Gambling and usury are prohibited,[171] and all games of chance; and likewise the making of images or pictures of anything that has life.[172] The Prophet declared that every representation of this kind would be placed before its author on the day of judgment, and that he would be commanded to put life into it; which not being able to do, he would be cast, for a time, into hell.
The principal civil and criminal laws remain to be stated. Their origin we discover partly in customs of the Pagan Arabs, but mostly in the Jewish Scriptures and traditions.
The civil and criminal laws are chiefly and immediately derived from the Kur-án[173]; but, in many important cases, this highest authority affords no precept. In most of these cases the Traditions of the Prophet direct the decisions of the judge.[174] There are, however, some important cases, and many of an inferior kind, respecting which both the Kur-án and the Traditions are silent or undecisive. These are determined by the explanations and amplifications derived either from the concordance of the principal early disciples, or from analogy, by the four great Imáms, or founders of the four orthodox sects of El-Islám; generally on the authority of the Imám of that sect to which the ruling power belongs, which sect, in Egypt, and throughout the Turkish Empire, is that of the Hanafees: or, if none of the decisions of the Imám relate to a case in dispute (which not unfrequently happens), judgment is given in accordance with a sentence of some other eminent doctor, founded upon analogy.—In general, only the principal laws, as laid down in the Kur-án and the Traditions, will be here stated.
The laws relating to marriage and the licence of polygamy, the facility of divorce allowed by the Kur-án, and the permission of concubinage, are essentially the natural and necessary consequences of the main principle of the constitution of Muslim society—the restriction of the intercourse between the sexes before marriage. Few men would marry if he who was disappointed in a wife whom he had never seen before were not allowed to take another; and in the case of a man’s doing this, his own happiness, or that of the former wife, or the happiness of both these parties, may require his either retaining this wife or divorcing her. But I hope that my reader will admit a much stronger reason for these laws, regarding them as designed for the Muslims. As the Mosaic code allowed God’s chosen people, for the hardness of their hearts, to put away their wives, and forbade neither polygamy nor concubinage, he who believes that Moses was divinely inspired, to enact the best laws for his people, must hold the permission of these practices to be less injurious to morality than their prohibition, among a people similar to the ancient Jews. Their permission, though certainly productive of injurious effects upon morality and domestic happiness, prevents a profligacy that would be worse than that which prevails to so great a degree in European countries, where parties are united in marriage after an intimate mutual acquaintance. As to the licence of polygamy, which seems to be unfavourable to the accomplishment of the main object for which marriage was instituted, as well as to the exercise and improvement of the nobler powers of the mind, we should remark that it was not introduced, but limited, by the legislator of the Muslims. It is true that he assumed to himself the privilege of having a greater number of wives than he allowed to others; but, in doing so, he may have been actuated by the want of male offspring, rather than impelled by voluptuousness.
The law respecting marriage and concubinage is perfectly explicit as to the number of wives whom a Muslim may have at the same time; but it is not so with regard to the number of concubine-slaves whom he may have. It is written, “Take in marriage, of the women who please you, two, three, or four; but if ye fear that ye cannot act equitably [to so many, take] one; or [take] those whom your right hands have acquired,”[175] that is, your slaves. Therefore many of the wealthy Muslims marry two, three, or four wives, and keep besides several concubine-slaves; and many of the most revered characters, even Companions of the Prophet, are recorded to have done the same. The conduct of the latter clearly shows that the number of concubine-slaves whom a man may have is not limited by the law in the opinion of the orthodox.[176]
It is held lawful for a Muslim to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman, if induced to do so by excessive love of her, or if he cannot obtain a wife of his own faith; but in this case the offspring must follow the father’s faith,[177] and the wife does not inherit when the father dies. A Muslim′eh, however, is not allowed under any circumstances, but when force is employed, to marry a man who is not of her own faith. A man is forbidden, by the Kur-án[178] and the Sunneh, to marry his mother, or other ascendant; his daughter, or other descendant; his sister, or half-sister; the sister of his father or mother, or other ascendant; his niece, or any of her descendants; his foster-mother,[179] or a woman related to him by milk in any of the degrees which would preclude his marriage with her if she were similarly related to him by consanguinity; the mother of his wife, even if he have not consummated his marriage with this wife; the daughter of his wife if he have consummated his marriage with the latter, and she be still his wife; his father’s wife, and his son’s wife; and to have at the same time two wives who are sisters, or aunt and niece: he is forbidden also to marry his unemancipated slave, or another man’s slave, if he have already a free wife. It is lawful for the Muslim to see the faces of these women whom he is forbidden to marry, but of no others, excepting his own wives and female slaves. The marriage of a man and woman, or of a man and a girl who has arrived at puberty, is lawfully effected by their declaring (which the latter generally does by a “wekeel,” or deputy) their consent to marry each other, in the presence of two witnesses (if witnesses can be procured), and by the payment, or part-payment, of a dowry. But the consent of a girl under the age of puberty is not required; her father, or, if he be dead, her nearest adult male relation, or any person appointed as her guardian by will or by the Kádee, acting for her as he pleases.