while ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, the greatest hero of Islam, has some famous verses attributed to him, which are everywhere in Arabia quoted to indicate his renowned prowess in battle:

To those who have lived with the Bedouin of the desert and know their daily life, it is not surprising to hear them quote the proverb, “The history of the sword is the history of humanity,” and again, “If there were no sword there would be no law of Mohammed.” The latest traveller in Yemen , Ameen Rihani, writes: “I am not exaggerating when I say that a permanent state of war, with short intervals of peace, is the prevailing condition in Al-Yaman. It was an open field always for one Saif-ul-Islam (Sword of Islam) or other during Turkish régime.” ⁵ Arabic dictionaries boast that the language has a thousand words for sword, and Arabian dynasties from the first century of Islam to the present day have risen and fallen only by the sword.

It is at the battle of Badr that we first meet Mohammed with a sword. According to the Arab chronicles this was one of the decisive battles of history. What part the Prophet himself took is not clear. Some traditions represent him as moving along the ranks with a drawn sword, but this is not likely. ⁶ He probably contented himself with inciting his followers by the promise of divine assistance and the prospect of paradise; for he had no sword, as far as we know, until he received one which became famous as part of the booty at the end of the battle of Badr. Without going into detail, we quote an account of the distribution of that booty from Muir (p. 113):

This famous sword is, in some traditions, said to have been given to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel, and bequeathed by him to his son-in-law ‘Ali, who cleft with it the skull of Marhab, the giant Jew warrior of Khaibar fort. ⁷ Its peculiar shape seems to be traditional, and pictures of the sword are found in every part of the Moslem world from Morocco to China. It appears upon the arms of the Zaidite princes of Yemen , and there is a representation of it on a Turkish standard, some twenty feet long, taken by Don Juan of Austria from the Turks at Lepanto. ⁸

Our frontispiece is a reproduction of a Chinese picture of this sword of Mohammed, printed in Peking. ⁹ Toward the left there is an account in Chinese, which may be summarized as follows:

The two Chinese characters on the side of the sword read: “to avoid uncanny influences,” which would seem to indicate the use of this picture of the sword as an amulet. On the blade of peculiar shape are the familiar words “La fata mithl ‘Ali, wa la saif mithl Dhu’l-Faq ar,” that is “There is no hero like ‘Ali, and there is no sword like the Dhu’l-Faq ar.” To the left of the sword in the picture is the Prophet’s rosary, and to the right his seal of office. The two solar discs contain the Arabic mottoes: “To God belongs mercy,” and “To God belongs blessing.” The crescent and the seven stars are symbolic. The brief words in Chinese are the name of the printer.

In Persian art there is no more familiar figure than ‘Ali with the famous sword, Dhu’l-Faq ar. A reproduction of it, taken from a Persian mirror-case, is given in the Encyclopædia of Islam (vol. i. p. 961). From the accompanying article by E. Mittwoch we learn that, according to tradition, the sword previously belonged to an infidel named Munabbih b. al-Hajjaj. The name of the sword is connected with the expression Saif Mufaqqar, “sword with the notch.” It is mentioned in several hadiths, which have been collected, for example by Ibn Saad, ii. 2 (near the end of that section) among the Shama’il in the section fi Suyuf al-Nabi. According to one of these traditions the sword bore an inscription referring to the blood-money, which ended with the words “la yuqtal muslim bik afir” (“No Muslim shall be slain for an unbeliever”).

According to tradition and Moslem art, the sword was not only two-edged, but had a forked or swallow-tailed blade. This particular form of sword, according to Burton , may have been derived from the Greeks and the Latins, or from the double-pointed chisels still common in Egypt today. I have seen examples of such forked daggers in Yemen ; and there are instances of them on the monuments of Assyria . Illustrations may also be found of similar forms in Indian daggers. ¹⁰ This would seem to give the true derivation of the word Dhu’l-Faq ar, which Burton rendered “the Lord of Cleaving,” though it might perhaps be rendered “the Cloven Blade.” Lane in his Lexicon says (p. 2426), “It was thus named because there were in it small, beautiful hollows, meaning small scallops in the edge, such as some modern swords have, for the more easy cleaving of coats-of-mail.” But the same root-word is used for the vertebrae of the back, and it would seem that the sword received this name not only from its shape, but from its power of execution. A man whose back is broken is called mafq ur.

