Chapter III: Part 3

MAHMUD II. (1785-1839), sultan of Turkey, was the son of Abu-ul-Hamid I., and succeeded his brother, Mustafa IV., in 1808. He had shared the captivity of his ill-fated cousin, the ex-sultan, Selim III., whose efforts at reform had ended in his deposition by the janissaries. Mahmud was thus early impressed with the necessity for dissembling his intention to institute reforms until he should be powerful enough to carry them through. The reforming efforts of the grand vizier Bairakdar, to whom he had owed his life and his accession, broke on the opposition of the janissaries; and Mahmud had to wait for more favourable times. Meanwhile the empire seemed in danger of breaking up. Not till 1812 was the war with Russia closed by the treaty of Bucharest, which restored Moldavia and the greater part of Wallachia to the Ottoman government. But though the war was ended, the terms of the treaty left a number of burning questions, both internal and external, unsettled. This was notably the case with the claim of Russia to Poti and the valley of the Rion (Phasis), which was still outstanding at the time of the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and prevented the question of a European guarantee of the integrity of Turkey from being considered.

Meanwhile, within the empire, ambitious valis were one by one attempting to carve out dominions for themselves at the expense of the central power. The ambitions of Mehemet Ali of Egypt were not yet fully revealed; but Ali (q.v.) of Jannina, who had marched to the aid of the sultan against the rebellious pasha Pasvan Oglu of Widdin, soon began to show his hand, and it needed the concentration of all the forces of the Turkish empire to effect his overthrow and death (1822). The preoccupation of the sultan with Ali gave their opportunity to the Greeks whose disaffection had long been organized in the great secret society of the _Hetaeria Philike_, against which Metternich had in vain warned the Ottoman government. In 1821 occurred the abortive raid of Alexander Ypsilanti into the Danubian principalities, and in May of the same year the revolt of the Greeks of the Morea began the war of Greek Independence (see GREECE: _History_). The rising in the north was easily crushed; but in the south the Ottoman power was hampered by the defection of the sea-faring Greeks, by whom the Turkish navy had hitherto been manned. After three abortive campaigns Mahmud was compelled, infinitely against his will, to summon to his assistance the already too powerful pasha of Egypt, Mehemet Ali, whom he had already employed to suppress the rebellious Wahhabis in Arabia. The disciplined Egyptian army, supported by a well organized fleet, rapidly accomplished what the Turks had failed to do; and by 1826 the Greeks were practically subdued on land, and Ibrahim was preparing to turn his attention to the islands. But for the intervention of the powers and the battle of Navarino Mahmud's authority would have been restored in Greece. The news of Navarino betrayed Mahmud into one of those paroxysms of rage to which he was liable, and which on critical occasions were apt fatally to cloud his usual good sense. After in vain attempting to obtain an apology for "the unparalleled outrage against a friendly power" he issued on the 20th of December a solemn _hatti sheriff_ summoning the faithful to a holy war. This, together with certain outstanding grievances and the pretext of enforcing the settlement of the Greek Question approved by the powers, gave Russia the excuse for declaring war against Turkey. After two hardly fought campaigns (1828, 1829) Mahmud was at length, on the 14th of September 1829, compelled to sign the peace of Adrianople. From this moment until his death Mahmud was, to all intents and purposes, the "vassal of Russia," though not without occasional desperate efforts to break his chains. (For the political events of the period between the first revolt of Mehemet Ali (Sept. 1832) and the death of Mahmud see MEHEMET ALI.) The personal attitude of the sultan, which alone concerns us here, was determined throughout by his overmastering hatred of the upstart pasha, of whom he had stooped to ask aid, and who now defied his will; and the importance of this attitude lies in the fact that, as the result of the success of his centralizing policy, and notably of the destruction of the janissaries (q.v.), the supreme authority, hitherto limited by the practical power of the ministers of the Porte and by the turbulence of the privileged military caste, had become concentrated in his own person. It was no longer the Porte that decided, but the Seraglio, and the sultan's private secretary had more influence on the policy of the Ottoman empire than the grand vizier.

