The prophets of Persia, such as Abád, Zardusht, and the like, are called Vakhshúr; the apostles of the Yonán and of Rome are Aghásá daimún (Agatho demon);[149] Hermes, and the like, whom they name “possessors of fame;” the prophets of the Hindus, such as Ráma, Krishna, and the like, are entitled Ava társ; and the prophets of the Turks, such as Aghríres and Aghúrkhan, are distinguished by the name of Abulmas. The prophets of Islám, from Adam, the father of mankind, to Muhammed, are called resul. In like manner the prophets of other nations were distinguished by titles such as buzerg, “great,” or sádik, “pure.” They said: it is right that no other prophet should come after the one: which is signified by the seal of the prophetic mission, that is, “the utmost dignity of mankind.” Ibn Makanâ Sáheb-i-Mah Kashgher,[150] also was reckoned among the prophets, and such was the controversy which arose about the head-khaláfet, the distinction, precedence, and rejection of the lords among each other, that it has not yet been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. They said that there were four celebrated doctors; if a controversy arose, this is nothing less than what is proper to mankind, as no man can be free from the attributes of his race; on that account they abstained from reviling the case of Môávíah, but they said that he was a great personage. But the creed of the Hakím Dostur was, that the prophets of the Persians, Hindus, Yonans, Turks, and Arabs, and such people, were promoting the establishment of a sort of knowledge and of some sorts of sciences; the philosophers, exerting themselves by the aid of the reasoning faculty, become founders of theoretical schools, and also lend their assistance with respect to theology. The scope of an Hakím is, that his reason may direct its laborious efforts towards all quarters, and, inasmuch as may be in its power, to bear a resemblance to the Lord God, the self-existent Being. The utmost endeavor of the prophets is, that the order of the world may be evident to them, so that they may, according to this order, arrange the affairs of society. But this order of affairs cannot be exempt from the excitement of desire, terror, and dubiousness; although, certainly, whatever the masters of law and religion have combined into a system, may be explained by what certain eminent philosophers have exhibited. Among other things it is said, that the world is very ancient, and its eternity without beginning and end indubitable. In the sequel, a learned Hakím raises pretensions to inspiration, excites others to the adoption of a creed which he endeavors to render firm. But Hakím Kámzán assented to no inspiration, he said:—In ancient times, sages established customs and regulations for the order of the world, and, as long as the inhabitants conformed to them, there was not the least oppression in their doings; until finally they collected into a nation, worshipping pleasure and bent upon worldliness; then arose concealment of truth from the people, union by the strength of parentage, combination by fraud, and enveigling by means of enchantment and the like, by which idiots were drawn into a net. When those who implored protection were seized by the oppressors, helpless, the prudent among them bent down their heads; because when the strong become masters of the day, men submit to them on account of their being superior to the weak people, who have timid souls; thus they accepted their dominion by force, and contention ensued in the world. Moises was held to be an enchanter, and called rabí Moises; rabí being the name given by the Jews to the learned; Jesus was accounted a physician, and entitled Hakím Jesus, son of Joseph, the carpenter; Muhammed bore the name of “the prophet of God, the king of the Arabian poets;”[151] Krishna went under the name of Avátar chahnál,[152] that is, the “incarnation of the lewd, and devoted to women.” And thus the celebrated prophets were distinguished. The intelligent know well that the most high Creator does not articulate words, but the sacred dictates which the vulgar receive are to be thus considered—that, if those books which they call “heavenly,” such as the Koran, were really the words of God, which were delivered in time past to our ancestors, such as to Adam and Noah, it would be right that they should be also communicated in time to come to future generations, expressing, viz.: that in such a time and year, and month and week, on such a day, at such an hour, a person shall appear, in such a town and such a street, tribe sprung from such a one, with such a name, and such an aspect. But such an account is not to be found in the Koran; it is only by the interpretation of his followers that many traditions about Muhammed are current. The same may be said of other prophets. For if it were stated in the book of Jesus, that at the determined time, as we have just shown, there shall appear a person whose name in Arabia shall be Muhammed, sprung from the father Abd ’ulla and the mother Amíná, from the children Hashem and Korésh, inhabitants of Mecca; and he shall be the last prophet of the age; all the Christians should acknowledge and believe in him. And in the same manner there should have been, in the book of Moses, a prediction of Jesus, and a further account of events which took place at his appearance. But this is not the case, except that the followers of Jesus seize, in figurative language, on whatever may suit their persuasion. Thus it happened that one of the Afgháns applied the words: “Say, there is but one God,” to himself.
He further said: “If I agree to their prophetic mission, whence was it shown that this people were prophets? for, if pursuant to their claim to prophetic office and legislation, we adopt what at every time is held out as legal, why are their fundamental articles of faith in contradiction to each other with respect to the knowledge of the self-existent Being? Thus, in the Pentateuch of the Jews, God has a body, and corporeity; and the Christians believe Jesus a son of God, and the Muhammedans according to the Koran believe God to be without an equal, and not to be described. If God be similar to what he is represented in all these books, he is not unlike a man who does not know himself, and at each time gives an account of himself, which he varies, and of which he repents. If they say, the real sense is the same, the figurative expression and interpretation only change, it is not less evident, that the books and the prophets have been sent for the purpose of leading men to God, and not to instigate them to rebel; or, after having proclaimed his word, to combat each other by controversy. He commands the sacrifice of their blood and property for the common good. And if they say, the servants cannot disagree about the knowledge of God, why then is it written in the books that they must know him in that, and in no other way? and why do we perceive such a contradiction in the deeds, and frequently in the words, of the celebrated prophets? The intelligent man can no longer recognise them by their noble actions.
