his chapter "concerning the Story-Tellers and the Fabulists and the names of the books which they composed" with the following passage (p. 304):--

[Sidenote: Persian origin of the 'Thousand and One Nights.']

[Sidenote: The _Hazár Afsán_.]

"The first who composed fables and made books of them and put them
by in treasuries and sometimes introduced animals as speaking them
were the Ancient Persians. Afterwards the Parthian kings, who form
the third dynasty of the kings of Persia, showed the utmost zeal in
this matter. Then in the days of the Sásánian kings such books
became numerous and abundant, and the Arabs translated them into the
Arabic tongue, and they soon reached the hands of philologists and
rhetoricians, who corrected and embellished them and composed other
books in the same style. Now the first book ever made on this
subject was the Book of the Thousand Tales (_Hazár Afsán_), on the
following occasion: A certain king of Persia used to marry a woman
for one night and kill her the next morning. And he wedded a wise
and clever princess, called Shahrázád, who began to tell him stories
and brought the tale at daybreak to a point that induced the king to
spare her life and ask her on the second night to finish her tale.
So she continued until a thousand nights had passed, and she was
blessed with a son by him.... And the king had a stewardess
(_qahramána_) named Dínárzád, who was in league with the queen. It
is also said that this book was composed for Ḥumání, the daughter
of Bahman, and there are various traditions concerning it. The
truth, if God will, is that Alexander (the Great) was the first who
heard stories by night, and he had people to make him laugh and
divert him with tales; although he did not seek amusement therein,
but only to store and preserve them (in his memory). The kings who
came after him used the 'Thousand Tales' (_Hazár Afsán_) for this
purpose. It covers a space of one thousand nights, but contains less
than two hundred stories, because the telling of a single story
often takes several nights. I have seen the complete work more than
once, and it is indeed a vulgar, insipid book (_kitábun ghaththun
báridu ’l-hadíth_).[845]

Abu ‘Abdalláh Muḥammad b. ‘Abdús al-Jahshiyárí († 942-943 A.D.),
the author of the 'Book of Viziers,' began to compile a book in
which he selected one thousand stories of the Arabs, the Persians,
the Greeks, and other peoples, every piece being independent and
unconnected with the rest. He gathered the story-tellers round him
and took from them the best of what they knew and were able to tell,
and he chose out of the fable and story-books whatever pleased him.
He was a skilful craftsman, so he put together from this material
480 nights, each night an entire story of fifty pages, more or less,
but death surprised him before he completed the thousand tales as he
had intended."

[Sidenote: Different sources of the collection.]

Evidently, then, the _Hazár Afsán_ was the kernel of the 'Arabian Nights,' and it is probable that this Persian archetype included the most finely imaginative tales in the existing collection, _e.g._, the 'Fisherman and the Genie,' 'Camaralzamán and Budúr,' and the 'Enchanted Horse.' As time went on, the original stock received large additions which may be divided into two principal groups, both Semitic in character: the one belonging to Baghdád and consisting mainly of humorous anecdotes and love romances in which the famous Caliph 'Haroun Alraschid' frequently comes on the scene; the other having its centre in Cairo, and marked by a roguish, ironical pleasantry as well as by the mechanic supernaturalism which is perfectly illustrated in 'Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp.' But, apart from these three sources, the 'Arabian Nights' has in the course of centuries accumulated and absorbed an immense number of Oriental folk-tales of every description, equally various in origin and style. The oldest translation by Galland (Paris, 1704-1717) is a charming paraphrase, which in some respects is more true to the spirit of the original than are the scholarly renderings of Lane and Burton.

[Sidenote: The 'Romance of ‘Antar.']

The 'Romance of ‘Antar' (_Síratu ‘Antar_) is traditionally ascribed to the great philologist, Aṣma‘í,[846] who flourished in the reign of Hárún al-Rashíd, but this must be considered as an invention of the professional reciters who sit in front of Oriental cafés and entertain the public with their lively declamations.[847] According to Brockelmann, the work in its present form apparently dates from the time of the Crusades.[848] Its hero is the celebrated heathen poet and warrior, ‘Antara b. Shaddád, of whom we have already given an account as author of one of the seven _Mu‘allaqát_. Though the Romance exhibits all the anachronisms and exaggerations of popular legend, it does nevertheless portray the unchanging features of Bedouin life with admirable fidelity and picturesqueness. Von Hammer, whose notice in the _Mines de l'Orient_ (1802) was the means of introducing the _Síratu ‘Antar_ to European readers, justly remarks that it cannot be translated in full owing to its portentous length. It exists in two recensions called respectively the Arabian (_Ḥijáziyya_) and the Syrian (_Shámiyya_), the latter being very much curtailed.[849]

[Sidenote: Orthodoxy and mysticism.]

