An account of a religion which has exercised, and still exercises, so great an influence over a large portion of the human race, appears to demand the consideration of the following topics:—1. The history and character of its founder. 2. The probable causes of his success. 3. The Koran. 4. Other elements and characteristics of Mohammedanism. 5. Its social and political features. 6. Its principal sects. 7. Its literature, science, and art. 8. Its relation to heathenism. 9. Its relation to Christianity. 10. Its present condition and probable future.

Reference to various sources of fuller information under these different heads will, it may be hoped, enable the reader to fill up the outline here presented of the origin, progress, and character of Mohammedanism.

1. History and Character of Mohammed.—Mohammed, son of Abdallah and Amina, and grandson of Abdulmottalib, was born at Mecca in August 570 A.D. Gibbon inclines to a year earlier, but high authorities are against him. He was of the noble family of Hashem, of the tribe of the Koreish, confessedly the first and most honourable in Arabia. As his father Abdallah died shortly before the birth, the grandfather Abdulmottalib rejoiced greatly over the event, and at least held seven days after bestowed on his infant heir the name of Mohammed, or The Glorified. Later traditions told how, when the infant was born, the palace of the King of Persia was shaken by an earthquake, and the sacred fire of the Magi extinguished. Mohammed was nursed by a woman named Halima, and then by a black slave called Oumma-Ayman. Towards both, and especially towards the latter, he always displayed much gratitude and attachment.

At the age of six he lost his mother Amina. She was unable to leave him any property beyond five camels and the slave Oumma-Ayman. His grandfather Abdulmottalib (in some English works, Abdul-Mottaleb) took him under his protection for three years, when he also died; and the lad, now nine years old, passed (A.D. 579) into the hands of his paternal uncles, one of whom, Abu Taleb, acted as his friend and guardian. Mohammed is believed to have been present at two battles fought between the tribe of the Hawazin and the Koreish in 585 and 586, in both of which the Koreish were defeated, though they subsequently regained the advantage. About this time Abu Taleb took his nephew in his company on a mercantile expedition into Syria. The youth had attained his thirteenth year, and is said to have begun to attract attention, and give promise of future eminence. As in the case of many other famous men, however, it is difficult to decide how far such traditions result from the reflected glory of after life. Although endowed with a native penetration such as Thucydides in a famous passage ascribes to Themistocles, Mohammed was deficient in the elements of education: it is doubtful whether he could even read and write. So ignorant was he of the Arab rules of versification, that he seldom quoted a verse without some misarrangement of its words. In apparent allusion to these circumstances, we find him in one of the most celebrated chapters of the Koran declaring, "We have not taught Mohammed the art of poetry, nor is it expedient for him to be a poet" (chap. xxxvi.); as in a previous chapter, the seventh, he entitles himself "the illiterate prophet." There appears, however, no reason to doubt that by the age of twenty-five he had acquired a most honourable reputation among his fellow-countrymen. His readiness, his nobleness of conduct according to the Arabian standard, his good faith and aversion to anything dishonourable, won for him at this period the surname of El-Amin, the trustworthy.

An important epoch in his life now arrived. His reputation for honesty and ability induced a wealthy and high-born widow, named Kadijah, to employ him as her mercantile agent. His great success led to the offer on Kadijah's part of her hand. Although between thirty and forty years of age, she had still several suitors. This match placed Mohammed in a position conformable to his origin. The change did not, however, unduly elate him. He showed delicacy in the employment of her property; and during her lifetime had no other wife. Of the six children of this union two sons died in infancy; the daughters lived to embrace their father's creed, and were married to disciples. One only, however, Fatima, outlived him, and became by her marriage with the famous Ali the ancestress of an illustrious family. The burst of feeling attributed to Mohammed, years after Kadijah's death, is well known. When a later wife, Ayesha, was claiming superiority on the score of youth, he is reported to have said, "There never can be a better! She believed in me when men despised me; she relieved my wants when I was poor and persecuted by the world."

Mohammed was twenty-five years old when he espoused Kadijah. We pass over his arbitration of a contest between rival branches of the Koreish, as to the honour of moving the famous black stone in the national temple at Mecca (the Kaaba), which this tribe, as its guardians, were (A.D. 605) reconstructing. His office on this occasion, however honourable, appears to have been accidental. But in the following year Mohammed, now thirty-six years of age, had the satisfaction of being able in some degree to repay the kindness of his uncle Abu Taleb, by taking charge of a young cousin Ali, already alluded to as one of the most zealous and famous of his future disciples. He likewise tried to console himself for the loss of his sons by Kadijah, by the adoption into his family of a young man named Zayd, son of Haritha.

Mohammed's want of anything like regular education has been noticed. He appears, however, to have gained much information while on his travels as a merchant, and probably still more from intercourse with his wife's cousin Waraca, son of Naufal, the most learned Arab of his day. We incline to agree with Hallam, Taylor, Döllinger, and others, who think that Mohammed had no real acquaintance with the New Testament; but he gained a knowledge, though a vague and imperfect one, of the principal Jewish and Christian dogmas, of the Scripture history, of the contents of some of the apocryphal gospels, and of the Talmud. He was naturally well versed in the traditions and legends of his own country; and added to a resolute will and considerable strength of imagination a wonderful power of expression. His love of solitude was very great. He would wander, it is said, in the gorges and valleys around Mecca, and every year retired during the month of Ramzan to a neighbouring hill, Mount Hirâ. There he spent his time in prayer, and fed any poor who asked of him an alms.

We now come to the date (A.D. 611) when Mohammed, being in his forty-first year, asserts that he received his mission. About this time Britain is witnessing the foundation of a Christian church in London, now known as Westminster Abbey; Boniface IV. is pope at Rome; and the Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, and many more tribes in northern Germany, are adopting the faith of Christianity. The Greek empire is being ravaged by Persians and Avars; but Heraclius is preparing for resistance, and in the very year of the Hegira (A.D. 622) will start upon his glorious and successful expedition against Persia, and gain a signal victory for the cross.

The first passage said to be revealed is that which now stands as the commencement of the 96th sura (or chapter) of the Koran. "Read, in the name of thy Lord who hath created all things; who hath created man of congealed blood. Read, by thy most beneficent Lord; who hath taught the use of the pen; who teacheth man that which he knoweth not." He told Kadijah that the angel Gabriel had taught him these words, and she at once accepted him as the prophet of the nation. Her cousin Waraca, now aged, and who died shortly afterwards, received the information in such a way as to confirm Kadijah in her belief. Ali, then eleven years of age, was the second convert. The new religion was termed by Mohammed Imam (belief), and Islam (resignation to the will of God); whence the adjective Moslem believer, and the corrupt form Mussulman. He shortly after made a new and valuable proselyte in Abu-Beker, a man of high consideration and remarkable for the beauty of his person. But a check followed; at a reunion of his cousins the announcement of his mission was received with coldness and incredulity; and when, not satisfied with teaching the unity of the Godhead and his own apostleship, he declared his intention of overthrowing idolatry and bringing his countrymen back to the religion of Abraham, indignation burst forth on all sides. It was proposed to silence him; and none were more vehement in their opposition than the other families of his own tribe, the Koreish. Abu-Taleb, though not a convert, continued to protect his nephew.

For the next few years Mohammed's life was passed in a state of persecution and insult which extended itself to his few disciples. Once, indeed, his adversaries made offers of wealth or leadership if he would cease from his endeavours; but he replied by the recitation of that chapter of the Koran which now stands as the 41st; a really sublime effusion, in which he reminds his hearers of the destruction of the city and tribe of Ad for idolatry; a legend known to English readers by the first book of Southey's Thalaba. The reply to this appeal was the very natural request that Mohammed would work miracles as a proof of his divine mission. This embarrassing demand is more than once alluded to in the Koran. His answer was, that he was sent to preach truth, not to work miracles; and that his opponents would not be convinced even if miracles were vouchsafed. Nevertheless, as if conscious of his weakness on this side, he in time proclaimed his famous night journey to heaven, known as Isra, when the angel Gabriel took him on the animal Borne to enjoy an interview with patriarchs, prophets, and the Almighty himself. This brought on him a storm of ridicule, and some of his disciples abjured his teaching. Abu-Beker stopped others from departure by professing his own entire belief in Mohammed's narrative.

