OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Notes on Muhammadanism/Chapter 8

VIII.—QIAS.
Qi′a′s (lit. "to compare") is the fourth foundation of Islám, and expresses the analogical reasoning of the learned with regard to the teaching of the Qurán, Hadís, and Ijmaʾ.
There are four conditions of Qiás: (1) That the precept or practice upon which it is founded must be of common (ʾamm) and not of special (kháss) application; (2) The cause (illat) of the injunction must be known and understood; (3) The decision must be based upon either the Qurán, the Hadís, or the Ijmaʾ; (4) The decision arrived at must not be contrary to anything declared elsewhere in the Qurán and Hadís.
Qíás is of two kinds, Qíás-i-Jalí or evident, and Qíás-i-Khafí or hidden.
An example of Qíás-i-Jalí is as follows:—Wine is forbidden in the Qurán under the word Khamar, which literally means anything in​toxicating; it is, therefore, evident that opium and all intoxicating drugs are also forbidden. Qíás-i-Khafí is seen in the following example:—In the Hadís it is enjoined that one goat in forty must be given to God. To some poor persons the money may be more acceptable; therefore, the value of the goat may be given instead of the goat.
# Notes on Muhammadanism/Chapter 53

LIII.—THE CRUCIFIXION OF OUR SAVIOUR.
The following are the verses in the Qurán which allude to our blessed Lord's crucifixion:
Surat-un-Nisá (iv.), 157:—
"And for their saying (we have cursed them'), 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not; but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him; no sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself."
Surat-ul-Maida (v.), 19:—
"They are infidels who say, 'Verily God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.' Say: And who could obtain anything from God to the contrary if he chose to destroy the Messiah, the ​son of Mary, and his mother, and the whole world also."
Surat-i-A′l-i-Imrán (iii.), 47, 48:—
"The Jews plotted and God plotted: but of those who plot is God the best. Remember when God said, 'O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I will place those who follow thee above those who believe not until the day of resurrection. Then to me is your return, and wherein ye differ will I decide between you.'"
Whilst all Muslim commentators are agreed as to the literal interpretation of these passages, there is some difference as to the person crucified in Christ's stead.
1. In the Tafsír-i-Bezáwí it is said that Christ asked one of his disciples to take his place.
2. In the Tafsír-i-Mazhárí, that God took Christ in his human body to heaven alive.
3. In the Tafsír-i-Baghwí, that God transformed Christ’s appearance to one of his enemies, a spy, who was thus crucified in his stead by mistake.
4. In the Tafsír-i-Kalbí, that Titánús was ​crucified, God having transferred Christ's appearance to that person.
5. In the Tafsír-i-Kamálain that Christ was dead seven hours, then restored to life and taken to heaven.
It will be seen that these commentators have adopted the errors of the Basilidians, and other heretics, with reference to our Lord's crucifixion; for Irenæus says that the Basilidians held that Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Christ.
The "Cross of Christ" is the missing link in the Muslim's creed; for we have already alluded to the great anomaly of a religion which rejects the doctrine of a sacrifice for sin, whilst its great central feast is a Feast of Sacrifice.
It is related by the Muslim historian Waqidi, that Muhammad had such repugnance to the sign of the cross, that he destroyed everything brought to his house with that figure upon it.
# Notes on Muhammadanism/Chapter 54

LIV.—THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, AND THE HOLY TRINITY.
The following are the allusions to the Holy Trinity and the Sonship of Christ in the Qurán:—
Surat-un-Nisá (iv.), 169:—
"O ye people of the Book! overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only truth. The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, is only an Apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from himself. Believe, therefore, in God and his apostles, and say not there is a Trinity (lit. "three"). Forbear, it will be better for you. God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a son * * * * The Messiah disdaineth not to be a servant of God."
Surat-ul-Maida (v.), 79:—
"The Messiah, the son of Mary, is but an ​apostle; other apostles have flourished before him, and his mother was a just person ; they both ate food."
Verse 116 of the same Súra:—
"O Jesus, son of Mary, hast thou said unto mankind, 'Take me and my mother as two Gods beside God?'"
From the above verses it appears that Muhammad thought the Holy Trinity of the Christians consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin; and historians tell us that there existed in Arabia a sect called Collyridians, who considered the Virgin Mary a divine person, and offered in worship to her a cake called Collyris; it is, therefore, not improbable that Muhammad obtained his perverted notion of the Holy Trinity from the existence of this sect. From the expression "they both ate food," we must conclude that Muhammad had but a sensuous idea of the Trinity in Unity, and had never been instructed in the orthodox faith with reference to this dogma.
In dealing with Muhammadans the Christian missionary must not treat their system as though the views of Islám were precisely those ​of modern Socinians. Islám admits the miraculous conception of Christ, and that he is the "Word" which God "conveyed into Mary;" and whilst the other five great prophets are but "the chosen," "the preacher," "the friend," "the converser with," and "the messenger" of God, Jesus is admitted to be the "Spirit of God." He is the greatest miracle worker of all the prophets, and whilst Muhammad is dead and buried, and saw corruption, all Muslim divines admit that Jesus "saw no corruption," and still lives with a human body in Paradise.
Moreover, it is said in the Hadís that the Núr-i-Muhammad, the light of Muhammad, was created before all things which were made by God. The pre-existence of the divine "Word which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" is not, therefore, an idea foreign to the Muslim mind.
# Notes on Muhammadanism/Chapter 5

