^{page 43 note 1} Margoliouth, D. S., The Early Development of Muhammadanism, London, 1914, pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} Goldziher, , Vorlesungen über den Islam, Heidelberg, 1910, pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar, points out that aḍalla should be translated allows to err rather than makes to err. But if this and the many similar verses can be thus withdrawn from those that predicate irreleiten of God, an imposing number still remains on which Islam has based the dogma of predestination.

^{page 45 note 1} It is probable that their name is to be derived from qudra rather than from qadar (as MacDonald, , Muslim Theology, London, 1903, p. 128)Google Scholar; for qadar properly applies to a decree of God. See Lane, p. 2495, col. 3 ad fin.; and also Al-Mu‘tazila, ed. Arnold, , Leipzig, 1902, p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 135 ff. See also Al-Shahrastani in loc.

^{page 46 note 1} Op. cit.

^{page 46 note 2} For the Jewish view cf. Ab. iii, 24, “ Everything is foreseen but free will is given ” הבוחב חושדהו יופצ לכה.

^{page 46 note 3} In Judaism cf. Ber. 60b. All that God does is for a good purpose.

^{page 47 note 1} Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete des Islams, Leipzig, 1873, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Bibliotheca Veterum patrum … cura Andreae Gallandii, p. 272.

^{page 49 note 1} Op. cit., p. 146.

^{page 49 note 2} The use of the Bible in these controversies is a subject that calls for further investigation. It is quite clear from the way in which Scripture is turned against the Christians that the Muslims were familiar with the Old Testament at least. (Al-Naẓẓām, the Mu‘tazilite, is said to have known by heart the Quran, the Taurāt, the Anjīl, and the Zubūr.) It may be that in some cases the adversary was a Jew—such a one is referred to in Joannis Hierosolymitani Narratio (Gallandi, p. 270, ecclesiae Dei hostis). The doctrine that the Torah was created before the foundation of the world is, of course, Jewish; cf. Mid. Rab. on Gen. i, 1. The tone of the Disputatio hardly suggests that the Christian was disputing with an apostate, though in the days of the first Umayyad caliphs the line between Christians and Muslims was by no means clearly drawn. (See on this point Lammens, , Etudes sur la régne du Calife Omayyade Mo‘awiya … Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale, Beyrout, 1906, p. 54.)Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Practically all the tenets of the earlier Mu‘tazilites are to be found in John's writings: besides those mentioned there is, e.g., the explanation of anthropomorphisms in the scripture and the assertion that the qualities in the divine essence must be expressed by negations or relations.

^{page 50 note 2} I gratefully acknowledge Professor Margoliouth's kindness in reading my translation and suggesting alterations which I have everywhere adopted.

^{page 51 note 1} Kitābu’l Qadar 82. Le recueil des Traditions Mahométanes, par Abou Abdallah Mohammed ibn Ismaīl el Bokhāri, publié par M. Ludolf Krehl, continué par Th. W. Juynboll, Leyden, 1908, vol. iv, p. 251.

^{page 51 note 2} Ḥaddathanā. The expression implies that the authority to recount this tradition was given with a general licence; consequently the original narrator could not always control the form in which his traditions were promulgated. See Goldziher, , M.S., vol. ii, pp. 189 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} i.e. Ibn Mas‘ūd. The isnäd will be omitted in future, only the name of the original guarantor being given.

^{page 51 note 4} The customary blessing on Muhammad will be omitted throughout the book.

^{page 51 note 5} Textual variant, or “ a man ” of you.

^{page 52 note 1} The word “ drop ” (nutfa) suggests that the form of the tradition (a) in the Mishkāt (p. 12) may be the original, though it reads rather like a conflation: “ Verily the creation of each one of you who is assembled in his mother's womb forty days is a drop.” The same recognition of the origin of man's life, but in a nobler context, will be found in Pirqē Ābhōth, pereq iii, 1. The source of both these traditions is to be sought in the Jewish Haggādah, cf. Yelammedenu (Midrash Tanḥuma), Lublin, 1879, p. 261Google Scholar: “ In the embryo sex, constitution, size, shape, appearance, rank, livelihood, and all that will befall the creature save its moral nature are preordained.” Cf. also Niddah, 16b, where the angel presents the ṭippah before God and asks what it is to be: strong or weak; wise or foolish; rich or poor; but he does not ask whether it is to become a wicked or a righteous man. The Kanzu’l ‘Ammāl (vol. i, p. 29), which refers this tradition to both Bukhārī and Muslim, agrees in the main with the version given in the Mishkāt (Bombay, 1880).

