O true believers, surely wine, and lots, and images, and divining arrows, are an abomination of the work of Satan; therefore avoid them, that ye may prosper. Satan seeketh to sow dissension and hatred among you by means of wine and lots, and to divert you from remembering God and from prayer; will ye not, therefore, abstain from them? Obey God, and obey the apostle, and take heed to yourselves; but if ye turn back, know that the duty of an apostle is only to preach publicly.'' These injunctions were enforced with a high hand, and although it be most true (as Mr. Hallam intimates) that strictness possesses a winning influence peculiarly its own, that numbers everywhere can sympathize with the sentiments of Dr. Johnson on this head, and the oft-recurring thought of our late Laureate, respecting the weight of too much liberty,' yet it is evident, that by many of the Arab tribes the restrictions were at first much felt as a very sensible diminution of their licence. Thus, for example, when El-Acha, a poet of very great celebrity, (and, like many of their poets, a keen satirist upon occasion,) had composed a panegyric upon Mahomet, and was journeying to present himself to the new teacher; certain hostile Koreishites, alarmed at the idea but the following most characteristic story will give some idea of the kind of procedure:-The prince-poet, Imroulcays (of whose Moallacat or prize-poem we have given a specimen), was burning to avenge the murder of his father. He consulted an idol much revered by the Arabs, named Dhou-l-Kholosa. His pointless arrows were three in number, and bore the words command, prohibition, delay. He shook them together and drew out prohibition. Dissatisfied, he begins over again, and thrice following comes forth prohibition. Upon this he takes the arrows, breaks them, and throws the pieces at the idol's head, exclaiming:-'Wretch! if it were thy father who had been killed, thou wouldest not have forbidden his being avenged.'-Caussin, ii. p. 310. 1 Chap. v. 92, 93. of such an accession to the cause they were opposing, bribed him with the splendid present of a hundred camels to desist from his intention. But they did not have recourse to this huge donative until they had first attempted, though in vain, to deter him by a prospect of the self-denial which the profession of Mahometanism would entail. Our compatriot,' said they (for Mahomet, as we have said, was of the tribe of the Koreish), 'will forbid you things of which you are extremely fond.' And they proceed to name the points above referred to, licentiousness, games of chance, usury, and wine. It was when these remonstrances proved futile, that their spokesman, Abou-Sofyân-but we will not here risk spoiling, by translation, the naïveté of M. Caussin's narrative:-'Abou-Sofyân dit alors aux Coraychites: ""Si El-Acha se rend près de Mahomet et 's'attache à lui, il enflammera par ses vers les 'Arabes contre nous. Donnons-lui cent chameaux 'pour lui fermer la bouche." El-Acha took the bribe, but was thrown and killed on his road homeward. This event happened in A. D. 628. About two years later, the tribe of Bacrites bethought themselves of submission to the new creed. One consideration, however, restrained them: 'The 'religion of Abdelmottalib's grandson,' said they, 'forbids those who embrace it to make war upon each other; it pronounces sentence of death ' against the Mussulman who slays a Mussulman. We shall be obliged to give up attacks and 'pillage of those tribes who, like ourselves, have 'adopted Islamism.' At length they made a 1 Tom. ii. pp. 402, 403. 6 'Let us compromise with their consciences. 'make one more expedition against the Témim, 'and then we will declare ourselves Mussulmans." Four days saw the Bacrites across the southern boundary of Irak, a space usually occupying eight days of travel; suddenly did they fall upon the Temim in the plain of Chaytayn, slaughtered numbers, and carried off their cattle. The injured Témim sent a deputation to the prophet, entreating from him a curse upon the authors of their calamity. But Mahomet declined; he knew of the disposition of the Bacrites, and had no desire to estrange them. Very shortly after, they were all among the number of his proselytes. Now, although El-Acha was dissuaded by a bribe, and not by the dread of sacrifice of his inclinations, and although the schoolboy-like feeling of the Bacrites did not prevent them from ultimately becoming Mussulmans, yet, surely, in either narrative we may trace the conviction, that to adopt Mahometanism was esteemed a piece of self-denial, and not an acquirement of more licence, either of thought or action. It remains that, in accordance with our promise, we attempt to describe the relation of Mahometanism to paganism and to Christianity. The latter branch of this inquiry ought to include, perhaps, some slight notice of the leading races (besides the Arabs) which have adopted it. But the accomplishment of such a task would carry us far beyond our present limits. And firstly, then, as regards paganism. Writers of the most opposite schools of thought-we may instance Mr. Forster and Dr. Newman1 concur in representing Mahometanism as a kind of half-way creed, if we may so speak, between paganism and Christianity; excellent in comparison with the religions of heathendom, execrable when confronted with the faith of Christ. Such portraiture of Islamism demands respect, from the mere circumstance of its having been drawn by learned men who have contemplated the subject from such different points of view. Neither do we purpose to deny that it is in the main correct; but inasmuch as it seems to us to need some modification, so far as regards paganism, we shall venture to draw out formally a sketch of the strong and weak points of Mahomet's teaching, when considered with reference to the heathen creeds. And as, in the prosecution of this portion of our task, we shall derive but little assistance from other writers, we must the more bespeak the indulgence of the reader for any mistakes into which we may fall, while, at the same time, we cannot complain if he should look more watchfully for their occurrence. The three great errors of paganism are Epicurism, pantheism, and polytheistic idolatry. The doctrine of Epicurus may not indeed be directly and immediately responsible for the conduct of all who called themselves Epicureans; but it is hard to prove that their general behaviour did not logically flow from their master's tenets. When once a man has taught that the gods have enjoyed for ever a perfect happiness, undisturbed alike by 1 Forster, 'Vindication of Mahometanism Unveiled,' p. 31; Newman, pp. 105, 106. the trouble either of creating, or of governing the world, he is further removed from deism than even deism itself from true religion.1 Between such doctrine and sheer atheism there is, practically, no real difference; the Lucretian doctrine, of a creation from a concourse of atoms, follows as truly as the Horatian carelessness and love of pleasure. The consistent Epicurist sees not God in the marvels of nature, nor seeks to influence him by prayers. From miracles, be they genuine or feigned, he will turn away with supercilious contempt:— Non ego. 'Credat Judæus Apella, Namque Deos didici securum agere ævum; Nec, si quid miri faciat natura, Deos id Tristes ex alto cœli demittere tecto.' 2 His comrades he will naturally exhort to imitate the Beings who are above them : 'To live and lie reclined On the hills like gods together, careless of mankind. curl'd Round their golden houses, girdled with the gleaming world; Where they smile in secret, looking over wasted lands, Blight and famine, plague and earthquake, roaring deeps and fiery sands, Clanging fights, and flaming towns, and sinking ships, and praying hands.' 13 1 Dean Prideaux, in the Preface to his 'Life of Mahomet,' has spoken to this effect; but the statements of the text were first suggested to the writer by the MS. of a highly gifted friend. 2 Horat. Sat. lib. i. vv. 100, 103. Tennyson, 'Lotos-Eaters.'-The entire passage is as exact as it is poetical. |