This omnipotence of the sultan in deciding the policy of the government was in striking contrast with his impotence in enforcing his views on his subjects and in his relations with foreign powers. Mahmud, in spite of--or rather because of--his well-meant efforts at reform, was hated by his Mussulman subjects and stigmatized as an "infidel" and a traitor to Islam. He was, in fact, a victim to those "half-measures" which Machiavelli condemns as fatal to success. Ibrahim, the conqueror of Syria, scoffed at the sultan's idea "that reform consisted in putting his soldiers into tight trousers and epaulettes." The criticism is not entirely unjust. Mahmud's policy was the converse of that recommended by Machiavelli, viz. in making a revolution to change the substance while preserving the semblance of the old order. Metternich's advice to Mahmud to "remain a Turk" was sound enough. His failure to do so--in externals--left him isolated in his empire: _rayahs_ and true believers alike distrusted and hated him. Of this hatred he was fully conscious; he knew that his subjects, even many of his own ministers, regarded Mehemet Ali as the champion of Islam against the "infidel sultan;" he suspected the pasha, already master of the sacred cities, of an intention to proclaim himself caliph in his stead. This, together with the weakness due to military reforms but recently begun, drove him to rely on foreign aid; which, in the actual conditions of Europe, meant the aid of Russia. The long tradition of French friendship for Turkey had been broken, in 1830, by the conquest of Algiers. Austria was, for the time, but the faithful ally of the tsar. On the 9th of August 1832 Mahmud made, through Stratford Canning, a formal proposal for an alliance with Great Britain, which Palmerston refused to consider for fear of offending France. Mahmud bitterly contrasted the fair professions of England with the offers of effective help from Russia. His old ally having deserted him, he accepted the aid of his hereditary foe. The Russian expedition to the Bosporus, the convention of Kutaiah, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July 8, 1833) followed. Mahmud was under no illusion as to the position in which the latter placed him towards Russia; but his fear of Mehemet Ali and his desire to be revenged upon him outweighed all other considerations. He resented the action of France and England in forcing the settlement of Kutaiah upon him, and remained shut up in his palace, inaccessible to all save his favourites and the representative of Russia. With his single aim in view he busied himself with the creation of a national militia, with the aid of Moltke and other German officers. In 1834 the revolt of Syria against Ibrahim seemed to give him his opportunity. He pleaded the duty of a sultan to go to the aid of his subjects when oppressed by one of his servants; but the powers were obdurate, even Russia, much occupied in affairs nearer home, leaving him in the lurch. He was astute enough to take advantage of the offence given to the powers by Mehemet Ali's system of monopolies, and in 1838 signed with Great Britain, and afterwards with others, a commercial treaty which cut at the root of the pasha's system. A few months later his passionate impatience overcame his policy and his fears. The hand of death was upon him, and he felt that he must strike now or never. In vain the powers, now united in their views, warned him of the probable consequences of any aggressive action on his part. He would rather die, he exclaimed, or become the slave of Russia, than not destroy his rebellious vassal. On his sole initiative, without consulting his ministers or the council of the empire, he sent instructions to Hafiz Pasha, commanding the Ottoman troops concentrated at Bir on the Euphrates, to advance into Syria. The fatal outcome of the campaign that followed he did not live to hear. When the news of Ibrahim's overwhelming victory at Nessib (June 24, 1839) reached Constantinople, Mahmud lay dying and unconscious. Early in the morning of the 1st of July his proud and passionate spirit passed away.

Mahmud II. cannot be reckoned among the great sultans, neither had he any of the calculating statecraft which characterized Abd-ul-Hamid II.; but his qualities of mind and heart, none the less, raised him far above the mass of his predecessors and successors. He was well versed in state affairs and loyal to those who advised and served him, personally brave, humane and kindly when not maddened by passion, active and energetic, and always a man of his word. Unhappily, however, the taint of the immemorial corruption of Byzantium had fallen upon him too, and the avenue to his favour and to political power lay too often through unspeakable paths. In view of the vast difficulty of the task before him at his succession it is less surprising that he failed to carry out his ideas than that he accomplished so much. When he came to the throne the empire was breaking up from within; one by one he freed the provinces from the tyrannical rulers who, like Ali of Jannina, were carving out independent, or quasi-independent, empires within the empire. If he failed in his wider schemes of reform, this was only one more illustration of a truth of which other "enlightened" sovereigns besides himself had experienced the force, namely, that it is impossible to impose any system, however admirable, from above on a people whose deepest convictions and prejudices it offends.

There is a great deal of valuable material for the history of Mahmud
and his policy in the unpublished F.O. records (1832-1839), volumes of
correspondence marked _Turkey.--From Sir Stratford Canning.--From Mr.
Mandeville.--From Lord Ponsonby._ See further works mentioned under
TURKEY: _History_; and MEHEMET ALI. (W. A. P.)

MAHMUD NEDIM PASHA (c. 1818-1883), Turkish statesman, was the son of Nejib Pasha, ex-governor-general of Bagdad. After occupying various subordinate posts at the Porte he became successively under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, governor-general of Syria and Smyrna, minister of commerce, and governor-general of Tripoli; minister successively of justice and of marine (1869); grand vizier from 1871 to 1872 and from 1875 to 1876. He was high in favour with Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz and fell much under the influence of General Ignatiev, the forceful Russian ambassador before the war of 1877-78, his subserviency to Russia earning for him the nickname of "Mahmudoff." His administration was most unsuccessful from every point of view, and he was largely responsible for the issue of the decree suspending the interest on the Turkish funds. He was minister of the interior from 1879 to 1883.

MAHMUD[1] OF GHAZNI (971-1030), son of Sabuktagin, Afghan conqueror, was born on the 2nd of October 971. His fame rests chiefly on his successful wars, in particular his numerous invasions of India. His military capacity, inherited from his father, Nasir-ud-din Sabuktagin, was strengthened by youthful experience in the field. Sabuktagin, a Turki slave of Alptagin, governor of Khorasan under Abdalmalik I. b. Nuh of the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, early brought himself to notice (see SAMANIDS). He was raised to high office in the state by Alptagin's successor, Abu Ishak, and in A.H. 366 (A.D. 977), by the choice of the nobles of Ghazni, he became their ruler. He soon began to make conquests in the neighbouring countries, and in these wars he was accompanied by his young son Mahmud. Before he had reached the age of fourteen he encountered in two expeditions under his father the Indian forces of Jaipal, raja of Lahore, whom Sabuktagin defeated on the Punjab frontier.

In 994 Mahmud was made governor of Khorasan, with the title of Saif addaula (ud-daula) ("Sword of the State") by the Samanid Nuh II. Two years later, his father Sabuktagin died in the neighbourhood of Balkh, having declared his second son, Ismail, who was then with him, to be his successor. As soon as Ismail had assumed the sovereignty at Balkh, Mahmud, who was at Nishapur, addressed him in friendly terms, proposing a division of the territories held by their father at his death. Ismail rejected the proposal, and was immediately attacked by Mahmud and defeated. Retreating to Ghazni, he there yielded, and was imprisoned, and Mahmud obtained undisputed power as sovereign of Khorasan and Ghazni (997).