In the eleventh year of his mission (A.D. 621) some new converts took oaths of fidelity, known as the oaths of Acabs, the hill on which they were taken. But fresh plots among the Koreish alarmed him; and in A.D. 622 he took the step of flying from Mecca to Medina, then known as Yathrib. This flight, known as the Hidjra, and in Europe as the Hegira, was 17 years later, fixed as the great Moslem epoch by the Caliph Omar. Here he took up arms against the Koreish, and within two years (on the 13th of January 624) won the famous victory of Bedr. In the Koran (chap. iii.), he maintains that angelic aid was granted in this battle. Mohammed behaved generously to his prisoners, but made some of them teach his converts how to read and write. In the same year he was defeated at Ohod; but as this battle was lost by disobedience to his orders, Mohammed's reputation did not suffer. He resolved henceforth to give no quarter to the idolaters. About this time he had dealings with the Jews. A few accepted him as a prophet; but his claim of descent from Ishmael, and his partial admission of the claims of Jesus, repelled the majority. They became bitter enemies, and Mohammed ceased at least one of their leading men, Khalid, to be assassinated.

In the meantime Mohammed had largely increased the number of his wives: he had in all fifteen, besides Kadijah. It was probably in the year 626 that he married Zeynab, daughter of Djalich. This was contrary to Arab usage, for she was the wife of his adopted son Zayd; and no willingness on the part of the husband, who at once divorced Zeynab, nor on the lady's own part, could annul this difficulty. But a resource was at hand. In the 33rd chapter of the Koran was given a permission to the Moslem to marry the wives of their adopted sons, these sons being in future called by the names of their actual fathers.

In A.D. 628, the 6th year of the Hegira, he began to send letters to sovereign princes, not only in Arabia, but beyond its limits. They were sealed with a silver signet containing in three lines the words, MOHAMMED—APPOSTLE—OF GOD. Persia, Abyssinia, and Egypt were the first recipients. This is a new and marked feature in the history of Islamism.

In the following year he made some of his most distinguished converts,—Othman, Amr, and Khaled; but essaying his power against the Eastern Roman empire, his troops were defeated by Theodore, lieutenant of Heraclius. He was not present at this battle. Soon after, he gave great offence to his wives by continuing to cohabit with a Coptic slave, Maria, whom he had freed on the birth of a son. A fresh chapter (the 66th) of the Koran righted this matter also, but not without difficulty.

Eight years after his flight he was strong enough to gain possession of Mecca (January A.D. 630). Mounted on his camel, he rode seven times round the Kaaba, then having on its roof 360 idols. He had every one of these destroyed before his face, saying the while, "The truth is come; let falsehood disappear" (Koran, chap. xvii.). That day was perhaps the grandest of Mohammed's life.

But by this time he had fully adopted the principle of enforcing his creed by arms, instead of mere persuasion. We have not space to dwell on his victory over the Hawazin at Homayn; his precepts will fall under later sections. In 632 his health began to decline. He had always been subject to fits of epilepsy. This was long supposed to be a Christian calumny, and is so treated by Gibbon and others; but the researches of Weil have proved its truth. On the 7th of June 632, the sixty-third year of his age, Mohammed died of fever, his favourite wife, Ayeshah, supporting his head.

In person Mohammed was of middle stature, with dark eyes, a ruddy complexion, and a fair and graceful neck. He wore a thick beard. His life was most simple: dates and water often his only food, and his house sometimes without fire for a month together. His manner, as well as his appearance, was fascinating, his conversation lively and not destitute of "that taste for humour which (as Dr Arnold remarks) great men are seldom without." He was fond of setting off the beauty of his person to the best advantage.

It must be owned that, apart from the Koran, there is a lack of contemporary written evidence for the life of Mohammed. Abulfeda lived in the fourteenth century; and Al Jannabi is also late, and a mere writer of legends. Later investigation has brought out the writings of Ibn Khaldoun, also of the fourteenth century, and of Tabari, who lived in the third century of the Hegira; and it is satisfactory to find that these authors do not apparently clash with what was already known. Dean Prideaux's Life (4th edit., London, 1708) is unduly hostile, and the Vie de Mahomet, by the Comte de Boullainvilliers, untrustworthy from the opposite cause. Gagnier's (Amsterdam, 1748) was the best of the last century. The account of Mohammed prefixed to Ockley's work seems fair, and more to be relied on than the main body of his book (History of the Saracens, 3d edit., Cambridge, 1757). Gibbon's famous fiftieth chapter is full and splendid; though Hallam, in an excellent discussion of the subject (Middle Ages, chap. vi.), rightly reminds us of the frail nature of a portion of the evidence. Dean Milman (Latin Christianity, bk. iv., chap. i.) gives a candid and masterly summary of the case. He agrees with a distinguished French orientalist, M. Renan, in praising the copious work of Dr Weil (Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre, Stuttgart, 1843). Among minor works may be honourably mentioned Lives of Mahomet and his Successors, by Washington Irving, New York and London, 1850; and the Life published by the London Religious Tract Society. But the book to which we are here most indebted, and which can hardly be praised too highly, is the Essai sur l'Histoire des Arabes, &c., par A. P. Caussin de Perceval (Paris, Didot, 1847-48). Both M. Renan (Revue des Deux Mondes, tome xii., 1851) and Lieutenant Burton (Pilgrimage to El Medina and Mecca, London, Longman, 1853) sanction this admiration. M. Renan, it may be observed, cautions us against lending attention to Turkish or Persian, as distinct from Arab, accounts.

It remains to speak of Mohammed's character. Men's views have been largely influenced by preconceived notions. Thus, e.g., Voltaire, disliking religious fervour of any kind whatever, detested the memory of Mahomet (we adopt for the moment the French and English corruption of Mohammed's name), and has done his utmost to vilify him both in verse and prose. His tragedy of Mahomet is utterly unsupported by history. Of his arguments we may speak presently. Other writers have been favourable from indifference or hostility to Christianity, as Boulainvilliers, and possibly, in some degree, Sale and Gagnier. Among those who are too favourable we should be inclined to class Mr Carlyle (Heroes and Hero-Worship) and Mr E. A. Freeman, in his Lectures on the History of the Saracens. But if undue favour be now the chief danger, it has arisen from the reaction caused by the harsh treatment of Bibliander, Hottinger, Maracci, and Prideaux, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Caussin de Perceval and Milman are very fair. But perhaps the most equitableness and philosophic treatise is the short essay (50 pp.) of Möhler (Ueber das Verhältniss des Islams zum Evangelium), published in 1830, and re-edited by Döllinger in 1839 (Regensburg). A very correct English translation, by the Rev. J. Menge, has been issued at Calcutta (Ostell & Lepage, 1847).

The controversy concerning Mohammed's character turns mainly upon these two points: Was he a mere imposter? Was he, prophetic claims apart, a bad and immoral man? The believers in his entire or partial imposture allege the syncretistic character of his creed, and its bitter hostility to Christianity; the stains of voluptuousness and revenge which disfigure his character; and, above all, the supposed revelations about the cases of Maria and Zeinab. But none of these arguments are decisive. That his creed is largely borrowed from Judaism and Christianity does not prove that he was not honest in selecting what appeared to him to be true. He never pretended to be teaching a new religion. The enmity to Christianity is a more serious feature. It certainly, in our judgment, convicts Mohammedanism of containing a seed of evil and bitterness through its false claims; but it followed logically, as we shall see hereafter, from the delusion of Mohammed in imagining himself the prophet of the human race, and delusion need not be hypocrisy. Of Mohammed's revengeful spirit and voluptuousness it must be said that we reason unfairly when we judge of them by a Christian standard. The assassination of his Jewish enemies was a fearful crime; but it neither shocked himself nor his companions, for Arabian morality, unhappily, did not condemn it. For a full discussion of the case of Zeinab and Maria, we must refer the reader to Möhler's Essay. Certain it is, that Mohammed's passions offended those around him as little as his revengefulness; he could boast of his physical powers, and record those things which are his shame, without a blush. But Möhler's remarks on this subject deserve the deepest consideration:

"I maintain, that if one admits the possibility of any man's being able to give out his own individual religious impressions, ideas, and thoughts, without suspicion, for divine inspirations, I cannot perceive the impossibility of his considering God also to be the author of all his other inward impulses." The learned writer then refers to religious rites practised in ancient Babylon (Herodotus i. 199), and in many other countries, as a proof that men may come to regard the basest deeds as allowable, and even divinely authorized; and while fully admitting how much the above transactions lower Mohammed's character, and lend a plausibility to Voltaire's inventions and Goethe's imitations of them, he not unnaturally argues that Mohammed may still have acted with good faith, and would never have immortalized these events by the publication of the two chapters of the Koran, if he had been conscious of wickedness. No Moslem ever appears to have found any difficulty or inconsistency with Mohammed's prophetic character in these circumstances. (Möhler, ed. Doll., pp. 367-8.)