According to many traditions, this sword became one of Mohammed’s most precious possessions, and is mentioned among the things which he bequeathed at his death. The relics of Mohammed form a special subject of legend in the collections of traditions. ¹¹ None among the companions of Mohammed would seem to be more entitled to inherit his sword than ‘Ali. He was both a cousin and a son-in-law of the Prophet, and became the fourth orthodox Caliph. Some say he was the first male convert to Islam, and the Prophet promised him paradise as a special portion. He received sixteen wounds at Ohod, and carried the banner on the day of victory at Khaibar. He smashed idols, destroyed images and levelled graves in Medina. ¹² He is pictured as the great warrior of early Islam, and is said to have punished infidels by death through fire. ¹³ From the earliest time legends gathered around him, as hero-warrior and saint. In the battle of Siff in he is said to have killed five hundred and twenty-three men in one day with his sword. Afterwards, extraordinary feats were told of him: how he had severed heads from bodies and hewn bodies in two with his sabre, Dhu’l-Faq ar. ¹⁴

Because ‘Ali was the second proud possessor of this magic weapon, we are not surprised that Shi‘ah tradition magnifies the sword of Mohammed. In Hyat-ul-Kuloob, a famous account of Mohammed’s life and character, translated from the Persian by the Reverend James L. Merrick ( Boston , 1850), there are the following embellishments (pp. 88, 253, 255). We retain the peculiar spelling:

But in the same book there is a discrepancy, for again we read:

It is in the famous miracle-play of Hasan and Husain, as collected from oral tradition by Colonel Sir Lewis Pelly, that we have the legend of Dhu’l-Faq ar fully developed. In this drama and tragedy of the plains of Kerbela , annually re-enacted in every city of Persia , ‘Ali is the central figure, the hero and redeemer of his people. In the fourth scene he offers to sacrifice his life for a fellow-creature. The scene opens with “the holy family” of five (Mohammed, ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husain), seated in dire want, kept from starvation by heavenly nymphs who bring down trays of fresh dates. ¹⁵ “Then in anguish of mind ‘Ali goes out for a ride on his mule, partly with the view of seeking employment, and partly with the idea of driving care from his mind. On his way he meets with a young man anxious to slay him, and thereby obtain as wife a certain lady, whose father desired the head of ‘Ali as a dowry for his daughter. ‘Sever my head from my body, thou foolish young man, and return to thy country rejoicing,’ was the ready rejoinder of the Bayard of Islam, who made no scruple to sacrifice his own life in order to benefit a fellow-creature. The eyes of the youth, however, were suddenly enlightened, and he begged forgiveness.” Such is a summary of the plot. There follow the passages that deal with the famous sabre of Mohammed

And then the hero-warrior relents at the cry of the lovelorn youth and offers to die in his stead, while Gabriel exclaims: “O holy ones! ‘Ali is offering his head for the sake of the people of the Prophet’s family.” ¹⁶

So much for the Sword of Mohammed and ‘Ali in the Shi‘ah tradition.

Entirely apart from these sanguinary legends we have the fact that from the very earliest times the preacher in the mosque was accustomed to hold a sword in his hand while addressing the people. In the commentary on Al-Ghazali’s Book of Worship by Al Murtada, ¹⁷ it is stated that the preacher in the mosque occupies his hands with the hilt of a sword or a staff when he delivers the two addresses. Both the sword and the staff are mentioned, we are told, because the sword indicates that the city was taken forcibly by the sword, as, e.g., Damascus . “So if you turn back from Islam it is still in the hands of the Moslems to fight against you with it until you return to Islam.” In every city that was taken peaceably, e.g. Cairo

and its districts, the wooden staff is used. “But the learned differ, and say that half of Cairo was taken forcibly and half peaceably, and so the present practice is to adopt a sword of wood so as to combine both statements.” ¹⁸

As it is not generally known that this custom of carrying a sword or a staff into the pulpit of the mosque every Friday is universal, we give the account in full from Lane’s careful observations in Egypt. ¹⁹ He says, that as soon as the call to prayer is finished, the congregation stands and then

