At

is now lost. But it is the third class which practically comes into 'Ilm-i-usúl. Authorities differ as to the number of verses abrogated. Sale states that they have been estimated at two hundred and twenty-five. The principal ones are not many in number, and are very generally agreed upon. I give a few examples. It is a fact worthy of notice that they occur chiefly, if not almost entirely, in Súras delivered at Madína. There, where Muhammad had to confront Jews and Christians, he was at first politic in his aim to win them over to his side, and then, when he found them obstinate, the doctrine of abrogation came in conveniently. This is seen plainly in the following case. Mecca Muhammad and his followers did not stand facing any particular direction when at prayer, a fact to which the following passage refers :-" To God belongeth the east and west; therefore, whithersoever ye turn yourselves to pray there is the face of God." (Súra ii. 109). When Muhammad arrived at Madína, he entered into friendship with the Jews and tried to win them to his side. The Qibla (sanctuary) towards which the worshippers now invariably turned at prayer was Jerusalem. This went on for a while, but when Muhammad claimed to be not merely a Prophet for the Arabs, but the last and the greatest of all the Prophets, when he asserted that Moses had foretold his advent, and that his revelations were the same as those contained in their own Scriptures, they utterly refused allegiance to him. In the first half of the second year of the Hijra the breach between them was complete. It was now time to reconcile the leaders of the Quraish tribe at Mecca. So the verse quoted above was abrogated by: "We have seen thee turning thy face towards heaven, but we will have thee turn to a Qibla, which shall please thee. Turn then thy face toward the Holy Temple (of Mecca), and wherever ye be, turn your faces toward that part." (Súra ii. 139.) The Faithful were consoled by the assurance that though they had not done so hitherto, yet God would not let their

faith be fruitless, "for unto man is God merciful, gracious." (v. 138.) The doctrine of abrogation is brought in for a more personal matter in the following case: "It is not permitted to thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change thy present wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves, whom thy right hand shall possess." (Súra xxxiii. 52.) This is said by Beidawi, and other eminent Muslim divines, to have been abrogated by a verse which though placed before it in the arrangement of verses, was really delivered after it. The verse is: "O Prophet, we allow thee thy wives whom thou hast dowered, and the slaves which thy right hand possesseth out of the booty which God hath granted thee; and the daughters of thy uncle, and the daughters of thy aunts, both on thy father's side, and on thy mother's side, who have fled with thee (to Madína), and any other believing woman, who hath given herself up to the Prophet; if the Prophet desireth to wed her, it is a peculiar privilege for thee, above the rest of the Faithful." (Súra xxxiii. 49.)

The Moghul Emperor Akbar, wishing to discredit the 'Ulamá, in one of the meetings so frequently held for discussion during his long reign, propounded the question as to how many free born women a man might marry. The lawyers answered that four was the number fixed by the Prophet. "Of other women who seem good in your eyes marry two and two, and three and three, and four and four.' (Súra iv. 3.) The Emperor said that he had not restricted himself to that number, and that Shaikh 'Abd-un-Nabi had told him that a certain Mujtahid had had nine wives. The Mujtahid in question, Ibn Abi Lailah reckoned the number allowed thus 2+3+4-9. Other learned men counted in this way 2+2, 3+3, 4+4 = 18. The Emperor wished the meeting to decide the point.

Again, the second verse of Súra lxxiii reads: "Stand up all night, except a small portion of it, for prayer." According to a Tradition handed down by 'Ayesha the last verse

of this Súra was revealed a year later. It makes the matter much easier. "God measureth the night and the day; he knoweth that ye cannot count its hours aright, and therefore turneth to you mercifully. Recite then so much of the Qurán as may be easy to you." (v. 20.)

The following is an illustration of a verse abrogated, though there is no verse to prove its abrogation. However, according to the Ijma' it has been abrogated. "But alms are only to be given to the poor and the needy and to those who collect them, and to those whose hearts are won to Islám." (Súra ix. 60.) The clause-" to those whose hearts are won to Islám"-is now cancelled.1 Muhammad, to gain the hearts of those, who lately enemies, had now become friends, and to confirm them in the faith, gave them large presents from the spoils he took in war; but when Islám spread and became strong, the 'Ulamá agreed that such a procedure was not required and said that the order was "mansukh."

The other verses abrogated relate to the Ramazán fast, to Jihad, the law of retaliation, and other matters of social interest.