While the decadent state of Arabic literature during all these centuries was immediately caused by unfavourable social and political conditions, the real source of the malady lay deeper, and must, I think, be referred to the spiritual paralysis which had long been creeping over Islam and which manifested itself by the complete victory of the Ash‘arites or Scholastic Theologians about 1200 A.D. Philosophy and Rationalism were henceforth as good as dead. Two parties remained in possession of the field--the orthodox and the mystics. The former were naturally intolerant of anything approaching to free-thought, and in their principle of _ijmá‘_, _i.e._, the consensus of public opinion (which was practically controlled by themselves), they found a potent weapon against heresy. How ruthlessly they sometimes used it we may see from the following passage in the _Yawáqít_ of Sha‘rání. After giving instances of the persecution to which the Ṣúfís of old--Báyazíd, Dhú ’l-Nún, and others--were subjected by their implacable enemies, the _‘Ulamá_, he goes on to speak of what had happened more recently[850]:--

[Sidenote: Persecution of heretics.]

"They brought the Imám Abú Bakr al-Nábulusí, notwithstanding his
merit and profound learning and rectitude in religion, from the
Maghrib to Egypt and testified that he was a heretic (_zindíq_). The
Sultan gave orders that he should be suspended by his feet and
flayed alive. While the sentence was being carried out, he began to
recite the Koran with such an attentive and humble demeanour that he
moved the hearts of the people, and they were near making a riot.
And likewise they caused Nasímí to be flayed at Aleppo.[851] When he
silenced them by his arguments, they devised a plan for his
destruction, thus: They wrote the _Súratu ’l-Ikhláṣ_[852] on a
piece of paper and bribed a cobbler of shoes, saying to him, 'It
contains only love and pleasantness, so place it inside the sole of
the shoe.' Then they took that shoe and sent it from a far distance
as a gift to the Shaykh (Nasímí), who put it on, for he knew not.
His adversaries went to the governor of Aleppo and said: 'We have
sure information that Nasímí has written, _Say, God is One_, and has
placed the writing in the sole of his shoe. If you do not believe
us, send for him and see!' The governor did as they wished. On the
production of the paper, the Shaykh resigned himself to the will of
God and made no answer to the charge, knowing well that he would be
killed on that pretext. I was told by one who studied under his
disciples that all the time when he was being flayed Nasímí was
reciting _muwashshaḥs_ in praise of the Unity of God, until he
composed five hundred verses, and that he was looking at his
executioners and smiling. And likewise they brought Shaykh Abu
’l-Ḥasan al-Shádhilí[853] from the West to Egypt and bore
witness that he was a heretic, but God delivered him from their
plots. And they accused Shaykh ‘Izzu ’l-Dín b. ‘Abd al-Salám[854] of
infidelity and sat in judgment over him on account of some
expressions in his _‘Aqída_ (Articles of Faith) and urged the Sultan
to punish him; afterwards, however, he was restored to favour. They
denounced Shaykh Táju ’l-Dín al-Subkí[855] on the same charge,
asserting that he held it lawful to drink wine and that he wore at
night the badge (_ghiyár_) of the unbelievers and the zone
(_zunnár_)[856]; and they brought him, manacled and in chains, from
Syria to Egypt."