On the whole, then, while we regard Mohammed as a false prophet, whose teaching and character (amidst much that is good and true) contains most unchristian and anti-christian elements; while we consider his intellect to have been in many respects narrow and limited; while we leave to the Judge of all men the solution of the problem of his heart, with its admixture of lust, revenge, shamelessness, and apparent love of spiritual rule, strangely combined with its loftier qualities, we are unable to regard him as a bad Arab or a mere imposter. Of the Koran we shall speak presently. But on the whole, looking at the natural workings of an ardent imagination, exalted by meditation and solitude at a time when his countrymen were in an unsettled religious state; the conviction wrought upon those nearest to him, as Kadijah, Omar, and Abu-Beker; his endurance for twelve years of every species of insult and persecution; his steady rejection of every offer of wealth and chieftainship, made on the condition of his desisting from his endeavours; the simplicity of his mode of life to the very last,—we cannot accept the views of Voltaire, or of Prideaux and Maracci, but must so far side with Möhler, Caussin, Carlyle, Irving, and others, as to believe in the general sincerity of Mohammed, and his faith in himself and his own mission.

2. The Probable Causes of Mohammed's Success.—Some Mohammedan, and more especially Turkish, historians decline to investigate secondary causes of events, content to assert that such was the will of Providence. We are tempted to follow their example with respect to the question here at issue, so inadequate do the reasons usually assigned appear to us. Still, some of them may be true so far as they go, and it is right to mention these.

Arabia, Mohammed's native country, had enjoyed remarkable freedom. Even Gibbon admits that no conquest had been more than local or temporary. Hence arose great freedom of thought. The Arabs were a Semitic race, partly descended from the son of Eber, variously called Kahtan, Yectan, Jocktan (Gen. x. 25-30); partly from Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar. Whether the Koreish were from Ishmael or from Joktan has been hotly disputed. Mr Forster, author of Mahometanism Unveiled, is strenuous for Mohammed's descent from Ishmael; and Caussin de Perceval seems inclined to support him. Dr Sprenger, one of the most recent biographers, takes the other side; as do Gibbon, Lieutenant Burton, and others. We do not attach great importance to this point. Mr Forster is probably biased in one direction, as Gibbon is assuredly in the other; but all would probably admit, firstly, that the entire nation displays similar characteristics to the Ishmaelites in their love of fighting and plunder, varied by a taste for commerce (compare Gen. xvi. 12, and xxxvii. 25-28, with Judges viii. 24); and secondly, that Mohammed himself claimed descent from Ishmael, and acted upon his belief. The ancient religion of Arabia has been proved to have been a strict Monotheism (Causin, Renan, Hallam); and in maintaining that he was recalling its countrymen to their old creed, and appealing to the example of Abraham, he named one whose memory was honoured alike by Joktanite and Ishmaelite, Jew and Christian. The Arab is allowed, both physically and intellectually, to be a fine specimen of the human race, and it is to their natural qualities, their courage and energy, that many attribute their success in imposing their creed on other nations.

At the time of Mohammed's appearance there were Christian tribes, Jewish tribes, and pagan tribes. But Christianity seems to have been but imperfectly accepted even by those who professed it, and almost every imaginable form of heresy was rife in the Arabian Peninsula. A vague syncretism was very common, and there was a yearning for something more simple, definite, and dogmatic. Four of the Koreish (Causin) had already tried to amend matters. Of these four, three ultimately became Christians; but the fourth, Zayd, son of Amr, was quite a precursor of Mohammed in his attack upon idolatry and proclamation of the Divine unity.

Some will at once attribute Mohammed's success to the use of the sword and the permitted indulgence of voluptuousness. As regards the compulsion by war, we answer with Mr Carlyle, that before you convert with the sword you must first get your sword. However much the creed of Islam may have been forced upon unwilling nations after Mohammed's death, there was certainly no violence employed in the first instance. On the contrary, physical force was in the outset against Mohammed. The supposed attraction of a sensual paradise, and permitted indulgence in this life, as a cause of success, has been sanctioned by Gibbon, who (it may be observed) inclines to think Mohammed hypocritical in his later days. But we quite agree with Mr Hallam and Mr Maurice (Middle Ages; Lectures on the Religions of the World, London, 1848, 2d edition) in thinking that the influence of such motives has been much exaggerated. Mohammed did not introduce polygamy; he found it in existence, and restricted it. He condemned all adulterous and incestuous connections; forbade wine, usury, games of hazard, superstitious divination by arrows, the sadly common sin of destroying female infants, and all war between tribes which had become Mussulman. When we add to this the fasts, the pilgrimages, and the regular prayers and ablutions enjoined by him, it will be hard to prove that the adoption of the new creed was thought to be an acquirement of more license either of thought or action. M. Causin's narrative seems to us to establish the direct contrary (Histoire, &c., tom. ii., pp. 402-3, 604). This point, with others, is also discussed in a pamphlet by the present writer (Mohammedanism, London, Mozley, 1856).

There remain the following probable causes of success:—The state of Arabia at the time of Mohammed's appearance—the actual amount of truth taught by him—the principles acquired directly or indirectly from Christianity—the points of contact with the past, and the religions then obtaining in his country—the remarkable elegance and purity of the Arabic diction of the Koran, and its applicability to law and the practical business of life—the native vigour of the author's mind, and the apparent need, to human eyes, of some great scourge upon idolatry. These causes may all have contributed to the result; but we cannot pretend that they seem to us to afford a complete and satisfactory explanation of the triumphant progress of Islamism in its early stages, still less of its extraordinary permanence in an almost unchanged state to the present day. With one more reflection we quit this branch of the subject. Those who consider Mohammed to be a conscious deceiver place one more difficulty in the way of account-

Mohammedanism. "How, indeed, is it possible," asks Möhler, "that a religious fire, wild though it were, which in so astonishingly short a period set all Asia in flames, could proceed from one in whom the kindling material had no real existence?" Unless, which remains to be seen, Mormonism should prove an exception, we cannot call to mind an instance of any lasting religious effect being produced by a teacher who did not believe, however delusionally, in the truth of his own mission and doctrine.

3. The Koran.—Neither with reference to the Koran, nor to the other claims of Mohammed, do we think it necessary to enter upon any formal refutation. Enough for us to observe, that the proper proofs of a Divine revelation are miracles and prophecy, and that Islamism possesses neither the one nor the other. There does not exist one authenticated account of a miracle wrought by Mohammed (indeed the Koran admits that he had no such power); nor is there one real prophecy, unless we call the threat against the overthrow of Persia prophetic, in which case we must extend the title to any warrior or statesman who makes a happy political guess. Thus Burke prognosticated, in the early stage of the French revolution, the advent of some military chieftain who should seize the reigns of power; and Napoleon foresaw the likelihood of a union between France and England to prevent the designs of Russia upon Constantinople. Other weak points of this false religion will appear as we proceed. At present we will only ask with Pascal, in his famous Pensées, what one mystery Mohammed revealed which was previously unknown? what miracle he wrought? and where this last prophet of the world was himself foretold? We pass on to a few brief notices of the Koran.

