malice and suspicion, and fifty years may sometimes elapse before the account be finally settled"."

The condition of the women may be taken as an accurate criterion of the politeness of a people. If we judge of the Arabs by this test, they will be considered barbarians. Even in the Koran, which certainly is an improvement on the previous manners of the Arabs, we find the following command:

"But those wives, whose perverseness ye shall be apprehensive of, rebuke, and remove into separate apartments, and chastise them†."

"It must be remembered," says Sale, "that though by the Mahommedan law, a man is allowed to repudiate his wife, even on the slightest disgust, yet the women are not allowed to separate themselves from their husbands, unless it be for ill usage, (we have seen that beating them was not considered ill usage,) want of proper maintenance, neglect of conjugal duty, or some other cause of equal import; but then she loses her dowry (that is, when illtreated, and seeking redress at the hands of justice, redress is given, but the means of subsistence are taken away,) which she does not, if divorced by the, husband, unless she has been guilty of impudicity or notorious disobedience," of which men were the judges. In another passage, he says, "they disposed of widows even against their consent, as part of their husbands' possessions§."

In short, the women were absolute slaves; the mere instruments of their husbands' pleasure; confined, neglected, and despised. Professor Millar, in his work on the " Origin of Ranks," has acutely remarked, that the custom so prevalent in ancient times of the bridegroom giving presents to the father of the bride, was, in reality, nothing less than a custom of buying the daughter. That the Arabians followed this custom, is admitted by the Arabian authors

Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c. 50, p. 89. See also Niebuhr, c. 107, p. 144, for a story of Arab vengeance and brutality.

† Koran, c. 4, p. 101. Prel. Disc., p. 178. Husbands seem to have felt little compunction at repudiating their wives, with or without a pretext. Hassan, the son of Mahomet, considered a good man by his countrymen, though his wives were all of them remarkably fond of him, was yet apt very frequently to divorce them, and marry new ones."-(Ockley's Hist. of the Saracens, vol. ii., p. 105, ed. 1718.) Nothing could mark a more complete recklessness concerning the happiness

of women.

Sale, Prel. Dis., p. 183,

themselves. Ali, on his marriage with Fatima, the daughter of Mahomet, gave to him, according to tradition, twelve ounces of ostrich feathers, and a breastplate. That this was, in fact, a purchase, is shown by the manners of the Arabians of the present day, who preserve the custom, and do not attempt to conceal the nature of itt. It is almost needless to say, that slavery of the very worst description must necessarily be the heritage of the women, where such a custom exists. Taught to consider themselves the property of their purchasers, they must, moreover, become degraded in their mental and moral character; and their masters, also, cannot but feel the baneful influence of this abominable traffic. Any institution which permits men to exercise irresponsible power; which, above all, makes the exercise of it, daily, nay, hourly, and the scene of its employment, the bosom of their families, would, of itself, be sufficient to degrade a whole people. Politeness, or gentleness of mind or manners, on the part of the men, are utterly inconsistent with such barbarous treatment of the women. We may, therefore, without fear of error, conclude that the Arabs deserve not, on this head, the praise which has been somewhat lavishly bestowed on them.

Having now, as far as our limits will permit, given a general view of the situation of the Arab people at the time of Mahomet's appearance, we shall proceed to relate the history of the Prophet himself. With this view before us, we shall be able more easily to understand the several circumstances of his life; more correctly to judge of his abilities and his character. Knowing the people, among whom he arose their state of civilisation, their manners, and their laws, we can, without much difficulty, discover whether he were superior to his age, and whether he advanced or retarded the improvement of his countrymen.

SECT. II.-A description of the sources from whence our knowledge concerning Mahomet is derived is, however, another necessary preliminary to the history of his life: an historian can hardly render a more important service

Ockley's Hist of Sarac., p. 21 He adds, in a note, "It seems to have been a custom among the Arabs for a bridegroom to make a present to the father of the bride." Among the ancient Germans, also, the custom was prevalent.Tac. Germ.)

