MUḤAMMAD, The Character of. (1) Sir William Muir (Life of Mahomet, new ed. p. 537 et seqq.), has carefully collated from the traditions embodied by the secretary of al-Wāqidī, an account of the person and character of Muḥammad. “This account,” as Sir William Muir remarks, “illustrates generally the style and contents of the Muslim biographies of their Prophet.”

“When Ayesha was questioned about Mahomet she used to say: ‘He was a man just such as yourselves; he laughed often and smiled much.’ ‘But how would he occupy himself at home?’ ‘Even as any of you occupy yourselves. He would mend his clothes, and cobble his shoes. He used to help me in my household duties; but what he did oftenest was to sew. If he had the choice between two matters, he would choose the easiest, so as that no sin accrued therefrom. He never took revenge excepting where the honour of God was concerned. When angry with any person, he would say, “What hath taken such a one that he should soil his forehead in the mud!” ’

“His humility was shown by his riding upon asses, by his accepting the invitation even of slaves, and when mounted, by his taking another behind him. He would say: ‘I sit at meals as a servant doeth, and I eat like a servant: for I really am a servant’; and he would sit as one that was always ready to rise. He discouraged (supererogatory) fasting, and works of mortification. When seated with his followers, he would remain long silent at a time. In the mosque at Medîna they used to repeat pieces of poetry, and tell stories regarding the incidents that occurred in the ‘days of ignorance,’ and laugh; and Mahomet listening to them, would smile at what they said.

“Mahomet hated nothing more than lying; and whenever he knew that any of his followers had erred in this respect, he would hold himself aloof from them until he was assured of their repentance.

“His Speech.

“He did not speak rapidly, running his words into one another, but enunciated each syllable distinctly, so that what he said was imprinted in the memory of every one who heard him. When at public prayers, it might be known from a distance that he was reading by the motion of his beard. He never read in a singing or chanting style; but he would draw out his voice, resting at certain places. Thus, in the prefatory words of a Sura, he would pause after bismillâhi, after al Rahmân, and again after al Rahîm.

“Gait.

“He used to walk so rapidly that the people half ran behind him, and could hardly keep up with him.

“Habits in Eating.

“He never ate reclining, for Gabriel had told him that such was the manner of kings; nor had he ever two men to walk behind him. He used to eat with his thumb and his two forefingers; and when he had done, he would lick them, beginning with the middle one. When offered by Gabriel the valley of Mecca full of gold, he preferred to forego it; saying that when he was hungry he would come before the Lord lowly, and when full, with praise.

“Moderation.

“A servant-maid being once long in returning from an errand, Mahomet was annoyed, and said: ‘If it were not for the law of retaliation, I should have punished you with this tooth-pick’ (i.e. with an inappreciably light punishment).

“Customs at Prayer.

“He used to stand for such a length of time at prayer that his legs would swell. When remonstrated with, he said: ‘What! shall I not behave as a thankful servant should?’ He never yawned at prayer. When he sneezed, he did so with a subdued voice, covering his face. At funerals he never rode: he would remain silent on such occasions, as if conversing with himself, so that the people used to think he was holding communication with the dead.

“Refusal to make Personal Use of Tithes.

“While he accepted presents he refused to use anything that had been offered as alms; neither would he allow anyone in his family to use what had been brought as alms; ‘For,’ said he, ‘alms are the impurity of mankind’ (i.e. that which cleanses their impurity). His scruples on this point were so strong that he would not eat even a date picked up on the road, lest perchance it might have dropped from a tithe load.

“Food Relished.

“Mahomet had a special liking for sweetmeats and honey. He was also fond of cucumbers and of undried dates. When a lamb or a kid was being cooked, Mahomet would go to the pot, take out the shoulder, and eat it. He used to eat moist dates and cooked food together. What he most relished was a mess of bread cooked with meat, and a dish of dates dressed with butter and milk.

“Mahomet used to have sweet (rain) water kept for his use.

“Women and Scents.

“A great array of traditions are produced to prove that the Prophet was fond of women and scents, and liked these of all things in the world the best. Ayesha used to say: ‘The Prophet loved three things—women, scents, and food; he had his heart’s desire of the two first, but not of the last.’

“Straitened means at Medîna.

“Ayesha tells us that for months together Mahomet did not get a full meal. ‘Months used to pass,’ she says again, ‘and no fire would be lighted in Mahomet’s house, either for baking bread or cooking meat.’ ‘How, then, did ye live?’ ‘By the “two black things” (dates and water), and by what the citizens used to send unto us; the Lord requite them! Such of them as had milch cattle would send us a little milk. The Prophet never enjoyed the luxury of two kinds of food the same day; if he had flesh there was nothing else; and so if he had dates; so likewise if he had bread.’

“ ‘We possessed no sieves, but used to bruise the grain and blow off the husks.’

“Appearance, Habits, &c.

“He used to wear two garments. His izâr (under-garment) hung down three or four inches below his knees. His mantle was not wrapped round him so as to cover his body, but he would draw the end of it under his shoulder.

“He used to divide his time into three parts: one was given to God, the second allotted to his family, the third to himself. When public business began to press upon him, he gave up one half of the latter portion to the service of others.

“When he pointed he did so with his whole hand; and when he was astonished he turned his hand over (with the palm upwards). In speaking with another, he brought his hand near to the person addressed; and he would strike the palm of the left in the thumb of the right hand. Angry, he would avert his face; joyful, he would look downwards. He often smiled, and, when he laughed, his teeth used to appear white as hailstones.

“In the interval allotted to others, he received all that came to him, listened to their representations, and occupied himself in disposing of their business and in hearing what they had to tell him. He would say on such occasions: ‘Let those that are here give information regarding that which passeth to them that are absent; and they that cannot themselves appear to make known their necessities, let others report them to me in their stead; the Lord will establish the feet of such in the Day of Judgment.’

“Seal of Prophecy.

“This, says one, was a protuberance on the Prophet’s back of the size and appearance of a pigeon’s egg. It is said to have been the divine seal which, according to the predictions of the Scriptures, marked Mahomet as the last of the Prophets. How far Mahomet himself encouraged this idea it is impossible to say. From the traditions it would seem to have been nothing more than a mole of unusual size; and the saying of Mahomet, that ‘God had placed it there,’ was probably the germ of supernatural associations which grew up concerning it.

“Hair.

“His hair used to be combed; it was neither curling nor smooth. He had, says one, four curled locks. His hair was ordinarily parted, but he did not care if it was not so. According to another tradition, ‘The Jews and Christians used to let their hair fall down, while the heathen parted it. Now Mahomet loved to follow the people of the Book in matters concerning which he had no express command. So he used to let down his hair without parting it. Subsequently, however, he fell into the habit of parting it.’

“Moustache.

