SERMON. The oration delivered at the Friday midday prayer is called the k͟hut̤bah (خطبة); exhortations at any other time are termed waʿz̤ (وعظ). The former is an established custom in Islām, and the discourse is always delivered at the Masjidu ʾl-Jāmīʿ, or principal mosque, on Fridays, but sermons on other occasions although they are in accordance with the practice of Muḥammad, are not common. Very few Maulawīs preach except on Fridays. [KHUTBAH.]
SERPENT, Arabic ḥaiyah (حية), occurs in the Qurʾān once for the serpent made from Moses’ rod (Sūrah ii. 21). The word used in another place (Sūrah vii. 104) is s̤uʿbān (ثعبان). The Hebrew תַּנִּין tanneen is also used for a large serpent in Muslim books, but it does not occur in the Qurʾān.
In the Qurʾān, Sūrah ii. 34, it is said Satan made Adam and Eve to backslide and “drove them out from what they were in,” but no mention is made of the serpent.
The commentators say that when the devil attempted to get into Eden to tempt Adam, he was stopped by the angelic guard at the gates of Paradise, whereupon he begged of the animals to carry him in to speak to Adam and his wife, but they all refused except the serpent, who took him between his teeth and so introduced him to our first parents. (Tafsīru ʾl-ʿAzīzī, p. 124.)
SETH. Arabic Shīs̤ (شيث); Heb. שֵׁת Sheth. The third son of Adam. A prophet to whom it is said God revealed fifty small portions of scripture. [PROPHETS.] In the fourth century there existed in Egypt a sect of gnostics, calling themselves Sethians, who regarded Seth as a divine emanation (Neander’s Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 115), which will account for Muḥammad classing him as an inspired prophet with a revelation.
SEVEN DIALECTS. Arabic Sabʿatu Aḥruf (سبعة احرف). The Prophet is related to have said that the Qurʾān was revealed in seven dialects (Mishkāt, book ii. ch. ii.). The word aḥruf, translated “dialects,” may admit of two interpretations. Some understand it to mean that the Qurʾān contains seven kinds of revelation: Commandment (amr), prohibition (nahy), history (qiṣṣah), parable (mis̤āl), exhortation (waʿz̤), promises (waʿdah), and threatening (waʿīd). But the more common interpretation of aḥruf is “dialects,” by which is understood that by changing the inflections and accentuations of words, the text of the Qurʾān may be read in the then existing “seven dialects” of Arabia, namely, Quraish, T̤aiy, Hawāzin, Yaman, S̤aqīf, Huẕail, Tamīm. [QURʾAN.]
SEVEN SALĀMS. Seven verses of the Qurʾān, in which the word salām (سلام), “peace,” occurs:—
Sūrah xxxvi. 58: “Peace shall be the word spoken unto the righteous by a merciful God.”
Sūrah xxxvii. 77: “Peace be on Noah and on all creatures.”
Sūrah xxxvii. 109: “Peace be on Abraham.”
Sūrah xxxvii. 120: “Peace be on Moses and Aaron.”
Sūrah xxxvii. 130: “Peace be on Elias.”
Sūrah xxxvii. 181: “Peace be on His apostles.”
Sūrah xcvii. 5: “It is peace until the breaking of the morn.”
These verses are recited by the religious Muslim during sickness, or in seasons of danger or distress. In some parts of Islām it is customary to write these seven verses of the Qurʾān on paper and then to wash off the ink and drink it as a charm against evil.
SHAʿBĀN (شعبان). Lit. “The month of separation.” The eighth month of the Muḥammadan year. So-called because the Arabs used to separate themselves in search of water during this month.
SHAB-I-BARĀT (شب برات). The Persian title for the fifteenth day of the month Shaʿbān, which is called in Arabic Lailatu ʾn-niṣf min Shaʿbān, or “the night of the middle of Shaʿbān.”
On this night, Muḥammad said, God registers annually all the actions of mankind which they are to perform during the year; and that all the children of men, who are to be born and to die in the year, are recorded. Muḥammad, it is said, enjoined his followers to keep awake the whole night, to repeat one hundred rakʿah prayers, and to fast the next day; but there are generally great rejoicings instead of a fast, and large sums of money are spent in fireworks. It is the “Guy Fawkes Day” of India, being the night for display of fireworks.
The Shab-i-Barāt is said to be referred to in the XLIVth Sūrah of the Qurʾān, verse 2, as “the night on which all things are disposed in wisdom,” although the commentators are not agreed as to whether the verse alludes to this night or the Shab-i-Qadr, on the 27th of the month of Ramaẓān.
The Shab-i-Barāt is frequently confounded with the Lailatu ʾl-Qadr, or, as it is called in India, the Shab-i-Qadr.
SHAB-I-QADR (شب قدر). [LAILATU ʾL-QADR.]
SHĀDI (شادى). Persian. Lit. “Festivity.” The ordinary term used for weddings amongst Persian and Urdu-speaking peoples. In Arabic the term is ʿurs (عرس). [MARRIAGE.]
SHADĪDU ʾL-QUWĀ (شديد القوى). Lit. “One terrible in power.” A title given to the agent of inspiration in the Sūratu ʾn-Najm (liii.), verse 5: “Verily the Qurʾān is no other than a revelation revealed to him: one terrible in power (shadīdu ʾl-quwā) taught it him.”
Commentators are unanimous in assigning this title to the angel Gabriel.
SHAFʿ (شفع). A term used for rakʿahs of prayer when recited in pairs.
SHAFĀʿAH (شفاعة). [INTERCESSION.]