The Ghaznevid dynasty is sometimes reckoned by native historians to commence with Sabuktagin's conquest of Bost and Kosdar (978). But Sabuktagin, throughout his reign at Ghazni, continued to acknowledge the Samanid suzerainty, as did Mahmud also, until the time, soon after succeeding to his father's dominions, when he received from Qadir, caliph of Bagdad (see CALIPHATE, C. § 25), a _khilat_ (robe of honour), with a letter recognizing his sovereignty, and conferring on him the titles _Yamiin-addaula_ ("Right hand of the State"), and _Amin-ul-Millat_ ("Guardian of the Faith"). From this time it is the name of the caliph that is inscribed on Mahmud's coins, together with his own new titles. Previously the name of the Samanid sovereign, Mansur II. b. Nuh is given along with his own former title, Saif addaula Mahmud. The earliest of those of the new form gives his name Mahmud bin Sabuktagin. Thereafter his father's name does not appear on his coins, but it is inscribed again on his tomb.

The new honours received from the caliph gave fresh impulse to Mahmud's zeal on behalf of Islam, and he resolved on an annual expedition against the idolaters of India. He could not quite carry out this intention, but a great part of his reign was occupied with his Indian campaigns. In 1000 he started on the first of these expeditions, but it does not appear that he went farther than the hill country near Peshawar. The hostile attitude of Khalaf ibn Ahmad, governor of Seistan, called Mahmud to that province for a short time. He was appeased by Khalaf's speedy submission, together with the gift of a large sum of money, and further, it is said, by his subdued opponent addressing him as _sultan_, a title new at that time, and by which Mahmud continued to be called, though he did not formally adopt it, or stamp it on his coins. Four years later Khalaf, incurring Mahmud's displeasure again, was imprisoned, and his property confiscated.

Mahmud's army first crossed the Indus in 1001, opposed by Jaipal, raja of Lahore. Jaipal was defeated, and Mahmud, after his return from this expedition, is said to have taken the distinctive appellation of _Ghazi_ ("Valiant for the Faith"), but he is rarely so-called. On the next occasion (1005) Mahmud advanced, as far as Bhera on the Jhelum, when his adversary Anang-pal, son and successor of Jaipal, fled to Kashmir. The following year saw Mahmud at Multan. When he was in the Punjab at this time, he heard of the invasion of Khorasan by the Ilek Khan Nasr I. ruler of Transoxiana whose daughter Mahmud had married. After a rapid march back from India, Mahmud repelled the invaders. The Ilek Khan, having retreated across the Oxus, returned with reinforcements, and took up a position a few miles from Balkh, where he was signally defeated by Mahmud.

Mahmud again entered the Punjab in 1008, this time for the express purpose of chastising Sewah Pal, who, having become a Mussulman, and been left by Mahmud in charge of Multan, had relapsed to Hinduism. The Indian campaign of 1009 was notable. Near the Indus Mahmud was opposed again by Anang-pal, supported by powerful rajas from other parts of India. After a severe fight, Anang-pal's elephants were so terror-struck by the fire-missiles flung amongst them by the invaders that they turned and fled, the whole army retreating in confusion and leaving Mahmud master of the field. Mahmud, after this victory, pushed on through the Punjab to Nagar-kot (Kangra), and carried off much spoil from the Hindu temples to enrich his treasury at Ghazni. In 1011 Mahmud, after a short campaign against the Afghans under Mahommed ibn Sur in the hill country of Ghur, marched again into the Punjab. The next time (1014) he advanced to Thanesar, another noted stronghold of Hinduism, between the Sutlej and the Jumna. Having now found his way across all the Punjab rivers, he was induced on two subsequent occasions to go still farther. But first he designed an invasion of Kashmir (1015), which was not carried out, as his progress was checked at Loh-kot, a strong hill fort in the north-west of the Punjab. Then before undertaking his longer inroad into Hindustan he had to march north into Khwarizm (Khiva) against his brother-in-law Mamun, who had refused to acknowledge Mahmud's supremacy. The result was as usual, and Mahmud, having committed Khwarizm to a new ruler, one of Mamun's chief officers, returned to his capital. Then in 1018, with a very large force, he proceeded to India again, extending his inroad this time to the great Hindu cities of Mathra on the Jumna and Kanauj on the Ganges. He reduced the one, received the submission of the other, and carried back great stores of plunder. Three years later he went into India again, marching over nearly the same ground, to the support, this time, of the raja of Kanauj, who, having made friendship with the Mahommedan invader on his last visit, had been attacked by the raja of Kalinjar. But Mahmud found he had not yet sufficiently subdued the idolaters nearer his own border, between Kabul and the Indus, and the campaign of 1022 was directed against them, and reached no farther than Peshawar. Another march into India the following year was made direct to Gwalior.

The next expedition (1025) is the most famous of all. The point to which it was directed was the temple of Somnath on the coast of the Gujarat peninsula. After an arduous journey by Multan, and through part of Rajputana, he reached Somnath, and met with a very vigorous but fruitless resistance on the part of the Hindus of Gujarat. Moslem feet soon trod the courts of the great temple. The chief object of worship it contained was broken up, and the fragments kept to be carried off to Ghazni. The story is often told of the hollow figure, cleft by Mahmud's battle-axe, pouring out great store of costly jewels and gold. But the idol in this Sivite temple was only a tall block or pillar of hewn stone, of a familiar kind. The popular legend is a very natural one. Mahmud, it was well known, made Hindu temples yield up their most precious things. He was a determined idol-breaker. And the stone block in this temple was enriched with a crown of jewels, the gifts of wealthy worshippers. These data readily give the Somnath exploit its more dramatic form. For the more recent story of the Somnath gates see SOMNATH.

