So ended the grand struggle of the national party, first under the-direction of the Muwallads, and then of the Christians, to shake off the Arab and Berber yoke. During the remainder of the tenth century the strong administration of Abdurrahman III., Hakem II., and the great Almanzor, gave the Christians no chance of raising the cry of "Spain for the Spanish." The danger of a renewal of the rebellion once removed, the position of the Christians does not seem to have been made any worse in consequence of their late disaffection, and Abdurrahman, himself the son of a Christian mother, treated all parties in the revolt with great leniency, even against the wishes and advice of the more devout Moslems.

Almanzor, too, made himself respected, and even liked, by his Christian subjects, and there is no doubt that his victories over the Christian States in the North[1] were won very largely with the aid of Christian soldiers. His death was the signal for the disruption of the Spanish Khalifate, and from 1010-1031, when the khalifate was finally extinguished, complete anarchy prevailed in Saracen Spain. The Berbers made a determined effort to regain their ascendency, and their forces, seconded by the Christians, succeeded in placing Suleiman on the throne in 1013. A succession of feeble rulers, set up by the different factions--Arab, Berber, and Slave--followed, until Hischem III. was forced to abdicate in 1031, and the Umeyyade dynasty came to an end, after lasting 275 years. By this time the Christians in the North had gathered themselves together for a combined advance against the Saracen provinces, never again to retrograde, scarcely even to be checked, till in 1492 fell Granada, the last stronghold of the Moors in Spain.[2]

[1] Al Makkari, ii. p. 214.

[2] In 1630 there was not a single Moslem left in Spain.--Al Makk., i. p. 74.

CHAPTER IX.

CHRISTIANS AND MOSLEMS IGNORANT OF ONE ANOTHER'S CREED.

In spite of the close contact into which the Christians and Mohammedans were brought in Spain, and the numerous conversions and frequent intermarriages between the two sections, no thorough knowledge seems to have existed, on either side, of the creed of the other party. Such, at least, is the conclusion to which we are driven, on reading the only direct records which remain on the subject among Arab and Christian writers. These on the Christian side consist chiefly of quotations from a book on Mohammedanism by the abbot Speraindeo in a work of his disciple, Eulogius;[1] and some rather incoherent denunciations of Mohammed and his religion by Alvar,[2] another pupil of the abbot's. In these, as might be expected, great stress is laid on the sensuality of Mohammed's paradise,[3] and the lewdness of the Prophet himself. As to the latter, though many of Gibbon's coa.r.s.e sarcasms do not rest on good authority, very little can be said for the Prophet. But among other blasphemies attributed by Speraindeo to Mohammed is one of which we find no mention in the Koran--the a.s.sertion, namely, that he would in the next world be wedded to the Virgin Mary. John, Bishop of Seville, is equally incorrect when, in a letter to Alvar,[4] he alleges a promise on the part of Mohammed that he would, like Christ, rise again from the dead; whereas his body, being neglected by his relations, was devoured by dogs. The Christian bishop does not hesitate to add--sepultus est in infernum--he was buried in h.e.l.l.[5]

[1] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 7.

[2] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," secs. 21-35.

[3] _Ibid._, secs. 23, 24. Mohammed's paradise was by no means wholly sensual.--Sale's Koran. Introd., p. 78.

[4] Sec 9.

[5] This shows the hatred of Christians for Mohammed, whom, says Eulogius ("Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 20), it would be every Christian's duty to kill, were he alive on earth.

It is generally supposed that Mohammed could neither read nor write, and this appears to have been the opinion of Alvar;[1] but the same witness acknowledges that the Koran was composed in such eloquent and beautiful language that even Christians could not help reading and admiring it.[2]

On the important question of Mohammed's position with regard to Christianity, Eulogius[3] at least formed a correct judgment. Mohammed, he tells us "blasphemously taught that Christ was the Word of G.o.d,[4]

and His Spirit;[5] a great prophet,[6] endowed with much power from G.o.d;[7] like Adam in His creation,[8] but not equal to G.o.d (the Creator);[9] and that by reason of His blameless[10] life, being filled with the Holy Spirit,[11] He showed marvellous signs and wonders through the power of G.o.d,[12] not working by His own G.o.dhead, but as a righteous Man, and an obedient servant,[13] obtaining much power and might from the Almighty G.o.d through prayer."

[1] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 26.

[2] _Ibid._, sec. 29. This is more than can be said at the present day.

[3] Eul., "Lib. Apol.," sec. 19.

[4] Koran, ch. iii. 40.

[5] Koran, ch. ii. 81, "strengthened with Holy Spirit."

[6] Kor., c. iii. 59.

[7] Kor., c. iii. 45.

[8] Kor., c. iii. 50.

[9] Kor., c. ix. 33.

[10] Kor., c. iii.

[11] This is a mistake of Eulogius. See Sale's note on Koran, ch. ii. 81, note.