† See "Mahometism Explained." Translated by Morgan, voi. ii., p. 30.

to his readers than clearly to point out the evidence upon which his statements are founded.

The writers from whom the world has derived all its present information concerning the life and institutions of Mahomet may be divided into three classes, viz., the Arabian writers themselves; the contemporary Christian writers; and the more profound, liberal, and enlightened scholars of modern days.

1. Some years after the death of Mahomet, his works, supposed to be revelations from the Almighty, were collected and put into their present order by the then reigning Caliph. As the prophet could not write, he employed scribes, who wrote, at his dictation, those revelations of the Divine will, at many different and distant periods of his life. The palm-leaves, skins, and bones, upon which they were transcribed, were thrown without order into a trunk, which, with its contents, was placed in the custody of one of the prophet's numerous wives. Abubeker, who succeeded Mahomet as Caliph, is supposed to have had these important documents copied; and corrected according to the recollection of such of the prophet's followers as had committed to memory his revelations at the different times at which they were delivered. These several documents being then arranged in their present order, the whole collection was denominated the KORAN.

The discourses or revelations of the prophet having almost always been occasioned by the necessities of the moment, constant allusions are made in them to circumstances then occurring; they thus become historical evidence *.

In addition to these sacred writings of Mahomet himself, a book of TRADITIONS, called the SONNA, was collected, containing those actions and sayings of the prophet not recorded in the Koran. These traditions were gathered from his wives and companions, and are by one great sect of the Mussulmans, viz. the Sonnites, believed to be authentic and of authority equal to the Koran itself.

These two books, in so far as they are narrations, may be considered the

Sale, Pre. Dis, sec. 3. pp. 85, 86. Prideaux, Vie de Mah., pp. 47-61. Mod. Univ. Hist. b. 1. c. 2. p. 308.

Mod. Univ. Hist. b. 1. c. 1. pp. 80, 82, 87. See also Sale, Pre. Dis. Sec. 8. pass." The different

sects of the Mohammedans may be distinguished

into two sorts: those generally esteemed orthodox,

and those which are esteemed heretical. The former,

by a general name, are called Sonnites or Traditionists."

narrations of percipient witnesses; of persons who saw and heard the circumstances and discourses they relate. And these are the only records that pretend to be the evidence of persons actually witnessing the circumstances narrated. The worth of these records as historical documents is dependent on the trustworthiness of those who related, and of those who collected, corrected, and attested them. If these narrators and collectors be unworthy of belief, the Koran and the Sonna are nearly worthless.

Two circumstances powerfully concur to depreciate the trustworthiness of these persons, viz. their interest and their ignorance. That they were deeply interested in their prophet's fame is too obvious to be insisted on. The renown of their prophet reflected on themselves; as that was increased so were they exalted. On the other hand, to be the followers of a fool or knave, was to prove themselves fools or knaves. But their own experience in the case of their prophet himself had taught them that to gloss over folly and knavery, no method was so efficacious as declaring it to be sanctioned by the divinity. The other equally powerful cause of untrustworthiness is their ignorance. Their ignorance and credulity are sufficiently manifested by the stories they have related and believed, and by the consequences they have derived from them. That Mahomet imposed upon many of them is certain, otherwise he could never have succeeded in establishing his pretended religion. But to believe him on the evidence he adduced to be the apostle of God; to put faith in the absurd stories he related; to acquiesce without investigation in the doctrines he promulgated, shows them to have been credulous, ignorant, and careless concerning the opinions they embraced. In any case this carelessness would materially have diminished the worth of their testimony, but utterly destroys it when, as in the present instance, a great degree of firmness was requisite to resist the prevailing torrent, as well as of acuteness and ability to gather evidence by which to detect and expose the imposture. But if so easily deceived, and so deeply interested, in what cases are they worthy of belief? In those where they have no manifest advantage in lying; where the matter to be judged was not above the comprehension of an ignorant barbarian; and where the falsity of the testimony, even of ignorant

and interested witnesses, appears more wonderful than the circumstance they relate*.

