The History of Chess. H. J. R. Murray
Persia which took place between the years A.D. 638 and 651, in the caliphate of ‘Omar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, the second of the four orthodox caliphs, and thus some years after the death of Muḥammad himself (A.D. 632). Most probably the prophet had never heard of the existence of chess, since the Muhammadan jurists have been unable to settle the question of the legality of chess-playing by any direct decision of Muḥammad as recorded in the Qar’ān, or in authentic tradition. Such at any rate was the opinion of the earlier lawyers.
This question of the legal position of chess-playing exercised the early Muslim lawyers not a little. The whole possibility of a Muslim chess depended upon the decision that was reached. Muslim law is far wider in scope than anything that the Western world has ever known. As D. B. Macdonald puts it in his Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory (London, 1903, p. 66), ‘Muslim law in the most absolute sense fits the old definition, and is the science of all things, human and divine. It tells us what we must render to Caesar and what to God, what to ourselves, and what to our fellows. The bounds of the Platonic definition of rendering to each man his due it utterly shatters. While Muslim theology defines everything that a man shall believe of things in heaven and in earth and beneath the earth—and this is no flat rhetoric—Muslim law prescribes everything that a man shall do to God, to his neighbour, and to himself. It takes all duty for its portion and defines all actions in terms of duty.’ Nor was this any empty claim. A Muslim’s citizenship depends upon his character, as judged by his conformity to the letter of the law, and it is only the evidence of a man of ‘blameless life’ that possesses any validity in a court of law. If the practice of chess was established to be illegal, no true Muslim could be a chess-player. It became, therefore, a matter of importance to ascertain the legal position of chess and chess-playing.
It was not, however, until the second century of Islam that any serious attempt was made to systematize and codify Muslim law. Prior to this lawyers had been mainly opportunists, though the seeds of the broad separation of Muhammadans into Sunnites—those who accepted the caliphate de facto—and Shi‘ites—those who upheld the right of the descendants of ‘Alī and his wife Fāṭima, the Prophet’s daughter, were already there. But in the second and third centuries Sunnite law was systematized by a number of schools or sects, of which four stand out above the others. These are the Ḥanīfite, the Mālikite, the Shāfi‘ite, and the Ḥanbalite schools, so called from their respective founders, Abū Ḥanīfa (D. 150/767), Malik b. Anas (D. 179/795), ash-Shāfi‘ī (D. 204/820), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (D. 241/855). To one or other of these sects practically every Sunnite Muslim belongs to-day, and in broad outline Sin‘ite law is not very dissimilar.
Muslim law divides all actions into five classes—(1) necessary actions (farḍ, wājib), the omission of which is punished, and the performance of which is rewarded; (2) recommended actions (mandūb, mustaḥabb), the omission of which entails no penalty, but the performance of which is rewarded; (3) permitted actions (jā’lz, mubaḥ) which are indifferent legally; (4) disliked actions (makrūh) which are disapproved but not under penalty; and (5) forbidden actions (ḥarām), the performance of which is punished by law.2 The criteria for the proper classification of actions have varied somewhat from time to time, and with different schools, but all agree that the final criterion is the Qur’ān, and that next in importance comes the evidence of a clear and authentic tradition of Muḥammad or of the earliest age.3
Chess is mentioned nowhere by name in the Qur’ān, but, adopting the principle of analogy (qiyās) by which the doubt could be resolved by a decision on some similar case, appeal was made to Sura V. 92, a chapter that belongs to the Medina or last period of Muḥammad’s life. In this verse we read—
O true believers, surely wine and lots (maisīr) and images (‘anṣāb) and divining-arrows (’azlām)4 are an abomination of the works of Satan, therefore avoid ye them that ye may prosper.