“Mahomet used to clip his moustache. A Magian once came to him and said: ‘You ought to clip your beard and allow your moustaches to grow.’ ‘Nay,’ said the Prophet, ‘for my Lord hath commanded me to clip the moustaches and allow the beard to grow.’

“Dress.

“Various traditions are quoted on the different colours he used to wear—white chiefly, but also red, yellow, and green. He sometimes put on woollen clothes. Ayesha, it is said, exhibited a piece of woollen stuff in which she swore that Mahomet died. She adds that he once had a black woollen dress; and she still remembered, as she spoke, the contrast between the Prophet’s fair skin and the black cloth. ‘The odour of it, however, becoming unpleasant, he cast it off, for he loved sweet odours.’

“He entered Mecca on the taking of the city (some say) with a black turban. He had also a black standard. The end of his turban used to hang down between his shoulders. He once received the present of a scarf for a turban, which had a figured or spotted fringe; and this he cut off before wearing it. He was very fond of striped Yemen stuffs. He used to wrap his turban many times round his head, and ‘the lower edge of it used to appear like the soiled clothes of an oil-dealer.’

“He once prayed in a silken dress, and then cast it aside with abhorrence, saying: ‘Such stuff it doth not become the pious to wear.’ On another occasion, as he prayed in a figured or spotted mantle, the spots attracted his notice; when he had ended, he said: ‘Take away that mantle, for verily it hath distracted me in my prayers, and bring me a common one.’ His sleeve ended at the wrist. The robes in which he was in the habit of receiving embassies, and his fine Hadhramaut mantle, remained with the Caliphs; when worn or rent, these garments were mended with fresh cloth; and in after times, the Caliphs used to wear them at the festivals. When he put on new clothes (either an under-garment, a girdle, or a turban), the Prophet would offer up a prayer such as this: ‘Praise be to the Lord who hath clothed me with that which shall hide my nakedness and adorn me while I live. I pray Thee for the good that is in this, and the good that hath been made for it; and I seek refuge from the evil that is in the same, and from the evil that hath been made for it.’

“Shoes.

“His servant, Anas, had charge of his shoes and of his water-pot. After his master’s death, Anas used to show his shoes. They were after the Hadhramaut pattern, with two thongs. In the year 100 or 110 A.H., one went to buy shoes at Mecca, and tells us that the shoemaker offered to make them exactly after the model of Mahomet’s, which he said he had seen in the possession of Fâtima, granddaughter of Abbâs. His shoes used to be cobbled. He was in the habit of praying with his shoes on. On one occasion, having taken them off at prayers, all the people did likewise, but Mahomet told them there was no necessity, for he had merely taken off his own because Gabriel had apprised him that there was some dirty substance attaching to them (cleanliness being required in all the surroundings at prayer). The thongs of his shoes once broke, and they mended them for him by adding a new piece; after the service, Mahomet desired his shoes to be taken away and the thongs restored as they were; ‘For,’ said he, ‘I was distracted at prayer thereby.’

“Tooth-picks.

“Ayesha tells us that Mahomet never lay down, by night or by day, but on waking he applied the tooth-pick to his teeth before he performed ablution. He used it so much as to wear away his gums. The tooth-pick was always placed conveniently for him at night, so that, when he got up in the night to pray, he might use it before his lustrations. One says that he saw him with the tooth-pick in his mouth, and that he kept saying áâ, áâ, as if about to vomit. His tooth-picks were made of the green wood of the palm-tree. He never travelled without one.

“Articles of Toilet.

“He very frequently oiled his hair, poured water on his beard, and applied antimony to his eyes.

“Armour.

“Four sections are devoted to the description of Mahomet’s armour,—his swords, coats of mail, shields, lances, and bows.

“Miscellaneous.

“The Prophet used to snuff simsim (sesamum), and wash his hands in a decoction of the wild plum-tree. When he was afraid of forgetting anything, he would tie a thread on his finger or his ring.

“Horses.

“The first horse which Mahomet ever possessed was one he purchased of the Bani Fazâra, for ten owckeas (ounces of silver); and he called its name sakb (running water), from the easiness of its paces. Mahomet was mounted on it at the battle of Ohod, when there was but one other horse from Medîna on the field. He had also a horse called Sabáha (Shamjah?); he raced it and it won, and he was greatly rejoiced thereat. He had a third horse, named Murtajis (neigher).

“Riding Camels.

“Besides Al Caswa (al-Qaṣwā), Mahomet had a camel called Adhba (al-ʿAẓbā), which in speed outstripped all others. Yet one day an Arab passed it when at its fleetest pace. The Moslems were chagrined at this; but Mahomet reproved them, saying, ‘It is the property of the Lord, that whensoever men exalt anything, or seek to exalt it, then the Lord putteth down the same.’

“Milch Camels.

“Mahomet had twenty milch camels, the same that were plundered at Al Ghâba. Their milk was for the support of his family: every evening they gave two large skinsful. Omm Salmah relates: ‘Our chief food when we lived with Mahomet was milk. The camels used to be brought from Al Ghâba every evening. I had one called Arîs, and Ayesha one called Al Samra. The herdman fed them at Al Jûania, and brought them to our homes in the evening. There was also one for Mahomet.’

“Milch Flocks.

“Mahomet had seven goats which Omm Ayman used to tend (this probably refers to an early period of his residence at Medîna). His flocks grazed at Ohod and Himna alternately, and were brought back to the house of that wife whose turn it was for Mahomet to be in her abode. A favourite goat having died, the Prophet desired its skin to be tanned.

“Mahomet attached a peculiar blessing to the possession of goats. ‘There is no house,’ he would say, ‘possessing a goat, but a blessing abideth thereon; and there is no house possessing three goats, but the angels pass the night there praying for its inmates until the morning.’

“Servants.

“Fourteen or fifteen persons are mentioned who served the Prophet at various times. His slaves he always freed.

“Houses.

“Abdallah ibn Yazîd relates that he saw the houses in which the wives of the Prophet dwelt, at the time when Omar ibn Al Azîz, Governor of Medîna (about A.H. 100) demolished them. They were built of unburnt bricks, and had separate apartments made of palm-branches, daubed (or built-up) with mud; he counted nine houses, each having separate apartments, in the space extending from the house of Ayesha and the gate of Mahomet to the house of Asma, daughter of Hosein. Observing the dwelling-place of Omm Salma, he questioned her grandson concerning it, and he told him that when the Prophet was absent on the expedition to Dûma, Omm Salma built up an addition to her house with a wall of unburnt bricks. When Mahomet returned, he went in to her, and asked what new building this was. She replied, ‘I purposed, O Prophet, to shut out the glances of men thereby!’ Mahomet answered: ‘O Omm Salma! verily, the most unprofitable thing that eateth up the wealth of the Believer is building.’ A citizen of Medîna present at the time, confirmed this account, and added that the curtains of the door were of black hair-cloth. He was present, he said, when the despatch of the Caliph Abd al Malîk (A.H. 86–88) was read aloud, commanding that these houses should be brought within the area of the mosque, and he never witnessed sorer weeping than there was amongst the people that day. One exclaimed: ‘I wish, by the Lord! that they would leave these houses alone thus as they are; then would those that spring up hereafter in Medîna, and strangers from the ends of the earth, come and see what kind of building sufficed for the Prophet’s own abode, and the sight thereof would deter men from extravagance and pride.’