Whatever the Arabian writers of after days have related, they have related on the authority of these traditions. These later historians cannot therefore be adduced as additional evidence. They repeat merely what they have heard; and having listened with minds little capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, they have given implicit faith to every monstrous and improbable story favourable to their false prophet. Bred to be believers in his imposture, they were unfit for the task of examination.

2. The next class of historians are the Christian writers, contemporaries of Mahomet; and they are even less trustworthy than the Arabians themselves. They were equally ignorant, equally bigoted, equally interested, but they were not percipient witnesses. This combination of circumstances renders their testimony as untrustworthy as human testimony well can be. Of the Christians who were contemporaries of Mahomet, the Greeks of Constantinople were alone removed one degree from utter barbarism. On these men, such as they were, we must partly depend in describing the original institutions of the Arabian prophet. What merit ought to be ascribed to them may be easily learned. Witchcraft they devoutly believed in; and moreover gravely maintained the miracles of Mahomet to have been actually performed, but performed through the instrumentality of the devil. One thing, and one thing alone can be said in favour of these Greek authorities. Mahomet, during his life, had numerous enemies among his countrymen, who were impelled by their interest and their hatred to collect and spread whatever reports were to his prejudice. Many, doubtless, were invented, some, probably, were true. Whatever they were, the Greeks seized upon them with avidity, and triumphantly recorded the abominations of the impostor. By this means, evidence has been preserved (doubtful evidence indeed) against the prophet which the success of his religion has in his own country completely obliterated. Moreover, whatever these men

Gagnier acknowledges the traditions of the

admit in favour of Mahomet may be pretty confidently relied on: for the good they could decently have denied, would never have been acknowledged.

Al

3. Of the writers of modern days the character is somewhat different. though feelings of hostility to our Mohammedan brethren still exist, yet the present knowledge of Europe renders it impossible for the same mendacity to pervade the writings of modern as of ancient historians. We have now almost universally ceased to regard our own faith as at all concerned in the estimation that may be formed of the character, opinion, conduct, or religion of Mahomet. As our interests have become less concerned, our judgments have become more impartial. We have learned moreover that the employment of calumny and falsehood in support of any system, however admirable, is neither just nor prudent. This knowledge has been but lately acquired. Prideaux himself, among the most violent and unfavourable of Mahomet's modern historians, admits, "that zealous Christians have foolishly invented fables, for the purpose of bringing the impostor into contempt*." In addition to these circumstances in favour of modern writers, is the high degree of excellence to which the knowledge of eastern literature, history, and institutions has now arrived. Our enlightened travellers have explored the vast regions of Asia, from one end to the other; have minutely described the customs of the people, and collected a mass of evidence respecting their various institutions far superior to that which our predecessors possessed. We may now speak with comparative certainty regarding the religious and political institutions of Mahomet. But of Mahomet himself, we must for ever rest contented with a broken and uncertain history. In spite of the researches of modern industry, every thing respecting him must remain involved in considerable obscurity. What is believed, is believed on extremely doubtful evidence. The facts related of him assume no connected form, but evidently appear the transactions of many years distant from one another. They are broken, isolated fragments of history, which cannot correctly be formed into a consecutive narrative. The histories of Mahomet hitherto written do not indeed appear thus disHistorians are apt to confound

Vie de Mah., p. 57.

matters of inference with matters of fact, what they relate upon testimony, with what they infer as a consequence from that testimony; and where facts are wanting, to insert their own opinions as connecting links to the separate events really recorded. It will be our constant endeavour to keep them apart; to present to the reader's mind the circumstances which tradition has handed down, without mixing them up or confounding them with the conclusions which we and others have drawn from those circumstances. Knowing what depends upon evidence, what on our judgment, the reader will be able to give each its due weight and importance.