After the successes at Somnath, Mahmud remained some months in India before returning to Ghazni. Then in 1026 he crossed the Indus once more into the Punjab. His brilliant military career closed with an expedition to Persia, in the third year after this, his last, visit to India. The Indian campaigns of Mahmud and his father were almost, but not altogether, unvarying successes. The Moslem historians touch lightly on reverses. And, although the annals of Rajputana tell how Sabuktagin was defeated by one raja of Ajmere and Mahmud by his successor, the course of events which followed shows how little these and other reverses affected the invader's progress. Mahmud's failure at Ajmere, when the brave raja Bisal-deo obliged him to raise the siege but was himself slain, was when the Moslem army was on its way to Somnath. Yet Mahmud's Indian conquests, striking and important in themselves, were, after all, in great measure barren, except to the Ghazni treasury. Mahmud retained no possessions in India under his own direct rule. But after the repeated defeats, by his father and himself, of two successive rajas of Lahore, the conqueror assumed the right of nominating the governors of the Punjab as a dependency of Ghazni, a right which continued to be exercised by seven of his successors. And for a time, in the reign of Masa'ud II. (1098-1114), Lahore was the place of residence of the Ghaznevid sovereign.

Mahmud died at Ghazni in 1030, the year following his expedition to Persia. He is conspicuous for his military ardour, his ambition, strong will, perseverance, watchfulness and energy, combined with great courage and unbounded self-reliance. But his tastes were not exclusively military. His love of literature brought men of learning to Ghazni, and his acquaintance with Moslem theology was recognized by the learned doctors.

The principal histories of Mahmud's reign are--_Kitab-i-Yamini_
(Utbi); _Tarikh-us-Subuktigin_ (Baihaki); _Tabakat i Nasiri_ (Minhaj
el-Siraj); _Rauzat-us-Safa_ (Mir Khond); _Habib-us-Sivar_ (Khondamir).
See Elliot, _History of India_; Elphinstone, _History of India_; and
Roos-Keppel's translation of the _Tarikh-i-Sultan Mahmud-i-Ghaznavi_
(1901).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The name is strictly Mahmud.

MAHOBA, an ancient town in India, in Hamirpur district of the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 10,074. As the capital of the Chandel dynasty, who ruled over Bundelkhand from the 9th to the 13th century, the neighbourhood is covered with architectural antiquities, prominent among which are artificial lakes, formed by banking up valleys with masonry dams. The largest of these is more than 4 m. in circuit.

MAHOGANY, a dark-coloured wood largely used for household furniture, the product of a large tree indigenous to Central America and the West Indies. It was originally received from Jamaica; 521,300 ft. were exported from that island in 1753. It is known botanically as _Swietenia Mahogani_, and is a member of the order _Meliaceae_. It bears compound leaves, resembling those of the ash, and clusters of small flowers, with five sepals and petals and ten stamens which are united into a tube. The fruit is a pear-shaped woody capsule, and contains many winged seeds. The dark-coloured bark has been considered a febrifuge, and the seeds were used by the ancient Aztecs with oil for a cosmetic, but the most valuable product is the timber, first noticed by the carpenter on board Sir Walter Raleigh's ship in 1595 for its great beauty, hardness and durability. Dr Gibbons brought it into notice as well adapted for furniture in the early part of the 18th century, and its use as a cabinet wood was first practically established by a cabinet-maker named Wollaston, who was employed by Gibbons to work up some mahogany brought to England by his brother. It was introduced into India in 1795, and is now cultivated in Bengal and as far north as Saharunpur.

The timber of species of _Cedrela_ and _Melia_, other members of the
order _Meliaceae_, are used as Mahogany, and the product of the West
African _Khaya senegalensis_ is known as African mahogany. There is
some confusion between the product of these various trees. Herbert
Stone (_The Timbers of Commerce_, 1904) says: "The various species of
mahogany and cedar are so confusing that it is difficult to make
precise statements as to their structure or origin. I know of no
convincing proof that any of the American kinds met with on the
English market are the wood of _Swietenia Mahogani_, nor that those
shipped from Africa are the wood of _Khaya senegalensis_. These two
genera are very nearly allied to _Cedrela_ and _Melia_, and it is
difficult to separate any of the four from the rest by the characters
of the wood. After giving the most careful attention to every detail,
I lean to the view that most if not all of the mahoganies commonly met
with are Cedrelas."

_Kiggelaria Dregeana_ (natural order _Bixineae_), a native of South
Africa, is known as Natal mahogany.

MAHOMET (strictly MUHAMMAD, commonly also MOHAMMED), founder of the religious system called in Europe after him Mahommedanism, and by himself Islam or Hanifism. He died, according to the ordinary synchronism, on the 7th of June 632 (12 Rabia, A.H. 11), and his birthday was exactly sixty-three or sixty-five years earlier, the latter number being evidently an interpretation in lunar years of a number thought to refer to solar years. The lunar system was introduced into Arabia by Mahomet himself quite at the close of his career; that which existed before was certainly solar, as it involved a process of intercalation--which, however, seems to have been arbitrarily manipulated by priests, whence certain synchronisms cannot be got for the events in the Prophet's career. The number 63 for the years of his life may rest on tradition, though it is unlikely that such matters were accurately noted; it can also be accounted for by a priori combination. A Meccan, it is said, became a full citizen at the age of 40; this then would be the age at which the mission might be started. The Medina period (of which count was kept) lasted ten to eleven years; for the Meccan period ten years would seem a likely length. Finally it was known that for some years--about three--the mission had been conducted secretly. The only event in contemporary history to which the Koran alludes in its earlier parts is the Persian conquest of Palestine in 616. Clearly Mahomet had begun to prophesy at that date.