V.—INSPIRATION.
According to Muhammadan theologians, inspiration is of two kinds, Wáhí and Ilhám. Wáhi, is that which was given to the prophets, and is used especially for the Qurán; Ilhám being the inspiration to Walis, or saints.
Ilhám is the word generally used by Christian missionaries for the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, and we believe it is sometimes used by Arabic divines for a higher form of inspiration, but always in the compound form of Ilhám Rabbáni.
Shaikh Ahmad in his book, the Núr-ul-Anwár, defines inspiration as follows:—"Wáhí, or inspiration, is either Záhir (external), or Bátin (internal). Wáhí Záhir is divided into three classes:—(1) Wáhí Qurán, that which was given by the mouth of the angel Gabriel, and which reached the ear of the Prophet after he knew that it was Gabriel who spoke to ​him. (2) Ishárat-ul-Malak, that which was received from Gabriel, but not by word of mouth, as when the Prophet said, "The Holy Ghost has breathed into my heart." (3) Ilhám, or Wáhí Qalb, that which was made known to the Prophet by the light of prophecy. This kind of inspiration is possessed by Walis or saints, but in their case it may be true or false. Wáhí Bátin is that which the Prophet obtained by analogical reasoning (qiás) just as the enlightened doctors, or Mujtahidín, obtain it."
The Ishárat-ul-Malak, mentioned in the above quotation is never used for the inspiration of the Qurán, but for certain instructions which Muhammad professes to have received direct from Gabriel, and which are recorded in the Hadís, or Traditions.
Whatever may have been the actual impression upon Muhammad's mind as to the nature of the communications he professed to have received from God, it is evident that Muslim theologians have no conception of the Word of God being given in the form of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The most plausible objection raised against the New Tes​tament, by Muhammadan controversialists of the present day is, that the Christians have lost the original Gospels and that our present book contains merely the Hadís, or traditions, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is, therefore, necessary to correct their common idea that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus in the same manner as the Qurán is said to have been given to Muhammad; to show that it was the special office of the Holy Spirit to give the New Testament Scriptures, and that they came to man by the same method of inspiration whereby the Old Testament writings were given to the Prophets of old, the Qurán being an exception to God's usual method of giving inspired writings to his Prophets.
# Notes on Muhammadanism/Chapter 7