This work is divided into 114 chapters. They are of very unequal length, some of the longer ones being equal to at least ten or twelve of the shortest. It was revealed at intervals, and not collected into one body until after its author's death, when Abu-Beker acted as editor, and gathering together its portions (some written on skins, palm leaves, and blade-bones, and some few treasured up in the memory of disciples), placed as a rule the longest chapters first and the shorter at the end. This remarkably simple but not very philosophic plan of arrangement lends no aid to our comprehension of the doctrines of Islamism.

Its leading features are,—the assertion of the unity of God and the apostleship of Mohammed (which are the two great dogmas of Islam); its denunciations of idolatry and recital of legends illustrative of the Divine wrath against that great sin; its recognition of previous prophets, as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, also Ishmael and other minor ones, all forerunners of Mohammed; its accounts of angels, Gabriel and Michael, Azrael the angel of death, and Israfil, who is to sound the trumpet at the last day; of the fallen angels and their prince Eblis (Satan); of the Genii, a class of beings inferior to the angels; of heaven, hell, and the partition between called Al-Araf; and of final judgment to come. The fall of Eblis and the fall of Adam; the flood of Noah and the life of Abraham; Sodom and Gomorrah; Isaac and Jacob; the guilt of Pharaoh and the plagues of Egypt; the rod of Aaron, the acts of Moses, the golden calf, the manna and the quails; Samuel and Saul; David and Goliath; Job, Jonah, and Solomon—all these find their place in its pages, though sometimes in a very distorted guise. When we add to these certain evangelic ideas and precepts to be spoken of hereafter, and consider to what dimension the Koran would shrink if deprived of all that can fairly be traced to Holy Scripture, we feel the justice of Möhler's dictum, that "without Moses and the prophets and Christ, Mohammed is simply inconceivable; for the essential purport Respecting our Lord and Saviour, Mohammed teaches that, though only a man, he was miraculously born (chap. iii.), and that he wrought numberless miracles; and, apparently from a belief that it was unworthy of Christ's dignity to be put to death, he denies (chap. iv. et alib.) the reality of his crucifixion, asserting with the Gnostics, that another was put to death for him. Denying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (which he quite misunderstood), the incarnation, and the atonement, he yet calls Christ the Word of God, the Spirit from God, announces His second advent and triumph over Antichrist, and teaches the doctrine of the Millennium. But these acknowledgments appear intended to exalt the dignity of Mohammed himself and the excellency of the Koran. Its own greatness is loftily proclaimed throughout the book; unbelievers are challenged to produce ten pages like it; and orthodox Mohammedans declare its substance to be eternal and uncreated.

It must not be overlooked that Mohammed felt deeply that the advent of such a teacher as he claimed to be ought to have been foretold. Hence the Koran, while recognizing the Divine authority of the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Gospel, frequently (chaps. ii. and iii.) charges Jews and Christians with corruption of their own sacred books, and the withdrawal of passages which foretold him. His followers have since claimed certain texts, of which the most curious are,—Deuteronomy xxxiii. 2, where (in defiance alike of context and geography) Mount Sinai, Seir, and Paran, are wrested into respective predictions of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism; and Isaiah xxii. 7, where the Vulgate rendering, Accensorem asini et accensorem camelii, is made to refer firstly to the Prophet of the Gospel, and then to the Prophet of the Koran. A third passage is St John xvi. 7, apparently alluded to in the 61st chapter of the Koran, the promised Paraclete being interpreted to mean Mohammed (just as the followers of Manes had referred it to him); a blasphemous view, though not intentionally such. Mohammed, confounding and identifying the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel utterly mistook the drift of this prophecy.

Among popular errors must be named that of supposing the Koran to deny that women have souls. On the contrary, paradise is promised to those who believe and do right (chaps. iii. and iv.). It must also be remarked, that the idea of paradise contained in it, though gross and carnal, is less so in the book itself than in the pages of its Moslem commentators.

Of the civil laws in the Koran relating to marriage, inheritance, slaves, contracts, murder, theft, &c., we must try to speak in subsequent sections. We may just notice its establishment of the month of fasting (Ramazan), and a weekly holiday (Friday), in memory of man's creation; its prohibition of usury and of swine's flesh; and its high commendations of the duty of prayer. Penitence is also praised, and in some cases slight and reasonable penance is enjoined.

To a European reader, even if partial to Mohammed's memory, the Koran, in a translation, is for the most part hopelessly wearisome. Even Gibbon has observed how completely the single book of Job, in a mere literary point of view, eclipses it. Its Judaic character may in part be guessed from the above sketch. With some exceptions it bears the impress of "a spirit bounded and poor," yoked to much that is local, national, and temporary, as distinguished from that which is of universal application. This might of course be in part applied to Judaism likewise; but then Judaism was but preparative, and did not pretend, like Islamism, to be a universal religion. In each case (not of course that we class the two together in any other respect) the vehicle of a Semitic language probably of itself imposes certain limits. Unsurpassed in the expression of simple and pathetic narrative, wise moral precepts, and that which is sublime and awful in devotion and denunciation, the Semitic tongues have never been the medium of any very original subtlety in argument and preciseness in definition. In its finer parts the Koran reminds us of prophets rather than evangelists; e.g., "God! there is no god but He, the living, the self-subsisting; neither slumber nor sleep seizeth Him; to Him belongeth whatsoever is in heaven and on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but through his own good pleasure?" (chap. ii.) Of the purity of its Arabic, and of its effect upon the oriental mind, there seems to be but one opinion. Nor do its deficiencies, as its narrowness and lack of all mysticism, affect the sincerity of its author. We can recognize in it, with Mühler, "an original piety, a touching devotion, and a thoroughly individual religious poetry, which cannot possibly be forced or artificial;" and add too, with him, "that many millions of men feed and foster from the Koran an estimable moral and religious life; and one cannot think that they are drawing from an empty spring, from the composition of a mere deceiver."

For fuller information on the Koran, the reader is referred to the excellent translation of Sale, with its valuable notes and introduction. The first edition appeared in 1734, and has often been reprinted. It had been anticipated by a Latin translation (to which Sale acknowledges great obligations) by Maracci, professor of Arabic at Rome, published at Padua in A.D. 1698, with a very learned but too hostile Prodomus and Refutatio Alcorani. These last have the verses marked, and are consequently more convenient for reference than Sale's. On Mohammed's borrowings from Judaism Milman recommends a prize essay by Geiger, rabbi of Wiesbaden,—Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum genommen?

4. Other Elements and Characteristics of Mohammedanism.—A book once received as sacred implies the existence of teachers and of commentaries. These are greatly needed in the case of the Koran, which, by the admission of Mohammedans, contains 225 contradictions (Renan, Prideaux, and Milman); i.e., 225 passages which were abrogated by fresh revelations. The principle is asserted in the Koran itself:—"Whatever verse we shall abrogate or cause thee to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it" (chap. ii.)

Islamism has both teachers and commentaries. Thus, e.g., in Turkey, the body of the Ulema (corresponding to divines and jurisconsults in Christendom) is appealed to by the Sultan respecting the right application of precepts of the Moslem faith; and their decision is known as a fetwa. M. Ubicini (Lettres sur la Turquie, Paris, 1853) gives a specimen of a fetwa of recent date, A.D. 1839. It is directed against the famous Mehmet Ali, then in open revolt against his sovereign. The Sultan demands whether the authors of the rebellion may not be justly regarded as impious men, who defy the precepts of the Koran, &c. The replies, signed by forty doctors of different degrees, are entirely favourable to the Sultan's view of the case, and sanction the most extreme measures.

Not less important is the supplement to the Koran, known as the Sonna. This mass of traditions and oral law was fixed and sanctioned about 200 years after the Hegira. The Sonna embodies certain sayings and acts of Mohammed not contained in the Koran. The wives of the founder of Islam, and the four first caliphs, were the main authorities appealed to by its editor, Al Bochari. But though carefully compiled, it is in part apocryphal, as was likely to be the case. Its general tendency is to mitigate the sternness of the Mohammedan creed; to amplify and render it somewhat less local and temporal, and adapt it to a later state of things. The Sonna does not dogmatize on the Divine nature or attributes, but bears rather upon practical life, in which, next to the Koran, it is the great source of customs. It also contains some weighty sentences on faith, on works, and on penitence,—the last being highly lauded. It follows the Koran in its rigidity on the subject of the Divine predestination.