His Country.

Before the rise of Islam, Mahomet's native place, Mecca, appears to figure nowhere in historical records, unless there be a reference to it in the "valley of Baca" (Psalm lxxxiv. 6). Its sacred, and therefore archaic, name is _Bakkah_; hence the identification of the name with that of the sanctuary Makoraba, known to the Greek geographers, is not philologically tenable; although so eminent a linguist as Dozy evolved a theory of the origin of the city from this name, which appears to be South Arabian for "sanctuary," and has no connexion with Hebrew (as Dozy supposed). In the 3rd century of Islam the mythology of Mecca was collected and published in book form, but we learn little more from it than names of tribes and places; it is clear that there was no record of the mode in which the community inhabiting the place had got there, and that little was remembered with accuracy of the events which preceded the rise of its prophet. The city had a sanctuary, called the _Cube_ (_ka'ba_), of which the nucleus was the "Black Stone," probably to be identified with Allah, the god of the community; both still exist, or rather their legitimate substitutes, as the Ka`ba has been repeatedly reconstructed, and the original Black Stone was stolen by the Carmathians in the 4th century of Islam; they afterwards returned one, but it may or may not have been the same as that which they removed. At some time in the 6th century--said to have been the birth-year of the Prophet, but really much earlier--an Abyssinian invader raided Mecca with the view of abolishing this sanctuary; but for some reason had to desist. This expedition, known as the "Raid of the Elephant," one of these animals being employed in it, seems to be of great importance for explaining the rise of Islam; for a sanctuary which can repel an invader acquires tremendous reputation. Some verses in the Koran which are perhaps not genuine, record the miracle whereby Allah repelled the "People of the Elephant." The sanctuary was apparently in the possession of the tribe Koreish (Quraish), the origin of whose name is unknown, said to have come originally from Cutha in Mesopotamia. They were known (we are told) as the people of Allah, and, by wearing a badge, were sacrosanct throughout Arabia. If this be true, it was probably a privilege earned by the miraculous defence of the Ka`ba, and is sufficient to account for the rise of Meccan commerce of which we hear much in the biography of the Prophet, and to which some verses of the earliest part of the Koran allude; for merchants who were safe from attacks by bandits would have an enormous advantage. The records seem, however, to be inconsistent with this assertion; and the growth of the Meccan commerce is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that after the Abyssinian invasion pilgrimage to the Ka`ba became the practice of numerous Arab tribes, and for four months in the year (selected by Meccan priests) raiding was forbidden, in order to enable the pilgrimage to be safely made. In addition to this it would seem that all Mecca counted as sanctuary--i.e. no blood might under any circumstances be shed there. The community lived by purveying to pilgrims and the carrying trade; and both these operations led to the immigration of strangers.

Mahomet's Family.

There seems to be no doubt that Mahomet was himself a member of the tribe Koreish, and indeed too many of his relatives figure in history to permit of his parentage being questioned. His cousin 'Ali, fourth caliph, was the son of Abu Talib, whose name attests the historical character of the kindred name `Abd al-Mottalib, Mahomet's grandfather: for the fact that this name is in part enigmatical is certainly no argument against its genuineness. In the 3rd century of Islam a document was shown in which a man of San'a in Yemen acknowledged that he had borrowed from `Abd al-Mottalib 1000 silver dirhems of the Hudaida standard, and Allah with the two "angels" (probably a euphemism for the goddesses Al-lat and al-`Uzza) served as witness; it is difficult to see why such a document should have been forged. The name Hashim (for `Abd al-Mottalib's father) may or may not be historical; here, as in the ascending line throughout, we have subjects without predicates. The name of `Abd al-Mottalib's son, who was Mahomet's father, is given as `Abdallah; the correctness of this has been questioned, because "Servant of Allah" would seem to be too appropriate, and the name was often given by the Prophet to converts as a substitute for some pagan appellation. This, however, is hypercritical, as the name of the father could not easily be altered, when relatives abounded, and it would seem that at one time the Prophet made no theological use of the name Allah, for which he intended to substitute Rahman. The name of his mother is given as Aminah, and with this one of his own titles, Amin, agrees; although the Arabs do not appear to bring the two into connexion. Her father's name is given as Wahb, and she is brought into relation with a Medinese tribe called the Banu `Adi b. al-Najjar, to whom she is said to have brought her son in his early infancy. The circumstances may have been suggested by his later connexion with that place; yet in what seems a historical narrative her grave is mentioned as known to be at Abwa, midway between the two cities, whence this early bond between the Prophet and his future home may have really existed.

His own name is given in the Koran in the forms Ahmad and the familiar Muhammad; in contemporary poetry we also find the form Mahmud. Similar variation between derivatives from the same root is found in proper names which occur in early poetry; the meaning of all would be "the praised," if the root be given its Arabic signification--"the desired" if interpreted from the Hebrew.

The form Muhammad (ordinarily transliterated Mohammed; Mahomet,
Mehmet, &c., represent the Turkish pronunciation) is found in a
pre-Islamic inscription, and appears to have been fairly common in
Arabia. In Hag. ii. 7 a derivative of the Hebrew equivalent root
occurs in the prophecy "and the desired of all nations shall come,"
and this passage has suggested the idea that the name may have been
taken by the Prophet as the equivalent of "Messiah," while the Moslems
themselves find its equivalent in the _Paraclete_ of the Fourth
Gospel, though this identification requires more ingenuity. His
_kunyah_ (i.e. the Arab title of respect, in which a man is called
after his son) is Abu'l-Qasim; other names by which he is called are
titles of honour, e.g. Mustafa "chosen." (See further the genealogical
table, _ad fin._)

Early Life.