ASH-SHĀFIʿĪ (الشافعى). Imām Muḥammad ibn Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, the founder of one of the four orthodox sects of Sunnīs, was born at Askalon in Palestine A.H. 150. He was of the same tribe as the Prophet, and is distinguished by the appellation of al-Imāmu ʾl-Mut̤t̤alibī, or Quraish Mut̤t̤alibī, because of his descent from the Prophet’s grandfather, ʿAbdu ʾl-Mut̤t̤alib. He derived his patronymic ash-Shāfiʿī from his grandfather, Shāfiʿī Ibn as-Sāʾib. His family were at first among the most inveterate of Muḥammad’s enemies. His father, carrying the standard of the tribe of Hāshim at the battle of Badr, was taken prisoner by the Muslims, but released on ransom, and afterwards became a convert to Islām. Ash-Shāfiʿī is reported by Muslim writers to be the most accurate of all the traditionists, and, if their accounts be well founded, nature had indeed endowed him with extraordinary talents for excelling in that species of literature. It is said that at seven years of age he had got the whole Qurʾān by rote, at ten he had committed to memory the Muwat̤t̤aʾ of Mālik, and at fifteen he obtained the rank of Muftī. He passed the earlier part of his life at Gaza, in Palestine (which has occasioned many to think he was born in that place); there he completed his education and afterwards removed to Makkah. He came to Bag͟hdād A.H. 195, where he gave lectures on the traditions, and composed his first work, entitled al-Uṣūl. From Bag͟hdād he went on a pilgrimage to Makkah, and from thence afterwards passed into Egypt, where he met with Imām Mālik. It does not appear that he ever returned from that country, but spent the remainder of his life there, dividing his time between the exercises of religion, the instruction of the ignorant, and the composition of his later works. He died at Cairo A.H. 204. Although he was forty-seven years of age before he began to publish, and died at fifty-four, his works are more voluminous than those of any other Muslim doctor. He was a great enemy to the scholastic divines, and most of his productions (especially upon theology), were written with a view to controvert their absurdities. He is said to have been the first who reduced the science of Jurisprudence into a regular system, and to have made a systematic collection of traditions. Imām Ḥambal remarks that until the time of ash-Shāfiʿī men did not know how to distinguish between the traditions that were in force and those that were cancelled. His first work was, as before-mentioned, the Uṣūl, or “fundamentals,” containing all the principles of the Muslim civil and canon law. His next literary productions were the Sunan and Masnad, both works on the traditional law, which are held in high estimation among the Sunnīs. His works upon practical divinity are various, and those upon theology consist of fourteen volumes. His tomb is still to be seen at Cairo, where the famous Ṣalāḥu ʾd-dīn afterwards (A.H. 587) founded a college for the preservation of his works and the propagation of his doctrines. The mosque at Ḥīrah was built by Sultān G͟hiyās̤u ʾd-Dīn for the same purpose. Imām ash-Shāfiʿī is said to have been a person of acute discernment and agreeable conversation. His reverence for God was such that he never was heard to mention his name except in prayer. His manners were mild and ingratiating, and he reprobated all unnecessary moroseness or severity in a teacher, it being a saying of his that whoever advised his brother tenderly and in private did him a service, but that public reproof could only operate as a reproach. His principal pupils were Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥambal and az-Zuhairī, the former of whom afterwards founded a sect. [HANBAL.]
The Shāfiʿī sect of Sunnīs is chiefly met with in Egypt and Arabia.
SHAG͟HĀR (شغار). A double treaty of marriage common amongst the pagan Arabs, viz. the man marrying the sister or daughter of another, and in return giving his sister or daughter in order to avoid paying the usual dower. It is strictly forbidden by the Muḥammadan religion (see Mishkāt, book xii. ch. 11), although it is even now practised by the people of Central Asia.
SHĀH (شاه). Persian. “A King.” A title usually given to members of the Ascetic order, and to Saiyids, as Faqīr Shāh, Akbar Shāh. It has, however, become a common addition to surnames, both in India and other countries, and no longer denotes a position of dignity.
ASH-SHAHĪD (الشهيد). “The Witness.” One of the ninety-nine names or attributes of God. It frequently occurs in the Qurʾān for the Almighty (e.g. Sūrah iii. 93) as one who seeth all things.
SHĀHINSHĀH (شاهنشاه). A Persian title given to the King of Persia—“King of Kings.” It is a title strictly forbidden in Traditions, in which it is related that Muḥammad said “ ‘King of Kings’ is the vilest name you can call a man, for there is no other King of Kings but God.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. viii.)
SHAIK͟H (شيخ), pl. shuyūk͟h, ashyāk͟h, or mashāyik͟h. A venerable old man. A man above fifty years of age. A man of authority. A superior of an order of Darweshes. Shayk͟hu ʾl-Islām, a title given to the chief Maulawī or Qāẓī of the cities of Constantinople, Cairo, Damascus, &c.
SHAIT̤ĀN (شيطان). [DEVIL.]
SHAJJAH (شجة), pl. shijāj. [WOUNDS.]
SHAKING HANDS. Arabic muṣāfaḥah (مصافحة). Is enjoined in the Traditions, and is founded upon the express example of Muḥammad himself.
Al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib says the Prophet said, “There are no two Muslims who meet and shake hands but their sins will be forgiven them before they separate.” (Mishkāt, book xxii. ch. iii.)
ASH-SHAKŪR (الشكور). “The Acknowledger of Thanksgiving.” One of the ninety-nine special attributes of the Almighty. Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxv. 27: “Verily He (God) is forgiving, and an acknowledger of thanksgiving.” When used for anyone but God it means one who is grateful, e.g. Qurʾān, Sūrah xxxiv. 12: “Few of my servants are grateful.”
ASH-SHAʾM (الشام). Lit. “That which is on the left-hand (looking to the rising sun),” i.e. the northern country to Makkah. Syria.
ASH-SHAMS (الشمس). “The Sun.” The title of the XCIst Sūrah of the Qurʾān, which begins with the word.
SHAQQU ʾṢ-ṢADR (شق الصدر). Lit. “The splitting open of the heart.” Anas relates that “the Angel Gabriel came to the Prophet, when he was playing with boys, and took hold of him, and laid him on the ground, and split open his heart, and brought out a little bag of blood, and said to Muḥammad, ‘This is the devil’s part of you.’ After this, Gabriel washed the Prophet’s heart with zamzam water, then sewed it up and replaced it. Then the boys who were with the Prophet came running to his nurse, saying, ‘Verily Muḥammad is killed.’ ” Anas also says that he “had seen the marks of the sewing in the Prophet’s breast.” (Mishkāt, book xxiv. ch. vi.)
According to the commentators al-Baiẓāwī, al-Kamālān, and Ḥusain, the first verse of the XCIVth Sūrah of the Qurʾān refers to this event: “Have we not opened thy breast for thee, and taken off from thee thy burden, which galled thy back?” But it seems probable that this simple verse of one of the earliest chapters of the Qurʾān refers merely to the enlightenment of Muḥammad’s heart, and that his followers afterwards invented the miracle in order to give a supernatural turn to the passage. [MUHAMMAD.]
SHARʿ (شرع). [LAW.]