Of other features of Islamism, not arising directly out of the Koran or the Sonna, we can here only find room to speak of two,—its dervishes and the element of mysticism.

The Koran is decisive against asceticism; nevertheless, partly from oriental love of contemplation, partly, perhaps, in imitation of the Christian communions with which it was brought in contact, Islamism has long had its bodies of dervishes. They are apt, however, to break away from the faith and practice of the religion which they profess. It is a common notion that madmen and idiots are specially gifted, and see more of things heavenly, because deprived of earthly reason, and undisturbed by external objects. This opinion has led to great abuses, as it is no uncommon thing for a dervish to feign madness with a view to spiritual reputation, which is, again, in many cases a stepping-stone to political power, sometimes even to a throne. Thus, towards the close of the eighteenth century, Bagian obtained among the Turcomans, whose capital was Bochara, supreme authority, first in religion, then in the state; and the dynasty of the Sofi, which lasted 230 years in Persia, was founded in the same manner. Power thus acquired has a fair chance of descending, as Mohammedanism cherishes the idea of religious sanctity being hereditary. On the other hand, more intellectual gifts have seldom won such advancement for their possessors.

Still more alien, if possible, from the original spirit of Islam is the idea of mysticism. This has been disputed or ignored, but the evidence is quite overwhelming. Ancient Arabian poetry knows nothing of mysticism; the Koran is utterly devoid of it. It has found its way into the religion through the influence of countries conquered by the Moslem, more especially of Persia, where the national poetry has ever been pervaded by a thoroughly mystical tone. This element, commonly known as Soffism, is still conspicuous in the works of Turkish and Persian poets. But as its leading idea is that of union between the creature and the Creator,—and this in a pantheistic manner, which, like Buddhism, Brahminism, and similar creeds, tends towards the denial of the Divine personality,—Soffism is most abhorrent to the true genius of Islamism, and is decidedly condemned by orthodox Mussulman theologians. On this last point see M. Renan, Taylor's History of Mohammedanism, and Persian Literature (by Mr Cowell) in the Oxford Essays for 1855. On the section in general, and on most of what follows, the reader will find much compressed information in a very masterly essay by the late Dr Döllinger,—Muhammed's Religion nach ihrer inneren Entwicklung und ihrem Einfluss auf das Leben der Völker, Ratisbon, 1838. Its chief blemish is an occasional want of discrimination between real characteristics of Islamism and features common to other oriental religions. An Italian version has been published (Milan, G. Silvestri, 1848). This article is deeply indebted to Döllinger's essay.

5. Its Social and Political Features.—The social life fostered by Mohammedanism requires perhaps a more dispassionate investigation than it has yet received. It is not enough to show its inferiority to Christianity in this respect; it ought in fairness to be confronted with other false religions. F. von Schlegel, though by no means favourable to Mohammed or his religion, yet allows, in his Philosophy of History, that its moral code is higher than that of Buddhism. Respect for women was not unknown to the pre-Islamite Arabs, and Kadijah and Ayesha are in honourable remembrance with the followers of Mohammed. Still, however, the blight upon woman's lot, which is only removed by Christianity, presses heavily upon the weaker sex throughout all Moslem countries. Although a large proportion can only afford to keep one wife, yet polygamy, to the extent of four wives, besides concubines, being sanctioned by religion, is beyond the reach of attack. And women are certainly regarded as a subaltern class in a state of virtual servitude. Their religious education is limited to a mechanical knowledge of prayer; they are forbidden to attend the worship in the mosques; and jealousy precludes them from the visits of any religious teachers. Their paradise is supposed to be different from that of men; and a devotional life is almost unknown. There is no religious ceremony of marriage; and in this, as in her entire social status, the Mohammedan wife is probably in a position inferior to that which was enjoyed by an ancient Roman matron. Far more vast is, of course, the gulf between the women of Islam and of Christianity, of which all the chief communions can display such noble specimens of piety, heroism, and intelligence. The harems are but too often a stage for the development of bad passions, as envy, jealousy, and unnatural crimes. Abortion is so common as to have affected the population in some countries, as Turkey; nor is it punishable, if the master of the household have given his consent. Sons by different mothers are constantly rivals, and their jealousies have often rent in pieces the fabric of Mohammedan states. The most stable of Islamite governments—the Ottoman—is supposed to have owed its endurance in great measure to the circumstance that Mahomet II. made fratricide a law in the imperial family; and the Sofi in Persia used regularly to put out the eyes of princes not destined for the succession. Nor is the influence of wives able to restrain rulers, as Christian princesses have often done, from acts of cruelty. One noble but solitary exception is recorded,—that of Zobeide, wife of the celebrated Haroun Al Raschid.

The extreme facility of divorce is an evil as great as that of polygamy. It is in some degree checked among the wealthy by the provision that the wife's dowry must be restored, and in Persia the feeling of the higher classes is said to be against it. Still the practice is fatally prevalent, and induces a low and degrading tone about all that concerns the matrimonial relation. Above all, the rebukes uttered by St Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans (verses 26-28) are but too applicable to the moral condition of most Mohammedan countries, and more particularly of Turkey.

Another feature in the social life of Islamism is that of slavery. Whatever difference of opinion on this head may exist among Christians, few will be found to assert that the principle of slavery is recognised by Christianity as an enduring institution; and none will deny that the abolition of slavery in Europe is attributable to the influence of the gospel. Now, Mohammedanism recognises the principle, and this is surely so far a blot upon its character. Nevertheless, when this is once admitted, the highest commendation must be bestowed on the humanity of many of the provisions for the treatment of slaves. Mohammed from the first put slaves under the protection of his creed. He taught that they were brethren, equally created by God, and that good or ill treatment of them would seriously affect an owner's prospect of paradise. A master who chastises without cause ought to let that slave go free; liberation of slaves is at all times a good work; a female slave cannot be, without her own goodwill, separated from her child; and if she have borne a son to her master, must be set free. The most recent travellers (e.g., Burton) fully confirm the reports of earlier observers. They tell us that a slave who is dissatisfied can legally compel his master to sell him. It is not merely possible, but even common, for a Mohammedan slave to rise to the highest offices. Lieutenant Burton travelled with a pacha who had been the slave of a slave, and of whom a Turkish officer remarked,—C'est un homme de bonne famille, il a été acheté. It is true that the history of Islamism in the East records many insurrections of slaves; but these do not appear to have arisen from bad treatment, as was the case in ancient Rome; they have resulted rather from occasions of general turbulence and religious excitement.

A complete survey of the political features of Mohammedanism would require some account of their conquests. Our limits forbid such an attempt; and the reader must be referred to Gibbon, D'Herbelot, Ockley, Von Hammer's Ottoman Empire, the Histories of Mohammedanism by Mill and by Major Price, and Mr E. A. Freeman's recent History and Conquests of the Saracens, for fuller information. Enough for us to recall that Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, and Spain, were rapidly overrun by the Saracens (as the Arabs from some unexplained cause were called in the West); and that within a century after the Hegira, the caliphs had become, in the language of Gibbon, "the most potent and absolute monarchs of the globe." While, however, idolaters were exterminated, and their temples overthrown, a certain amount of civil and religious liberty might be secured, on submission and the payment of an annual tribute, "by the people of the book?" i.e., those who possessed, or claimed to possess, a written revelation from Heaven, as the Jews, Christians, and Magians (or Ghebers), the fire-worshippers of Persia. We can only add that the famous victory over the Saracens, gained by Charles Martel, between Tours and Poitiers in A.D. 732, alone, humanly speaking, saved European Christendom from utter ruin; that the most flourishing period of Moslem rule in Spain was under Abderrahman in the tenth century, and the conquest of Hindustan by Mahmood was nearly contemporaneous; that the Crusades lasted from 1095 to 1270; that Constantinople was captured by Mohammed II. in 1453; while, on the other hand, the great checks of the sea-fight of Lepanto, and of the defence of Vienna by Sobieski, occurred respectively in 1571 and 1683. Since that time, the Ottoman Empire has steadily declined. The formation of the kingdom of Greece in 1829, and the Anglo-French alliance in the war of 1854-56 are too recent to require notice.