This picture is too highly coloured. It must be admitted for the credit of the _‘Ulamá_, that they seldom resorted to violence. Islam was happily spared the horrors of an organised Inquisition. On the other hand, their authority was now so firmly established that all progress towards moral and intellectual liberty had apparently ceased, or at any rate only betrayed itself in spasmodic outbursts. Ṣúfiism in some degree represented such a movement, but the mystics shared the triumph of Scholasticism and contributed to the reaction which ensued. No longer an oppressed minority struggling for toleration, they found themselves side by side with reverend doctors on a platform broad enough to accommodate all parties, and they saw their own popular heroes turned into Saints of the orthodox Church. The compromise did not always work smoothly--in fact, there was continual friction--but on the whole it seems to have borne the strain wonderfully well. If pious souls were shocked by the lawlessness of the Dervishes, and if bigots would fain have burned the books of Ibnu ’l-‘Arabí and Ibnu ’l-Fáriḍ, the divines in general showed a disposition to suspend judgment in matters touching holy men and to regard them as standing above human criticism.

As typical representatives of the religious life of this period we may take two men belonging to widely opposite camps--Taqiyyu ’l-Dín Ibn Taymiyya and ‘Abdu ’l-Wahháb al-Sha‘rání.

[Sidenote: Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328 A.D.).]

Ibn Taymiyya was born at Ḥarrán in 1263 A.D. A few years later his father, fleeing before the Mongols, brought him to Damascus, where in due course he received an excellent education. It is said that he never forgot anything which he had once learned, and his knowledge of theology and law was so extensive as almost to justify the saying, "A tradition that Ibn Taymiyya does not recognise is no tradition." Himself a Ḥanbalite of the deepest dye--holding, in other words, that the Koran must be interpreted according to its letter and not by the light of reason--he devoted his life with rare courage to the work of religious reform. His aim, in short, was to restore the primitive monotheism taught by the Prophet and to purge Islam of the heresies and corruptions which threatened to destroy it. One may imagine what a hornet's nest he was attacking. Mystics, philosophers, and scholastic theologians, all fell alike under the lash of his denunciation. Bowing to no authority, but drawing his arguments from the traditions and practice of the early Church, he expressed his convictions in the most forcible terms, without regard to consequences. Although several times thrown into prison, he could not be muzzled for long. The climax was reached when he lifted up his voice against the superstitions of the popular faith--saint-worship, pilgrimage to holy shrines, vows, offerings, and invocations. These things, which the zealous puritan condemned as sheer idolatry, were part of a venerable cult that was hallowed by ancient custom, and had engrafted itself in luxuriant overgrowth upon Islam. The mass of Moslems believed, and still believe implicitly in the saints, accept their miracles, adore their relics, visit their tombs, and pray for their intercession. Ibn Taymiyya even declared that it was wrong to implore the aid of the Prophet or to make a pilgrimage to his sepulchre. It was a vain protest. He ended his days in captivity at Damascus. The vast crowds who attended his funeral--we are told that there were present 200,000 men and 15,000 women--bore witness to the profound respect which was universally felt for the intrepid reformer. Oddly enough, he was buried in the Cemetery of the Ṣúfís, whose doctrines he had so bitterly opposed, and the multitude revered his memory--as a saint! The principles which inspired Ibn Taymiyya did not fall to the ground, although their immediate effect was confined to a very small circle. We shall see them reappearing victoriously in the Wahhábite movement of the eighteenth century.

[Sidenote: Sha‘rání († 1565 A.D.).]