SHARĀB (شراب). In its original meaning, “that which is drunk.” A drink. Always applied to wine and intoxicating drinks. In mystic writings, sharāb, “wine,” signifies the dominion of Divine love over the heart of man.
SHARḤ (شرح). Lit. “Expounding.” A term used for a commentary written in explanation of any book or treatise, as distinguished from tafsīr, which is used only for a commentary of the Qurʾān. These expositions are written either in the text, or on the side of the book or treatise they attempt to expound. The term, however, generally used for marginal notes is ḥāshiyah. For example, the Tanwīru ʾl-Abṣār is the matn, or text, of a great work on Muḥammadan laws, written by Shamsu ʾd-Dīn Muḥammad, A.H. 995; the Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār is a sharḥ, or commentary written on that work by ʿAlā ʾd-Dīn Muḥammad, A.H. 1088; and the Ḥāshiyah, or marginal notes on these two works, is the Raddu ʾl-Muḥtār, by Muḥammad Amīn.
SHARĪʿAH (شريعة). The law, including both the teaching of the Qurʾān and of the traditional sayings of Muḥammad. [LAW.]
SHART̤ (شرط). The conditions of marriage, of contracts, &c.
SHAVING. The shaving of the beard is forbidden in the Traditions, for Ibn ʿUmar relates that the Prophet said: “Do the opposite of the polytheists; let your beards grow long and clip your mustachios.” The shaving of the head is allowed, provided the whole and not a part is shaven, for the Prophet said: “Shave off all the hair of the head or let it alone.” (Mishkāt, xx. ch. iv. pt. 3.)
In Afghanistan it is the custom to shave the head, but not in other parts of Islām.
SHAVING THE HEAD. Arabic taḥlīq (تحليق). Forbidden in the Ḥadīs̤ (Mishkāt, book xiv. ch. v.), although it is most common amongst the Muḥammadans of India and Central Asia.
SHAWWĀL (شوال). Lit. “The month of raising the tail.” The tenth month of the Muḥammadan year. (For a discussion of the meaning of the title of this month, see Lane’s Arabic Dict. in loco.)
SHAʿYĀʾ (شعياء). [ISAIAH.]
SHEM. Arabic Sām (سام). A son of Noah. Not mentioned in the Qurʾān, but his name is given in commentaries.
SHĪʿAH (شيعة). Lit. “Followers.” The followers of ʿAlī, first cousin of Muḥammad and the husband of his daughter Fāt̤imah. The Shīʿahs maintain that ʿAlī was the first legitimate Imām or K͟halīfah, or successor, to the Prophet, and therefore reject Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUs̤mān, the first three K͟halīfahs of the Sunnī Muslims, as usurpers. They are also called the Imāmīyahs, because they believe the Muslim religion consists in the true knowledge of the Imām or rightful leaders of the faithful. Also the Is̤nā-ʿasharīyah, or the twelveans, as followers of the twelve Imāms. The Sunnī Muslims call them the Rāfiẓī, or the forsakers of the truth. The Shīʿahs strenuously maintain that they are the “orthodox” Muslims, and arrogate to themselves (as do also the Sunnīs) the title of al-Muʾminūn, or the “True Believers.”
The spirit of division, which appeared among the followers of Muḥammad, even before his death, broke out with greater violence after it; and the rapid strides of his successors to even imperial power, only afforded a wider sphere for ambition. The great and radical difference between the Shīʿahs and Sunnīs, as we have already remarked, arises from the former maintaining the divine and indefeasible right of ʿAlī to succeed to the K͟halifate on the death of the Prophet. ʿAlī’s claims, they assert, rested on his nearness of kindred to Muḥammad, of whom he was a cousin, and on his having married Fāt̤imah, the only offspring of the Prophet which survived him. They also assert that he was expressly declared his successor by the Prophet himself, under direct guidance from God.
The text quoted in defence of the divine institution of the K͟halifate in the Prophet’s own family, is the 118th verse of the Sūratu ʾl-Baqarah, or the Second Chapter of the Qurʾān, which reads:—
“And when his Lord tried Abraham with words and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘I am about to make of thee an IMĀM to mankind’; he said, ‘Of my offspring also?’ ‘My covenant,’ said God, ‘embraceth not evil doers.’ ”
According to the Shīʿahs, this passage shows that the Imāmate, or K͟halifate, is a divine institution, and the possessor thereof must be of the seed of Abraham. This the Sunnīs would also admit, as they hold that the true K͟halīfah can only be one of the Quraish tribe [KHALIFAH], but from the expression, “my covenant embraceth not evil doers,” the Shīʿah doctors establish the supernatural character of the K͟halifate, and hold that the divinely appointed leader must himself be without spot or blemish or capacity to sin. The primeval creation of ʿAlī is therefore a dogma of the Shīʿah faith.
The author of the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb (Merrick’s ed., p. 4), says: “The Prophet declared that the Most High had created him, and ʿAlī and Fāt̤imah, and Ḥasan and Ḥusain, before the creation of Adam, and when as yet there was neither heaven, nor earth, nor darkness, nor light, nor sun, nor moon, nor paradise, nor hell.” [HAQIQATU ʾL-MUHAMMADIYAH.]
The Shīʿah traditions also give very lengthy accounts of the nomination of ʿAlī by the Prophet to be his successor. The following is the account given in the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb (p. 334):—
“When the ceremonies of the pilgrimage were completed, the Prophet, attended by ʿAlī, and the Muslims, left Makkah for al-Madīnah. On reaching G͟hadīrk͟hum, the Prophet halted, although that place had never been known as a stopping-place for caravans because it had neither water nor pasturage. The reason for stopping at this place being a direct message from the Almighty. The Prophet had received divine messages on the subject before, but He had not before expressly appointed the time of ʿAlī’s inauguration.”
* * *
“As the day was very hot, the Prophet ordered them to take shelter under some thorn trees. Having ordered all the camel-saddles to be piled up for a pulpit, he commanded a herald to summon the people around him. Most of them had bound their cloaks on their feet as a protection from the excessive heat. When all the people were assembled, the Prophet ascended the pulpit made of camel-saddles, and, calling to him the Commander of the Faithful (ʿAlī), placed him on his right hand. Muḥammad then gave praise to God, and foretold his own death, saying that he had been called to the gate of God. He then said, ‘I leave among you the Book of God, to which, while you adhere, you will never go astray. I leave with you the members of my family who cannot be separated from the Book of God until both they and the Book join me at the fountain of al-Kaus̤ar.’ [KAUSAR.] He then, with a loud voice, said, ‘Am I not dearer to you than your own lives?’ And all the people said, ‘Yes.’ He then took the hands of ʿAlī and raised them up so high, that the white of his arm-pits appeared, and said, ‘Whosoever from his heart receives me as his master, then let him receive ʿAlī. O Lord, befriend ʿAlī. Be the enemy of all his enemies. Help all who help him, and forsake all who forsake him.’”