In the Koran, Allah says that He found the Prophet an orphan, poor and astray; it is possible that all these expressions should be understood figuratively, like the "poor, naked, blind" of Christian hymns; the Arabs, however, take them literally, and Mahomet is said to have been a posthumous child, whose mother died a few months or years after his birth, and who was brought up first by his grandfather, and then by his uncle Abu Talib, one of the poorer members of the family; in the controversy between the Alid and Abbasid pretenders of the 2nd century of Islam the Abbasid Mansur claims that his ancestor fed the ancestor of `Ali, i.e. Abu Talib, otherwise he would have had to beg. There was evidently an apparent inconsistency between Mahomet's being a poor orphan and the favourite grandchild of the eminent and wealthy `Abd al-Mottalib; and it was solved in this way. There was a tradition that in his early years he was sent into the desert to acquire the habits and the language of the Bedouins; and this seems to have been attested by the Prophet himself. In a tribal fight he is said to have acted as armour-bearer to one of his uncles, Zubair. There seems no doubt that he often accompanied Meccan caravans to the countries with which the Meccans had trade relations; such especially were Syria and south Arabia, and perhaps Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is conceivable that he may have visited Abyssinia by sea. For though accurate knowledge is nowhere to be found in the Koran, it exhibits a large amount of miscellaneous information, such as a trader might well pick up. His career as a caravan-conductor appears to have terminated with his marriage to Khadija, daughter of Khuwailid, represented by the tradition as a wealthy widow, fifteen years his senior and forty years of age at the time of the union. As she became the mother of a numerous family, a special rule was discovered by Moslem physiologists extending the child-bearing period of Korashite women beyond that of others. Since it is claimed for Mahomet that he first gave Arab women the right to inherit property, the difficulty noticed is not the only one connected with this marriage; and Robertson Smith has called attention to some others, unconnected with his theory of "marriage and kinship in early Arabia." After his marriage Mahomet appears to have been partner in a shop in Mecca; where he apparently sold agricultural produce. His style is strongly marked by phrases and metaphors drawn from trade, though as a statesman he never displayed any financial ability.

Education.

Writing in the monumental script of South Arabia had been known for centuries in the peninsula; and shortly before the rise of Islam a cursive script--the parent of the ordinary Arabic character--had been started in the Christian state of Hira, with which the beginnings of modern Arabic literature are connected. A modification of this had been introduced into Mecca, and was probably used for contracts and similar documents. The word _ummi_, literally "popular" or "plebeian" (according to one etymology), applied to Mahomet in the Koran, is said to mean "one who can neither read nor write," and the most generally accepted view is that he could do neither, a supposition which enters into the doctrine of the miraculous nature of the Koran. According to another interpretation the word means "Meccan," i.e. native of "the Mother of the Villages" (_Umm al-Qura_); and the most probable theory is that he could do both, but unskilfully. Indeed on one historic occasion he erased certain words in a document; and where in the Koran he rebuts the charge of "taking notes," he does not employ the obvious retort that he could not write, but gives a far less convincing answer. For poetry, which seems to have been cultivated in Arabia long before his time, he possessed no ear; but we have little reason for supposing that either writing or versification had yet entered into Arabian education. The former would be acquired by those who needed it, the latter was regarded as a natural gift. There is reason for thinking the language of the Koran incorrect and ungrammatical in parts, but as it afterwards became the ultimate standard of classical Arabic, this point is not easy to prove. On the whole then his early life seems to have been such as was normal in the case of a man belonging to one of the more important families in a community which had not long been started on a career of prosperity.

Social System.

Of the organization of that community we unfortunately know very little, though we hear of a council-chamber, and, as has been seen, of an age-qualification for admission to it. It is, however, certain that the theory of decision by majority was absolutely unknown to Mahomet's second successor, whence we learn little from this tradition (even if it be authentic) of the mode whereby the tribes who together formed the Meccan population managed their common concerns, whether commercial or political. The form of government seems to have been a rudimentary oligarchy, directed by some masterful individual; before the Flight we read of various prominent personages, after the Flight and the battle of Badr (A.H. 2) one chieftain, Abu Sofian (see CALIPHATE, _ad init._), appears to take the lead whether in war or in policy. It would seem, however, that the right of independent action belonged to the individual tribes, even to the extent of refusing to take part in a campaign. For the settlement of ordinary disputes recourse was had (it appears) rather to soothsayers, near or distant, than to any regularly constituted authority or tribunal. On the other hand we are furnished with a list of officials who were concerned with different parts of the festal performances and the ordinary worship. Of these we may mention the Custodian of the Ka`ba, and the official whose duty was _siqayah_ ("watering"), said to mean furnishing the pilgrims with water, but more ingeniously interpreted in recent times as "rain-bringing," a function which even in the 2nd century of Islam the governor in some places was supposed to exercise.

Beginnings of the Mission.

Of Arabian paganism we possess no trustworthy or complete account; since we hear of no theological literature belonging to it, probably no such account could have been given. There were doubtless a variety of practices, many of which have been continued to this day in the ceremonies of the pilgrimage, and offerings of different sorts to various deities, interpreted variously by the worshippers in accordance with their spiritual, intellectual and moral levels; e.g. as actual stones, or as men (or more often women) residing in the stones or otherwise connected with them, or bearing a similar relation to trees, or stars, &c. In general every tribe had its patron of the kind, and where there were aggregations of tribes, connexions were established between these deities, and affiliation-theories excogitated; hence the theory attributed in the Koran to the Meccans that the goddesses al-`Uzza, &c. were the daughters of Allah, may well represent the outcome of such speculation. These, however, were known to few, whereas the practices were familiar to all. Some of these were harmless, others barbarous; many offensive, but not very reprehensible, superstitions.