“There were four houses of unburnt bricks, the apartments being of palm-branches; and five houses made of palm-branches built up with mud and without any separate apartments. Each was three Arabian yards in length. Some say they had leather curtains for the doors. One could reach the roof with the hand.

“The house of Hâritha (Ḥāris̤ah) was next to that of Mahomet. Now whenever Mahomet took to himself a new wife, he added another house to the row, and Hâritha was obliged successively to remove his house, and to build on the space beyond. At last this was repeated so often, that the Prophet said to those about him: ‘Verily, it shameth me to turn Hâritha over and over again out of his house.’

“Properties.

“There were seven gardens which Mukheirîck the Jew left to Mahomet. Omar ibn Al Azîz, the Caliph, said that, when Governor of Medîna, he ate of the fruit of these, and never tasted sweeter dates. Others say that these gardens formed a portion of the confiscated estates of the Bani Nadhîr. They were afterwards dedicated perpetually to pious purposes.

“Mahomet had three other properties:—

“I. The confiscated lands of the Bani Nadhîr. The produce of these was appropriated to his own wants. One of the plots was called Mashruba Omm Ibrahîm, the ‘summer garden of (Mary) the mother of Ibrahîm,’ where the Prophet used to visit her.

“II. Fadak; the fruits of this were reserved as a fund for indigent travellers.

“III. The fifth share, and the lands received by capitulation, in Kheibar. This was divided into three parts. Two were devoted for the benefit of the Moslems generally (i.e. for State purposes); the proceeds of the third, Mahomet assigned for the support of his own family; and what remained over he added to the fund for the use of the Moslems.” (The Life of Mahomet, by William Muir, Esq., London, 1861, vol. iv., p. 325.)

(2) Dr. A. Sprenger, Persian translator of the Government of India, and Principal of the Calcutta Madrasah, gives the following valuable review of the character of Muḥammad, as regards his assumption of the prophetic office:—

“Up to his fortieth year, Mohammad devoutly worshipped the gods of his fathers. The predominance of his imaginative powers, and his peculiar position, gave him a turn for religious meditation. He annually spent the month of Ramazan in seclusion in a cave of Mount Hirá, where the Qorayshites used to devote themselves to ascetic exercises. In this retreat he passed a certain number of nights in prayers, fasted, fed the poor, and gave himself up to meditation; and on his return to Makkah he walked seven times round the Kaʿbah before he went to his own house.

“When he was forty years of age, the first doubts concerning idolatry arose in his mind. The true believers ascribe this crisis to a divine revelation, and therefore carefully conceal the circumstances which may have given the first impulse. It is likely that the eccentric Zaid, whom he must have met in Mount Hirá, first instilled purer notions respecting God into his mind, and induced him to read the Biblical history. To abjure the gods, from whom he had hoped for salvation, caused a great struggle to Mohammad, and he became dejected and fond of solitude. He spent the greater part of his time in Hirá, and came only occasionally to Makkah for new provisions.

“Undisturbed meditation increased his excitement, and his overstrained brains were, even in sleep, occupied with doubts and speculations. In one of his visions he saw an angel, who said to him, ‘Read.’ He answered, ‘I am not reading.’ The angel laid hold of him and squeezed him, until Mohammad succeeded in making an effort. Then he released him, and said again, ‘Read.’ Mohammad answered, ‘I am not reading.’ This was repeated three times; and at length the angel said, ‘Read in the name of thy Lord, the Creator, who has created man of congealed blood;—read, for thy Lord is most beneficent. It is He who has taught by the pen (has revealed the Scriptures); it is He who has taught man what he does not know.’ These are the initial words of a Surah of the Quran, and the first revelation which Mohammad received. If this dream was as momentous as authentic traditions make it, it must have been the crisis, which caused Mohammad to seek for truth in the books of the Jews and Christians. The words of the angel admit hardly any other sense. After much hesitation he determines to study the tenets of another faith, which was hostile to that of his fathers. His resolve is sanctioned by a vision, and he thanks the Creator, whom the Qorayshites always considered the greatest among their gods, for having sent a revelation to direct man.

“It is certain, however, that no Musalman will admit the sense which I give to these verses of the Quran; and Mohammad himself, in the progress of his career, formally denied having read any part of the Scriptures before the Quran had been revealed to him. This, however, can only be true if he meant the first verses of the Quran, that is to say, those mentioned above; for in the following revelations he introduces the names of most prophets, he holds up their history as an example to the Makkians, he borrows expressions from the Bible which he admired for their sublimity, he betrays his acquaintance with the gospels by referring to an erroneously translated verse of St. John, for a proof of his mission, and he frequently alludes to the legends of the Rabbins and Christians. Whence has the Prophet of the Gentiles obtained his knowledge of the Biblical history? He answers the question himself: It is God who has revealed it to me. This assertion satisfies the believer, and is a hint to the inquirer in tracing the sources of his information. He would hardly have hazarded it had he not obtained his instruction under considerable secrecy. The spirit of persecution at Makkah, which manifested itself against Zaid, made caution necessary for Mohammad, though originally he may have had no ulterior views, in making himself acquainted with another faith. Yet with all his precautions, the Qorayshites knew enough of his history to disprove his pretensions. He himself confesses, in a Surah revealed at Makkah (Sūrah xxv. 5), that they said that the Quran was a tissue of falsehood; that several people had assisted him; and that he preached nothing more than what was contained in the “Asátyr of the Ancients,” which he used to write, from the dictation of his teachers, morning and evening. Who were the men who instructed Mohammad? It is not likely that he would have dared to declare before them, that the doctrines which he had received from them had been revealed to him; nor is it likely that, had they been alive after the new religion had become triumphant, they would have allowed him to take all the credit to himself. Those who exercised an influence upon Mohammad were his disciples; but we find no instance in which he appeared to buy secrecy by submitting to the dictation of others. I am inclined to think, therefore, that his instructors died during his early career; and this supposition enables us to ascertain the names of some of them. The few specimens of the sayings of Zaid, which have been preserved, prove that Mohammad borrowed freely from him, not only his tenets, but even his expressions; and Zaid did not long survive Mohammad’s assumption of his office. It is likely that Waraqah, the cousin of Khadyjah, who, it would appear, brought about her marriage with Mohammad, who was the first to declare that the Great Law [NAMUS] would be revealed to him, and who expressed a wish to assist him during the persecutions to which every prophet was subject, was one of his teachers. Waraqah died shortly before the time when he publicly proclaimed his mission. The defence of the Prophet, that the man, of whom his countrymen said that he assisted him in writing the Quran, was a foreigner (Sūrah xvi. 105), and unable to write so pure Arabic as the language of the Quran was, leads us to suspect that one of his chief authorities for the Biblical legends was ʾAddas, a monk of Nineveh, who was settled at Makkah. (See Tafsīru ʾl-Baiẓāwī on Sūrah xxv. 6.) And there can be no doubt that the Rabbins of the Hijaz communicated to Mohammad their legends. The commentators upon the Quran inform us further, that he used to listen to Jabr and Yasár, two sword-manufacturers at Makkah, when they read the scriptures; and Ibn Isháq says, that he had intercourse with ʾAbdal-Rahmán, a Christian of Zamámah; but we must never forget that the object of these authorities, in such matters, is not to instruct their readers, but to mislead them.