The writer also says:—
“Certain authorities, both Shīʿah and Sunnī, declare that when the Prophet died, the hypocritical Muhājirs and Anṣārs, such as Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿAbdu ʾr-Rahmān ibnu ʾl-ʿAuf, instead of visiting the family of the Prophet to comfort them at the time of his death, assembled at the abode of the Banū Saudah, and plotted to seize the K͟halīfate. Most of them did not perform the prayers at the Prophet’s burial, although ʿAlī sent to call them for the purpose. This plan was to make Abū Bakr K͟halīfah, and for this they had plotted in the Prophet’s lifetime. The hypocritical Anṣārs, however, wished to make Saʿd ibnu ʾl-Abādah K͟halīfah, but they were over-ruled by the Muhājirs. A certain man brought the information that Abū Bakr was constituted K͟halīfah, when ʿAlī was in the act of filling in the earth of the Prophet’s grave, and said that the hypocrites had feared that if they waited till the funeral ceremony was over, they would not succeed in their design of depriving ʿAlī of his rights. ʿAlī laid his spade on the ground and recited the first verses of the XXIXth Sūrah of the Qurʾān: ‘A. L. M. Do men reckon that they will be left alone who say, “We believe,” and not be tried? We did try those who were before them, and God will surely know those who are truthful, and he will surely know those who are liars.’ ”
The Shīʿahs believe that at this time God made special revelations to Fāt̤imah, the Prophet’s daughter, and ʿAlī’s wife. These revelations are said to have been possessed by the last of the Imāms, al-Mahdī, and to be still in his possession. [MAHDI.]
It need scarcely be added that the Sunnī writers deny every word of these traditions.
The strong hand of the Sunnī K͟halīfah ʿUmar kept the claims of ʿAlī in abeyance; but when ʿUmar died, the K͟halifate was offered to ʿAlī, on condition that he would govern according to the Qurʾān, and the traditions as received by the Sunnīs. The answer of ʿAlī not being deemed satisfactory, the election devolved upon ʿUs̤mān (Othman). ʿUs̤mān was assassinated A.H. 35, and ʿAlī was elected on his own terms, in spite of the opposition of ʿĀyishah, the favourite wife of the Prophet, who had become a great influence in Islām.
One of the first acts of ʿAlī was to recall Muʿāwiyah from Syria. Muʿāwiyah refused, and then claimed the K͟halīfate for himself. His claims were supported by ʿĀyishah. ʿAlī was eventually assassinated at Kūfah, A.H. 40, and upon his death his son Ḥasan was elected K͟halīfah, but he resigned it in favour of Muʿāwiyah, on the condition that he should resume it on the death of the latter. Muʿāwiyah consented to this arrangement, although secretly determining that his own son Yazīd should be his successor.
Upon the death of Muʿāwiyah, A.H. 60, his son Yazīd, “the Polluted,” obtained the position of Imām or K͟halīfah, without the form of election, and with this event commenced the great Shīʿah schism, which has divided the forces of Islām until this day.
The leading, or “orthodox” sect of the Shīʿahs, the Imāmīyahs, receive the following as the rightful K͟halīfahs:—
1. ʿAlī, the son-in-law of the Prophet.
2. Al-Ḥasan, the son of ʿAlī.
3. Al-Ḥusain, the second son of ʿAlī.
4. ʿAlī, surnamed Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn, the son of al-Ḥusain.
5. Muḥammad al-Bāqir, son of Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn.
6. Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq, son of Muḥammad al-Bāqir.
7. Mūsā al-Kāz̤im, son of Jāʿfar.
8. Ar-Raẓā, son of Mūsā.
9. Muḥammad at-Taqī, son of ar-Raẓā.
10. ʿAlī an-Naqī, son of Muḥammad at-Taqī.
11. Al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, son of ʿAlī an-Naqī.
12. Muḥammad, son of al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, or the Imām al-Mahdī, who is supposed by the Shīʿahs to be still alive, though he has withdrawn for a time, and they say he will again appear in the last days as the Mahdī, or “Director,” which the Prophet prophesied would appear before the Day of Judgment. [MAHDI.]
The Imāmites trace the descent of this Imām Muḥammad as direct from ʿAlī, thus making him the twelfth lawful Imām, on which account they are called the Is̤nā-ʿasharīyah, or the “Twelveans.” They assert that this last Imām, whilst still a boy, being persecuted by the Abbaside K͟halīfahs, disappeared down a well in the courtyard of a house at Hillah near Bag͟hdād, and Ibn K͟haldun says, so late as even in his day, devout Shīʿahs would assemble every evening after sunset at this well and entreat the absent Imām to appear again on earth.
In the present day, during the absence of the Imām, the Shīʿahs appeal to the Mujtahidūn, or “enlightened doctors of the law,” whose opinion is final on all matters, both temporal and spiritual.
There have been two great schisms in the succession of the Imāms, the first upon the death of ʿAlī Zainu ʾl-ʿAbidīn, when part of the sect adhered to his son Zaid, the founder of the Zaidīyah sect. And the second on the death of aṣ-Ṣādiq, when his father nominated his second son, Mūsā al-Kāz̤im, as his successor, instead of allowing the K͟halīfate to go in Ismāʿīl’s family; those who adhered to Ismāʿīl’s family being called Ismāʿīlīyah. The great body of the Shīʿahs acknowledge Mūsā al-Kāz̤im and his descendants as the true Imāms.
The Ismāʿīlīyah, like the Twelveans, make profession of a loyal attachment to the cause of ʿAlī. Their schism was occasioned by a dispute regarding the succession to the Imāmate on the death of Imām Jaʿfar Ṣādiq. Jaʿfar had four sons, the eldest of whom was Ismāʿīl. One day, however, Ismāʿīl was seen in a state of inebriety, and his father disinherited him, and appointed his son Mūsā. The greater number of the Shīʿahs accepted this decision, but a small number, who regarded the drunkenness of the Imām as an evidence that he accepted the hidden meaning and not the legal precepts of Islām (!), remained attached to Ismāʿīl. They say from the time of ʿAlī to the death of Muḥammad, the son of Ismāʿīl, the Imāms were visible, but from his death commenced the succession of concealed Imāms. The fourth of these “concealed” Imāms was a certain ʿAbdu ʾllāh, who lived about the third century of the Hijrah.