Notwithstanding the brilliant effort of Ghazálí to harmonise dogmatic theology with mysticism, it soon became clear that the two parties were in essence irreconcilable. The orthodox clergy who held fast by the authority of the Koran and the Traditions saw a grave danger to themselves in the esoteric revelation which the mystics claimed to possess; while the latter, though externally conforming to the law of Islam, looked down with contempt on the idea that true knowledge of God could be derived from theology, or from any source except the inner light of heavenly inspiration. Hence the antithesis of _faqíh_ (theologian) and _faqír_ (dervish), the one class forming a powerful official hierarchy in close alliance with the Government, whereas the Ṣúfís found their chief support among the people at large, and especially among the poor. We need not dwell further on the natural antagonism which has always existed between these rival corporations, and which is a marked feature in the modern history of Islam. It will be more instructive to spend a few moments with the last great Muḥammadan theosophist, ‘Abdu ’l-Wahháb al-Sha‘rání, a man who, with all his weaknesses, was an original thinker, and exerted an influence strongly felt to this day, as is shown by the steady demand for his books. He was born about the beginning of the sixteenth century. Concerning his outward life we have little information beyond the facts that he was a weaver by trade and resided in Cairo. At this time Egypt was a province of the Ottoman Empire. Sha‘rání contrasts the miserable lot of the peasantry under the new _régime_ with their comparative prosperity under the Mamelukes. So terrible were the exactions of the tax-gatherers that the fellah was forced to sell the whole produce of his land, and sometimes even the ox which ploughed it, in order to save himself and his family from imprisonment; and every lucrative business was crushed by confiscation. It is not to be supposed, however, that Sha‘rání gave serious attention to such sublunary matters. He lived in a world of visions and wonderful experiences. He conversed with angels and prophets, like his more famous predecessor, Muḥyi ’l-Dín Ibnu ’l-‘Arabí, whose _Meccan Revelations_ he studied and epitomised. His autobiography entitled _Laṭá’ifu ’l-Minan_ displays the hierophant in full dress. It is a record of the singular spiritual gifts and virtues with which he was endowed, and would rank as a masterpiece of shameless self-laudation, did not the author repeatedly assure us that all his extraordinary qualities are Divine blessings and are gratefully set forth by their recipient _ad majorem Dei gloriam_. We should be treating Sha‘rání very unfairly if we judged him by this work alone. The arrogant miracle-monger was one of the most learned men of his day, and could beat the scholastic theologians with their own weapons. Indeed, he regarded theology (_fiqh_) as the first step towards Ṣúfiism, and endeavoured to show that in reality they are different aspects of the same science. He also sought to harmonise the four great schools of law, whose disagreement was consecrated by the well-known saying ascribed to the Prophet: "The variance of my people is an act of Divine mercy" (_ikhtiláfu ummatí raḥmatun_). Like the Arabian Ṣúfís generally, Sha‘rání kept his mysticism within narrow bounds, and declared himself an adherent of the moderate section which follows Junayd of Baghdád († 909-910 A.D.). For all his extravagant pretensions and childish belief in the supernatural, he never lost touch with the Muḥammadan Church.

In the thirteenth century Ibn Taymiyya had tried to eradicate the abuses which obscured the simple creed of Islam. He failed, but his work was carried on by others and was crowned, after a long interval, by the Wahhábite Reformation.[857]

[Sidenote: Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahháb and his successors.]

Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahháb,[858] from whom its name is derived, was born about 1720 A.D. in Najd, the Highlands of Arabia. In his youth he visited the principal cities of the East, "as is much the practice with his countrymen even now,"[859] and what he observed in the course of his travels convinced him that Islam was thoroughly corrupt. Fired by the example of Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings he copied with his own hand,[860] Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahháb determined to re-establish the pure religion of Muḥammad in its primitive form. Accordingly he returned home and retired with his family to Ḑira‘iyya at the time when Muḥammad b. Sa‘úd was the chief personage of the town. This man became his first convert and soon after married his daughter. But it was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the Wahhábís, under ‘Abdu ’l-‘Azíz, son of Muḥammad b. Sa‘úd, gained their first great successes. In 1801 they sacked Imám-Ḥusayn,[861] a town in the vicinity of Baghdád, massacred five thousand persons, and destroyed the cupola of Ḥusayn's tomb; the veneration paid by all Shí‘ites to that shrine being, as Burckhardt says, a sufficient cause to attract the Wahhábí fury against it. Two years later they made themselves masters of the whole Ḥijáz, including Mecca and Medína. On the death of ‘Abdu ’l-‘Azíz, who was assassinated in the same year, his eldest son, Sa‘úd, continued the work of conquest and brought the greater part of Arabia under Wahhábite rule. At last, in 1811, Turkey despatched a fleet and army to recover the Holy Cities. This task was accomplished by Muḥammad ‘Alí, the Pasha of Egypt (1812-13), and after five years' hard fighting the war ended in favour of the Turks, who in 1818 inflicted a severe defeat on the Wahhábís and took their capital, Ḑira‘iyya, by storm. The sect, however, still maintains its power in Central Arabia, and in recent times has acquired political importance.

[Sidenote: The Wahhábite Reformation.]