“It is certain, from the context, where the expression occurs, and from the commentators on the Quran, that ‘Asátyr of the Ancients’ is the name of a book; but we have very little information as to its origin and contents. (See the Commentaries of al-Baiẓāwī and the Jalālān on Sūrah xxv.) That dogmas were propounded in it, besides Biblical legends, appears from several passages of the Quran, where it is said that it contained the doctrine of the Resurrection. (Sūrahs xxvii. 70, xlvi. 16.) It is also clear that it was known at Makkah before Mohammad; for the Qorayshites told him that they and their fathers had been acquainted with it before he taught it, and that all that he taught was contained in it. (Sūrah lxviii. 15.) Mohammad had, in all likelihood, besides, a version of portions of the scriptures, both of the genuine and some of the apocryphal works; for he refers his audience to them without reserve. Tabary informs us that when Mohammad first entered on his office, even his wife Khadyjah had read the scriptures, and was acquainted with the history of the prophets. (See Balʾāmy’s translation of Tabary in Persian.)

“In spite of three passages of the Quran quoted above, the meaning of which they clumsily pervert, almost all modern Musalman writers, and many of the old ones, deny that Mohammad knew reading or writing. Good authors, however, particularly among the Shiahs, admit that he knew reading; but they say he was not a skilful penman. The only support of the opinion of the former is one passage of the Quran, Sūrah vii. 156, in which Mohammad says that he was the Prophet of the Ummis, and an Ummi himself. This word, they say, means illiterate; but others say it means a man who is not skilful in writing; and others suppose it to mean a Makkian or an Arab. It is clear that they merely guess, from the context, at the meaning of the word. Ummi is derived from ummah, ‘nation’ (Latin gens, Greek ethnos), and on comparing the passages of the Quran, in which it occurs, it appears that it means gentile (Greek ethnicos). It is said in the Quran, that some Jews are honest, but others think there is no harm in wronging the Ummis. Imám Sadiq observes (Ḥayātu ʾl-Qulūb, vol. ii. chapter 6, p. 2) on this passage, that the Arabs are meant under Ummis, and that they are called so, though they knew writing, because God had revealed no book to them, and had sent them no prophet. Several instances in which Mohammad did read and write are recorded by Bokhary, Nasay, and others. It is, however, certain that he wished to appear ignorant, in order to raise the elegance of the composition of the Quran into a miracle.

*   *   *

“According to one record, the doubts, indecision, and preparation of the Prophet for his office lasted seven years; and so sincere and intense were his meditations on matters of religion, that they brought him to the brink of madness. In the Quran we can trace three phases in the progress of the mind of Mohammad from idolatry to the formation of a new creed. First, the religion of the Kaʿbah, in which he sincerely believed, seems to have formed the principal subject of his meditations. The contemplation of nature, probably assisted by instruction, led him to the knowledge of the unity of God; and there is hardly a verse in the Quran which does not shew how forcibly he was struck with this truth. By satisfying the faith of his fathers, he tried to reconcile it with the belief in one God; and for some time he considered the idols round the Kaʾbah daughters of God, who intercede with Him for their worshippers. But he gave up this belief, chiefly because he could not reconcile himself to the idea that God should have only daughters, which was ignominious in the eyes of an Arab; and that men should have sons, who reflect honour on a family. He also connected the idolatrous worship of the black stone, and the ceremonies of the Hajj, and almost all the other pagan usages of the Haramites, with their Abraham. This idea was not his own. The sceptics who preceded him held the same opinion; yet it was neither ancient nor general among the pagan Arabs. We find no connexion between the tenets of Moses and those of the Haramites; and though Biblical names are very frequent among the Musalmans, we do not find one instance of their occurrence among the pagans of the Hijaz before Mohammad.

“It has been mentioned that the vision in which he was ordered to read, caused him finally to renounce idolatry; we are told that after this vision an intermission of revelation, called fatrah, took place, which lasted upwards of two years. The meaning of fatrah is simply that, though this vision was a revelation, he did not assume his office for two or three years. It is certain that he composed many Surahs of the Quran during this time; and it must have been during this period that the tenets of the Jews and Christians seriously occupied his mind. Before the vision he was an idolater; and after the fatrah he possessed the acquaintance with the scriptural history which we find in the Quran. Even after he had declared himself a prophet, he shewed, during the beginning of his career, a strong leaning towards, and a sincere belief in, the scriptures and Biblical legends; but in proportion to his success he separated himself from the Bible.

“This is the second phase in the progress of the Prophet’s mind. His belief in the scriptures does not imply that he ever belonged to the Christian or Jewish Church. He never could reconcile his notions of God with the doctrine of the Trinity, and with the Divinity of Christ, and he was disgusted with the monkish institutions and sectarian disputes of the Christians. His creed was: ‘He is God alone, the Eternal God; He has not begotten, and is not begotten; and none is His equal.’ (See Sūrah cxii.) Nothing, however, can be more erroneous than to suppose that Mohammad was, at any period of his early career, a deist. Faith, when once extinct, cannot be revived; and it was his enthusiastic faith in inspiration that made him a prophet. Disappointed with the Jewish and Christian religions, he began to form a system of faith of his own; and this is the third phase of the transition period. For some time, it seems, he had no intention to preach it publicly, but circumstances, as well as the warm conviction of the truth of his creed, at length prevailed upon him to spread it beyond the circle of his family and friends.