The contentions of the Shīʿahs regarding the succession have become endless, and of the proverbial seventy-three sects of Islām, not fewer than thirty-two are assigned to the Shīʿahs, and, according to the Sharḥu ʾl-Muwāqif, there are as many as seventy-three sects of the Shīʿahs alone.
According to the Sharḥu ʾl-Muwāqif, the three principal sects of the Shīʿahs are (1) G͟hulāt, or Zealots, the title generally given to those who, through their excessive zeal for the Imāms, have raised them above the degree of human beings. (2) Zaidīyah, those who separated after the appointment of Muḥammad Bāqir to the K͟halīfate, and followed Zaid. (3) Imāmīyah, or those who acknowledged Jaʿfar Ṣādiq as the rightful Imām, to the exclusion of Ismāʿīl, and which appears to be what may be called the orthodox sect of the Shīʿahs. Out of these three great divisions have grown innumerable sects, which it would be tedious to define. All Shīʿah religionists are more or less infected with mysticism.
Many of the Shīʿahs have carried their veneration for ʿAlī so far, as to raise him to the position of a divine person, and most of the sects make their Imāms partakers of the divine nature. These views have their foundation in the traditions already quoted, which assert the pre-existence of Muḥammad and ʿAlī, and they have undoubtedly been fostered by the gnostic tendencies of all forms of Persian belief, especially Ṣufīism. [SUFI.]
Since the accession of Ismāʿīl, the first of the Ṣūfī dynasty, A.D. 1499, the Shīʿah faith has been the national religion of Persia. Nādir Shah, when at the summit of his power, attempted to convert the Persians to the Sunnī form of Islām, in order to assist his ambitious designs, but the attempt failed, and the attachment of the Persians to the Shīʿah faith has remained as decided as ever.
Sir Lewis Pelly remarks:—
“Though the personal history of Ali and his sons was the exciting cause of the Shiah schism, its predisposing cause lies far deeper in the impassable ethnological gulf which separates the Aryan and Semitic races. Owing to their strongly centralised form of government, the empire of the Sassanides succumbed at once before the onslaught of the Saracens; still, Persia was never really converted to Islam, and when Mohammed, the son of Ali, the son of Abdullah, the son of Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet Mohammed, proclaimed the Imamate as inherent of divine right, in the descendants of the Caliph Ali, the vanquished Persians rose as one man against their Arab conquerors. The sons of Abbas had all espoused the cause of their cousin Ali against Moawiyah, and when Yezid succeeded to the Caliphate, Abdullah refused to acknowledge him, and retired to Mecca. It was he who tried to dissuade Husain from going to Cufa. His son was Ali, who, by order of the Caliph Walid, was flogged and paraded through the streets of Damascus, mounted on a camel, with his face to its tail, and it was to avenge this insult on his father that Mohammed resolved to overthrow the dynasty of the Ommiades.
“The Persians, in their hatred of the Arabs, had from the first accepted the rights of the sons of Ali and Fatimah to the Imamate; and Mohammed cunningly represented to them that the Imamate had been transmitted to him by Abou Hashim, the son of Mohammed, another son of the Caliph Ali, whose mother was a daughter of the tribe of Hanifah. This was a gross fraud on the descendants of Fatimah, but the Persians cared not so long as they threw off the Arab yoke.” (Miracle Play, Intro., p. xvi.; W. H. Allen & Co., 1879.)
The Muḥammadans of the province of Oudh in British India are for the most part Shīʿahs, and there are a few in the region of Tīrah, on the frontier of India. With the exception of the province of Oudh, the Muḥammadans of India are for the most part Sunnīs of the Ḥanafī sect, but practices peculiar to the Shīʿahs have long prevailed in certain localities. In most parts of India, where the parties are Shīʿahs, the law of this school of jurisprudence is always administered, especially with regard to marriage and inheritance.
It is not correct, as stated by Sale (Introduction to the Koran) and others, that the Shīʿahs reject the Sunnah, or Traditions; for although the Shīʿahs do not receive the “six correct books of the Sunnīs,” they acknowledge five collections of their own, namely: (1) Al-Kāfī, (2) Man-lā-yastaḥẓirahu ʾl-Faqīh, (3) Tahẕīb, (4) Istibṣār, (5) Nahju ʾl-Balāg͟hah. [TRADITIONS.] The works written on the traditions are very numerous.
The Rev. James L. Merrick (Boston, 1850) has translated into English portions of the Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb, the most popular book of traditions amongst the Shīʿahs. It was originally compiled by Muḥammad Bāqir, son of Muḥammad Tākī, whose last work was the well-known Ḥaqqu ʾl-Yaqīn, A.H. 1027 (A.D. 1627).
The Shīʿah school of jurisprudence is of earlier date than that of the Sunnīs, for Abū Ḥanīfah, the father of the Sunnī Code of Muslim law, received his first instructions in jurisprudence from Jaʿfar aṣ-Ṣādiq, the sixth Imām of the Shīʿahs; but this learned doctor afterwards separated from his teacher, and established a code of laws of his own.
The differences between the Shīʿahs and the Sunnīs are very numerous, but the following are the principal points:—
(1) The discussion as to the office of Imām, already alluded to.
(2) The Shīʿahs have a profound veneration for the K͟halīfah ʿAlī, and some of their sects regard him as an incarnation of divinity, whilst they all assert that next to the Prophet, ʿAlī is the most perfect and excellent of men.
(3) They still possess Mujtahids, or “enlightened doctors,” whose opinion is final in matters of Muslim law and doctrine. The Mujtahid is the highest degree amongst Muḥammadan doctors. The Sunnīs say, in the present divided condition of Islām it is impossible to appoint them, but the Shīʿahs still elect them in Persia, and the appointment is confirmed by the king. [MUJTAHID.]
(4) They observe the ceremonies of the Muḥarram in commemoration of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusain, whilst the Sunnīs only observe the tenth day of the Muḥarram, or the ʿĀshūrāʾ, being, they say, the day on which God created Adam. [MUHARRAM.]