2

The doctrine of abrogation is now almost invariably applied by Musalmán controversialists to the Old and New Testaments, which they say are abrogated by the Qurán. "His (Muhammad's) law is the abrogator of every other law." This is not, however, a legitimate use of the doctrine. According to the best and most ancient Muslim divines, abrogation refers entirely to the Qurán and the Traditions, and even then is confined to commands and prohibitions. "Those who imagine it to be part of the Muhammadan creed that one law has totally repealed another, are utterly mistaken-we hold no such doctrine."3 In the Tafsír-i-Itifáq it is written: "Abrogation affects those

1. Tafsír-i-Husainí, p. 216.

2. Sharh-i-'Aqáíd-i-Jámí, p. 131.

3. Commentary on the Holy Bible by Syed Ahmad, c.s.I., vol. i. p. 268. See note on this in chapter 4. Section Prophets.'

matters which God has confined to the followers of Muhammad, and one of the chief advantages of it is that the way is made easy." In the Tafsír-i-Mazhirí we find: "Abrogation refers only to commands and prohibitions, not to facts or historical statements." Again, no verse of the Qurán, or a Tradition can be abrogated unless the abrogating verse is distinctly opposed to it in meaning. If it is a verse of the Qurán, we must have the authority of Muhammad himself for the abrogation; if a Tradition, that of a Companion. Thus "the word of a commentator or a Mujtahid is not sufficient unless there is a genuine Tradition' (Hadís-iSahíh), to show the matter clearly. The question of the abrogation of any previous command depends on historical facts with regard to the abrogation, not on the mere opinion of a commentator." It cannot be shown that either Muhammad or a Companion ever said that the Bible was abrogated. This rule, whilst it shows that the assertion of modern controversialists on this point is void of foundation, also illustrates another point to which I have often called attention, viz.; that in Islám all interpretation must be regulated by traditionalism.

Additions were occasionally made. Thus when it was revealed that those who stay at home were not before God as those who go forth to war, Abdullah and Ibn UmMaktum said: 'and what if they were blind.' The Prophet asked for the shoulder-blade on which the verse was written. He then had a spasmodic convulsion. After his recovery he made Zeid add the words, "free from trouble." So now the whole verse reads thus: "Those believers who sit at home free from trouble (i.e., bodily infirmity), and those who do valiantly in the cause of God, with their substance and their persons, shall not be treated alike." (Súra iv. 97). Years after, Zeid said: "I fancy I see the words now on the shoulder-blade near a crack."

1. Niáz Namáh, by Maulavi Safdar 'Ali, p. 250.

The question of the eternal nature of the Qurán does not properly come under the head of 'Ilm-i-usúl, but it is a dogma fondly cherished by many Muslims. In the days of the Khalif Al-Mamun this question was fiercely debated. The Freethinkers, whilst believing in the Mission of Muhammad, asserted that the Qurán was created, by which statement they meant that the revelation came to him in a subjective mode, and that the language was his own. The book was thus brought within the reach of criticism. In the year 212, A. H. the Khalíf issued a decree to the effect that all who held the Qurán to be uncreated were to be declared guilty of heresy. But the Khalíf himself was a notorious rationalist, and so the orthodox, though they remained quiet, remained unconvinced. The arguments used on the orthodox side are, that both the words and their pronunciation are eternal, that the attempt to draw a distinction between the word as it exists in the Divine Mind and as it appears in the Qurán is highly dangerous. In vain do their opponents argue that, if the Qurán is uncreated, two Eternal Beings are in existence. To this it is answered: "This is the honourable Qurán, written in the preserved Tablet." (Súra lvi. 76). A Tradition is also adduced which states: "God wrote the Thora (Law) with His own hand, and with His own hand He created Adam; and also in the Qurán it is written, and We wrote for him upon the tables a monition concerning every matter,' in reference to the tables of the Law given to Moses." If God did this for former prophets and their works, how much more, it is argued, should he not have done it for the last and greatest of the prophets, and the noble Quran? It is not easy to get a correct definition of the term "the uncreated Qurán," but it has been put thus: "The Word as it exists in the mind of God is 'Kalám-iNafsí' (spiritual word), something unwritten and eternal. It is acknowledged by the Ijma'-i-Ummat (consent of the Faithful), the Traditions, and by other prophets that God