It is more in accordance with the object of this article to touch upon some of the principles of Mohammedan rule. The patriarchal union of spiritual and regal power in one and the same person was exhibited by Mohammed and by his successors the first caliphs. So indissolubly were the two supposed to be connected, that a division of the empire among the ruler's sons (like that of Charlemagne) was held to be quite inadmissible. The caliphate, which was at first elective, soon became hereditary. But as Musulmans scarcely seem to recognise the difference between events ordered by the Almighty and those merely permitted by Him, the doctrine that might makes right was soon admitted, and the claim of a successful usurper was easily recognised. One condition is indeed a sine qua non, and that is, that Mohammedans must be governed by a co-religionist. They could not, as Christians may, submit to a heathen sovereign; indeed, all Christian princes are regarded by the Moslem as usurpers. The great monarchs, as in Turkey and Persia, are (as has been intimated) among the most absolute on earth; all property theoretically belongs to them; their conduct is considered to be beyond scrutiny, and above the ordinary laws of morality. Their power over life and death is unlimited; and though the mass of the populace are rarely touched, yet some idea of the perilous state of those about the court may be formed from the fact, that in the space of 419 years (from 1370 to 1789) Turkey saw 138 viziers, of whom a large portion fell by the hand of the executioner. Nor does such severity lower a sultan in general estimation; many of the most esteemed (e.g., Soliman the Magnificent) have been among the most sanguinary in their executions. It must, however, be remarked, that no Mohammedan ruler has ever succeeded in changing, to any great or lasting extent, the religion of his subjects; and in this particular, as in so many others, they stand in marked contrast to Christian princes, as may be seen in the history of national conversions to Christianity and the epoch of the Reformation in Europe. The emperor who among Moslems approached nearest to such influence was the famous Akbar, sovereign of Delhi, contemporary with our Queen Elizabeth. But Akbar cannot be regarded as a sincere Mussulman; his belief was rather that of a rationalistic deist. On the other hand, the repression of any nascent heresy by the sword is in thorough harmony with the general spirit of Islamism; and the degree of interference with the minor details of life and worship, and with questions of doctrine, far exceeds anything known in Christendom.

The cruelty too often exhibited in Moslem legislation does not arise out of the enactments of the Koran, which is decidedly lenient in its tone. Homicide, with malice aforethought, adultery, and apostasy, are the sole crimes recognised as capital by the Koran; and in the case of adultery a fine was soon substituted. It appears more probable that cruelty has arisen from that subtle connection with lust, which has frequently been commented on by moralists. In cases of rival dynasties the severities have been tremendous on both sides. Price relates that Aba-Moslem, who established the Abbasides in the caliphate (A.D. 750), killed (besides those who perished in battle) 100,000 persons to consolidate the new dynasty; and the death of the famous Hossein, son of Ali, was revenged by the execution of 48,000 men. It is acutely remarked by Döllinger, that scarcely ever did a Christian prince on his deathbed recommend a crime, or even an execution; whereas among Mohammedan rulers such an event is by no means uncommon—so much less hold upon the conscience does Islamism possess than Christianity, though both tell of another world and a judgment to come.

It is remarkable that upon the whole the Moslem dynasties have been among the most unstable in the world. With the exception of the Abbasides, the Sofi in Persia, and the rulers of the family of Osman in Turkey, the changes have been rapid and extreme. The hereditary principle is generally less likely to be strong in countries where polygamy is sanctioned. In Persia during nine centuries (i.e., from the ninth to the eighteenth) fourteen dynasties reigned; other parts of Asia and Africa have undergone the same lot; and when it is considered that these changes have almost always been accomplished by violence, some idea may be formed of the contrast between the majority of Mohammedan thrones and those of Christendom.

For the social and political life of Islamism the works of travellers in Arabia, Turkey, Persia, &c., may be referred to with advantage. It will be sufficient to allude to such travellers as Bureckhardt, Niebuhr the Elder, Malcolm, Chardin, Morier, Burnes, Fraser, Onseley, &c., as having rendered important contributions to our knowledge. Among recent works we may specify Mr Lane's edition of the Arabian Nights, with its valuable notes, and Lieut. Burton's Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Mecca. We must also mention with high praise the spirited sketches of the Princesse de Belgojojo, contributed to the Revue des Deux Mondes during the years 1855 and 1856; also the learned Dr Pocock's Specimen Historiae Arabum (Oxon. 1806), to which Sale and Gibbon acknowledge their great obligations.

6. Principal Sects.—Almost immediately after the death of Mohammed a great dispute arose among his followers as to his successor. A strong party were in favour of Ali, already mentioned as Mohammed's son-in-law by his marriage with Fatima. But he was not chosen until after a lapse of twenty-three years, during which time the throne Mohammedanism had been occupied by Abu-Beker, Omar, and Othman. Nevertheless a tradition that the first three caliphs were usurpers, and that Ali had been grievously wronged, has prevailed to the present day among a large proportion of Mohammedans, and hence the primary ground of dissension between the Sonnites and the Shiites; the latter being the partisans of Ali, while the Sonnites accept the legitimacy of the first three caliphs. Other points of difference ensued. The Shiites place Ali at least on a level with Mohammed (a view which we suspect had reached Dante, judging from the twenty-eighth canto of the Inferno, lines 31, 32); the Sonnites imagine a vast interval between Mohammed and every one else. Some have supposed the Shiites to reject the Sonna entirely; but this appears to be a mistake. They refuse, indeed, to accept such parts as come from Abu-Beker, Omar, and Othman, or any other enemies of Ali, but they accept the rest, and moreover admit other traditions which are not recognised by the Sonnites.

Thus far this great schism appears to be of a purely personal and historical character. Even to this day, as Lieut. Burton witnessed, the Persian pilgrims to Medina will almost endanger their lives by muttering curses at the tombs of the three usurping caliphs (as the Shiites consider them) and weeping over that of Fatima. Still it is hardly possible that such rivalry and opposition could have lasted had the legitimacy of the succession been the sole point in dispute. The kind of regard given by the Persians to the twelve Imams, or descendants of Ali, involves a more real difference of doctrine; and, on the whole, it is reasonable to believe that a sort of under-current of the old Persian creed of Magianism (including some ideas of mediation) runs through the Shiite teaching. The strength of the Shiites lies in Persia; of the Sonnites in Turkey and its dependencies. In times of apathy they have been known for a brief season to dwell together, but in general they detest and anathematize each other as worse than Jews or Christians. We must profess our conviction that no impartial observer, whether regarding the case historically or doctrinally, can hesitate to conclude in favour of the Sonnites as the more orthodox Mohammedans. Gibbon, Taylor, and Burton all tend to confirm this view.

The Sonnites are again subdivided into four sects,—Hanafites, Malefites, Shafeites, and Hanbalites,—named after their respective founders. These, however, all regard each other as orthodox in fundamental points. The remaining sects (to which we can do little more than allude, for a mere list of their names would occupy a large space) have arisen chiefly out of controversies on the Divine attributes, or on predestination (a very fertile source of schisms); on Antinomianism; on the rewards and punishments of the life to come; on the Mahadi or Medhi, the twelfth Imam looked for by the Persians, as about to return as the overthrower of Degial or Antichrist in the latter days; and on mysticism. Inclinations towards Buddhism, and even towards Manicheism, have also given rise to fresh sects.

Perhaps the most important, certainly the most energetic, of recent sects have been the Wahabees, who arose towards the end of the tenth century. Their founder, Abdel Wahab, was a reformer who sought to bring back Islamism to its pristine condition under Mahomet and Omar. The Wahabees have been not unjustly called the Puritans of Mohammedanism. They protested against a practice which had gradually crept in of venerating Mohammed and other Moslem saints as intercessors; and tried to restore the rules of the Koran in many of the details of life. So great was their success, that for a time Mecca and Medina fell into their hands. They were ultimately put down by the Pasha of Egypt, but their principles are not extinct.