SECT. III. Mahomet was born some time during the sixth century, at the city of Mecca. The precise year of his birth is disputed, and after much learned discussion the matter is left nearly as doubtful as when the dispute began. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that of Elmacin, an Arabian writer, who, according to Hottinger, has placed his birth A. D. 571; but, according to Reiske, A. D. 572. The precise era of his birth being an unimportant circumstance, we shall dismiss it without further comment*.

The lineage of the prophet has also been a subject of furious altercation. Interest and blind prejudice both concurred to create and continue the controversy. On the one hand he was degraded to the lowest rank of society, while, on the other, he was exalted above most of his countrymen. The contemporary Christian writers hated the prophet, and wished to render him an object of contempt. To their ignorant and prejudiced minds, to describe him as having sprung from a plebeian race, appeared the most effectual means of rendering him despicable. In the same degree that the Christians believed themselves interested in degrading the Arabian prophet, did the Mahometans feel themselves called upon to exalt

Those who are curious in such matters, may con.

sult Bayle, art. Mahomet, note B.; and Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c. 50, where the original authorities are mentioned. Gibbon shrewdly remarks-" While we refine our chronology, it is possible that the illiterate prophet was ignorant of his own age." Niebuhr, in speaking of an Arabian whom he met, says, "He told us that he was above seventy years of age; but his acquaintance affirmed that he was not under ninety. We had observed of the Mussalmans in ge neral however, that they seldom knew their own age exactly. They reckon by the most remarkable incidents in their lives, and say, I was a child when such an event happened, or when such a one was governor of a city." (p. 32.) Gagnier says, that Mahomet was born A, D. 578. Á. V. 569., vol. i., p. 71.

him; and their ignorance, equal to that of their adversaries, deemed his pedigree an important consideration. What their interest and vanity counselled, they were not scrupulous in pursuing. An alliance with the great is often deemed an honourable distinction. Next to being great one's self, is to have great connexions. Inasmuch, therefore, as the votaries of Mahomet were deeply interested in enhancing his worth, it is not surprising that they should confer upon him a line of ancestry connected with the most ancient and interesting periods of their history. Ismael was usually supposed to be the founder of their race, and they were accustomed to regard him with reverence almost amounting to devotion. The tribe of Koreish, to which Mahomet belonged, had before the birth of the prophet laid claim to Ismael as their progenitor. This claim arising from the vanity of the tribe was eagerly laid hold of by his pious adherents; and what was before mentioned and maintained through a pardonable ostentation, became a dogma of religion, and was defended with all the fury which bigotry engenders.

Without the assistance of fable, Mahomet was able to vindicate to himself a high lineage among his countrymen. Abdallah, the father of Mahomet, was a younger son of Abdol Motalleb, the son of Hashem. "Hashem," say the

authors of the Modern Universal History, "succeeded his father Abdal Menaf, in the principality of the Koreish, and consequently in the government of Mecca, and the custody of the Caaba+." So far the genealogy of the prophet is supported by authentic history-that he was descended from the princes of his people cannot be denied. This descent from Ismael, Gibbon, after Sale, thus disproves: "Abulfeda and Gagnier describe the popular and approved genealogy of the prophet. At Mecca I would not dispute its authenticity; at Lausanne, I will venture to observe-1st. That, from Ismael to Mahomet, a period of two thousand five hundred years, they reckon thirty instead of seventy-five generations. 2d. That the modern Bedoweens are ignorant of their history, and careless of their pedigreet."

Abdallah, though of high lineage, was

possessed of little wealth; and as he died while his son was yet an infant*, we may easily suppose that little to have been diminished by the rapacity of his kindred. The uncles of Mahomet were numerous and powerful, and as in an age little removed from barbarism the rights of the weak are seldom respected, he was plundered with impunity. "The pagan Arabs used to treat widows and orphans with great injustice, frequently denying them any share in the inheritance of their fathers or their husbands, on pretence that the same ought to be distributed among those only who were able to bear arms; and disposing of the widows, even against their consent, as part of their husbands' possessionst." A proof that the orphan Mahomet was no better treated than his neighbours is, that he received out of his father's patrimony no more than five camels, and one Ethiopian slave.