(5) They include the Majūsī, or fire worshippers, amongst the Ahlu ʾl-Kitāb, or people who have received an inspired record from God, whilst the Sunnīs only acknowledge the Jews, Christians, and Muslims as such.
(6) They admit the principle of religious compromise called Taqīyah (lit. “Guarding oneself”). A pious fraud, whereby the Shīʿah Muḥammadan believes he is justified in either smoothing down, or denying, the peculiarities of his religious belief in order to save himself from persecution. [TAQIYAH.]
(7) There are also various minor differences in the liturgical ceremonies of the Shīʿahs, which will be found in the account of the liturgical prayers. [PRAYER.]
(8) The differences between the civil law of the Shīʿahs and Sunnī have been carefully noted in Mr. N. B. E. Baillie’s Introduction to his Digest of the Imameea Code (London, 1869):—
(a) “With regard to the sexes, any connection between them, which is not sanctioned by some relation founded upon contract or upon slavery, is denounced by both the sects as zināʾ, or fornication. But, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, the contract must be for the lives of the parties, or the woman be the slave of the man, and it is only to a relation founded on a contract for life that they give the name of nikāḥ, or marriage. According to the Shīʿahs, the contract may be either temporary, or for life, and it is not necessary that the slave should be the actual property of the man; for it is sufficient if the usufruct of her person be temporarily surrendered to him by her owner. To a relation established in any of these ways they give the name of nikāḥ, or marriage, which is thus, according to them, of three kinds, permanent, temporary, and servile. It is only their permanent marriage that admits of any comparison with the marriage of the Ḥanafīyahs. And here there is, in the first place, some difference in the words by which the contract is effected. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the words may be ṣarīḥ (express) or kināyah (ambiguous). According to the Shīʿahs, they must always be express; and to the two express terms of the other sect (nikāḥ and tazwīj) they add a third mutʿah, which is rejected by the others as insufficient. [MUTʿAH.] Further, while the Ḥanafīyahs regard the presence of witnesses as essential to a valid contract of marriage, the Shīʿahs do not deem it to be in anywise necessary. The causes of prohibition correspond, to some extent, in both schools; but there is this difference between them, that the Ḥanafīyah includes a difference of dār, or nationality, among the causes of prohibition, and excludes liʿān, or imprecation, from among them; while the Shīʿah excludes the former and includes the latter. There is, also, some difference between them as to the conditions and restrictions under which fosterage becomes a ground of prohibition. And with regard to infidelity, though both schools entirely prohibit any sexual intercourse between a Muslimah or Musalman woman and a man who is not of her own religion, the Ḥanafī allows of such intercourse, under the sanction of marriage or of slavery, between a Muslim and any woman who is a kitābīyah, that is, who belongs to any sect that is supposed to have a revealed religion, while the Shīʿah restricts such connection to mutʿah, or temporary and servile marriages. Among Kitābīyah both schools include Christians and Jews, but the Ḥanafī rejects Majūsīs, or fire-worshippers, who are included among them by the Shīʿahs. The Shīʿahs do not appear to make any distinction between invalid and valid marriages, all that are forbidden being apparently void according to them. But the distinction is of little importance to the parties themselves, as under neither of the schools does an unlawful marriage confer any inheritable quality upon the parties; and the rights of the children born of such marriages are determined by another consideration, which will be adverted to in the proper place hereafter.
“(b) With regard to the servile marriage of the Shīʿahs, it is nothing more than the right of sexual intercourse which every master has with his slaves; but there is the same difference between the two sects, in this case, as in that of marriage by contract. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the right must be permanent, by the woman’s being the actual property of the man. According to the Shīʿahs, the right may be temporary, as when it is conceded for a limited time by the owner of the slave. When a slave has borne a child to her own master, which he acknowledges, she becomes his umm-ul-walad, or mother of a child, and cannot be sold, while she is entitled to emancipation at her master’s death. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, these privileges are permanent, but, according to the Shīʿahs, the exemption from sale is restricted to the life of her child, and her title to emancipation is at the expense of her child’s share in the master’s estate. If that be insufficient, her enfranchisement is only pro tanto, or so far as the share will go. Where the child’s father has only an usufructuary right in the mother, the child is free, though the mother, being the property of another, does not acquire the rights of an umm-ul-walad.
“(c) With regard to the persons who may be legally slaves, there seems to be little, if any, difference between the two sects. According to the Shīʿahs, slavery is the proper condition of the ḥarabīs, or enemies, with the exception only of Christians, Jews, and Majūsīs, or fire-worshippers, so long as they continue in a state of ẕimmah, or subjection, to the Mussulman community. If they renounce their ẕimmah, they fall back into the condition of ordinary ḥarabīs, and if a person should buy from a ḥarabī his child, or wife, or any of his consanguineous relations, the person so purchased is to be adjudged a slave. There seems also to be but little difference in the manner in which slaves may be enfranchised, or their bondage qualified. But there is an important difference as to children; for, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child follows the conditions of its mother, being free or a slave, as she is the one or the other; while, according to the Shīʿahs, it is free, if either of its parents be so. Both the sects are agreed that marriage may be dissolved by the husband at any time at his pleasure, and to such dissolutions they both give the name of t̤alāq.
“(d) But there are some important differences between the repudiation of the two sects. Thus, while the Ḥanafīyahs recognize two forms, the Sunnī and Bidaʿī, or regular and irregular, as being equally efficacious, and subdivide the regular into two other forms, one of which they designate as aḥsan, or best, and the other as ḥasan, or good, the Shīʿahs reject these distinctions altogether, recognizing only one form of the Sunnī, or regular. So also as to the expressions by which repudiation may be constituted; while the Ḥanafīyahs distinguish between what they call ṣarīḥ, or express words, which are inflections of the word t̤alāq, and various expressions which they term kināyah, or ambiguous, the Shīʿahs admit the former only. Further, the Ḥanafīyahs do not require intention when express words are used; so that, though a man is actually compelled to use them, the repudiation is valid according to them. Nor do they require the presence of witnesses as necessary in any case to the validity of a repudiation; while, according to the Shīʿahs, both intention and the presence of two witnesses in all cases are essential. Both sects agree that repudiation may be either bāʾin (absolute) or rajaʿī (revocable), and that a repudiation given three times cannot be revoked, nor a woman so repudiated be again married by her husband until she has been intermediately married to another man, and the marriage with him has been consummated. But, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, repudiation may be made irrevocable by an aggravation of the terms, or the addition of a description, and three repudiations may be given in immediate succession, or even unico contextu, in one expression; while, according to the Shīʿahs, on the other hand, the irrevocability of a repudiation is dependent on the state in which the woman may be at the time that it is given, and three repudiations, to have their full effect, must have two intervening revocations. To the bāʾin and rajaʿī repudiations of both sects, the Shīʿahs add one peculiar to themselves, to which they give the name of the t̤alāq-uʾl-ʿiddah, or repudiation of the ʿiddah, and which has the effect of rendering the repudiated woman for ever unlawful to her husband, so that it is impossible for them ever to marry with each other again. The power of revocation continues until the expiration of the ʿiddah, or probationary period for ascertaining whether a woman is pregnant or not. After it has expired, the repudiation becomes absolute, according to both schools. So long as it is revocable, the parties are still in a manner husband and wife; and if either of them should happen to die, the other has a right of inheritance in the deceased’s estate.
