The Jabríans gave great prominence to the denial of free agency in man, and thus opposed the Mutazilites, who in this respect are Kadríans, that is, they deny "AlKadr," God's absolute sovereignty, and recognize free will in man.

These and various other sub-divisions are not now of much importance. The Sunnís follow the teaching of Al-Ash'arí, whilst the Shí'ahs incline to that of the Mutazilites.

Connected with the subject of the attributes of God is that of the names to be used when speaking of Him. All sects agree in this, that the names "The Living, the Wise, the Powerful, the Hearer, the Seer, the Speaker," &c., are to be applied to God; but the orthodox belief is that all such names must be "tauqífi," that is dependent on some revelation. Thus it is not lawful to apply a name to God expressive of one of His attributes, unless there is some statement made, or order given by Muhammad to legalize it. God is rightly called Sháfí (Healer), but He cannot be called Tabib which means much the same thing, for the simple reason that the word Tabíb is never applied in the Qurán or the Traditions to God. In like manner the term ’Álim (Knower) is lawful, but not so the expression 'Áqil (Wise). The Mutazilites say that if, in the Qurán or Traditions, there is any praise of an attribute, then the adjective formed from the name of that attribute can be applied to God even though the actual word does not occur in any revelation. Al-Ghazzálí (a.H. 450—505), who gave in the East the death-blow to the Muslim philosophers, says: "The names of God not given in the Law, if expressive of His glory, may be used of Him, but only as expressive of His attributes, not of His nature." On the ground that it does not occur in the Law, the Persian word "Khuda" has been objected to, an objection which also holds good with regard to the use of such terms as God, Dieu, Gott, &c. To this it is answered, that as "Khuda" means 66 one who comes by himself" it is equivalent to the term Wájib-ul-Wajúd,

"one who has necessary existence," and therefore so long as it is not considered as the "Ism-i-Zát (name of His nature) it may with propriety be used."1

The current belief now seems to be that the proper name equal to the term Alláh, current in a language, can be used, provided always that such a name is not taken from the language of the Infidels; so God, Dieu, &c., still remain unlawful. The names of God authorised by the Quran and Traditions are, exclusive of the term Alláh, ninety-nine in number. They are called the Asmá-i-Husná 2 (noble names); but in addition to these there are many synonyms used on the authority of Ijma'. Such are Hanán, equal to Rahím (Merciful) and Manán, "one who puts another under an obligation." In the Tafsír-i-Bahr it is stated that there are three thousand names of God; one thousand of which are known to angels; one thousand to prophets; whilst one thousand are thus distributed, viz., in the Pentateuch there are three hundred, in the Psalms three hundred, in the Gospels three hundred, in the Qurán ninety-nine, and

one still hidden.

The following texts of the Qurán are adduced to prove the nature of the divine attributes:—

(1). Life.

"There is no God but He, the Living, the

Eternal." (Súra ii. 256). "Put thy trust in Him that liveth and dieth not." (Súra xxv. 60).

(2). Knowledge. "Dost thou not see that God knoweth all that is in the heavens, and all that is in the earth.” (Súra lviii. 8). "With Him are the keys of the secret things; none knoweth them but He: He knoweth whatever is on the land and in the sea; and no leaf falleth but He knoweth it; neither is there a grain in the darknesses of the earth, nor a thing green or sere, but it is noted in a distinct writing." (Súra vi. 59).

1. Sharh-i-Aqáíd-i-Jámí, p. 63.

2. "Most excellent titles has God: by these call ye on Him and stand aloof from those who pervert His titles." (Súra vii. 179.)

(3). Power. " If God pleased, of their ears and of their eyes would He surely deprive them. Verily God is Almighty." (Súra ii. 19). "Is He not powerful enough to quicken the dead." (Súra lxxv. 40). "God hath power over all things." (Súra iii. 159.)

(4). Will. "God is worker of that He willeth." (Súra lxxxv. 16). "But if God pleased, He would surely bring them, one and all, to the guidance." (Súra vi. 35). "God misleadeth whom He will, and whom He will He guidethGod doeth His pleasure." (Súra xiv. 4, 32).

As this attribute is closely connected with the article of the Creed which refers to Predestination, the different opinions regarding it will be stated under that head.