How poor soever Mahomet may have been in worldly goods, his birth was rich in prodigies. We are told with unfeigned belief by his deluded followers that at the moment the favoured infant issued from his mother's womb, a flood of brilliant light also burst forth, and illuminated every part of Syria; the waters of the Lake Sawa disappeared; an earthquake threw down fourteen towers of the King of Persia's palace; the sacred fire of the Persians was extinguished, and all the evil spirits which had formerly inhabited the moon and stars were expelled simultaneously from their celestial abodes. The child itself manifested extraordinary symptoms. He was no sooner born, than he fell upon his face and prayed devoutly,-saying "God is great: There is only one God, and I am his prophet.” These stories, extravagant as they appear, were devoutly believed, even during the, life of the prophet, and hundreds might have been found, who on their oath would have attested these manifestations of his supernatural gifts.

Even

According to some authorities, he died before the birth of his son. Gagnier says after (Vie de Mah., p. 84.) Abulpharagius states, that the father died two, the mother six, years after his birth. (Pocock's Trans., p. 6.)

+ Sale, Prel. Disc., p. 183.

Gagnier, Vie de Mah. pp. 77-83. These different prodigies are said to have been reported by the prophet's mother. Among the instances of credulity or dishonesty of the eye-witnesses of Mahomet's miracles, the following is a curious specimen. Ali, surnamed the Lion of God, was said to have torn from its hinges the gate of a fortress, and used it for a buckler. Abu Rafe, the servant of Mahomet, is said to affirm, that he himself, and seven others, afterwards tried, without success, to move

in later days, when the people may be supposed more instructed, it seemed to matter little who worked a wonder, so that there was a wonder to be believed and attested. In the reign of Al Mohdi, the third Calif of Abbas, about one hundred and sixty years after the flight of Mahomet, "Hakem, or Al Mokanna, made a great many proselytes at Nakshat and Kash, by deluding the people with several juggling performances, which they swallowed for miracles; and particularly by causing the appearance of a moon to rise out of a well for many nights together."* Unlike the contemporary Christian writers, who sincerely be lieved many of these wonderful circumstances, and with ignorant simplicity ascribed them to the devil, the better instructed observer of modern days would consider it more likely that the ignorant should have been deceived, and the interested dishonest, than that nature should have been turned from her course, and her laws suspended for the gratification of evil demons.

The child thus magnificently favoured was nevertheless exposed to the miseries of want, and reduced to receive his education and subsistence from the charity of his uncle. At the early age of six years he lost his mother, Amena; and two years after, his grandfather Abdol Motalleb, who when dying earnestly confided the helpless orphan to the care of Abu Taleb, the eldest of his sons, and the successor to his authority. From him, though treated with kindness, Mahomet received a scanty education; but whether that education was equal or inferior to that of his countrymen, it is not easy to discover. Tradition states that at the time of Mahomet's first declaration concerning his mission, only one man in Mecca could write. If so, it is nothing wonderful that Mahomet, like the rest of his kindred, should also be unable to writet.

the same gate from the ground. Abulfeda, p. 90. Abr. Rafe was an eye-witness, but who will be witness for Abu Rafe?-Gibbon's Dec. and Fall, c. 50. Sale's Pre. Disc. p. 241.

The story nevertheless seems improbable. It appears (Mod. Univ. His., b. 1. p. 246) that Ebn Ali Taleb, the son of Abu Taleb, and the cousin of Mahomet, was one of the prophet's scribes. How did it happen that Abu Taleb was able to have his son taught, and not his nephew? The number of the prophet's scribes proves the art of writing to have been no extraordinary acquirement. At Medina the art was common; and as there seems to have been a constant communication between that city and Mecca, it appears incredible that so useful a piece of knowledge should not have been coinmunicated from one to the other. Mecca being also a place of