The Wahhábís were regarded by the Turks as infidels and authors of a new religion. It was natural that they should appear in this light, for they interrupted the pilgrim-caravans, demolished the domes and ornamented tombs of the most venerable Saints (not excepting that of the Prophet himself), and broke to pieces the Black Stone in the Ka‘ba. All this they did not as innovators, but as reformers. They resembled the Carmathians only in their acts. Burckhardt says very truly: "Not a single new precept was to be found in the Wahaby code. Abd el Waháb took as his sole guide the Koran and the Sunne (or the laws formed upon the traditions of Mohammed); and the only difference between his sect and the orthodox Turks, however improperly so termed, is, that the Wahabys rigidly follow the same laws which the others neglect, or have ceased altogether to observe."[862] "The Wahhábites," says Dozy, "attacked the idolatrous worship of Mahomet; although he was in their eyes a Prophet sent to declare the will of God, he was no less a man like others, and his mortal shell, far from having mounted to heaven, rested in the tomb at Medína. Saint-worship they combated just as strongly. They proclaimed that all men are equal before God; that even the most virtuous and devout cannot intercede with Him; and that, consequently, it is a sin to invoke the Saints and to adore their relics."[863] In the same puritan spirit they forbade the smoking of tobacco, the wearing of gaudy robes, and praying over the rosary. "It has been stated that they likewise prohibited the drinking of coffee; this, however, is not the fact: they have always used it to an immoderate degree."[864]

[Sidenote: The Sanúsís in Africa.]

The Wahhábite movement has been compared with the Protestant Reformation in Europe; but while the latter was followed by the English and French Revolutions, the former has not yet produced any great political results. It has borne fruit in a general religious revival throughout the world of Islam and particularly in the mysterious Sanúsiyya Brotherhood, whose influence is supreme in Tripoli, the Sahara, and the whole North African Hinterland, and whose members are reckoned by millions. Muḥammad b. ‘Alí b. Sanúsí, the founder of this vast and formidable organisation, was born at Algiers in 1791, lived for many years at Mecca, and died at Jaghbúb in the Libyan desert, midway between Egypt and Tripoli, in 1859. Concerning the real aims of the Sanúsís I must refer the reader to an interesting paper by the Rev. E. Sell (_Essays on Islam_, p. 127 sqq.). There is no doubt that they are utterly opposed to all Western and modern civilisation, and seek to regenerate Islam by establishing an independent theocratic State on the model of that which the Prophet and his successors called into being at Medína in the seventh century after Christ.

[Sidenote: Islam and modern civilisation.]

Since Napoleon showed the way by his expedition to Egypt in 1798, the Moslems in that country, as likewise in Syria and North Africa, have come more and more under European influence.[865] The above-mentioned Muḥammad ‘Alí, who founded the Khedivial dynasty, and his successors were fully alive to the practical benefits which might be obtained from the superior culture of the West, and although their policy in this respect was marked by greater zeal than discretion, they did not exert themselves altogether in vain. The introduction of the printing-press in 1821 was an epoch-making measure. If, on the one hand, the publication of many classical works, which had well-nigh fallen into oblivion, rekindled the enthusiasm of the Arabs for their national literature, the cause of progress--I use the word without prejudice--has been furthered by the numerous political, literary, and scientific journals which are now regularly issued in every country where Arabic is spoken.[866] Besides these ephemeral sheets, books of all sorts, old and new, have been multiplied by the native and European presses of Cairo, Búláq, and Beyrout. The science and culture of Europe have been rendered accessible in translations and adaptations of which the complete list would form a volume in itself. Thus, an Arab may read in his own language the tragedies of Racine, the comedies of Molière,[867] the fables of La Fontaine, 'Paul and Virginia,' the 'Talisman,' 'Monte Cristo' (not to mention scores of minor romances), and even the Iliad of Homer.[868] Parallel to this imitative activity, we see a vigorous and growing movement away from the literary models of the past. "Neo-Arabic literature is only to a limited extent the heir of the old 'classical' Arabic literature, and even shows a tendency to repudiate its inheritance entirely. Its leaders are for the most part men who have drunk from other springs and look at the world with different eyes. Yet the past still plays a part in their intellectual background, and there is a section amongst them upon whom that past retains a hold scarcely shaken by newer influences. For many decades the partisans of the 'old' and the 'new' have engaged in a struggle for the soul of the Arabic world, a struggle in which the victory of one side over the other is even yet not assured. The protagonists are (to classify them roughly for practical purposes) the European-educated classes of Egyptians and Syrians on the one hand, and those in Egypt and the less advanced Arabic lands whose education has followed traditional lines on the other. Whatever the ultimate result may be, there can be no question that the conflict has torn the Arabic world from its ancient moorings, and that the contemporary literature of Egypt and Syria breathes in its more recent developments a spirit foreign to the old traditions."[869]