^{page 52 note 2} The many references to writing require some elucidation. It would seem that here the lauḥ maḥfuẓ or preserved tablet is meant. The Quran, uncreate and existent before all worlds, was inscribed on this tablet, as were the deeds and thoughts of men: all that has been and is to be, the believer's faith and piety, the kāfir's unbelief and impiety, are decreed by the writing on the preserved tablet.

^{page 53 note 1} Bimā kānu ‘āmilīn. The meaning is: This is not a matter for you to inquire into, for God knows better what their actions would have been had they lived; and therefore their eternal destiny will be decided in the light of His omniscience. In these two ḥadīth we have an excellent example of Bukhāri's faithful adherence to his principle. The second ḥadīth, adds nothing to the first; yet it is not a mere variant because the isnād is entirely different throughout. Consequently both traditions, being duly authenticated, must ex hypothesi be held genuine utterances of Muhammad.

^{page 53 note 2} Istafragha fulānun mā fī ṣaḥfatihi is a proverbial saying meaning “ So-and-so took as his share (or exhausted) what was in his bowl”.

^{page 54 note 1} This implies that not only has everything been decreed by God but that the whole course of the history of posterity was revealed by Him to the prophet. The Midrash Rabba on Ex. xxxi contains an account of how God showed Moses all the kings, principal men, and prophets who would appear in the generations until the hour of the resurrection.

^{page 54 note 2} The Mishkāt adds to the two words afalā nattakilu the gloss ‘alā kitābinā wanada‘u-l ‘amal, i.e. “ May we not abandon ourselves to what has been written of us and forsake (good) works ? ”

^{page 54 note 3} Or prepared. See Al-Nihāya in loc.

^{page 54 note 4} Fī sabīl Illah. The surprise of Muhammad's followers is due to the supreme merit attached to the act of fighting unbelievers. In Sur. iii, 163, there is the proclamation: “ Do not reckon those who are slain in the way of God to be dead: nay, alive with their Lord are they sustained.” Cf. Sur. ii, 149. To fight in the way of God is synonymous with joining in the jihād. For the meaning given to the phrase in later times see Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, ii, pp. 387 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} i.e. that he would not meet his death in the jihād.

^{page 55 note 2} The blessings of paradise are expressly promised in the Quran to those who fulfil their vows (Sur. Ixxvi, v. 7), yūfūna binnadhri.

^{page 56 note 1} On the form of this word and the rival meanings given to the verse, see Lane, p. 878, col. a.

^{page 56 note 2} This anachronism need cause no surprise. It is to be explained by Muhammad's foreknowledge; cf. 2 (d) supra.

^{page 57 note 1} This is the interpretation of the verse generally accepted by the native authorities. Ibn Jumāna (quoted by Lane, p. 554, col. 3) uses the word as equivalent to . The ordinary meaning “ forbidden ” would seem to make the following redundant. But see Rodwell and Sale in loc. Some native authorities read . Although Arabic supports faintly Ibn ‘Abbās’ explanation, the Ethiopic lexicon does not. Probably “ ban ” (Heb. םרֶהֵ) is the meaning.

^{page 57 note 2} . Following the Nihāya I take this to be the meaning. Cf. Muh. Stud., p. 49, for an unfavourable judgment on Abū Huraira. Al Qasṭallānī explains it as “ a venial sin ”.

^{page 57 note 3} This tradition is obviously an expansion of Matt, v, 28. It is interesting to notice that the compiler of the Mishkāt (p. 12) omits Ibn ‘Abbās’ fair comment on Abū Huraira. Contrary to his usual custom, too, he gives Muslim's version as well as that of Bukhārī. The former, which is rather more full, runs: “ Man's lot, so far as adultery is concerned, has been written. It must certainly befall. The adultery of the eye is to gaze; of the ears to listen; of the tongue to speak; of the hand to seize; of the foot to step forward; the heart longs and desires and the body consents or denies.” Muslim's version obscures the point. Bukhārī has transmitted a tradition to the effect that unlawful desire is as the sin of adultery; whereas Muslim, by irrelevantly introducing ears, hands, and feet, simply describes the physiological course of the sin.