[180] The giving of a dowry is indispensable, and the least sum that is allowed by law is ten “dirhems” (or drachms of silver), which is equal to about five shillings of our money. A man may legally marry a woman without mentioning a dowry; but after the consummation of the marriage she can, in this case, compel him to pay the sum of ten dirhems.[181]
A man may divorce his wife twice, and each time take her back without any ceremony, excepting in a case to be mentioned below; but if he divorce her the third time, or put her away by a triple divorce conveyed in one sentence, he cannot receive her again until she has been married and divorced by another husband, who must have consummated his marriage with her.[182] When a man divorces his wife (which he does by merely saying, “Thou art divorced,” or “I divorce thee”), he pays her a portion of her dowry (generally one-third), which he had kept back from the first, to be paid on this occasion, or at his death; and she takes away with her the furniture, etc., which she brought at her marriage. He may thus put her away from mere dislike,[183] and without assigning any reason; but a woman cannot separate herself from her husband against his will, unless it be for some considerable fault on his part, as cruel treatment, or neglect; and even then, application to the Kádee’s court is generally necessary to compel the man to divorce her; and she forfeits the above-mentioned remnant of the dowry.
The first and second divorce, if made without any mutual agreement for a compensation from the woman, or a pecuniary sacrifice on her part, is termed “talák reg’ee” (a divorce which admits of return); because the husband may take back his wife, without her consent, during the period of her “’eddeh” (which will be presently explained), but not after, unless with her consent, and by a new contract. If he divorce her the first or second time for a compensation, she perhaps requesting, “Divorce me for what thou owest me,” or “—hast of mine” (that is, of the dowry, furniture, etc.), or for an additional sum, he cannot take her again but by her own consent, and by a new contract. This is a “talák báïn” (or separating divorce), and is termed “the lesser separation,” to distinguish it from the third divorce, which is called “the greater separation.” The “’eddeh” is the period during which a divorced woman or a widow must wait before marrying again,—in either case, if pregnant, until delivery; otherwise the former must wait three lunar periods, or three months, and the latter, four months and ten days. A woman who is divorced when in a state of pregnancy, though she may make a new contract of marriage immediately after her delivery, must wait forty days longer before she can complete her marriage by receiving her husband. The man who divorces his wife must maintain her in his own house, or in that of her parents, or elsewhere, during the period of her ’eddeh, but must cease to live with her as her husband from the commencement of that period. A divorced woman who has a son under two years of age may retain him until he has attained that age, and may be compelled to do so by the law of the Sháfe’ees, and by the law of the Málikees, until he has arrived at puberty, but the Hanafee law limits the period during which the boy should remain under her care to seven years: her daughter she should retain until nine years of age, or the period of puberty. If a man divorce his wife before the consummation of marriage, he must pay her half the sum which he has promised to give her as a dowry, or, if he have promised no dowry, he must pay her the half of the smallest dowry allowed by law, which has been above mentioned, and she may marry again immediately.
When a wife refuses to obey the lawful commands of her husband, he may, and generally does, take her, or two witnesses[184] against her, to the Kádee’s court, to prefer a complaint against her; and, if the case be proved, a certificate is written declaring the woman “náshizeh,” or rebellious against her husband. This process is termed “writing a woman náshizeh.” It exempts her husband from obligation to lodge, clothe, and maintain her. He is not obliged to divorce her; and, by refusing to do this, he may prevent her marrying another man as long as he lives; but, if she promise to be obedient afterwards, he must take her back, and maintain her, or divorce her. It is more common, however, for a wife whose husband refuses to divorce her, if she have parents or other relations able and willing to support her comfortably, to make a complaint at the Kádee’s court, stating her husband’s conduct to be of such a nature towards her that she will not live with him, and thus cause herself to be registered “náshizeh,” and separated from him. In this case, the husband generally persists, from mere spite, in refusing to divorce her.