“(e) With regard to parentage, maternity is established, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, by birth alone, without any regard to the connection of the parents being lawful or not. According to the Shīʿahs, it must in all cases be lawful; for a waladu ʾz-zināʾ, or illegitimate child, has no descent, even from its mother, nor are there any mutual rights of inheritance between them. For the establishment of paternity there must have been, at the time of the child’s conception, according to both sects, a legal connection between its parents by marriage or slavery, or a semblance of either. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, an invalid marriage is sufficient for that purpose, or even, according to the head of the school, one that is positively unlawful; but, according to the Shīʿahs, the marriage must in all cases be lawful, except when there is error on the part of both or either of the parents. Again, as to the children by slaves, express acknowledgment by the father is required by both the sects, except when the slave is his ummu ʾl-walad, or has already borne a child to him; for though, according to the Shīʿahs, there are two reports on the subject, yet, by the most generally received of these, a slave does not become the wife of her master by mere coition, and her child is not affiliated to him without his acknowledgment. With regard to children begotten under a semblance of right, the Ḥanafīyahs require some basis for the semblance in the relation of the parties to each other; while, according to the Shīʿahs, bonâ fide belief on the part of the man that the woman is his wife or his slave seems to be all that is required; while no relation short of a legal marriage or slavery, without such belief either on the part of the man or the woman, would apparently be sufficient.
“(f) On the subject of testimony, both schools require that it shall be direct to the point in issue; and they also seem to be agreed that when two or more witnesses concur in asserting a fact in the same terms, the judge is bound by their testimony, and must give his judgment in conformity with it. They agree in requiring that a witness should in general have full knowledge, by the cognizance of his own senses, of the fact to which he is bearing testimony; but both allow him, in certain exceptional cases, to testify on information received from others, or when he is convinced of the fact by inference from circumstances with which it is connected.
“(g) Nasab, or descent, is included by both sects among the exceptional facts to which a witness is allowed to testify when they are generally notorious, or when he is credibly informed of them by others. But according to the Ḥanafīyahs, it is enough if the information be received from two just men, or one just man and two just women; while the Shīʿahs require that it should have been received from a considerable number of persons in succession, without any suspicion of their having got up the story in concert. The Ḥanafīyahs class marriage among the exceptional facts, together with Nasab; but, according to the Shīʿahs, it more properly follows the general rule, which requires that the witness should have the direct evidence of his own senses to the fact to which he is giving his testimony. They seem, however, to admit an exception in its favour; for they reason that as we adjudge K͟hadījah to have been the mother of Fāt̤imah, the daughter of the Prophet, though we know it only by general notoriety and tradition, which is but continued hearsay, so also we may equally decide her to have been the Prophet’s wife, for which we have the same evidence, though we were not present at the contract of marriage, nor even heard the Prophet acknowledge it. Both sects are agreed that a witness may lawfully infer and testify that a thing is the property of a particular person when he has seen it in his possession; and so, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, ‘When a person has seen a man and woman dwelling in the same house, and behaving familiarly with each other in the manner of married persons, it is lawful for him to testify that she is his wife, in the same way as when he has seen a specific thing in the hands of another.’ The Shīʿahs do not apply this principle of inference to the case of marriage, and there is no ground for saying that, according to them, marriage will be presumed in a case of proved continual cohabitation.
“(h) There is difference between the two schools as to the person who is entitled to claim a right of shufʿah, or pre-emption. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, the right may be claimed, firstly, by a partner in the thing itself; secondly, by a partner in its rights of water and way; and thirdly, by a neighbour. According to the Shīʿahs, the right belongs only to the first of these, with some slight exception in favour of the second. The claim of the third they reject altogether. In gift the principal difference between the schools is, that a gift of an undivided share of a thing, which is rejected by the Ḥanafīyah, is quite lawful according to the Shīʿahs.
“(i) In appropriation and alms there do not seem to be any differences of importance between the two schools. And in wills the leading difference seems to be that, while, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, a bequest in favour of an heir is positively illegal, it is quite unobjectionable according to the Shīʿahs.
“(j) In respect of inheritance, there are many and important differences between the two sects, but they admit of being reduced to a few leading principles, which I now proceed to notice, following the order in which the different branches of the subject are treated of in this volume. The impediments to inheritance are four in number, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, viz. slavery, homicide, difference of religion, and difference of dār, or country. Of these the Shīʿahs recognize the first; the second also with some modification, that is, they require that the homicide be intentional, in other words, murder, while with the Ḥanafīyahs it operates equally as an impediment to inheritance, though accidental. For difference of religion the Shīʿahs substitute infidelity, and difference of country they reject entirely. Exclusion from the whole inheritance, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, is founded upon and regulated by two principles. The one is that a person who is related to the deceased through another has no interest in the succession during the life of that other, with the exception of half-brothers and sisters by the mother, who are not excluded by her. The other principle is, that the nearer relative excludes the more remote. The former of these principles is not expressly mentioned by the Shīʿahs, but it is included without the exception in the second, which is adopted by them, and extended, so as to postpone a more remote residuary to a nearer sharer—an effect which is not given to it by the Ḥanafīyahs.