Hitherto Western culture has only touched the surface of Islam. Whether it will eventually strike deeper and penetrate the inmost barriers of that scholastic discipline and literary tradition which are so firmly rooted in the affections of the Moslem peoples, or whether it will always remain an exotic and highly-prized accomplishment of the enlightened and emancipated few, but an object of scorn and detestation to Muḥammadans in general--these are questions that may not be fully solved for centuries to come.

Meanwhile the Past affords an ample and splendid field of study.

"_Man lam ya‘i ’l-ta’ríkha fí ṣadrihí
Lam yadri ḥulwa ’l-‘ayshi min murrihi
Wa-man wa‘á akhbára man qad maḍá
Aḍáfa a‘máran ilá ‘umrihí._"

"He in whose heart no History is enscrolled
Cannot discern in life's alloy the gold.
But he that keeps the records of the Dead
Adds to his life new lives a hundredfold."

FOOTNOTES:

[1] H. Grimme, _Weltgeschichte in Karakterbildern: Mohammed_ (Munich, 1904), p. 6 sqq.

[2] _Cf._ Nöldeke, _Die Semitischen Sprachen_ (Leipzig, 1899), or the same scholar's article, 'Semitic Languages,' in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, 11th edition. Renan's _Histoire générale des langues sémitiques_ (1855) is now antiquated. An interesting essay on the importance of the Semites in the history of civilisation was published by F. Hommel as an introduction to his _Semitischen Völker und Sprachen_, vol. i (Leipzig, 1883). The dates in this table are of course only approximate.

[3] Ibn Qutayba, _Kitábu ’l-Ma‘árij_, ed. by Wüstenfeld, p. 18.

[4] Full information concerning the genealogy of the Arabs will be found in Wüstenfeld's _Genealogische Tabellen der Arabischen Stämme und Familien_ with its excellent _Register_ (Göttingen, 1852-1853).

[5] The tribes Ḑabba, Tamím, Khuzayma, Hudhayl, Asad, Kinána, and Quraysh together formed a group which is known as Khindif, and is often distinguished from Qays ‘Aylán.

[6] Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_, Part I, p. 133 sqq., 177 sqq.

[7] Nöldeke in _Z.D.M.G._, vol. 40, p. 177.

[8] See Margoliouth, _Mohammed and the Rise of Islam_, p. 4.

[9] Concerning the nature and causes of this antagonism see Goldziher, _op. cit._, Part I, p. 78 sqq.

[10] The word 'Arabic' is always to be understood in this sense wherever it occurs in the following pages.

[11] First published by Sachau in _Monatsberichte der Kön. Preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_ (February, 1881), p. 169 sqq.

[12] See De Vogüé, _Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions Sémitiques_, p. 117. Other references are given in _Z.D.M.G._, vol. 35, p. 749.

[13] On this subject the reader may consult Goldziher. _Muhammedanische Studien_, Part I, p. 110 sqq.

[14] Professor Margoliouth in _F.R.A.S._ for 1905, p. 418

[15] Nöldeke, _Die Semitischen Sprachen_, p. 36 sqq. and p. 51.

[16] _Journal Asiatique_ (March, 1835), p. 209 sqq.

[17] Strictly speaking, the _Jáhiliyya_ includes the whole time between Adam and Muḥammad, but in a narrower sense it may be used, as here, to denote the Pre-islamic period of Arabic Literature.

[18] _Die Namen der Säugethiere bei den Südsemitischen Völkern_, p. 343 seq.

[19] _Iramu Dhátu ’l-‘Imád_ (Koran, lxxxix, 6). The sense of these words is much disputed. See especially Ṭabarí's explanation in his great commentary on the Koran (O. Loth in _Z.D.M.G._, vol. 35, p. 626 sqq.).