“The mental excitement of the Prophet was much increased during the fatrah, and like the ardent scholar in one of Schiller’s poems, who dared to lift the veil of truth, he was nearly annihilated by the light which broke in upon him. He usually wandered about in the hills near Makkah, and was so long absent, that on one occasion, his wife being afraid that he was lost, sent men in search of him. He suffered from hallucinations of his senses, and, to finish his sufferings, he several times contemplated suicide by throwing himself down from a precipice. His friends were alarmed at his state of mind. Some considered it as the eccentricities of a poetical genius; others thought that he was a kahin, or soothsayer; but the majority took a less charitable view (see Sūrahs lxix. 40, xx. 5), and declared that he was insane; and, as madness and melancholy are ascribed to supernatural influence in the East, they said that he was in the power of Satan and his agents, the jinn. They called in exorcists; and he himself doubted the soundness of his mind. ‘I hear a sound,’ he said to his wife, ‘and see a light. I am afraid there are jinn in me.’ And on other occasions he said, ‘I am afraid I am a kahin.’ ‘God will never allow that such should befall thee,’ said Khadyjah; ‘for thou keepest thy engagements, and assistest thy relations.’ According to some accounts, she added, ‘Thou wilt be the prophet of thy nation.’ And, in order to remove every doubt, she took him to her cousin Waraqah; and he said to her, ‘I see thou (i.e. thy explanation) art correct; the cause of the excitement of thy husband is the coming to him of the great nomos, law, which is like the nomos of Moses. If I should be alive when he receives his mission, I would assist him; for I believe in him.’ After this Khadyjah went to the monk, ʾAddas, and he confirmed what Waraqah had said. Waraqah died soon after, before Mohammad entered on his mission.

“The words of Mohammad, ‘I am afraid I am a kahin,’ require some explanation. The Arabs, previous to the promulgation of Islam, believed in kahins, soothsayers; and even in our days they have greater faith in saints and inspired persons than other equally uncivilized nations. Such a belief is so necessary a limitation of the personal freedom of the Bedouins, which knows no other bounds, that I consider it as the offspring of liberty. Even the most refractory spirit sees no humiliation in confessing his wrong-doings to a helpless seer, and in submitting to his decisions; and by doing so, if he has embroiled himself, he can return to peace with himself and with society. We find, therefore, in the ancient history of Arabia, that litigations were frequently referred to celebrated kahins. These, it would appear, were eccentric persons, of great cunning, and not without genius. The specimens which we have of their oracles are obscure, and usually in rhymed prose and incoherent sentences; and they are frequently preceded by a heavy oath to the truth of what they say, like some of the Surahs of the Quran. It was believed that they knew what was concealed from the eyes of the common mortals; but they were looked upon with awe; for the Arabs conceived that they were possessed by, or allied with, Satan and the jinn. The evil spirits used to approach the gates of heaven by stealth, to pry into the secrets which were being transacted between God and the angels, and to convey them to the kahins. Existing prejudices left no alternative to Mohammad but to proclaim himself a prophet who was inspired by God and His angels, or to be considered a kahin possessed by Satan and his agents the jinn.

“Khadyjah and her friends advised him to adopt the former course; and, after some hesitation, he followed their advice, as it would appear, with his own conviction. His purer notions of the Deity, his moral conduct, his predilection for religious speculations, and his piety, were proofs sufficiently strong to convince an affectionate wife that the supernatural influence, under which he was, came from heaven. But, as the pagan Arabs had very imperfect notions of divine inspiration, it was necessary for him to prove to them, by the history of the prophets, that some seers were inspired by God; and to this end, he devoted more than two-thirds of the Quran to Biblical legends, most of which he has so well adapted to his own case, that if we substitute the name of Mohammad for Moses and Abraham, we have his own views, fate, and tendency. And, in order to remove every doubt as to the cause of his excitement, Mohammad subsequently maintained, that since he had assumed his office, heaven was surrounded by a strong guard of angels; and if the jinn venture to ascend to its precincts, a flaming dart, that is to say, a shooting star, is thrown at them, and they are precipitated to the lower regions; and, therefore, the kahins ceased with the commencement of his mission.

“The declaration of Waraqah, and of the monk ʾAddas, that the great nomos would descend upon him, and the faith of his wife, neither conveyed full conviction nor gave they sufficient courage to Mohammad to declare himself publicly the messenger of God; on the contrary, they increased the morbid state of his mind. A fatalist, as he was, it was a hallucination and a fit which decided him to follow their advice. One day, whilst he was wandering about in the hills near Makkah, with the intention to destroy himself, he heard a voice; and, on raising his head, he beheld Gabriel, between heaven and earth; and the angel assured him that he was the prophet of God. This hallucination is one of the few clearly stated miracles to which he appeals in the Quran. Not even an allusion is made, in that book, to his fits, during which his followers believe that he received the revelations. This bears out the account of Wáqidy, which I have followed, and proves that it was rather the exalted state of his mind, than his fits, which caused his friends to believe in his mission. Frightened by this apparition, he returned home; and, feeling unwell, he called for covering. He had a fit, and they poured cold water upon him; and when he was recovering from it, he received the revelation, ‘O thou covered, arise and preach, and magnify thy Lord, and cleanse thy garment, and fly every abomination’; and henceforth, we are told, he received revelations without intermission; that is to say, the fatrah was at an end, and he assumed his office.

“This crisis of Mohammad’s struggles bears a strange resemblance to the opening scene of Goethe’s Faust. He paints, in that admirable drama, the struggles of mind which attend the transition, in men of genius, from the ideal to the real—from youth to manhood. Both in Mohammad and in Faust the anguish of the mind, distracted by doubts, is dispelled by the song of angels, which rises from their own bosoms, and is the voice of the consciousness of their sincerity and warmth in seeking for truth; and in both, after this crisis, the enthusiasm ebbs gradually down to calm design, and they now blasphemously sacrifice their faith in God to self-aggrandisement. In this respect the resemblance of the second part of Faust to Mohammad’s career at Madinah is complete. As the period of transition in the life of the Prophet has hitherto been completely unknown in Europe, Goethe’s general picture of this period, in the life of enthusiasts, is like a prediction in reference to the individual case of Mohammad.

“Some authors consider the fits of the Prophet as the principal evidence of his mission, and it is therefore necessary to say a few words on them. They were preceded by a great depression of spirits; he was despondent, and his face was clouded; and they were ushered in by coldness of the extremities and shivering. He shook, as if he were suffering of ague, and called out for covering. His mind was in a most painfully excited state. He heard a tinkling in his ears, as if bells were ringing; or a humming, as if bees were swarming round his head; and his lips quivered; but this motion was under the control of volition. If the attack proceeded beyond this stage, his eyes became fixed and staring, and the motions of his head became convulsive and automatic. At length, perspiration broke out, which covered his face in large drops; and with this ended the attack. Sometimes, however, if he had a violent fit, he fell comatose to the ground, like a person who is intoxicated; and (at least at a latter period of his life) his face was flushed, and his respiration stertorous, and he remained in that state for some time. The bystanders sprinkled water in his face; but he himself fancied that he would derive a great benefit from being cupped on the head. This is all the information which I have been able to collect concerning the fits of Mohammad. It will be observed that we have no distinct account of a paroxysm between the one which he had in his infancy, and the one after which he assumed his office. It is likely that up to his forty-fourth year they were not habitual. The alarm of the nurse, under whose care he had been two years before he had the former of these two fits, shews that it was the first, and the age and circumstances under which he had it, render it likely that it was solitary, and caused by the heat of the sun and gastric irritation. The fit after which he assumed his office was undoubtedly brought on by long-continued and increasing mental excitement, and by his ascetic exercises. We know that he used frequently to fast, and that he sometimes devoted the greater part of the night to prayer. The bias of the Musalmans is to gloss over the aberration of mind, and the intention to commit suicide, of their prophet. Most of his biographers pass over the transition period in silence. We may, therefore, be justified in stretching the scanty information which we can glean from them to the utmost extent, and in supposing that he was for some time a complete maniac; and that the fit after which he assumed his office was a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity. This disease is sometimes accompanied by such interesting psychical phenomena, that even in modern times it has given rise to many superstitious opinions. After this paroxysm the fits became habitual, though the moral excitement cooled down, and they assumed more and more an epileptic character.” (The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources, by A. Sprenger, M.D., part i., Allahabad, 1851, p. 949.)