As concubines are slaves, some account of slaves in general may here be appropriately inserted, with a statement of the principal laws respecting concubines and their offspring, etc.—The slave is either a person taken captive in war, or carried off by force from a foreign hostile country, and being at the time of capture an infidel; or the offspring of a female slave by another slave, or by any man who is not her owner, or by her owner if he do not acknowledge himself to be the father; but a person cannot be the slave of a relation who is within the prohibited degrees of marriage. The power of the owner is such that he may even kill his slave with impunity for any offence; and he incurs but a slight punishment (as imprisonment for a period at the discretion of the judge) if he do so wantonly. He may give or sell his slaves, excepting in some cases which will be mentioned, and may marry them to whom he will, but not separate them when married. A slave, however, according to most of the doctors, cannot have more than two wives at the same time. As a slave enjoys less advantages than a free person, the law, in some cases, ordains that his punishment for an offence shall be half of that to which the free is liable for the same offence, or even less than half: if it be a fine, or pecuniary compensation, it must be paid by the owner, to the amount, if necessary, of the value of the slave, or the slave must be given in compensation. An unemancipated slave, at the death of the owner, becomes the property of the heirs of the latter; and when an emancipated slave dies, leaving no male descendant or collateral relation, the former owner is the heir; or, if he be dead, his heirs inherit the slave’s property. But an unemancipated slave can acquire no property without the permission of the owner. Complete and immediate emancipation is sometimes granted to a slave gratuitously, or for a future pecuniary compensation. It is conferred by means of a written document, or by a verbal declaration in the presence of two witnesses, or by presenting the slave with the certificate of sale obtained from the former owner. Future emancipation is sometimes covenanted to be granted on the fulfilment of certain conditions; and more frequently, to be conferred on the occasion of the owner’s death. In the latter case, the owner cannot sell the slave to whom he has made this promise; and as he cannot alienate by will more than one-third of the whole property that he leaves, the law ordains that, if the value of the said slave exceed that portion, the slave must obtain, and pay to the owner’s heirs, the additional sum.—A Muslim may take as his concubine any of his female slaves who is a Muslim’eh,Muslim’eh, or a Christian, or a Jewess, if he have not married her to another man; but he may not have as his concubines, at the same time, two or more who are sisters, or who are related to each other in any of the degrees which would prevent their both being his wives at the same time if they were free. A Christian is not by the law allowed, nor is a Jew, to have a Muslim′eh slave as his concubine.[185] The master must wait a certain period (generally from a month to three months) after his acquisition of a female slave, before he can take her as his concubine. When a female slave becomes a mother by her master, the child which she bears to him is free, if he acknowledge it to be his own; but if not, it is his slave. In the former case the mother cannot afterwards be sold or given away by her master (though she must continue to serve him and be his concubine as long as he desires); and she is entitled to emancipation at his death. Her bearing a child to him is called the cause of her emancipation or liberty; but it does not oblige him to emancipate her as long as he lives, though it is commendable if he do so, and make her his wife, provided he have not already four wives, or if he marry her to another man, should it be her wish. A free person cannot become the husband or wife of his, or her, own slave, without first emancipating that slave; and the marriage of a free person with the slave of another is dissolved if the former become the owner of the latter, and cannot be renewed but by emancipation and a regular legal contract.
The most remarkable general principles of the laws of inheritance are the denial of any privileges to primogeniture,[186] and in most cases awarding to a female a share equal to half that of a male of the same degree of relationship to the deceased.[187] A person may bequeath one-third of his or her property; but not a larger portion, unless he or she has no legal heir; nor any portion to a legal heir, excepting wife or husband, without the consent of all the other heirs. The children of a person deceased inherit the whole of that person’s property, or what remains after payment of the legacies and debts, etc., and the share of a male is double the share of a female. If the children of the deceased be only females, two or more in number, they inherit together, by the law of the Kur-án, two-thirds; and if there be but one child, and that a female, she inherits by the same law half. [But the remaining third, or half, is also assigned to the said daughters or daughter, by a law of the Sunneh (which applies also to other cases), if there be no other legal heir.] If the deceased have left no immediate descendant, the sons and daughters of his son or sons inherit as immediate descendants [and so on]. If the deceased have left a child or a son’s child [and so on], each of the parents of the deceased inherits one-sixth. If the father be dead, his share falls to his father. [If the mother be dead, her share falls to her mother.] If the deceased have left no child or son’s child [and so on], the mother has one-third of the property, or of what remains after deducting the share of the wife or wives or husband, and the residue is for the father; unless the deceased has left two or more brothers or sisters, in which case the mother inherits one-sixth, and the father the residue; the said brothers or sisters receiving nothing[188] [if the deceased have left a father or any ascendant in the male line]. A man inherits half of what remains of his wife’s property after the payment of her legacies, etc., if she have left no child or son’s child [and so on]; and one-fourth if she have left a child or son’s child [and so on]. One-fourth is the share of the wife, or of the wives conjointly, if the deceased husband have left no child or son’s child [and so on]; and one-eighth if he have left any such descendant.[189] If the deceased have not left a father [nor any ascendant in the male line], nor a child [nor a son’s child, and so on], the law ordains as follows:—1. A sole brother, or sister, only by the mother’s side, inherits one-sixth; and if there be two or more brothers or sisters, only by the mother’s side, or one or more of such relations of each sex, they inherit collectively one-third, which is equally divided, without distinction of male and female.—2. If the deceased have left a sole sister by his father and mother [and no such brother], she inherits half; and a man inherits the whole property of such a sister [or what remains after the payment of her legacies, etc.], if she have left no child; but if she have left a male child [or son’s child, and so on], he (the brother) inherits nothing; and if she have left a female child, the said brother inherits what remains after deducting that child’s share [and after the payment of the legacies, etc.]. If the deceased have left two or more sisters, by his father and mother [and no such brother], they inherit together two-thirds. If the deceased have left one or more brothers, and one or more sisters, by his father and mother, they inherit the whole [or what remains after the payment of the legacies, etc.], and the share of a male is double the share of a female.—3. Brothers and sisters by the father’s side only [when there is no brother or sister by the father and mother] inherit as brothers and sisters by the father and mother.[190] No distinction is made between the child of a wife and that borne by a slave to her master (if the master acknowledge the child to be his own): both inherit equally. So also do the child of a wife and the adopted child. A bastard inherits only from his mother, and vice versâ. When there is no legal heir, or legatee, the property falls to the government-treasury, which is called “beyt el-mál.” The laws respecting certain remote degrees of kindred, etc., I have not thought it necessary to state.[191] The property of the deceased is nominally divided into keeráts (or twenty-fourth parts); and the share of each son, or other heir, is said to be so many keeráts.
The law is remarkably lenient towards debtors. “If there be any [debtor],” says the Kur-án,[192] “under a difficulty [of paying his debt], let [his creditor] wait till it be easy [for him to do it]; but if ye remit it as alms, it will be better for you.” The Muslim is commanded (in the chapter from which the above extract is taken), when he contracts a debt, to cause a statement of it to be written, and attested by two men, or a man and two women, of his own faith. The debtor is imprisoned for non-payment of his debt; but if he establish his insolvency, he is liberated. He may be compelled to work for the discharge of his debt, if able.
The Kur-án ordains that murder shall be punished with death; or rather, that the free shall die for the free, the slave for the slave, and a woman for a woman; or that the perpetrator of the crime shall pay to the heirs of the person whom he has killed, if they allow it, a fine, which is to be divided according to the laws of inheritance.[193] It also ordains that unintentional homicide shall be expiated by freeing a believer from slavery, and paying, to the family of the person killed, a fine, unless they remit it.[194] But these laws are amplified and explained by the same book and by the Imáms.—A fine is not to be accepted for murder unless the crime has been attended by some palliating circumstance. This fine, which is the price of blood, is a hundred camels; or a thousand deenárs (about £500) from him who possesses gold; or from him who possesses silver, twelve thousand dirhems[195] (about £300). This is for killing a free-man: for a woman, half the sum: for a slave, his or her value; but that must fall short of the price of blood for the free. A person unable to free a believer must fast two months, as in Ramadán. The accomplices of a murderer are liable to the punishment of death. By the Sunneh also, a man is obnoxious to capital punishment for the murder of a woman; and by the Hanafee law, for the murder of another man’s slave. But he is exempted from this punishment who kills his own child or other descendant, or his own slave, or his son’s slave, or a slave of whom he is part-owner: so also are his accomplices; and according to Esh-Sháfe’ee, a Muslim, though a slave, is not to be put to death for killing an infidel, though the latter be free. In the present day, however, murder is generally punished with death; the government seldom allowing a composition in money to be made. A man who kills another in self-defence, or to defend his property from a robber, is exempt from all punishment. The price of blood is a debt incumbent on the family, tribe, or association of which the homicide is a member.member. It is also incumbent on the inhabitants of an enclosed quarter, or the proprietor or proprietors of a field, in which the body of a person killed by an unknown hand is found; unless the person has been found killed in his own house. A woman, convicted of a capital crime, is generally put to death by drowning in the Nile.
The Bedawees have made the law of the avenging of blood terribly severe and unjust, transgressing the limits assigned by the Kur-án: for, with them, any single person descended from the homicide, or from the homicide’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, or great-grandfather’s father, may be killed by any of such relations of the person murdered or killed in fight; but, among most tribes, the fine is generally accepted instead of the blood. Cases of blood-revenge are very common among the peasantry of Egypt, who, as I have before remarked, retain many customs of their Bedawee ancestors. The relations of a person who has been killed, in an Egyptian village, generally retaliate with their own hands rather than apply to the government, and often do so with disgusting cruelty, and even mangle and insult the corpse of their victim. The relations of a homicide usually fly from their own to another village, for protection. Even when retaliation has been made, animosity frequently continues between the two parties for many years; and often a case of blood-revenge involves the inhabitants of two or more villages in hostilities, which are renewed, at intervals, during the period of several generations.
Retaliation for intentional wounds and mutilations is allowed, like as for murder; “eye for eye,” etc.;[196] but a fine may be accepted instead, which the law allows also for unintentional injuries. The fine for a member that is single (as the nose) is the whole price of blood, as for homicide; for a member of which there are two, and not more (as a hand), half the price of blood; for one of which there are ten (a finger or toe), a tenth of the price of blood; but the fine of a man for maiming or wounding a woman is half of that for the same injury to a man; and that of a free person for injuring a slave varies according to the value of the slave. The fine for depriving a man of any of his five senses, or dangerously wounding him, or grievously disfiguring him for life, is the whole price of blood.
Theft, whether committed by a man or by a woman, according to the Kur-án,[197] is to be punished by cutting off the offender’s right hand for the first offence; but a Sunneh law ordains that this punishment shall not be inflicted if the value of the stolen property is less than a quarter of a deenár;[198] and it is also held necessary, to render the thief obnoxious to this punishment, that the property stolen should have been deposited in a place to which he had not ordinary or easy access; whence it follows, that a man who steals in the house of a near relation is not subject to this punishment; nor is a slave who robs the house of his master. For the second offence, the left foot is to be cut off; for the third, according to the Sháfe’ee law, the left hand; for the fourth, the right foot; and for further offences of the same kind, the culprit is to be flogged or beaten; or, by the Hanafee code, for the third and subsequent offences, the criminal is to be punished by a long imprisonment. A man may steal a free-born infant without offending against the law, because it is not property; but not a slave; and the hand is not to be cut off for stealing any article of food that is quickly perishable, because it may have been taken to supply the immediate demands of hunger. There are also some other cases in which the thief is exempt from the punishments above mentioned. In Egypt, of late years, these punishments have not been inflicted. Beating and hard labour have been substituted for the first, second, or third offence, and frequently death for the fourth. Most petty offences are usually punished by beating with the “kurbág” (a thong or whip of hippopotamus’ hide, hammered into a round form), or with a stick, generally on the soles of the feet.[199]
Adultery is most severely visited: but to establish a charge of this crime against a wife, four eye-witnessses are necessary.[200] If convicted thus, she is to be put to death by stoning.[201] I need scarcely say that cases of this kind have very seldom occurred, from the difficulty of obtaining such testimony.[202] Further laws on this subject, and still more favourable to the women, are given in the Kur-án[203] in the following words:—“But [as to] those who accuse women of reputation [of fornication or adultery], and produce not four witnesses [of the fact], scourge them with eighty stripes, and receive not their testimony for ever; for such are infamous prevaricators, excepting those who shall afterwards repent; for God is gracious and merciful. They who shall accuse their wives [of adultery], and shall have no witnesses [thereof] besides themselves, the testimony [which shall be required] of one of them, [shall be] that he swear four times by God that he speaketh the truth, and the fifth [time that he imprecate] the curse of God on him if he be a liar; and it shall avert the punishment [of the wife] if she sware four times by God that he is a liar, and if the fifth [time she imprecate] the wrath of God on her if he speak the truth.” The commentators and lawyers have agreed that, under these circumstances, the marriage must be dissolved. In the chapter from which the above quotation is made, it is ordained (in verse 2) that unmarried persons convicted of fornication shall be punished by scourging, with a hundred stripes; and a Sunneh law renders them obnoxious to the further punishment of banishment for a whole year.[204] Of the punishment of women convicted of incontinence in Cairo, I shall speak in the next chapter, as it is an arbitrary act of the government, not founded on the laws of the Kur-án, or the Traditions.[205]
Drunkenness was punished by the Prophet by flogging, and is still in Cairo, though not often. The “hadd,” or number of stripes for this offence, is eighty in the case of a free man, and forty in that of a slave.
Apostacy from the faith of El-Islám is considered a most heinous sin, and must be punished with death, unless the apostate will recant on being thrice warned. I once saw a woman paraded through the streets of Cairo, and afterwards taken down to the Nile to be drowned, for having apostatized from the faith of Mohammad, and having married a Christian. Unfortunately, she had tattooed a blue cross on her arm, which led to her detection by one of her former friends in a bath. She was mounted upon a high-saddled ass, such as ladies in Egypt usually ride, and very respectably dressed, attended by soldiers, and surrounded by a rabble, who, instead of commiserating, uttered loud imprecations against her. The Kádee who passed sentence upon her, exhorted her in vain to return to her former faith. Her own father was her accuser! She was taken in a boat into the midst of the river, stripped nearly naked, strangled, and then thrown into the stream.[206] The Europeans residing in Cairo regretted that the Básha was then at Alexandria, as they might have prevailed upon him to pardon her. Once before, they interceded with him for a woman who had been condemned for apostacy. The Básha ordered that she should be brought before him; he exhorted her to recant; but finding her resolute, reproved her for her folly, and sent her home, commanding that no injury should be done to her.
Still more severe is the law with respect to blasphemy. The person who utters blasphemy against God, or Mohammad, or Christ, or Moses, or any prophet, is to be put to death without delay, even though he profess himself repentant; repentance for such a sin being deemed impossible. Apostacy or infidelity is occasioned by misjudgment; but blasphemy is the result of utter depravity.
A few words may here be added respecting the sect of the “Wahhábees,” also called “Wahabees,” which was founded less than a century ago, by Mohammad Ibn-’Abd-El-Wahháb, a pious and learned sheykh of the province of En-Nejd, in Central Arabia. About the middle of the last century, he had the good fortune to convert to his creed a powerful chief of Ed-Dir’eeyeh, the capital of En-Nejd. This chief, Mohammad Ibn-So’ood, became the sovereign of the new sect—their religious and political head—and under him and his successors the Wahhábee doctrines were spread throughout the greater part of Arabia. He was first succeeded by his son, ’Abd-El-’Azeez; next, by So’ood, the son of the latter, and the greatest of the Wahhábee leaders; and lastly, by ’Abd-Allah, the son of this So’ood, who, after an arduous warfare with the armies of Mohammad ’Alee, surrendered himself to his victorious enemies, was sent to Egypt, thence to Constantinople, and there beheaded. The wars which Mohammad ’Alee carried on against the Wahhábees, had for their chief object the destruction of the political power of the new sect. Their religious tenets are still professed by many of the Arabs, and allowed to be orthodox by the most learned of the ’Ulama of Egypt. The Wahhábees are merely reformers, who believe all the fundamental points of El-Islám, and all the accessory doctrines of the Kur-án and the Traditions of the Prophet: in short, their tenets are those of the primitive Muslims. They disapprove of gorgeous sepulchres, and domes erected over tombs; such they invariably destroy when in their power. They also condemn, as idolaters, those who pay peculiar veneration to deceased saints; and even declare all other Muslims to be heretics, for the extravagant respect which they pay to the Prophet. They forbid the wearing of silk and gold ornaments, and all costly apparel, and also the practice of smoking tobacco. For the want of this last luxury, they console themselves in some degree by an immoderate use of coffee.[207] There are many learned men among them, and they have collected many valuable books (chiefly historical) from various parts of Arabia, and from Egypt.