of Abu Bakr and Othman, and been revised by them since it was communicated by Muhammad. Unless, then, we can prove that neither of these men either could, or would deceive, we cannot be certain that the Kuran has not been considerably corrupted.

The Shiah Musalmans maintain that ten sections (one fourth part of the whole) were struck out of the Kuran by Othman.* If he was capable of striking out ten sections, he was capable of taking other unwarrantable liberties.

Again, since Abu Bakr's copy was committed to the care of Hafsa, one of Muhammad's wives, we should require farther to prove that she was entirely faithful to her trust.

These are really very serious difficulties in regard to the genuineness of the Kurán. To To prove it uncorrupted, is utterly impossible.

Two important consequences of this doubt may be mentioned. First, we are perplexed in judging of Muhammad's life and character, which (as we formerly saw) cannot be satisfactorily ascertained from the Musalmán historians, and which we now see cannot be deduced with satisfactory evidence from the Kurán itself;-so that Muhammad may have been better, or he may have been worse, than is generally supposed. Secondly, even if Muhammad did communicate a Revelation from God, it cannot be shewn that no liberties have been taken with it. Important things may have been added,-important things may have been subtracted.

II. Let us, however, suppose that the Kuran is on the whole the same now, as it was when delivered by Muhammad. What evidence have we that its author was what he claimed to be "the Apostle of God?"

* The Dabistán contains one of the ten sections which are thus said to have been unwarrantably struck out of the Kurán. See the translation of the Dabistán by Shea and Troyer, vol. ii. p. 368.

Muhammad

miracles.

We have seen that by far the best authority regarding the facts of Muhammad's life and character wrought no is the Kurán itself. Now, the subject of miracles is often introduced into the Kurản; but there does not appear to be any passage which declares that Muhammad wrought miracles. There are many passages in which he states reasons for not working them; and there are some in which he expressly says that he was not sent to be a worker of miracles. Thus in Sura 13th, God is represented as thus addressing Muhammad; "The infidels say, Unless a sign be sent down unto him from his Lord, we will not believe.' Thou art commissioned to be a preacher only, and not a worker of miracles." So in Sura 17th, God is again represented as saying: "Nothing hindered us from sending thee with miracles, except that the former nations have charged them with imposture." it is unnecessary to dwell at greater length on this point: every candid reader of the Kurán will admit the truth of the assertion now made.

"*

But

It is true that many Muhammadan writers mention miracles as having been performed by their prophet. But this opinion is so entirely opposite to what Muhammad him. self has asserted, that it is deserving of no attention.

66 Splitting

of the Moon."

1. But perhaps some notice ought to be taken of certain miracles which some commentators assert to be mentioned in the Kurán itself. The most celebrated of these is the Splitting of the Moon. Let us see what is written in the Kurán on this matter. The 24th Sura commences thus: "The hour of judgment approaches (or, more literally, has come near); and the

* So Sale. More literally rendered, the passage reads thus: The infidels say, 'Has no sign descended on him from his Lord?' Truly thou art a preacher. See Marracci's Koran p. 368.

So Marracci and Sale. Maulaví Abdul Qadir renders it: Aur hamne isi se mauqúf kin nishanian bhejni, ki aglon ne unko jhuthlaya. Substantially, the sense is the same.

Moon has been split in sunder; but, if they see (shall see) a sign, they turn aside (shall turn aside) saying, 'this is a powerful charm.'

*

a. The Muhammadan writers themselves are not agreed as to the meaning of this passage. Some understood that Muhammad here poetically speaks of the future in the past tense. This is often done in Hebrew and in Arabic. In that case Muhammad merely mentions the splitting of the Moon as a sign which shall precede the day of judgment. The words that follow in the Kurán seem to favour this interpretation. Muhammad does not say that although unbelievers have seen a sign, they turn aside, butif they shall see. Surely if Muhammad had meant that the miracle had actually been performed, he would have often referred to it as a great aggravation of the guilt of unbelief.

b. Again, Muhammad does not say that the Moon is split by him. Even if this wonderful thing did take place, it would only prove the power of God; it would not establish in the least degree the claims of Muhammad.