(3) Dr. Marcus Dodds, in his Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, says:—

“But is Mohammed in no sense a prophet? Certainly he had two of the most important characteristics of the prophetic order. He saw truth about God which his fellow-men did not see, and he had an irresistible inward impulse to publish this truth. In respect of this latter qualification, Mohammed may stand comparison with the most courageous of the heroic prophets of Israel. For the truth’s sake he risked his life, he suffered daily persecution for years, and eventually banishment, the loss of property, of the goodwill of his fellow-citizens, and of the confidence of his friends; he suffered, in short, as much as any man can suffer short of death, which he only escaped by flight, and yet he unflinchingly proclaimed his message. No bribe, threat, or inducement, could silence him. ‘Though they array against me the sun on the right hand and the moon on the left, I cannot renounce my purpose.’ And it was this persistency, this belief in his call, to proclaim the unity of God, which was the making of Islam.

“Other men have been monotheists in the midst of idolaters, but no other man has founded a strong and enduring monotheistic religion. The distinction in his case was his resolution that other men should believe. If we ask what it was that made Mohammed aggressive and proselytizing, where other men had been content to cherish a solitary faith, we must answer that it was nothing else than the depth and force of his own conviction of the truth. To himself the difference between one God and many, between the unseen Creator and these ugly lumps of stone or wood, was simply infinite. The one creed was death and darkness to him, the other life and light. It is useless seeking for motives in such a case—for ends to serve and selfish reasons for his speaking; the impossibility with Mohammed was to keep silence. His acceptance of the office of teacher of his people was anything but the ill-advised and sudden impulse of a light-minded vanity or ambition. His own convictions had been reached only after long years of lonely mental agony, and of a doubt and distraction bordering on madness. Who can doubt the earnestness of that search after truth and the living God, that drove the affluent merchant from his comfortable home and his fond wife, to make his abode for months at a time in the dismal cave on Mount Hira? If we respect the shrinking of Isaiah or Jeremiah from the heavy task of proclaiming unwelcome truth, we must also respect the keen sensitiveness of Mohammed, who was so burdened by this same responsibility, and so persuaded of his incompetency for the task, that at times he thought his new feelings and thoughts were a snare of the Devil, and at times he would fain have rid himself of all further struggle by casting himself from a friendly precipice. His rolling his head in his mantle, the sound of the ringing of bells in his ears, his sobbing like a young camel, the sudden grey hairs which he himself ascribed to the terrific Suras—what were all these but so many physical signs of nervous organization overstrained by anxiety and thought?

“His giving himself out as a prophet of God was, in the first instance, not only sincere, but probably correct in the sense in which he himself understood it. He felt that he had thoughts of God which it deeply concerned all around him to receive, and he knew that these thoughts were given him by God, although not, as we shall see, a revelation strictly so called. His mistake by no means lay in his supposing himself to be called upon by God to speak for Him and introduce a better religion, but it lay in his gradually coming to insist quite as much on men’s accepting him as a prophet as on their accepting the great truth he preached. He was a prophet to his countrymen in so far as he proclaimed the unity of God, but this was no sufficient ground for his claiming to be their guide in all matters of religion, still less for his assuming the lordship over them in all matters civil as well. The modesty and humility apparent in him, so long as his mind was possessed with objective truth, gradually gives way to the presumptuousness and arrogance of a mind turned more to a sense of its own importance. To put the second article of the Mohammedan creed on the same level as the first, to make it as essential that men should believe in the mission of Mohammed as in the unity of God, was an ignorant, incongruous, and false combination. Had Mohammed known his own ignorance as well as his knowledge, the world would have had one religion the less, and Christianity would have had one more reformer.” (Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ, p. 17.)

(4) Thomas Carlyle, in his lecture, “The Hero as Prophet,” says:—

“Mahomet himself, after all that can be said about him, was not a sensual man. We shall err widely if we consider this man as a common voluptuary, intent mainly on base enjoyments—nay, on enjoyments of any kind. His household was of the frugalest, his common diet barley-bread and water; sometimes for months there was not a fire once lighted on his hearth. They record with just pride that he would mend his own shoes, patch his own cloak. A poor hard-toiling, ill-provided man; careless of what vulgar men toil for. Not a bad man, I should say; something better in him than hunger of any sort—or these wild Arab men fighting and jostling three and twenty years at his hand, in close contact with him always, would not have reverenced him so! These were wild men, bursting ever and anon into quarrel, into all kinds of fierce sincerity; without right, worth, and manhood, no man could have commanded them. They called him Prophet, you say? Why, he stood there face to face with them; bare, not enshrined in any mystery, visibly clouting his own cloak, cobbling his own shoes, fighting, counselling, ordering in the midst of them, they must have seen what kind of a man he was, let him be called what you like! No emperor with his tiaras was obeyed as this man in a cloak of his own clouting. During three and twenty years of rough actual trial, I find something of a veritable Hero necessary for that of itself.

“His last words are a prayer, broken ejaculations of a heart struggling-up in trembling hope towards its Maker. We cannot say his religion made him worse; it made him better; good, not bad. Generous things are recorded of him; when he lost his daughter, the thing he answers is, in his own dialect, everyway sincere, and yet equivalent to that of Christians: ‘The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ He answered in like manner of Said, his emancipated well-beloved slave, the second of the believers. Said had fallen in the war of Tâbûc, the first of Mahomet’s fightings with the Greeks. Mahomet said it was well, Said had done his Master’s work, Said had now gone to his Master; it was all well with Said. Yet Said’s daughter found him weeping over the body; the old gray-haired man melting in tears! What do I see? said she. You see a friend weeping over his friend. He went out for the last time into the mosque two days before his death; asked, If he had injured any man? Let his own back bear the stripes. If he owed any man? A voice answered, ‘Yes, me; three drachms, borrowed on such an occasion.’ Mahomet ordered them to be paid. ‘Better be in shame now,’ said he, ‘than at the Day of Judgment.’ You remember Kadîjah, and the ‘No by Allah!’ Traits of this kind show us the genuine man, the brother of us all, brought visible through twelve centuries, the veritable son of our common Mother.” (Lectures on Heroes, p. 66.)

