The Theory and belief that the language of the Koran was divine made its language worth studying

The Theory and belief that the language of the Koran was divine made its language worth studying, and suggested the applica­tion to that study of both deductive and inductive methods.

By the first is meant the application, as it is sometimes called, of philoso­phy to grammar, which usually means finding in grammatical forms conscious symbolism; by the latter, accurate observation and tabulation of existing usage.

The grammar of Sibawaihi (ob. before the end of the second Islamic century) is an extraordinary perform­ance from both points of view.

The Koran professed to be perfect so far as it went, but from its size it could by no means exhaust the Arabic language; that therefore was to be learned from the Arabs, and especially from those of the desert who had not mixed with strangers.

The desire therefore to interpret and supplement the language of the Koran suggested the collection and preservation of old lays and similar relics of antiquity before the archaeological interest awoke.

It is, indeed true that their wonderful language, which perhaps more than any other gives the appearance of artificiality, easily lent itself to philological systematization.

Yet the endeavour to subject it to this treatment only commenced when it was believed to be God’s language.

And although some help for the commencement of these studies was doubtless obtained from Greece and Syria Dr. Sarruf has plausibly suggested that the name of Joannes Grammaticus lays behind the Arabic name for “Grammar” the elaboration of the system is entirely due to Islamic effort.

So long as history consists of the reproduction of words and deeds, there is no chance of improving on the Islamic method.

But the philosophy of history, or generalization about human conduct by observing the recurrence of sequences, was also easier to the Islamic thinkers than others, owing to the mass of accurately recorded history which lay ready to hand.

It is true that the com­pass of such generalization was seriously contracted by the mono­tony of the matter thus collected; there was none of the exuberant variety of political experience which formed the basis of the Aristotelian Politics.

Yet the philosophy of history by Ibn Khaldun, who died early in the ninth century of Islam, of which there is a French translation, may well count among the classics in its subject.

And is of permanent value for the understanding of Oriental politics, somewhat as Aristotle’s work is for that of Greek.

On this subject, too, the Islamic peoples would gladly have learned from the Greeks if they had had a teacher; but those who professed to teach them had not themselves learned.

That the Koran, owing to the historical materials which it contains, encouraged archaeological inquiry should also be acknow­ledged.

For curiosity was naturally aroused in reference to the personages whose names recur so constantly in its pages, and those who professed to know something about them in consequence obtained a hearing.

Though of course they were not ordinarily believed where they contradicted that infallible record.

The practice of collating the Jewish and Christian narratives with those embo­died in the Koran, and to some extent interpreting the latter by the former, found many adherents, though perhaps not generally approved.

And medieval Islam has some wonderful performances in lines closely connected with this. As then, all other studies might be regarded as subservient to that of the Word of God.

It is prob­able that in the interminable series of commentaries on the Koran we find the product of the mightiest Islamic minds.

And it is mainly in this form that the ideas of the most notable Islamic re­former of our time, the Mufti Mohammed Abdo, are perpetuated.