The German Orientalist, C. H. Becker, in his monograph on the pulpit in early Islam, gives further information regarding the significance of the customs described by Lane. ²⁰“ Der Prediger betritt die Kanzel mit einem Stab oder Schwert oder Lanze oder Bogen in der rechten Hand. ” (The preacher ascends the pulpit with a staff or sword or lance or bow in his right hand.) In his historic investigation of the origin of this custom he concludes that the earliest mimbar (pulpit) was really a bema or judgment-seat for the Prophet when acting as judge and dispensing justice. He began the custom about 7 A . H . The sword or staff and the pulpit always go together as symbols of authority. They are called al-‘ud ani, i.e. the two pieces of wood, and explained as being originally mimbar an-nabi wa- ‘asahu, i.e. the Prophet’s pulpit and staff. Becker rightly concludes, therefore: “The staff or stick is considered by primitive races as an expression of superiority over against those who do not possess one. He who has a stick as weapon can strike, can punish. Thus the staff became the symbol of power in God’s hand or in that of His three representatives (prophet, priest or king). . . . Later on the staff became the sword.”

Whether it be sword or spear, the public service on Friday is not complete unless some weapon be in the hand of the khatib when he delivers the sermon in the pulpit. This custom, as we have seen, is universal and goes back to the example of Mohammed himself in the earliest mosque-pulpit of Medina . Later on the early Caliphs often established their right by the act of ascending the mimbar and wielding the staff or sword. ²¹

In his book on the Historical Development of the Quran, Canon E. Sell says:

“It even does more, for it also abrogates ²⁵ the kindly words of an earlier Meccan revelation:—

So important did the “Verse of the Sword” become in Islamic dogma that this verse abrogated not one or two, but a whole list of passages in the Koran, all of which teach a measure of leniency and good-will toward unbelievers. Indeed, there is not a single verse of greater importance in the whole Koran as regards its power of abrogation (nullification) of earlier teaching.

The passages are given by the Reverend Anwar-ul-Haqq, as follows: ²⁶ 2:133; 2:188; 2:214; 2:257 (“Let there be no compulsion in religion”); 3:19 (“Thy duty is only preaching”); 4:66; 4:82; 4:92, 93; 4:86 and 90; 5:2; 5:99; 6:66; 6:91; 6:104; 6:106, 107, 108, 112, 136, 138; 6:159, 160; 7:179, 198 (“Make the best of things and withdraw from the ignorant”); 8:73; 9:7; 10:99 (“What, wilt thou compel men to become believers”); 10:102, 108; 10:42, 47; 11:15 (“Thou art only a warner”); 13:40; 15:3; 15:85, 89, 94; 16:84; 16:126, 128; 17:56; 17:110, 19:40; 19:76, 87; 20:130, 135; 22:48, 55, 67; 23:56, 98; 24:53; 25:64; 27:94; 28:55; 29:49; 30:60; and fifty other passages all carefully marked as abrogated by the “Verse of the Sword”! That is, a total of over one hundred and ten injunctions or teachings are abrogated by the command to use the sword —the sword of Allah and of Mohammed.

At the beginning of his career Mohammed propagated the religion of Islam by teaching, by preaching, and by argument. In the earlier Surahs he said he was only a warner. But when he came to power he also felt conscious of a new authority and sanctioned the use of the sword. We are not surprised, therefore, that in the same short chapter that contains “the Sword Verse” he uses the astonishing phrase, “God and His Apostle,” no fewer than sixteen times. The evolution of this doctrine of the sword is accurately traced by a Mohammedan writer (Ibn ‘Abidin, vol. iii. p. 237, quoted by F. A. Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 174) as follows:

The Rev. C. C. Adams, Ph.D., in his thesis on The Modern Reform Movement in Egypt, gives the summary of an article that appeared in Al-Urwah al-Wuthqah from the Tarikh of Muhammad ‘Abduh (vol. ii. pp. 250 seq.) as present-day teaching:

And so it remains to this day, at least in theory. Holy war is “a duty in general on all male, free, adult Moslems, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Moslem army. . . . So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam . . . Islam must be completely made over before the doctrine of Jihad can be eliminated.” ²⁷

It would be interesting to compare the teaching of the New Testament with the Koran verse quoted; but we refrain.