(5) The Rev. Dr. Badger remarks:—

“With respect to the private as distinct from the public character of Muhammad, from the time of his settlement at al-Madīnah, it does not appear to have deteriorated, except in one particular, from what it had been prior to the flight from Mecca. He was still frugal in his habits, generous and liberal, faithful to his associates, treasured up the loving memory of absent and departed friends, and awaited his last summons with fortitude and submission. That he entertained an excessive passion for women, was lustful, if you will, cannot be denied; but the fourteen wives whom from first to last he married, and his eleven (? two: see MUHAMMAD’S WIVES) concubines, figure favourably by the side of David’s six wives and numerous concubines (2 Sam. v. 13; 1 Chron. iii. 1–9; xiv. 3), Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings xi. 3), and Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chron. xi. 21), a plurality expressly forbidden to the sovereign of Israel, who was commanded not to multiply wives to himself. (Deut. xvii. 17.)

“It is not so much his polygamy, considering all the circumstances of the case, which justly lays Muhammad open to reproach, but his having deliberately infringed one of his own alleged divine revelations, which restricted the number of wives to ‘four and no more’ (Sura iv. 3); also, for having in the first instance dallied with Zainab, the wife of his freedman and adopted son Zaid-ibn-Harithah, who complacently divorced her in order that she might espouse the Prophet. In this case, moreover, as has already been related, he adduced the authority of God as sanctioning on his behoof first, and thenceforth in the behoof of all Muslims, the marriage of a man with the divorced wife of his adopted son, which up to that time had been considered incestuous. Whatever apology may be adduced for Muhammad in this matter of polygamy, there is no valid plea to justify his improbity and impiety in the case of Zainab.”

(6) Sir William Muir says:—

“I would warn the reader against seeking to portray in his mind a character in all its parts consistent with itself as the character of Mahomet. The truth is, that the strangest inconsistencies blended together (according to the wont of human nature) throughout the life of the Prophet. The student of the history will trace for himself how the pure and lofty aspirations of Mahomet were first tinged, and then gradually debased by a half-unconscious self-deception, and how in this process truth merged into falsehood, sincerity into guile, these opposite principles often co-existing even as active agencies in his conduct. The reader will observe that simultaneously with the anxious desire to extinguish idolatry, and to promote religion and virtue in the world, there was nurtured by the Prophet in his own heart, a licentious self-indulgence, till in the end, assuming to be the favourite of Heaven, he justified himself by ‘revelations’ from God in the most flagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while Mahomet cherished a kind and tender disposition, ‘weeping with them that wept,’ and binding to his person the hearts of his followers by the ready and self-denying offices of love and friendship, he could yet take pleasure in cruel and perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of an entire tribe, and savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of hell. Inconsistencies such as these continually present themselves from the period of Mahomet’s arrival at Medîna, and it is by the study of these inconsistencies that his character must be rightly comprehended. The key to many difficulties of this description may be found, I believe, in the chapter ‘on the belief of Mahomet in his own inspiration.’ When once he had dared to forge the name of the Most High God as the seal and authority of his own words and actions, the germ was laid from which the errors of his after life freely and fatally developed themselves.” (Life of Mahomet, new ed. p. 535.)

(7) Mr. Bosworth Smith, in his Mohammed and Mohammedanism, says:—

“Mohammed did not, indeed, himself conquer a world like Alexander, or Cæsar, or Napoleon. He did not himself weld together into a homogeneous whole a vast system of states like Charles the Great. He was not a philosophic king, like Marcus Aurelius, nor philosopher like Aristotle or like Bacon, ruling by pure reason the world of thought for centuries with a more than kingly power; he was not a legislator for all mankind, nor even the highest part of it, like Justinian; nor did he cheaply earn the title of the Great by being the first among rulers to turn, like Constantine, from the setting to the rising sun. He was not a universal philanthropist, like the greatest of the Stoics.

“Nor was he the apostle of the highest form of religion and civilisation combined, like Gregory or Boniface, like Leo or Alfred the Great. He was less, indeed, than most of these in one or two of the elements that go to make up human greatness, but he was also greater. Half Christian and half Pagan, half civilised and half barbarian, it was given to him in a marvellous degree to unite the peculiar excellences of the one with the peculiar excellences of the other. ‘I have seen,’ said the ambassador sent by the triumphant Quraish to the despised exile at Medina—‘I have seen the Persian Chosroes and the Greek Heraclius sitting upon their thrones; but never did I see a man ruling his equals as does Mohammed.’

“Head of the State as well as of the Church, he was Cæsar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, Cæsar without the legions of Cæsar. Without a standing army, without a body-guard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments, and without its supports.

*   *   *

“By a fortune absolutely unique in history, Mohammed is a three-fold founder—of a nation, of an empire, and of a religion. Illiterate himself, scarcely able to read or write, he was yet the author of a book which is a poem, a code of laws, a Book of Common Prayer, and a Bible in one, and is reverenced to this day by a sixth of the whole human race, as a miracle of purity of style, of wisdom, and of truth. It was the one miracle claimed by Mohammed—his standing miracle he called it; and a miracle indeed it is. But looking at the circumstances of the time, at the unbounded reverence of his followers, and comparing him with the Fathers of the Church or with mediæval saints, to my mind the most miraculous thing about Mohammed is, that he never claimed the power of working miracles. Whatever he had said he could do, his disciples would straightway have seen him do. They could not help attributing to him miraculous acts which he never did, and which he always denied he could do. What more crowning proof of his sincerity is needed? Mohammed to the end of his life claimed for himself that title only with which he had begun, and which the highest philosophy and the truest Christianity will one day, I venture to believe, agree in yielding to him, that of a Prophet, a very Prophet of God.” (Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 340.)

(8) Major Robert Durie Osborn, in his Islām under the Arabs, says:—

“He (Muḥammad) was brought face to face with the question which every spiritual reformer has to meet and consider, against which so many noble spirits have gone to ruin. Will not the end justify the means? ‘Here am I a faithful servant of God, eager only to enthrone Him in the hearts of men, and at the very goal and termination of my labours I am thwarted by this incapacity to work a miracle. It is true, as these infidels allege, that the older prophets did possess this power, and I, unless the very reason and purpose of my existence is to be made a blank, must also do something wonderful. But what kind of miracle?’ In his despair, Muḥammad declared that the Qurʾān itself was that constantly-recurring miracle they were seeking after. Had they ever heard these stories of Noah, Lot, Abraham, Joseph, Zacharias, Jesus, and others? No; neither had he. They were transcripts made from the ‘preserved Table,’ that stood before the throne of God. The archangel Gabriel had revealed them to Muḥammad, written in pure Arabic, for the spiritual edification of the Quraish. Thus in the twelfth Sūrah, where he details at great length an exceedingly ridiculous history of Joseph, he commences the narrative with these words, as spoken by God:—

And at the close of the Sūrah, we are told:—

‘This is one of the secret histories which we reveal unto thee. Thou wast not present with Joseph’s brethren when they conceived their design and laid their plot: but the greater part of men, though thou long for it, will not believe. Thou shalt not ask of them any recompense for this message. It is simply an instruction for all mankind.’