There has been no limit to the wildness and immorality of some of the Mohammedan sectaries; and the circumstance that Mohammed appealed to the sword has caused a constant recurrence to this ultima ratio on the part of any newly-formed school, and no less so on that of their opponents. The great schism between Sonnites and Shiites materially weakened, if it did not overthrow the caliphate; and for a time favoured the progress of the Crusaders; and Abdallah Ben-Tammurt, founder of the sect of the Mohawbedini in Africa (A.D. 1116), is said to have destroyed 70,000 persons. This is by no means a solitary instance; and in quitting the subjects of the sects, we can only express our astonishment at the gross ignorance of Spinoza, who asserted that the Mohammedan communion had known no schisms. Our chief authorities on this part of the subject are Sale, Döllinger, Gibbon, and Burton.

7. Literature, Science, and Art.—The Arabs before the time of Mohammed (or, as they term it, in the days of ignorance) excelled in poetry and oratory. Their seven prize-poems suspended (Moallakat) in the Kaaba, have been translated by Sir W. Jones, and display much spirit and beauty. But there is little reason to suppose that Mohammed was in any way a patron of general knowledge or of letters. Praises of science from his lips have indeed been quoted, but not until the dynasty of the Abbassides had begun to patronize letters; and their genuineness is extremely suspicious. His one act of interference in these matters was essentially anti-scientific. Shortly before his death he reinstated the vague old lunar calendar of Arabia (Causin, iii. pp. 302, 303), and forbade the insertion of the triennial intercalary month by which it had been improved. The famous story respecting the second Caliph Omar, and the destruction of the library at Alexandria has indeed been called in question; but it does not appear to be intrinsically improbable, or at variance with the character of the early Mohammedans. As, however, their rule became more settled, a change came over them, and literature was abundantly patronized in Spain, and by the caliphs of Bagdad, more especially Harun Al Raschid, the hero of the Thousand and One Nights, and Almamun. Nor can we deny that European Christendom is indebted to their labours. The nine numerals which effected so great a revolution in arithmetic were introduced by them. Algebra and Alchemy both betray by their prefix the quarter from which Europe received them; nor is it possible to study a catalogue of the stars without being struck at the large proportion which, by the retention of Arabic names, testify to their successful cultivation of astronomy. Sismondi (de la Littérature du Midi de l'Europe) thinks that their poets influenced the taste of the Troubadours. Their commentaries on Aristotle, though often militating with their orthodoxy as Mohammedans, produced a great effect upon the mind of Europe. Even Dante names Averroes; and our great countryman Roger Bacon displays a most extensive acquaintance with the Arabian authors, particularly with Avicenna. Such men as Averroes and Avicenna deserve respectful mention in these pages, for they have not inaptly been termed encyclopaedists, from the range and variety of the subjects treated by them. Medicine, though a less strong point than logic and metaphysics, was also cultivated by the Saracens. We must also take into account the Persian literati, especially the poets who have flourished since the introduction of Islamism, and the Turkish moralists and writers on jurisprudence. Nor must we fail to acknowledge the intellectual improvement caused in Africa, where the village possessing a Marabout or Mussulman teacher is always found to be far in advance of its neighbours in all the elements of civilization.

Of art we can say but little, for it is almost a blank in the realms of the Moslem. The prohibitions of the Koran against images are fatal to its culture; though a single exception, that of architecture, must be granted to the Spanish Arabs. A high authority, Mr Owen Jones, regards their architecture as the legitimate offspring of the Koran, nor do the remarks of Lieutenant Burton appear to us to overthrow this supposition. But in any case, there can be but one opinion as regards the singular and original character of beauty which distinguishes the remains of the Alhambra.

Still, after all, it must be said that the Arabian genius was receptive rather than originate; it handled on the torch of learning, but it did not give the quickening spark; its creative powers cannot be compared with those of Greece, nor its jurisprudence (shut up in the Koran) with that of Rome; while in algebra, &c., the Hindus are decidedly superior. Their science is a mass of borrowings from Euclid, Ptolemy, Aristotle, Galen, &c. In Persia the greatest poets were all actually or virtually pre-Islamite.

The research into Mohammedan literature is still incomplete. Mill's "Mohammedanism" (London, 1817), chap. vi.; Berington's "Literary History of Middle Ages" (London, 1814); and the literary portion of Mr. Sharpe Turner's "History of England" (vol. i., chap. vi.), all afford information. M. Ubicini has a neat resumé of Ottoman literature (vol. i., let. x.); Mr. Cowell's Essay on Persian Literature has been alluded to; Condé, "Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabes en España," did much by first calling attention to the writings of the Moors in Spain, and though violently attacked for deficiencies in knowledge of Arabic, yet cannot be robbed of this praise. Much might have been expected from the distinguished historian of the Ottoman Empire, Von Hammer (subsequently Count Von Hammer-Purgstall), who before his death had commenced a work entitled, "Literaturgeschichte der Araber, Von ihrem Beginn bis zu Ende des 12 Jahrhunderts der Hidsche," Wien, 1856.

8. Its relation to Heathenism.—The most impartial thinkers generally allot to Islamism a kind of half-way place between paganism and Christianity; somewhat as, in popular legend, the coffin of Mohammed was supposed to be suspended by loadstones between heaven and earth. If, in employing the term paganism, we think primarily of the religion of Greece and Rome, it must be allowed that the teaching of the Arabian is a great advance. Classic paganism was in constant danger of allowing its votaries either, with Epicurus, to deny any real Providence (a doctrine which practically amounts to atheism), or to fall into pantheism, and thus deny the divine personality and the enduring individuality of the soul. Above all, its polytheistic idolatry appears from Holy Scripture to have involved communication with evil spirits. (See Deut. xxxii. 16, 17; Ps. civ. 37, 38; 1 Cor. x. 18–20.) Now, Mohammedanism, both by words and deeds, protests most vigorously against all these errors—Epicureanism, pantheism, and idolatry. If, as we have seen, its dervishes have displayed a tendency towards pantheism, this is an intrusive element, and alien from the essential character of the religion. Far from encouraging the cloud of doubt which hangs around the question of Providence in classic writings (as, e.g., even those of Cicero), Mohammedans so thoroughly recognise the Almighty as the great originator of all things, as almost to shrink in their histories from the investigation of secondary causes. And as regards idolatry, that great day of Mohammed's life when he destroyed the idols of "The Square House," or Kaaba, at Mecca, was again and again re-enacted by his disciples,—most strikingly, perhaps, in their famous conquest of Hindustan, where the idolatrous temples had become the haunts of the most appalling wickedness.

Nor is the superiority of Islamism to paganism confined to mere negations of error. On the contrary, it teaches positively and clearly much that paganism had lost, or was teaching but very vaguely. The unity of God, eternity and judgment to come, fixed rules of right and wrong, the existence of real revelations, the value of repentance,—borrowed these truths may be from Judaism and Christi-

anity, but however obtained, they are unmistakeably announced by Islamism. It appears, moreover, to be comparatively free from the self-righteous notions taught by other eastern creeds, as Hinduism,—for even Mohammed himself is held by orthodox Islamic theologians to have been admitted into Paradise through Divine mercy only, and not for his presumed good deeds. Lastly, it is conspicuous above all merely human forms of religion, for the sense of brotherhood with which it inspires its votaries. Mohammed appears to have deliberately aimed at this result, and his success has been truly wonderful. With the exception of caliph or sultan, all Mussulmans are regarded as spiritually equal; nor, indeed, is there any temporal superiority, except such as may arise incidentally from the possession of wealth or office,—a precarious superiority in the East, and one which the events of a single day may entirely reverse. Every Moslem is supposed, by spiritual filiation, to be grafted into the great Arab race,—a truly noble idea, beyond the teaching of Judaism, because reflected from the light of that faith for which Judaism was only a preparation. Hence his creed is, far more than his country or his race, the one object for which a Mussulman is prepared to labour and to fight.