External Influences.

Before Mahomet's time Arabian paganism had already been attacked both from the outside and from the inside. On the one hand the northern tribes had gradually been christianized, owing to the influence of the Byzantine empire; on the other hand south Arabia had fallen successively under Jewish, Abyssinian and Persian influence; and the last, though little is known of Persian rule, is unlikely to have favoured pagan cults. Christianity had also some important representation in Najran far south of Mecca, while Jewish settlements were prospering north of Mecca in the Prophet's future home Yathrib and its neighbourhood. Power, civilization and learning were thus associated with monotheism (Judaism), dualism (Mazdaism) and tritheism (as the Arabs interpreted Christianity); paganism was the religion of ignorance (_jahiliyyah_, interpreted by Goldziher as "barbarism," but the difference is not very considerable). Mecca itself and the neighbouring and allied Taif are said to have produced some monotheists or Christians, who identified the _Allah_ of Mecca with the _Allaha_ or God of the Syrian Christians, called by the Abyssinian Christians "Lord of the Regions," and by the Jews "the Merciful" (_Rahmana_); one such is said to have been a cousin of Khadija, Mahomet's wife; his name is given as Waraqah, son of Naufal, and he is credited with copying or translating a Gospel. We even hear of flagellant monks and persons vowed to total abstinence among the precursors of Islam.

With these persons Mahomet had little in common, since they do not appear to have claimed to enforce their views upon others, or to have interfered with politics. He appears mainly to have been struck by the personality of the founders of the systems dominant in the civilized world, and to have aspired from the first to occupy the place of legislator or mouthpiece of the Deity; and that he was this was and is the main proposition of the Mahommedan creed. The "Prophet" or "Apostle" (at different times he employed both the Jewish and the Christian phrase) was the divinely appointed dictator of his community; if he were not obeyed, divine vengeance would overtake the disobedient. At this proposition Mahomet arrived by induction from the records of the Biblical prophets, as well as others who seem to have figured in Arabian mythology, e.g. the destruction of the tribe Thamud (mentioned by Pliny, and therefore historical) for their disobedience to their prophet Salih, and of `Ad (probably mythical) for their similar treatment of Hud. The character of the message did not affect the necessity for obedience; at times it was condemnation of some moral offence, at others a trivial order. Divine vengeance overtook those who disobeyed either.

The Prophet's Call.

This is the theory of the prophetic office which pervades the Koran, wherein the doctrine is formulated that every nation had its divine guide and that Mecca before Mahomet's time had none. This place, then, Mahomet felt a divine call to fill. But we are never likely to ascertain what first put the idea into his mind. The fables which his biographers tell on this subject are not worth repeating; his own system, in which he is brought into direct communication with the Deity, though at a later period the angel Gabriel appears to have acted as intermediary, naturally leaves no room for such speculations; and since his dispensation was thought to be absolutely new, and to make a _tabula rasa_ of the pagan past, his first followers, having broken with that past, left no intelligible account of the state of affairs which preceded their master's call. Some generations therefore elapsed before that past was studied with any sort of sympathy, and details could not then be recovered, any more than they can now be supplied by conjecture.

So far as Mahomet may be said from the first to have formulated a definite notion of his work, we should probably be right in thinking it to be the restoration of the religion of Abraham, or (as the Koran calls him) Ibrahim. Though we have no reason for supposing the name of Abraham or Ishmael to have been known in Mecca generally before Mahomet's time, the Biblical ethnology was not apparently questioned by those who were told of it, and there are stories, not necessarily apocryphal, of precursors of Mahomet going abroad in search of the "religion of Abraham." One feature of that system, associated in the Bible with the name of Ishmael as well, was circumcision, which was actually observed by the Meccan tribes, though it would appear with technical differences from the Jewish method; the association of monotheism with it would seem reasonable enough, in view of Jewish traditions, such as Mahomet may have heard on his travels; why the doctrine of the future life should be coupled with it is less obvious. That the Meccan temple and its rites had been founded by these two patriarchs appears to have been deduced by Mahomet himself, but perhaps at a later stage of his career. That these rites, so far as they were idolatrous, were in flagrant defiance of the religion of Abraham must have struck any one who accepted the accounts of it which were current among Jews and Christians. The precursors, however, appear to have felt no call to reform their fellow-citizens; whereas it is evident that Mahomet regarded himself as charged with a message, which he was bound to deliver, and which his God would in some way render effective.

As it was obvious that the claim to be God's mouthpiece was to claim autocracy, Mahomet employed the utmost caution in his mode of asserting this claim; on the question of his sincerity there have been different opinions held, and it is not necessary to take any view on this matter. For three years his followers were a secret society; and this period appears to have been preceded by one of private preparation, the first revelation being received when the Prophet was in religious retirement--a ceremony called _tahannuth_, of which the meaning is uncertain, but which can have no connexion with the Hebrew _tehinnoth_ ("supplications")--on Mount Hira, near Mecca.

The Koran.