[12] Kor., ch. v. 110 ff.

[13] Koran, cc. iv. ad fin; xliii. 59.

Alvar is much more unfair to Mohammed than his friend Eulogius, and he even seems to have had a prejudiced idea[1] that the Prophet set himself deliberately to preach doctrines the opposite of those taught by Christ.

It would be nearer to the truth to say that the divergence between the two codes of morals was due to the natural ignorance of an illiterate Arabian, brought into contact only with an heretical form of Christianity, the real doctrines of which he was therefore not likely to know.

According to Alvar, the sixth day of the week was chosen for the Mohammedan holy day, because Christ suffered on that day. We shall realise the absurdity of this when we consider the reverence in which Mohammed held the very name of Christ, going so far even as to deny that Christ Himself was crucified at all.[2] The true reason for selecting Friday, as alleged by Mohammed himself, was, because the work of creation ended on that day.[3]

Again, sensuality was preached, says Alvar, because Christ preached chast.i.ty. But Mohammed cannot fairly be said to have preached sensuality, though his private life in this respect was by no means pure.

Gluttony was advocated instead of fasting. A more baseless charge was never made; for how can it be contended that Christianity enjoins fasting, while Islam disapproves of it, in the face of such texts as Matthew ix. 14,[4] and Isaiah lviii. 6--"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free?" on the one hand; and on the other the express injunction of the Koran[5]:--"O true believers, a fast is ordained you, as it was ordained to those before you ... if ye fast, it will be better for you, if ye knew it. The month of Ramadan shall ye fast." But Alvar goes on to make a more astonishing statement still:--"Christ ordained that men should abstain from their wives during a fast, while Mohammed consecrated those days to carnal pleasure."

Christ surely gives us no such injunction, though St Paul does say something of the kind. The Koran[6] explicitly says--"It is lawful for you on the night of the fast to go in unto your wives; they are a garment unto you, and you are a garment unto them." We even find an incident recorded by an Arabian writer, where Yahya ibn Yahya, the famous faqui, imposed a penance of a month's extra fast on Abdurrahman II. (822-852) for violating the Prophet's ordinance, that wives should be abstained from during the fasting month.[7] Alvar, being a layman, may perhaps be supposed not to have studied Mohammedanism critically, and that his zeal was not according to knowledge is perhaps the best explanation of the matter. In one place[8] he informs us of his intention of writing a book on the Cobar,[9] but the work, if ever written, has not survived. Nor is this much to be regretted, if we may judge by the wild remarks he indulges in elsewhere[10] on this theme. In that pa.s.sage he seems to apply the obscure prophecy of Daniel[11] to Mohammed, forgetting that verse 37 speaks of one who "shall regard not the desire of women," a description hardly characteristic of Mohammed.

He identifies the G.o.d Maozim (Hebr. Mauzim), which our revised version (v. 38) translates the "G.o.d of fortresses" with the Mohammedan Cobar;[12] and the strange G.o.d, whom he shall acknowledge, Alvar identifies with the devil which inspired the Prophet in the guise of the angel Gabriel. All this, as the writer himself allows, is very enigmatical.

[1] See Dozy, ii. 107.

[2] See Koran, cc. iii. 47; iv. 157; and Sale's notes.

[3] See Sale's note on Koran, c. lxii. 9.

[4] Cf. also Matt. xi. 19--"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber."

[5] Chapter ii. 180.

[6] Chapter ii. 185. The Mohammedan fast is confined to the day time.

[7] From Ibn Khallekan, apud Dozy, ii. 108.

[8] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 25.

[9] _I.e._, the Caaba apparently.

[10] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 25, ff.

[11] C. xi. vv. 21, ff.

[12] ? Caaba.

Alvar does not scruple even to accuse the Moslems of idolatry, a.s.serting that the Arabian tribes worship their idol (the Caaba black stone[1]) as they used to do of yore, and that they set apart a holy month, Al Mozem, in honour of this idol.[2]

Finally, Mohammed is spoken of variously as the precursor of Antichrist,[3] or as Antichrist himself.[4]

Let us now see how far we can gather the opinions of educated Moslems with regard to Christian doctrine and worship. If we find these to be no less one-sided and erroneous than the opinions of Christians as to Mohammedanism, yet can we the more easily excuse the Moslems, for the Koran itself, the very foundation and guide of all their religious dogmas, is full of incorrect and inconsistent notions on the subject.

The most important of these mistakes was that the Christians worshipped a Trinity of Deities--G.o.d, Christ, Mary.[5] The inclusion of the Virgin Mary into this Trinity was perhaps due to the fact that worship was paid to her even at that early date, as it certainly is among the Roman Catholics at this day. As will have been seen from a pa.s.sage quoted above,[6] something very like adoration was already paid to the Virgin in the churches of Spain.