And, again, in the LXVIIth Sūrah, he declares respecting the Qurʾān:—

“It would be easy to multiply extracts of similar purport; but the above will suffice by way of illustration. There are modern biographers of the Prophet who would have us believe that he was not conscious of falsehood when making these assertions. He was under a hallucination, of course, but he believed what he said. This to me is incredible. The legends in the Qurʾān are derived chiefly from Talmudic sources. Muḥammad must have learned them from some Jew resident in or near Mekka. To work them up into the form of rhymed Sūrahs, to put his own peculiar doctrines in the mouth of Jewish patriarchs, the Virgin Mary, and the infant Jesus (who talks like a good Moslem the moment after his birth), must have required time, thought, and labour. It is not possible that the man who had done this could have forgotten all about it, and believed that these legends had been brought to him ready prepared by an angelic visitor. Muḥammad was guilty of falsehood under circumstances where he deemed the end justified the means.” (Islām under the Arabs, p. 21.)

(9) The character of Muḥammad is a historic problem, and many have been the conjectures as to his motives and designs. Was he an impostor, a fanatic, or an honest man—“a very prophet of God”? And the problem might have for ever remained unsolved, had not the Prophet himself appealed to the Old and New Testaments in proof of his mission. This is the crucial test, established by the Prophet himself. He claims to be weighed in the balance with the divine Jesus.

Objection has often been made to the manner in which Christian divines have attacked the private character of Muḥammad. Why reject the prophetic mission of Muḥammad on account of his private vices, when you receive as inspired the sayings of a Balaam, a David, or a Solomon? Missionaries should not, as a rule, attack the character of Muḥammad in dealing with Islām; it rouses opposition, and is an offensive line of argument. Still, in forming an estimate of his prophetic claims, we maintain that the character of Muḥammad in an important consideration. We readily admit that bad men have sometimes been, like Balaam and others, the divinely appointed organs of inspiration; but in the case of Muḥammad, his professed inspiration sanctioned and encouraged his own vices. That which ought to have been the fountain of purity was, in fact, the cover of the Prophet’s depravity. But how different it is in the case of the true prophet David, where, in the words of inspiration, he lays bare to public gaze the enormity of his own crimes. The deep contrition of his inmost soul is manifest in every line—“I acknowledge my transgression, and my sin is ever before me: against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight.”

The best defenders of the Arabian Prophet are obliged to admit that the matter of Zainab, the wife of Zaid, and again, of Mary, the Coptic slave, are “an indelible stain” upon his memory; that “he is once or twice untrue to the kind and forgiving disposition of his best nature; that he is once or twice unrelenting in the punishment of his personal enemies; and that he is guilty even more than once of conniving at the assassination of inveterate opponents”; but they give no satisfactory explanation or apology for all this being done under the supposed sanction of God in the Qurʾān.

In forming an estimate of Muḥammad’s prophetical pretensions, it must be remembered that he did not claim to be the founder of a new religion, but merely of a new covenant. He is the last and greatest of all God’s prophets. He is sent to convert the world to the one true religion which God had before revealed to the five great law-givers—Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus! The creed of Muḥammad, therefore, claims to supersede that of the Lord Jesus. And it is here that we take our stand. We give Muḥammad credit as a warrior, as a legislator, as a poet, as a man of uncommon genius raising himself amidst great opposition to the pinnacle of renown; we admit that he is, without doubt, one of the greatest heroes the world has ever seen; but when we consider his claims to supersede the mission of the divine Jesus, we strip him of his borrowed plumes, and reduce him to the condition of an impostor! For whilst he has adopted and avowed his belief in the sacred books of the Jew and the Christian, and has given them all the stamp and currency which his authority and influence could impart, he has attempted to rob Christianity of every distinctive truth which it possesses—its divine Saviour, its Heavenly Comforter, its two Sacraments, its pure code of social morals, its spirit of love and truth—and has written his own refutation and condemnation with his own hand, by professing to confirm the divine oracles which sap the very foundations of his religious system. We follow the Prophet in his self-asserted mission from the cave of Ḥirāʾ to the closing scene, when he dies in the midst of the lamentations of his ḥarīm, and the contentions of his friends—the visions of Gabriel, the period of mental depression, the contemplated suicide, the assumption of the prophetic office, his struggles with Makkan unbelief, his flight to al-Madīnah, his triumphant entry into Makkah—and whilst we wonder at the genius of the hero, we pause at every stage and inquire, “Is this the Apostle of God, whose mission is to claim universal dominion, to the suppression not merely of idolatry, but of Christianity itself?” Then it is that the divine and holy character of Jesus rises to our view, and the inquiring mind sickens at the thought of the beloved, the pure, the lowly Jesus giving place to that of the ambitious, the sensual, the time-serving hero of Arabia. In the study of Islām, the character of Muḥammad needs an apology or a defence at every stage; but in the contemplation of the Christian system, whilst we everywhere read of Jesus, and see the reflection of His image in everything we read, the heart revels in the contemplation, the inner pulsations of our spiritual life bound within us at the study of a character so divine, so pure.

We are not insensible to the beauties of the Qurʾān as a literary production (although they have, without doubt, been overrated); but as we admire its conceptions of the Divine nature, its deep and fervent trust in the power of God, its frequent deep moral earnestness, and its sententious wisdom, we would gladly rid ourselves of our recollections of the Prophet, his licentious ḥarīm, his sanguinary battle-fields, his ambitious schemes; whilst as we peruse the Christian Scriptures, we find the grand central charm in the divine character of its Founder. It is the divine character of Jesus which gives fragrance to His words; it is the divine form of Jesus which shines through all He says or does; it is the divine life of Jesus which is the great central point in Gospel history. How, then, we ask, can the creed of Muḥammad, the son of ʿAbdu ʾllāh, supersede and abrogate that of Jesus, the Son of God? And it is a remarkable coincidence that, whilst the founder of Islām died feeling that he had but imperfectly fulfilled his mission, the Founder of Christianity died in the full consciousness that His work was done—“It is finished.” It was in professing to produce a revelation which should supersede that of Jesus, that Muḥammad set the seal of his own refutation. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 2.)