It is by extending the condemnation of lots—maisīr—and images ‘anṣāb—that the attempt has been made to condemn chess and chess-playing. There is fair agreement among the commentators that maisīr was intended to include every game which is subject to hazard or chance, or which is played for money or a stake. It is on this verse that the prohibition of nard (tables, backgammon),5 and the later-discovered games of cards is based. There is, however, a tradition which is preserved by al-Baihaqī (D. 458/1066) that the caliph ‘Alī once described chess as the Persian maisīr, though the genuineness of the tradition is disputed by other writers—b. Sukaikir, for instance. The noted Ḥanbalite b. Taimīya (D. 728/1328) makes the sensible distinction that in chess it is only the playing for money that is maisīr, and quotes the opinion of Mālik b. Anas that the stake made chess a far worse game than nard. The Sunnite Muslim sees a prohibition of carved chess-pieces which actually reproduce the King, Elephants, Horses, &c., in the prohibition of images.6 Persian commentators, however, have explained the term as referring to idols,7 and the Shi‘ite and Moghul chess-players have no objection to using real carved chessmen. The Sunnite player, on the contrary, will only use pieces of a conventional type in which it is impossible to see any resemblance, to any living creature.
In the second place, the lawyers turned to the traditions (ḥadih) of Muḥammad and his immediate companions, in order to deduce what their practice in the matter of games was. And here at the outset lay the difficulty of settling the genuineness or otherwise of the tradition. Islam was flooded with traditions by the end of the second century,8 and the vast majority of these were forgeries. Only the crudest tests could be applied in an age that had no appreciation of the science of historical criticism. But crude as the tests were, they disposed of ninety-nine per cent of the traditions.9 And in the winnowed material three traditions survived which dealt with Muḥammad’s attitude towards recreations. One of these emphasizes his hatred of games of chance, another shows his approval of martial exercises with lance or bow, and the third preserves a statement that a believer should restrict his amusements to his horse, his bow, and his wife or wives.
These traditions form the basis of the discussion as to the status of chess in the works of the founders of the four great schools. Abū Ḥanīfa reduces the question to a dilemma: either the game is played for a stake, or for amusement. In the first case it is forbidden by the Qur’ān, in the second it is not one of the three forms of recreation allowed by Muḥammad. Chess, nard, and fourteen10 are all clearly illegal. There is, however, a difference of degree. Chess is only disapproved (makrūh), not forbidden (ḥarām), as is nard. It is a sin that leads into error, and Abū Ḥanīfa did not himself refuse to greet a chess-player when at his game. The Ḥanīfite code was the official ‘Abbāsid canon, but later lawyers had to exercise considerable casuistry to reconcile their law with the wishes of the caliphs.11
Mālik b. Anas and b. Ḥanbal took a more hostile view. In the K. al-muwaṭṭa, of Mālik’s Spanish pupil Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā (D. 234/848) there is added to the citation of the tradition in which Muḥammad interdicts games of chance the following reminiscence of his master’s hatred of chess:
I heard Mālik say that there was nothing good about chess. He pronounced it ḥarām. I heard him denounce chess-playing and other vanities as ḥarām, quoting Sura X. 33, ‘When the truth has been scorned, what is left except error.’
Indeed Mālik held that chess was far worse than nard, since the game exercised a far greater fascination over its players. The Ḥanbalite school were equally opposed to chess, but they took the more natural view that nard was still worse.
Ash-Shāfi‘ī enunciated a more liberal view. He found Abū Ḥanīfa’s dilemma defective, since he claimed that chess is an image of war, and it is possible to play chess not for a stake, not for pure recreation, but as a mental exercise for the solution of military tactics. When played for this last purpose, he denied that the player was doing anything illegal. According to al-Māwardī (D. 450/1058) he regarded chess as makrūh, not because it leads into error—that ash-Shāfi‘ī denied—but as a sin of recreation. And provided the player took care that his fondness for chess did not cause him to break any other rule of life, he saw no harm in playing. Ash-Shāfi‘ī, indeed, played chess himself, defending his practice by the example of many