Still, it must not be supposed that Islamism is, from every point of view, superior to the other false religions which it confronts. There are certain needs in the human heart which other creeds have at least attempted to satisfy, but for which Mohammed has nothing to offer. Pantheism, erroneous as it is, yet expresses the deep yearnings of men's spirit for union with his Maker. Even idolatry, with all its deep sinfulness, recognises the want of something to interpose between our fallen nature and the purity of an offended God. Magianism, Buddhism, and other forms admitting mysticism, find food for these wants; Islamism is essentially bare and arid, and leaves the gulf between man and his Maker in all its vastness. Even sacrifice cannot be considered as part of the essence of Mohammedanism. It is only (with some rare exceptions) performed on the occasion of a pilgrimage, and may be neglected even then on the condition of observing an additional ten days' fasting in the course of the year.

9. Its relation to Christianity.—Among the most striking inconsistencies of the Koran is the contrariety of its tone in different parts with reference to Christianity. In the second chapter Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all placed upon a level, and assured of salvation if obedient to the law of their respective creeds; but in the chapter which immediately follows, according to the existing arrangement, we are told that "whoever followeth any other religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him, and in the next life he shall be of those who perish." It would not be possible here to dwell upon the different modes of solving this difficulty which have been attempted; we can only, with the Quarterly Review (No. 136, September 1841), express our entire acceptance of the theory of Mühler, that Mohammed commenced his career merely as the prophet of Arabia, and gradually persuaded himself that he was the destined prophet of the world. So long as he regarded himself as the teacher of his own countrymen alone, he was willing to consider Christianity as a religion of co-ordinate authority with that which he taught; but when, extending his sphere of thought and action, he claimed the universe as the scene of his mission, he was compelled to represent Christianity as subordinate to the creed of Islam. Now, however sincere Mohammed may have been in his delusion, the part of a universal instead of a merely national instructor involved far larger demands (if the expression may be permitted) upon his creed and character. But of this he does not seem to have been at all conscious. It behoves us, however, to consider some of the leading points of distinction. That a national religion should be inseparably bound up with the state appears natural, and is perhaps almost inevitable. It is certainly part of the normal condition of Judaism when flourishing. But a religion which is to be the heritage of all mankind must be capable indeed of coalescing with any rational form of government, but no less capable, if need be, of standing in the completest isolation from the state. Now, Mohammed's religion includes in itself the idea of a universal monarchy. This condition alone must necessitate the failure of all its attempts to become a religion of the universe; and even in Mohammedan countries, though originally an element of strength, it tends to produce ultimate decay. Without entering into details, it is obvious that strict adherence to the Koran, as the law of the state, must impede many reforms which in a political aspect may become highly necessary.

Again, while we admit that Christianity has at times employed the sword as an instrument of defence, or even a means of conversion, still the instances have been comparatively rare and exceptional; but in the case of Islamism the exception is the other way; its votaries almost avow that too long peace endangers its vigour and vitality. And thus Mohammedanism has no real claim to be a religion of love: it cannot even imagine that union of special favour to its own with benevolence to all, which is one of the first lessons of Christianity.

But, above all, did Mohammed fail to comprehend the lofty requirements needed for a teacher of humanity at large. A good Arab he may have been, according to the miserably imperfect standard of his age and country; nevertheless he was a man blood-stained and lust-stained, and, moreover, unrepentant of these sins, because unconscious of their shame. But the prophet of the universe must soar far above all merely conventional morality; he must satisfy all the really religious needs of the human heart, and such needs can find their satisfaction in nothing else save the mystery of an Incarnate God, alike the teacher and the redeemer of the world. Mohammed's celebrated declaration, "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the apostle of God," combined a solemn and vital truth with a hopeless and tremendous falsehood. Against superstitions worse than his own that truth held its way triumphantly, but before Christianity it was sure in the long run to pale and wither. It has its warriors, but hardly martyrs; and polygamy must be fatal to its universality, for polygamy can never satisfy the needs of woman's heart.

And while with Dante (L.C.), Jones, Leibnitz, De Maistre, and others, we may admit that the amount of truth contained in Islamism renders it more like a heresy than an absolutely false religion, yet we submit that, as regards its view of the person and office of Christ our Lord, and its doctrine of a unity of person (not of substance merely) in the Godhead, there is a greater gulf between Mohammedanism and Christianity than is always, or perhaps usually, admitted. Moreover, the doctrine of the Divine unity and omnipotence becomes unspeakably different when viewed apart from, or in connection with, the idea of an all-perfect Mediator. It is apparently the unsoftened awfulness of that doctrine in its loneliness that causes the deep melancholy observed in so many of the more earnest Mohammedans. And even as regards predestination, on which so many Christians appear theoretically to agree with the Moslem, it could, we feel assured, be shown that Mohammedan submission under reverses is, with all its acknowledged merit, something very different from Christian resignation, and far less noble and ennobling.

Lastly, in its lack of any one good thing in which Christianity has not anticipated it; in its constrained spirit and absence of any real sympathy with progress and the highest forms of civilization; in its spiritual and intellectual poverty and limitation to oriental or African regions,—Islamism betrays the limited and finite conceptions of a merely human author, and stands in marked antithesis with the faith of Christ.

On these points there is something to be gained from White's Bampton Lectures, Oxford, A.D. 1784; also from Lectures on the History of the Turks in its relation to Christianity, Dublin, 1834. The author of the last named writes, however, it must be observed, with a Roman Catholic object in view.

10. Its present Condition and probable Future.—The creed of Islam is still very widely spread. It is professed throughout the Turkish empire, Persia, Arabia, Russian and Independent Tartary, Madagascar, parts of the eastern coast, and the interior of Africa, by a large part of the population of Hindustan, and in the islands of the Eastern Archipelago. The Malay tribes appear to take an active part in spreading Mohammedanism; and all Christian missionaries (though frequently acknowledging the improvement thus wrought among idolatrous populations) agree in deploring the extreme difficulty of converting Moslems to the faith of the gospel. At the Cape a few cases have occurred of professing Christians lapsing into Islamism; but some have happily been reclaimed. In China, the prohibition of swine's flesh is said, with every appearance of probability, to militate against the reception of the Koran. The number of Mohammedans has been variously stated from 100,000,000 to 140,000,000. We should suppose the smaller number to be nearest the truth; but it is difficult to speak with confidence, as an accurate census is almost unknown in eastern countries.

A religion so influential must have had its special task assigned to it by Providence, though we can only faintly guess at its nature. Its protest against many pagan errors, more especially idolatry, has been already touched upon. We may add that Islamism was probably one of the greatest checks to the progress of a much worse form of error than itself, which arose in the bosom of the church of the seventh century, namely, the species of Manichaeism known as Paulicinism (vide Gibbon, chap. 54), which "violated the unity of God, the first article of natural and revealed religion." And it may yet possibly, as Forster and Möller suggest, prove a preparative for Christianity in Africa, by moulding the hearts and minds of races as yet too stubborn for the mild yoke of the gospel. That He who overrules evil to good may vouchsafe such a result must surely be the devout prayer of every Christian.

Viewed externally, Mohammedanism appears to have long since reached its culminating point. In Mesopotamia, in Cyprus, in Candia, the Moslem population is not half what it was at the commencement of the eighteenth century. Persia is covered with ruins; Turkey, once the dread of Christendom, is utterly effete, and only exists through the powerful and armed intervention of France and England; Cairo has only a shadow of its once flourishing hospitals, schools, and libraries; Alexandria instead of 100 mosques ever open; even Mecca itself displays ruined buildings, and the number of pilgrims is continually decreasing. (See Döllinger's concluding chapter.)

Still, however, does this creed sway the hearts of its votaries. In this respect there is as yet no clear proof of diminished power. In the present year (1857) the rising against British rule in India is most probably traceable to Moslem influence, though the Hindoo element may have combined to produce its awful and unheard-of atrocities. May that outburst prove but the prelude to its fall, and to the future triumph of Christianity.