“With regard to partial exclusion or the diminution of a share, there is also some difference between the sects. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, a child, or the child of a son, how low soever, reduces the shares of a husband, a wife, and a mother, from the highest to the lowest appointed for them; while, according to the Shīʿahs, the reduction is effected by any child, whether male or female, in any stage of descent from the deceased. Further, when the deceased has left a husband or wife, and both parents, the share of the mother is reduced, according to the Ḥanafīyahs, from a third of the whole estate to a third of the remainder, in order that the male may have double the share of the female; but, according to the Shīʿahs, there is no reduction of the mother’s third in these circumstances, though, when the deceased has left a husband, the share of the father can only be a sixth. The shares and the person for whom they are appointed being expressly mentioned in the Qurʾān, there is no difference in respect of them between the two schools. But they differ materially as to the relatives who are not sharers. They are divided by the Ḥanafīyahs into residuaries and distant kindred. The residuaries in their own right they define as every male in whose line of relation to the deceased no female enters; and the ‘distant kindred,’ as ‘all relatives who are neither sharers nor residuaries.’ The residuaries not only take any surplus that may remain after the sharers have been satisfied, but also the whole estate when there is no sharer, to the entire exclusion of the distant kindred, though these may, in fact, be much nearer in blood to the deceased. This preference of the residuary is rejected with peculiar abhorrence by the Shīʿahs, who found their objection to it, certainly with some appearance of reason, on two passages of the Qurʾān cited below. Instead of the triple division of the Ḥanafīyahs, they mix up the rights of all the relatives together, and then separate them into three classes, according to their proximity to the deceased, each of which in its order is preferred to that which follows; so that while there is a single individual, even a female, of a prior class, there is no room for the succession of any of the others.
“Within the classes operation is given to the doctrine of the return by the Shīʿahs, nearly in the same way as by the Ḥanafīyahs: that is, if there is a surplus over the shares, it reverts to the sharers, with the exception of the husband or wife, and is proportionately divided among them. According to the Ḥanafīyahs, this surplus is always intercepted by the residuary, and it is only when there is no residuary that there is with them any room for the doctrine of the return. When the shares exceed the whole estate, the deficiency is distributed by the Ḥanafīyahs over all the shares by raising the extractor of the case—a process which is termed the ʿaul, or increase. This is also rejected by the Shīʿahs, who make the deficiency to fall exclusively upon those among them whose relationship to the deceased is on the father’s side. With regard to the computation of shares, there does not appear to be any difference between the schools.” A Digest of Moohummudan Law. Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie, London (1869).
Mr. Wilfrid S. Blunt, in his Future of Islam, has the following remarks on the present position of the Shīʿah sect:—
“In theory, I believe the Shias still hold that there is an Imam and Caliph, but they will not tolerate the pretension of any one now in authority to the title, and leave it in abeyance until the advent of the Mohady (Mahdī), or guide, who is to reunite Islam and restore its fortunes. So much is this the case that, sovereign though he be and absolute master in Persia, the Shah is to the present day looked upon by the Persians as a usurper, and he himself acknowledges the fact in a rather curious ceremony. It is a maxim with Mussulmans of all sects that prayer is not valid if made in another man’s house without his permission, and this being so, and the Shah admitting that his palaces of right belong not to himself but to the Mohady, he is obliged to lease them according to legal form from an alem (ʿālim) or mujtahed, acting for the supposed Mohady, before he can pray in them to his spiritual profit.
“It will be readily understood that, with such an organization and with such tendencies to deductive reasoning, a wide basis is given for divergence of opinion among the Shiites, and that while the more highly educated of their mollahs occasionally preach absolute pantheism, others consult the grosser inclinations of the vulgar, and indulge their hearers with the most extravagant tales of miracle and superstition. These are a constant source of mockery to the Sunites. Among the more respectable Shiite beliefs, however, there seems to be a general conviction in Persia that a reform of Islam is at hand, and that a new leader may be expected at any moment and from any quarter, so that enthusiasts are constantly found simulating the gifts of inspiration and affecting a divine mission. The history of the Babites, so well described by M. de Gobineau in his Religions of Asia, is a case in point, and similar occurrences are by no means rare in Persia. I met at Jeddah a highly educated Persian gentleman, who informed me that he had himself been witness, when a boy, to a religious prodigy, notorious, if I remember rightly, at Tabriz. On that occasion, one of these prophets, being condemned to death by the supreme government, was bound to a cross with two of his companions, and, after remaining suspended thus for several hours, was fired at by the royal troops. It then happened that, while the companions were dispatched at the first volley, the prophet himself remained unhurt, and, incredible to relate, the cords which bound him were cut by the bullets, and he fell to the ground on his feet. ‘You Christians,’ said another Persian gentleman once to me, ‘talk of your Christ as the Son of God and think it strange, but with us the occurrence is a common one. Believe me, we have “sons of God” in nearly all our villages.’ [SUFI.]
“Thus, with the Shiites, extremes meet. No Moslems more readily adapt themselves to the superficial atheisms of Europe than do the Persians, and none are more ardently devout, as all who have witnessed the miracle play of the two Imams will be obliged to admit. Extremes, too, of morality are seen, fierce asceticisms and gross licentiousnesses. By no sect of Islam is the duty of pilgrimage more religiously observed, or the prayers and ablutions required by their rule performed with a stricter ritual. But the very pilgrims who go on foot to Mecca scruple not to drink wine there, and Persian morality is everywhere a by-word. In all these circumstances there is much to fear as well as to hope on the side of the Shiite sect; but their future only indirectly involves that of Islam proper. Their whole census does not probably exceed fifteen millions, and it shows no tendency to increase. Outside Persia we find about one million Irâki Arabs, a few in Syria and Afghanistan, and at most five millions in India. One small group still maintains itself in the neighbourhood of Medina, where it is tolerated rather than acknowledged, and a few Shiites are to be found in most of the large cities of the west, but everywhere the sect of Ali stands apart from and almost in a hostile attitude to the rest of Islam. It is noticeable, however, that within the last fifty years the religious bitterness of Shiite and Sunite is sensibly in decline.”
For information on the History of the Shīʿahs, the English reader can refer to Malcolm’s History of Persia, 2 vols. (A.D. 1815); Morier’s Travels, 2 vols. (A.D. 1812); Markham’s History of Persia (A.D. 1874). A translation of their traditions is found in the Life and Religion of Mohammad, by the Rev. James L. Merrick, Boston (1850). For Shīʿah Law, consult Tagore Lectures, 1874; A Digest of Moohummudan Law. The Imameea Code. N. B. E. Baillie (1869). [MUHARRAM.]