^{page 58 note 1} For a full account of the vast growth of tradition which sprang up on the subject of the Mi‘rāj see Palcios, Asin, La Escatologia Musulmana en la Divina Commedia, Madrid, 1919, pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} The original form of this ḥadīth—which clearly presupposes considerable knowledge of the products of Jewish midrashic fancy—is expanded in Muslim's version (quoted in the Mishkāt, p. 11) so that the vulgar may easily understand its point: “ Adam and Moses argued before their Lord and Adam confuted Moses. Moses said: ‘ Thou art that Adam whom God created with His hand and breathed into thee of His spirit and made His angels prostrate themselves before thee and made thee to dwell in paradise. Then didst thou bring men down to the earth in thy degradation.’ Adam replied: ‘ Thou art that Moses whom God chose with His apostleship and with His word and gave thee tables in which is the explanation of all things and favoured thee with His confidence. Then how long was the Torah written before I was created ?’ Moses replied: ‘ Forty years.’ Adam replied: ‘ Then do you find in it the words “ And Adam disobeyed his Lord and went astray ” ? ’ ‘ Yes,’ said he. Adam rejoined: ‘ Then do you blame me for doing something that God wrote that I should do forty years before He created me ? ’ The Apostle of God said: ‘ Thus Adam confuted Moses.’ ” An interesting discussion of this ḥadīth will be found in Al Mu‘tazila (p. 46), where it is condemned as khabar bāṭil.

^{page 59 note 1} This is the probable meaning of the words (taking the preposition min as the equivalent of badala, i.e. the wealth or good fortune that cometh of Thee). Zamakhsharī understands this to mean “ instead of the obedience and submissiveness due to Thee ”. Others interpret minka as ‘indaka “ Will not profit with Thee ”. Others, “ will not defend him from Thee.” See Lane, p. 385.

^{page 59 note 2} Qaḍā is used of a decree of God which is universal in application, and so here of some misfortune suffered by the victim when coming under a law of nature. Qadar means generally a man's own particular fate and destiny.

^{page 59 note 3} This is one of the texts that the Mu‘tazilites read differently. By the slightest possible alteration in the punctuation it was possible to say: “ I take refuge in the Lord of the Dawn from evil which he hath not created.” Instead of they read ; the following could then form a negative relative sentence. (See Qasṭallānī, Bulaq, 1285, p. 397; quoted by Goldziher, M.S. ii, p. 240.)

^{page 59 note 4} The commentators understand these words to mean that God turns man from his desire by influencing his will; cf. Sur. xxxiv, v. 53.

^{page 60 note 1} Or, “ There is something that I have concealed from thee.”

^{page 60 note 2} . Qasṭallānī explains that he wished to say , but was unable to utter it, after the custom of soothsayers who snatch their words. The traditions on this legendary person are collected in the Mishkāt, p. 470.

^{page 60 note 3} The word would seem to have this meaning here; cf. the similar expression jawaza qadrahu.

^{page 60 note 4} This subject is more fully discussed in the Kitabu-l-Tibb, No. 30, Bāb mā yudhkaru fi-l-Ṭa‘ūn. Krehl, iv, p. 59.

^{page 61 note 1} See on this point Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, ii, pp. 88–130.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} It is not our purpose to investigate the influence of Mu‘tazilite doctrines on orthodox philosophers.

^{page 63 note 1} I am entirely at a loss to understand the ground of Baron Carra de Vaux's statement (the italics are mine) in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics [Article “ Fate ” (Muslim)], vol. v, p. 794: “ It is true that there have been scholars who taught fatalism in Islam, and that the books of Muslim theologians and the Quran itself contain propositions apparently inculcating fatalism. At the same time it must be remembered that the doctrine of fatalism has always been expressly repudiated by orthodox Islam, which believes in the free will of man, although it encounters serious difficulty in reconciling this with the all-powerful will of God,” unless orthodox tradition is to be ruled out of court.