If the traditional dates assigned to the _suras_ (chapters) of the Koran (q.v.) are correct, the earliest revelations took the form of pages or rolls which the Prophet was to read by the "grace of God," as Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon community, said of the power given him to read the "Egyptian" characters on the gold plates which he had found. The command to read is accompanied by the statement that "his most generous Lord had taught man by the pen (_calamus_) that which he did not know." Waraqah, to whom the event is said to have been communicated by Khadija, called these communications "the Greater Law (_nomos_)." The Prophet was directed to communicate his mission at the first only to his nearest relatives. The utterances were from the first in a sort of rhyme, such as is said to have been employed for solemn matter in general, e.g. oracles or prayers. At an early period the production of a written communication was abandoned for oral communications, delivered by the Prophet in trance; their delivery was preceded by copious perspiration, for which the Prophet prepared (in accordance with instructions found in the Koran) by wrapping himself in a blanket. Trusty followers were instructed to take these utterances down, but the phenomena which accompanied their delivery at least in one case suggested imposture to the scribe, who apostatized in consequence. It is extraordinary that there is no reason to suppose that any official record was ever kept of these revelations; the Prophet treated them somewhat as the Sibyl did her leaves. This carelessness is equally astounding whether the Prophet was sincere or insincere.

If the matter afterwards collected in the Koran be genuine, the early revelations must have been miscellaneous in content, magical, historical and homiletic. To some strange oaths are prefixed. Apparently the purpose to be compassed was to convince the audience of their miraculous origin. The formulation of doctrines belongs to a later period and that of jurisprudence to the latest of all. In that last period also, when Mahomet was despot of Medina, the Koran served as an official chronicle, well compared by Sprenger to the leading articles on current events in a ministerial organ. Where the continuous paragraph is substituted for the ejaculation, the divine author apologizes for the style.

Certain doctrines and practices (e.g. washing of the person and the garments) must have been enjoined from the first, but our authorities scarcely give us any clear notion what they were. The doctrines to which the Prophet himself throughout assigned most value seem to have been the unity of God and the future life, or resurrection of the body. The former necessitated the abandonment of the idolatrous worship which formed part of the daily life of Mecca, and in which Mahomet and Khadija had been accustomed to take their part. Yet it seems to have been due to the initiative of the proselytes themselves rather than to the Prophet's orders that the Meccan worship was actually flouted by them; for the anecdote which represents the Prophet and his young cousin attempting to pull down the images in or about the Ka'ba appears to be apocryphal. The first Moslem ceremony would appear to have been the religious meeting for the purpose of hearing the delivery of revelations, of which after the Prophet's death the sermon (_khutbah_) took the place. After various provisional meeting-places, the house of one al-Arqam on Mt. Safa was adopted for this purpose; and here proselytes were initiated.

Growth of the Early Community.

The names which the new community received from its founder are both philological puzzles; for the natural sense of Moslem (_Muslim_) appear to be "traitors," and to this a contemporary war-song of Mahomet's enemies alludes; while _Hanif_ (especially applied in the Koran to Abraham) seems to be the Hebrew word for "hypocrite." The former is explained in the Koran to mean "one who hands over his face or person to God," and is said to have been invented by Abraham; of the latter no explanation is given, but it seems to signify from the context "devotee." Since the divine name _Rahman_ was at one time favoured by Mahomet, and this was connected with one Maslama of the tribe Hanifa, who figures in politics at the end of Mahomet's career but must have been a religious leader far earlier, it has been suggested that the names originally belonged to Maslama's community. The honour of having been Mahomet's first convert is claimed for three persons: his wife Khadija, his cousin Ali, who must have been a lad at the commencement of the mission, and Abu Bekr, son of Abu Quhafah, afterwards Mahomet's first successor. This last person became Mahomet's _alter ego_, and is usually known as the _Siddiq_ (Heb. word signifying "the saint," but to the Arabs meaning "faithful friend)". His loyalty from first to last was absolutely unswerving; he was selected to accompany Mahomet on the most critical occasion of his life, the Flight from Mecca; Mahomet is said to have declared that had he ever made a confidant of any one, that person would have been Abu Bekr; implying that there were things which were not confided even to him. The success of the Prophet's enterprise seems to have been very largely due to the part played by this adherent, who possessed a variety of attainments which he put at Mahomet's service; who when an intermediary was required was always ready to represent him, and who placed the commendation of the Prophet above every other consideration, private or public. The two appear to have regularly laid siege to those persons in Mecca whose adherence was desirable; and the ability which many of the earlier converts afterwards displayed, whether as statesmen or generals, is a remarkable testimony to their power of gauging men. It seems clear that the growth of wealth in Mecca had led to the accentuation of the difference between persons of different station, and that many were discontented with the oligarchy which governed the city. Converts could, therefore, be won without serious difficulty among the aliens and in general those who suffered under various disqualifications. Some members of the Jewish community seem also to have joined; and some relics of the Abyssinian expedition (i.e. descendants of the invaders). Among the most important converts of the Meccan period were Mahomet's uncle Hamza, afterwards for his valour called "the Lion of God"; 'Abd al-Rahman (Abdar-rahman) son of 'Auf; Othman, son of 'Affan, who married two of the Prophet's daughters successively, and was Mahomet's third successor; and, more important than any save Abu Bekr, Omar, son of al-Khattab, a man of extraordinary force of character, to whom siege seems to have been laid with extraordinary skill. At some time he received the honourable title _Faruq_ ("Deliverer"); he is represented as regularly favouring force, where Abu Bekr favoured gentle methods; unlike Abu Bekr, his loyalty was not always above suspicion. His adherence is ascribed to the period of publicity.

The secrecy which marked its early years was of the greatest value for the eventual success of the mission; for when Mahomet came forward publicly he was already the head of a band of united followers. His own family appear to have been either firm adherents, or violent enemies, or lukewarm and temporizing--this is the best which can be said for 'Abbas, eponymus of the Abbasid dynasty; or finally espousers of his cause, on family grounds, but not as believers.

First Period of Publicity.