Somebody said to the Hakím Kámrán: “Give me in substance the belief of the Sonnites and the Shíâhs.” He replied: “The creed of the Sonnites is, after the praise of God the most high, and the attributes of the prophet, blessing and mercy of God upon all transgressors and sinners, men, and women; and the creed of the Shíâhs is after the praise of God, and the attributes of the prophet, the curse of God upon all believers, men and women; and Muselmans, men and women.” And he had much to say about this subject.
Abu ’l Hassan Taheraní, surnamed Isfahán, son of Gháib báig, surnamed Iâtimad eddoulah, became a follower of Kámrán, by the persuasion of the friends of the latter, as the author of this book perceived in a letter, written by Rafiâ ’l Kader to Hakím Kámrán, in which the former declared himself the disciple of Kámrán, whom he called his master, and addressed in a suitable style. Thus was also Zemán Baig born, in Arghún, his father, a native of Kabul, was surnamed Mahábet Khán, who, by his gravity, bravery, and wisdom, acquired a high rank among the Omras of the Indian Sultans. He was in a friendly connection with Kámrán, and in the letters which the mighty khan wrote to Hakím Kámrán, he showed him great respect, and professed himself his disciple. It is said that, at a banquet, Mahábet Khan declared the saying of the prophetic asylum—
“I was a prophet, and Adam in water and mud—”
to be without sense. Further, whoever acknowledges the prophetic mission of Muhammed accounts it to begin after the prophet’s fortieth year, and whoever does not acknowledge it, is free in this opinion. Muhammed said: “I was a prophet, and Adam in water and mud.” Kámrán went seldom into the houses of this sect, and kept himself at a distance from them. When, yielding to a thousand entreaties, he visited them, he changed his usual dress, sat only a moment with them, and rose immediately; he never ate with them, nor accepted he any thing from one of this sect. When asked upon his keeping himself at a distance from them, he said: “The spirit of brutishness and savagery holds its mastership over you, and I cannot always associate with brutes and beasts of prey.” He remained even a long time without seeing them. But Abd ul rasul frequented him, and, conformably to Kámrán’s advice, detached himself from worldly desires, and crushed anger and lust in his mind. On that account Hakím Kámrán, having conceived friendship for him, taught him first the rules of grammar and etymology, then the Sherah Shamsíyah, “Commentary upon Shamsiyah;”[153] besides the physiological part of the Commentary upon Hedáyah al hikmet, “the Guide to Science,” composed by Hossain, son of Mâyin eddin Maibedí;[154] further, matters relating to the Commentary upon Hikmet al âin, “the Science of what is “essential,”[155] and afterwards the Commentary upon Tajeríd,[156] “Divestment of what is accessory,” with marginal notes; also the physiological part of the Commentary upon Isháret,[157] “Indications (allegorical, symbolical, and others);” and, finally, the Ilahyat shafa, “the Hymns of Recovery.” Thus also, Mulla Yacúb read with him the Taherir, “Writings” of Euclid, and a Commentary upon Tazkerah,[158] “Commemoration;” and was attached to him. Likewise Mír Sheríf, having read the Mutavel,[159] “Development,” and the Tafsir, “Explanation,” of Baízavi,[160] resolved to follow his school; and, what is more astonishing, Mulla Usám read with him the illustrations and demonstrations which are in the fundamentals of Hanifa’s religious law, and adopted his faith. But Mulla Sultan, although he acknowledged his high rank of excellence, never adhered to him. And Hakím Kámrán said: “What is not understood, becomes a subject of dispute.” Thus Mulla Sultán followed with intense application the study of the soul, and the chain of demonstrations relative to it, but he said: “I am not able to understand its nature, and am, in that respect, like a parrot.” Among the able disciples of Hakím Kámrán was Hakím Mershed, who passed through all degrees of science before him, and possessed his entire confidence.[161] Hakím Kámrán was wont at that time, when he gave lessons of science, to wash his head, hands, and feet, to burn sweet perfumes, and to turn his face towards the sun, in which his disciples imitated him. He did not confer his instruction upon every body, but refused it to the depraved, the oppressors, and the voluptuous; nor did he hold intercourse with low persons.
[148] اسو لوجي is supposed to be one of Aristotle’s works, which is said to have been translated by Abenama, a Saracen, from Greek into Arabic. This translation was found in the library of Damascus, by Franciscus Roseus, and at his request rendered into Latin, by Moses Koras, a Jew, but in a very barbarous style. This interpretation has perhaps never been published. Soon after, or about the same time, Petrus Nicolaus ex Castellaneis Faventinus, a medical man and philosopher, translated the same work from Arabic into Latin; this new version was published with a dedication to Leo X., in 1718, by the above-said Franciscus Roseus. As it did not appear a sufficiently neat composition, Jacobus Carpentarius Claromontanus Bellovacus, a Parisian philosopher, who was ignorant of Arabic, published, in 1571, an emendated edition, or rather a meta-phrase of this work, under the title: Aristotelis libri XIV de secretiore parte divinæ sapientiæ secundum Ægyptios. Some preferred to the latter the more exact although less elegant version of Petrus Nicolaus, new editions of which appeared in 1591 and 1593—(see upon this subject the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius, edit. of Harles, vol. III. pp. 278-279, and the preface of the edition of Carpentarius). The Arabic text of the work is in the Royal library of Paris, under the title: ثيو لوجيا.
[151] ملک اشعرای عرب. This is not quite correct: Muhammed introduces in his Koran (ch. XXXVI. v. 69) the Lord saying: “We have not taught Muhammed the art of poetry; nor is it expedient for him to be a poet. This book is no other than an admonition from God, and a perspicuous Koran.” The Arabian prophet, according to the best accounts, liked to hear poetry read, but never perused any himself, although he frequently spoke in the metre called رجز rijez. The only Arabic verse which he often repeated was the celebrated one from the poem of Lebid: