though it may have been, which in so astonishingly short a period set all Asia in flames, could go forth from one in whom the kindling material had no real existence? Many millions of men,' he continues with some change of metaphor, feed and "foster from the Koran an estimable religious ' and moral life; and one cannot believe that they 6 are drawing from an empty spring." It is our earnest wish to expose with faithfulness, as we proceed, the grievous defects of the Mahometan creed, and the sins and short-comings, no less than the virtues of the leading races which have adopted it. But considering, for a moment, merely the amount of influence (apart from the further question, whether it has been for good or evil) which Islamism has exercised, we cannot bethink us of any sheer impostor who has left such traces of his footsteps as has its founder. Zoroaster and Pythagoras may possibly be compared to Mahomet, in respect of the kind, if not the degree, of impression which they made. But unless it can be distinctly proved that they likewise were consciously deceivers, there is no room for reasoning from analogy from their cases to that of Mahomet, it being the very condition of this species of argument, ut incerta certis probet.' And, in truth, with all respect to the memory of a pious and truly learned author, to whom students of ancient history are deeply beholden, we are by no means convinced of the existence of imposture in the sages either of Bactria or of Samos. 1 2 We have said that we are not prepared to enter See Möhler, p. 370; Caussin (Preface); Irving; Carlyle, &c. at any length into the causes of Mahomet's success. In declining to investigate so important a branch of the subject, we may appear to be taking a leaf out of the writings of those Mahometan historians of Turkey, who, as M. Ubicini informs us,1 refer everything to a Will above man, in such wise as to dispense with examination of the causes of events, or their probable results in the future. Such a mode of handling history is, indeed, neither Christian nor philosophic. Yet it may be allowable to suppose, that the contrary extreme is likewise evil; that the annalists and critics of the West, who seem almost to have adopted as their motto, the Virgilian 'Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,' may likewise be sometimes leading us astray. The previous state of Arabia (of which we have been endeavouring to afford some idea;) the actual amount of truth which was taught by Mahomet; the principles acquired, directly or indirectly, from Christianity; the points of contact with the past, and with all the religions then obtaining in his country; the elegance and purity of the language of the Koran, and its applicability to law and the practical business of life; the native force of its author's mind, and the courage and confidence thence infused into his warriors; the evident need, if it may be said with reverence, of some great scourge upon idolatry; all these have been named as probable causes of the success of Mahometanism, and we are not prepared to assert that they did not, each and all, contribute to the great result. But that they form a complete and satisfactory explanation, we cannot, for our own part, pretend to feel and if they accounted ever so completely for the first propagation of Islamism, they would still fail to reveal the secret of its extraordinary permanence and freedom from change; a point which, after all, as Gibbon observes, is more wonderful than even its first success. Rather should we be disposed to admit, in the somewhat quaint, but forceful language of Sir Francis Palgrave, "That after all our cogitations, we are coerced to acknowledge that blessings and judg'ments are equally inscrutable: that many failures 'are unaccountable, and many successes inex'plicable; legitimate expectations of good sorely disappointed-good resulting from evil-large promises and small forthcomings; or the hap and 'the halfpenny turning to ten thousand pounds.' 1 We must not, however, pass in silence one reason which is usually alleged in our popular histories, and to which Gibbon has lent the sanction of his authority; that indulgence, namely, of voluptuousness, which Mahomet has permitted in this world, and promised in the next. Those who have thus far followed our line of reasoning, will not be surprised to find that we agree with Mr. Hallam and Mr. Maurice,2 in thinking that the influence of this motive has been much exaggerated. There may indeed be much truth in an observation of Dr. Arnold's, that the unworthy 'idea of Paradise in the Koran justifies the ways 'of God in not revealing [that is, we presume, 3 1 History of Normandy and England, vol i. page 128. fully and clearly revealing] 'a future state earlier, 'since man in early ages was not fit for it.' But the unseen is with the mass of mankind so far less potent than the visible and tangible world around them, that it is probably to the licence of the present life, rather than to the anticipations of a future state, that Gibbon, and those who follow him, mainly refer. On this point we cannot do better than cite the remarks of Mr. Hallam. Although the character of the founder of Mohammedism may have been tainted by sensuality as well as ferociousness, I do not think that he relied upon inducements of the former kind for the diffusion of his system. We are not to judge of this by rules of Christian purity or of European practice. If polygamy was a prevailing usage in Arabia, as is not questioned, its permission gave no additional licence to the proselytes of Mohammed, who will be found rather to have narrowed the unbounded liberty of oriental manners in this respect; while his decided condemnation of adultery and of incestuous connexions, so frequent among barbarous nations, does not argue a very base and accommodating morality. A devout Mussulman exhibits much more of the Stoical than the Epicurean character; nor can any one read the Koran without being sensible that it breathes an austere and scrupulous spirit; and, in fact, the founder of a new religion or sect is little likely to obtain permanent success by indulging the vices and luxuries of mankind. I should rather be disposed to reckon the severity of Mohammed's discipline among the causes of its influence.' 2 The most recent researches certainly tend to confirm this view. Mr. Hallam mentions among the severe requirements requirements of Mahometanism, the long fasting, the pilgrimages, the regular 1 Compare M. Ubicini, in his somewhat too favourable estimate of the Turk (p. 497): 'Il y a en lui toute la force d'âme du Stoïcien, moins l'insensibilité. We doubt the justice of the latter clause. 2 Middle Ages, chap. vi. vol. ii. p. 114. Tenth Ed. prayers and ablutions, and the abstinence from stimulating liquors. Yet these injunctions, great as is the self-denial they involved on the part of his first followers, who had been passionately fond of drink, and apparently not much shackled by any burden of ordinances, did not constitute the whole, perhaps not even the most trying portion of his demands. Besides the condemnation of the wicked practice of destroying female infants,' (which his precursor Zayd had so forcibly denounced,) Mahomet forbade all illicit intercourse, beyond the bounds of marriage or concubinage; all usury; all games of chance; all divinations by arrows; all hostilities between tribes which had once accepted the creed of Islam. Most of these are trying restraints upon the will of the natural man. Games of chance are everywhere popular, alike in Christendom and heathendom. Bourdaloue, in his very strict sermon Sur les Divertissemens du Monde, after cutting off the great majority of the worldly amusements of his audience, yet leaves them the liberty of play, provided the time be not unduly extended, nor duties neglected, nor the sums at stake excessive. The Arabs, as has been observed, were devoted to gambling, insomuch that men had been known to lose all that they possessed, and then to stake their freedom, forfeit it, and become slaves. Divinations have always been popular, (witness the success of fortune-tellers even in Europe,) and the particular mode of divining by arrows known by the name of Kidah or Arlám, had been practised in every emergency by the countrymen of Mahomet." Yet how are these things treated in the Koran? 1 Koran, xvi. 60, 61; Ubicini, pp. 502, 503. "We have not space for a description of this mode of divination, |