There has never been any difference of opinion as to the existence of these four attributes so clearly described in the Qurán: the difference is with regard to the mode of their existence and their operation. There is, first, the ancient Sifátian doctrine that the attributes are eternal and of the essence of God: secondly, the Mutazilite theory that they are not eternal; and, thirdly, the Ash'arían dogma that they are eternal, but distinct from His

essence.

There is also great difference of opinion with regard to the next three attributes-hearing, sight, speech. For the existence of the two first of these the following verses are quoted, "He truly heareth and knoweth all things." "No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh (Súra vi. 103).

(Súra xliv. 5). in all vision."

The use of the terms sitting, rising, &c., hands, face, eyes, and so on, gave rise as I have shown to several sub-divisions of the Sifátians. Al-Ghazzálí says: "He sits upon His throne after that manner which He has Himself described and in that sense which He Himself means, which is a sitting far remote from any notion of contact or resting upon, or local situation." This is the Ash'arían idea, but between the Ash'aríans and those who fell into the error of the

Mujassimians,1 there was another school. The followers of Imam Ibn Hanbal say that such words represent the attributes existing in God. The words "God sits on His throne” mean that He has the power of sitting. Thus, they say, "We keep the literal meaning of the words, we allow no figurative interpretation. To do so is to introduce a dangerous principle of interpretation, for the negation of the apparent sense of a passage may tend to weaken the authority of revelation. At the same time we do not pretend to explain the act, for it is written: There is none like unto Him.' (Súra cxii.) Nought is there like Him.' (Súra xlii. 9.) 'Unworthy the estimate they form of God.'" (Súra xxii. 73.)

To prove that God occupies a place they produce the following Tradition: "Ibn-al-Hákim wished to give liberty to a female slave Saouda and consulted the Prophet about it. Muhammad said to her, 'Where is God?' 'In heaven,' she replied. Set her at liberty, she is a true believer."" Not, say the Commentators, because she believed that God occupied a place but because she took the words in their literal signification. The Shi'ahs consider it wrong to attribute to God movement, quiescence, &c., for these imply the possession of a body. They hold, too, in opposition to the orthodox that God will never be seen, for that which is seen is limited by space.

The seventh attribute-speech-has been fruitful of a very long and important controversy connected with the nature of the Qurán, for the word "Kalám" means not mere speech, but revelation and every other mode of communicating intelligence. Al-Ghazzálí says:

Neither is it like to

“He doth speak, command, forbid, promise, and threaten by an eternal ancient word, subsisting in His essence. the word of the creatures, nor doth it consist in a voice arising from the commotion of the air and the collision of bodies, nor letters

1. "The Mujassimians, or Corporealists not only admitted a resemblance between God and created beings, but declared God to be corporeal." Sale's Preliminary discourse, Section viii. para. 3.

which are separated by the joining together of the lips or the motion of the tongue. The Qurán, the Law, the Gospel and the Psalter are books sent down by Him to His Apostles, and the Qurán, indeed, is read with tongues written in books, and is kept in hearts; yet, as subsisting in the essence of God, it doth not become liable to separation and division whilst it is transferred into the hearts and on to paper. Thus Moses also heard the word of God without voice or letter, even as the saints behold the essence of God without substance or accident."

The orthodox believe that God is really a speaker: the Mutazilites deny this, and say that He is only called a speaker because He is the originator of words and sounds.

They also bring the following objections to bear against the doctrine of the eternity of the Qurán. (1) It is written in Arabic, it descended, is read, is heard, and is written. It was the subject of a miracle. It is divided into parts and some verses are abrogated by others. (2) Events are described in the past tense, but if the Qurán had been eternal the future tense would have been used. (3) The Qurán contains commands and prohibitions; if it is eternal who were commanded and who were admonished? (4) If it has existed from eternity it must exist to eternity, and so even in the last day, and in the next world, men will be under the obligation of performing the same religious duties as they do now, and of keeping all the outward precepts of the law. (5) If the Qurán is eternal, then there are two eternals.

The position thus assailed was not at first a hard and fast dogma of Islám. It was more a speculative opinion than anything else, but the opposition of the Mutazilites soon led all who wished to be considered orthodox to become not only stout assertors of the eternity of the Qurán, but to give up their lives in defence of what they believed to be true. The Mutazilites by asserting the subjective nature of the Quranic inspiration brought the book itself within the reach of criticism. This was too much for orthodox Islám to bear even though the Khalíf Mámún in the