c. Farther, it is evident that the splitting of the Moon is here put as a sign of the day of judgment. But if the splitting of the Moon took place in Muhammad's daysthat is to say, twelve hundred years ago-how could it be a sign of the day of judgment-which has not yet come? 2. Another very famous event is the Night-journey of "The NightMuhammad. The Kurán thus speaks of journey." it: "Praise be unto Him who transported his servant by night from the sacred temple [of Mecca] to the farther temple [of Jerusalem."] (Sura 17th.) The Muhammadan writers tell us that he was carried through the seven heavens into the immediate presence of God, and then brought back to Mecca the same night. But not * Marracci's Koran p. 689. Prodromus ii. p. 17.-Gibbon Chap. 1. Note 99.

a syllable of all this is written in the Kurán; and we must not impute to Muhammad the absurd imaginations of his followers. Taking Muhammad's own statement, there appears nothing miraculous in it. We often say that we did so and so in our sleep, or that we were carried somewhere in our dreams, and the words of Muhammad will very naturally bear a similar interpretation. Such has been the opinion of many Muhammadans; and in particular it is said that Hafsa, the wife of Muhammad, declared that on the night in question he never quitted his bed. Hafsa's testimony is worth a good deal on such a point. It is pos sible that Muhammad fell into a state of mental excitement in which he scarcely knew whether his transportation was a vision or a reality. Or, that without intending to deceive, he may have imagined it to be the latter. Similar mistakes have occurred in other cases.

Again, we have no testimony but that of Muhammad himself in proof of the reality of this Night-journey. How can we trust a single witness on such a point, and especially when he bears testimony in favour of himself?

3.

Another wonderful circumstance related in the

Kuran which the Musalmáns mention as a

"Conversion of the jinns." miracle, is this, that a company of genii (jinns) having heard Muhammad reading the Kurán, believed, and went and preached to their companions." (See Suras 46th and 72nd.)*

The jinns or genii are creatures supposed to be intermediate between angels and men. They are said by a learned Muhammadan writert to be the offspring of the

*Sura 46.

"Remember when we caused certain of the genii to turn aside unto thee, that they might hear the Koran; and when they were present at the reading of the same, they said one to another, Give ear. And when it was ended they returned back to their people, preaching what they had heard." Sale's Koran, Vol. ii. p. 262.

Jelál-ad-din. See Marracci's Koran, Prodromus ii. p. 15.

devil, and to differ from angels in having children of their

own.

On this miracle we need make no other remark than this, instead of proving anything, it requires proof itself. Are there such beings as jinns? Again, how can Muhammad's testimony be received on the point? It is possible that Muhammad may have dreamt such a thing; but we have nothing to do with his dreams.*

But we need not dwell longer on this matter; it proves nothing of the truth of Muhammad's claims. Christians never quote the statement that Christ was "seen of angels" as a miracle that demonstrates the truth of his mission. Miracles that do this, must be open, public, and undeniable.

4.

The victo

miracle.

Another thing mentioned in the Kurán which the Musalmans regard as a wonderful miracle, ry at Badr no is the victory which Muhammad gained at Badr. It is said that Muhammad had only three hundred and nineteen men, and the enemy nearly a thousand. The Koran informs us (Suras 3rd. and 7th.) that God first sent a thousand angels, and then three thousand, to assist the Musalmans. In this battle seventy of the enemy were slain, and only fourteen Musalmáns.

This story seems to refute itself. Surely 4,000 angels and 319 Musalmans were not required to defeat about 1000 of the enemy! None of the Musalmáns is said to have

seen the angels.

Again, even if 319 Musalmans, without the aid of angels, defeated 1000 of the enemy, it was no very astonish

66

* One cannot help thinking that Muhammad had in his eye a circumstance that is mentioned of Christ, viz. that he was seen of angels." But what a difference between the two statements! The Bible informs us that angels attentively noted the great work which the Redeemer of the world performed; the Kurán tells us that not angels but jinns-the offspring of the devil-became Musalmáns, that their sins might be forgiven.

Sale's Koran, Vol. I. p. 207 and 54.