VII.—IJMAʾ.
Ijmaʾ is the third foundation of the Muhammadan rule of faith. It literally means collecting, or assembling, and in Muslim divinity it expresses the unanimous consent of the Mujtahidín (learned doctors); or, as we should call it, 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers." A Mujtahid is a Muslim divine of the highest degree of learning, a title usually conferred by Muslim rulers. There are three foundations of Ijmaʾ: (1) Itifáq-i-Qauli, unanimous consent expressed in declaration of opinion; (2) Itifáq-i-Fiʾli, expressed in unanimity of practice; (3) Itifáq-i-Saqúti, when the majority of the Mujtahidín signified their tacit assent to the opinions of the minority by "silence" or non-interference.
The Mujtahidín, capable of making Ijmaʾ, must be "men of learning and piety, not heretics, nor fools, but men of judgment."
There is great diversity of opinion as to up to what period in the history of Islám, ​Ijmaʾ can be accepted. Some doctors assert that only the Ijmaʾ of the Mujtahidín who were Asháb (companions); others, that of those who were not only "companions" but descendants" of the "Prophet," can be accepted; whilst others accept the Ijmaʾ of the Ansárs, (helpers,) and of the Muhájarín, (fugitives,) who were dwellers in Medina with Muhammad. The majority of learned Muslim divines, however, appear to think that Ijmaʾ may be collected in every age, although they admit that, owing to the numerous divisions which have arisen amongst Muhammadans, it has not been possible since the days of the Tabaʾ Tabaʾín, (i.e., the followers of the followers of the companions).
The following is considered to be the relative value of Ijmaʾ:—
That of the Asháb (companions) is equal to Hadís Mutawátir. That which was decided afterwards, but in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Asháb, is equal to Hadís Khaber-i-Mashhúr, and that upon which there was diversity of opinion amongst the Asháb, but has since been decided by the later Mujtahidín is equal to Hadís-i-Khabar-i-Wáhid.
​Amongst the Shíʾahs, we believe, there are still Mujtahidín whose Ijmaʾ is accepted, but the Sunnis have four orthodox schools of interpretation, named after their respective founders, Hanafí, Sháfaʾi, Máliki, and Hambali. The Wahhábis for the most part reject Ijmaʾ collected after the death of "the Companions."
From these remarks, it will be easily understood what a fruitful source of religious dissension and sectarian strife this third foundation of the rule of faith is. Divided as the Christian Church is by its numerous sects, it will compare favourably with Muhammadanism even in this respect. Muhammad, it is related, prophesied that as the Jewish Church had been divided into seventy-one sects! and the Christians into seventy-two! so his followers would be divided into seventy-three sects; but every Muslim historian is obliged to admit that they have far exceeded the limits of Muhammad's prophecy; for, according to Abdul Qádir Jiláni, there are at least 150.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLV

Canon XLV.
Whereas we understand that in some monasteries of women those who are about to be clothed with the sacred habit are first adorned in silks and garments of all kinds, and also with gold and jewels, by those who bring them thither, and that they thus approach the altar and are there stripped of such a display of wealth, and that immediately thereafter the blessing of their habit takes place, and they are clothed with the black robe; we decree that henceforth this shall not be done. For it is not lawful for her who has already of her own free will put away every delight of life, and has embraced that method of life which is according to God, and has confirmed it with strong and stable reasons, and so has come to the monastery, to recall to memory the things which they had already forgotten, things of this world which perisheth and passeth away. For thus they raise in themselves doubts, and are disturbed in their souls, like the tossing waves, turning hither and thither. Moreover, they should not give bodily evidence of heaviness of heart by weeping, but if a few tears drop from their eyes, as is like enough to be the case, they may be supposed by those who see them to have flowed μὴ μᾶλλον on account of their affection (διαθέσεως, affectionem) for the ascetic struggle rather than (ἢ) because they are quitting the world and worldly things.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLV.
Parents shall not deck out in silks a daughter who has chosen the monastic life, and thus clothe her, for this is a recalling to her mind the world she is leaving.
This canon is at the present day constantly broken at the profession of Carmelites.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLVII

Canon XLVII.
No woman may sleep in a monastery of men, nor any man in a monastery of women. For it behoves the faithful to be without offence and to give no scandal, and to order their lives decorously and honestly and acceptably to God. But if any one shall have done this, whether he be cleric or layman, let him be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLVII.
It is not allowed that a woman should sleep in a convent of men, nor a man in a monastery of women.
The ground covered by this canon is also found in Justinian’s Code, Book xliv., Of Bishops and Clergy.  Vide also Novella cxxxiii., chap. v.
Van Espen.
From the whole context of Justinian’s law it is manifest that Justinian here is condemning “double monasteries,” in which both men and women dwelt. And he wishes such to be separated, the men from the women, and e contra the women from the men, and that each should dwell in separate monasteries.
The reader may be reminded of some curious double religious houses in England for men and women, of which sometimes a woman was the superior of both.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLIII

Canon XLIII.
It is lawful for every Christian to choose the life of religious discipline, and setting aside the troublous surgings of the affairs of this life to enter a monastery, and to be shaven in the fashion of a monk, without regard to what faults he may have previously committed. For God our Saviour says: “Whose cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.”
As therefore the monastic method of life engraves upon us as on a tablet the life of penitence, we receive whoever approaches it sincerely; nor is any custom to be allowed to hinder him from fulfilling his intention.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIII.
Whoever flees from the surging billows of life and desires to enter a monastery, shall be allowed to do so.
Zonaras.
The greatness or the number of a man’s sins ought not to make him lose hope of propitiating the divinity by his penitence, if he turns his eyes to the divine mercy. This is what the canon asserts, and affirms that everyone, no matter how wicked and nefarious his life may have been, may embrace monastic discipline, which inscribes, as on a tablet, to us a life of penitence. For as a tablet describes to us what is inscribed upon it, so the monastic profession writes and inscribes upon us penitence, so that it remains for ever.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Latin adds “and favour.”
* ↑ Latin reads, “germanely and sincerely.”
* ↑ Beveridge translates στύλη by columna but I think incorrectly. Cf. Liddell and Scott.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLIV

Canon XLIV.
A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIV.
A monk joined in marriage or committing fornication shall pay the penalty of a fornicator.
The punishment here seems too light, so that Balsamon thinks that this canon only refers to such monks as freely confess their sin and desist from it, remaining in their monasteries; and that the sterner penalties assigned to unchaste religious by other synods (notably Chalcedon, can. xvj., and Ancyra, can. xix.) are for such as do not confess their faults but are after some time convicted of them.
Aristenus.
The monk will receive the same punishment whether he be a fornicator or has joined himself with a woman for the communion of marriage.
Van Espen.
It is very likely from this canon that the Monastic vow at the time of this Synod was not yet an impedimentum dirimens of matrimony, for nothing is said about the dissolution of the marriage contracted by a monk although he had gravely sinned in violating his faith pledged to God.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XV

Canon XV.
A subdeacon is not to be ordained under twenty years of age. And if any one in any grade of the priesthood shall have been ordained contrary to the prescribed time let him be deposed.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XV.
Those shall be chosen as Subdeacons who are twenty years of age.
This age seems first to have been fixed by the Second Council of Toledo (circa, a.d. 535) in its first canon.

## Footnotes

* ↑ It is curious that so learned a scholar as the late Henry Bradshaw in his article “Subdeacon” in Smith & Cheetham’sDictionary of Christ. Antiq. should give the date of this synod as 447.  Hefele fixes it at 527 or 531. Baronius, Binius, Labbe, and many others at 531. A very ancient ms. assigns it to the year 565 of the Spanish era, i.e. 527, and this is the date Cardinal de Aguirre adopts, and is also the one given to the council by the editors of L’Art de Vérifier les dates.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLIX

Canon XLIX.
Renewing also the holy canon, we decree that the monasteries which have been once consecrated by the Episcopal will, are always to remain monasteries, and the things which belong to them are to be preserved to the monastery, and they cannot any more be secular abodes nor be given by any one to seculars.  But if anything of this kind has been done already, we declare it to be null; and those who hereafter attempt to do so are to be subjected to canonical penalties.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIX.
Monasteries built with the consent of the bishop shall not afterwards be turned into secular houses, nor shall they pass into the hands of seculars.
Van Espen.
This canon renews canon xxiv. of Chalcedon. And here it may be observed that the canons even of Ecumenical Synods fall into desuetude little by little, unless the care of bishops and pastors keeps them alive, and from the example of this synod it may be seen how often they need calling back again into observance.
Nor can there be any doubt that frequently it would be more advantageous to renew the canons already set forth by the Fathers, rather than to frame new ones.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLVI

Canon XLVI.
Those women who choose the ascetic life and are settled in monasteries may by no means go forth of them. If, however, any inexorable necessity compels them, let them do so with the blessing and permission of her who is mother superior; and even then they must not go forth alone, but with some old women who are eminent in the monastery, and at the command of the lady superior. But it is not at all permitted that they should stop outside.
And men also who follow the monastic life let them on urgent necessity go forth with the blessing of him to whom the rule is entrusted.
Wherefore, those who transgress that which is now decreed by us, whether they be men or women, are to be subjected to suitable punishments.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLVI.
A nun shall not go out of her convent without the consent of her superior, nor shall she go alone but with an older one of the order. It is in no case permitted to her to spend the night outside. The same is the case with a monk; he cannot go out of the monastery without the consent of the superior.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLVIII

Canon XLVIII.
The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLVIII.
She who is separated from one about to be consecrated bishop, shall enter a monastery after his ordination, situated at a distance from the See city, and she shall be provided for by the bishop.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XVII

Canon XVII.
Since clerics of different churches have left their own churches in which they were ordained and betaken themselves to other bishops, and without the consent of their own bishop have been settled in other churches, and thus they have proved themselves to be insolent and disobedient; we decree that from the month of January of the past IVth Indiction no cleric, of whatsoever grade he be, shall have power, without letters dimissory of his own bishop, to be registered in the clergy list of another church. Whoever in future shall not have observed this rule, but shall have brought disgrace upon himself as well as on the bishop who ordained him, let him be deposed together with him who also received him.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.
Whoever receives and ordains a wandering cleric shall be deposed together with him thus wickedly ordained.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXI., Quæst., ii. can. j.